adulterous marriage question

[Guest]

Paul seems to support his view:

1 Corinthians 6:16 Do you not know that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, "The two shall become one flesh."

Not really.
Paul simply shows in that passage that 'one flesh' equals sex.
Paul never says that this man is now married to this harlot in any manner whatsoever.

What Paul as done in 1 corinthians 6:16 is banish the false teaching that 'one flesh' = 'marriage' by showing us that 'one flesh'...being 'one body' is simply a sexual relationship between any man and woman, married or not.

I wrote a short article on one flesh here:
http://divorceandremarriage.bravehost.c ... flesh.html

[Guest]

I will offer some food for though without personally commenting:

One branch of the Old Brethren church has concluded that your first sexual relations constitutes marriage and that therefore if you "married" another, that marriage would be adulterous and you would have to separate in order to be a member of the church. Your only legitimate wife was and is still the woman with whom you first had intercourse. This is a consistent position taking certain of their assumptions to their logical conclusions.

John Howard Yoder, in what he called a “realist" view, concluded that intercourse constitutes becoming "one flesh", which is in a very real sense is a "marriage" as the scriptures understand it. Adulterous or not this bond always will exist between two people emotionally and psychologically, being de-facto polygamy where one has had multiple partners.

Wayne in Maine

this view totally defies 1 Corinthians 6:16 where ANY man, married to another woman or not, can become 'one flesh' with this harlot.
Never in any part of scripture, is 'one flesh' refered to as some unbreakable bond between a man and a woman.
The phrase is used a total of 6 times in the bible, if memory serves, and in none of those instances is it made into some mystical, invisible bond.
In fact, its use in 1 cor 6:16 shows that that is absolutely not the case at all.

What binds a man to his wife is a covenant, just as Mary to Joseph, not sex. Otherwise our Lord was born out of wedlock and thus illegitimate.

[Guest]

Paidion wrote:

Paul seems to support his view:

1 Corinthians 6:16 Do you not know that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, "The two shall become one flesh."

Not really.
Paul simply shows in that passage that 'one flesh' equals sex.

Let's see. Paul was quoting the following passage, was he not?

For this reason, a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh. Genesis 2:24

Was Moses simply commenting on the fact that a man and his wife will have sex? I think it is much more. Just prior to the recording of Moses' comment, Adam is recorded to have said of his wife, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh." It is for this reason, that a man and his wife become one flesh.

Of course consorting with a prostitute is wrong. Of course, adultery is wrong. The teaching of our Lord, His apostles, and the prophets of old all make that fact clear.

To live in marriage without adultery is to continue to live with one's wife, and not to reject her for others.

At one time, the meaning of adultery was narrower, and the meaning of
marriage was broader. Jacob, David, Solomon, and many others had more than one wife. But God never rebuked them for adultery. Likewise, these men of old often had concubines. But they were never rebuked for it, or told that they were living in adultery or committing fornication. Notwithstanding, I have no doubt this was a concession by God rather than His primary will. For He created only one wife for Adam.

The word "marry" from ancient times right into the second century or later, seems to have meant primarily "copulate". If a man had a woman with whom he was living and copulating, this was called "marriage." There were weddings or celebrations of marriages which has already taken place.

In both Hebrew and Greek there is no special word for "wife." The word for "woman" is used for any woman, whether she was married to a man or not.

If I am mistaken in all of this please tell me what
Clement of Alexandria [153 – 217 A.D.] Clement meant by the word “marry” (Latin “nubere”) when he wrote:

Nicolaus, they say, had a lovely wife. When after the Saviour's ascension he was accused before the apostles of jealousy, he brought his wife into the concourse and allowed anyone who so desired to marry her. For, they say, this action was appropriate to the saying: "One must abuse the flesh." Those who share his heresy follow both his action and his words simply and without qualification by indulging in the gravest enormity. Stromata Bk 3 Ch 4

Did Nicolaus permit anyone who desired to become legally or ceremoniously married to his wife? I don't think so.

[Guest]

Paidion wrote:

Paul seems to support his view:

1 Corinthians 6:16 Do you not know that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, "The two shall become one flesh."

Not really.
Paul simply shows in that passage that 'one flesh' equals sex.

Let's see. Paul was quoting the following passage, was he not?

For this reason, a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh. Genesis 2:24

Was Moses simply commenting on the fact that a man and his wife will have sex? I think it is much more. Just prior to the recording of Moses' comment, Adam is recorded to have said of his wife, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh." It is for this reason, that a man and his wife become one flesh.

The problem you face is that Adam and Even WERE indeed literally made of the same physical flesh, her being made from his own rib.
This is a foreshadow, a 'type', of what marriage is supposed to be...symbolism.

Not a single woman since Eve has literally been made of her husbands own flesh. That is unless you have a missing rib somewhere to show us as proof that I am errant in this matter.

The first marriage was a type, a shadow, of the closeness of that and subsequent marriages and since that time 'one flesh' is becoming 'one body' thru the sexual union between the man and a woman.
This is why Paul can show that a man and a haflot CAN be 'one body' or 'one flesh' while still committing 'fornication' (aka sexual SIN not with ones 'wife' ...or woman as you put it).

The view that sex = marriage is completely inconsistant with the whole of Gods word.
Individual verses can be distorted to say just about anything that one wants to make them say. Only when the context of the whole is brought to bear is the whole truth seen.

Paul shows clearly that a man does indeed become 'one flesh' even with the harlot, a woman NOT his wife, thereby committing fornication with this woman, yet still being 'one flesh/body' with her....meaning that 'one flesh' in the context of the whole after Adam and Eve is simply the sexual relationship between a man and woman, married or not.

Within a lawful marriage it is as God intended it. They are 'one flesh' by Gods design
Outside that union it is fornication. As God has forbidden. The are 'one flesh' against the will of God who designed sex for marriage alone.

So I have to go with 'no', Paul does not support the view that sex = marriage or the fornication in 1 Cor 6 would not be possible.

[Guest]

At one time, the meaning of adultery was narrower, and the meaning of
marriage was broader. Jacob, David, Solomon, and many others had more than one wife. But God never rebuked them for adultery. Likewise, these men of old often had concubines. But they were never rebuked for it, or told that they were living in adultery or committing fornication. Notwithstanding, I have no doubt this was a concession by God rather than His primary will. For He created only one wife for Adam.

Agreed.
The taking of multiple wives was tolerated, but clearly not ordained by God.

The word "marry" from ancient times right into the second century or later, seems to have meant primarily "copulate". If a man had a woman with whom he was living and copulating, this was called "marriage." There were weddings or celebrations of marriages which has already taken place.

There were a few things that may have been taken a bit differently then. Including the fact that I dont believe a man was technically committing adultery if he had sex with another woman as long as she wasnt married to another man already.

There can be no doubt that the 'intent' to be husband and wife must be present or sex is simply fornication.
I will agree that ceremonies, rings, etc are not necessary in order to be 'married', but I will have to disagree, based on the whole council of His word, that 'sex = marriage' unless there is an absolute proclaimation between the man and woman (even if done privately before God alone) that they are taking each other has husband and wife...ie. I dont believe 'sex=marriage' if the two are just having sex.

In Deut 22 we see an good example of sex not automatically equalling marriage.

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
(Deu 22:28-29 KJV)

This man who had sex with this woman was to pay the father and then this woman would be his wife. It does not show that she automatically become his wife simply because he had sex with her. Not even in the OT.

In both Hebrew and Greek there is no special word for "wife." The word for "woman" is used for any woman, whether she was married to a man or not.

uh...yes, I know...

If I am mistaken in all of this please tell me what
Clement of Alexandria [153 – 217 A.D.] Clement meant by the word “marry” (Latin “nubere”) when he wrote:

Nicolaus, they say, had a lovely wife. When after the Saviour's ascension he was accused before the apostles of jealousy, he brought his wife into the concourse and allowed anyone who so desired to marry her. For, they say, this action was appropriate to the saying: "One must abuse the flesh." Those who share his heresy follow both his action and his words simply and without qualification by indulging in the gravest enormity. Stromata Bk 3 Ch 4

Did Nicolaus permit anyone who desired to become legally or ceremoniously married to his wife? I don't think so.

Firstly, I dont base my beliefs on the ECFs in any way, shape or form. If my views agree with those men it is sheer coincedence. There are far too many terrible heresies taught by a large part of those men that most protestants will reject outright, myself being one of them. So this mans views on marriage is irrelevance to me from the start.
Gods word, and the context therein, is what Im concerned about.

But I really don't know that I understand the point you are trying to make to begin with.
Possibly you could detail your points out that you are trying to make

Additionally, Im fairly studied in this matter. Feel free to go as deep into detail as you need to to present your points as Im very sure I can keep up.
Little details like the word 'woman' being the same as 'wife' in the the Biblical languages are things you can go ahead and assume that I know already having spent the last 3.5 years on the single topic of marriage in Gods word, Ive covered most all of the foundational information.

[Guest]

In Deut 22 we see an good example of sex not automatically equalling marriage.

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
(Deu 22:28-29 KJV)

This man who had sex with this woman was to pay the father and then this woman would be his wife. It does not show that she automatically become his wife simply because he had sex with her. Not even in the OT

.

You are attacking a straw man here. Never have I said that "sex=marriage." Nor have I said that "if a man has sex with a woman, she automatically becomes his wife (or woman)."

What I have said, is that the verb translated as "marry" has as its primary meaning "copulate." Also, if a man is living with a woman with whom he is regularly copulating, they are in a state of marriage.

Firstly, I dont base my beliefs on the ECFs in any way, shape or form. If my views agree with those men it is sheer coincedence.

That's too bad. The early Christian writers who were of the main church expressed the teachings of Christ and the apostles well. Do you feel the same about modern Christian writers? However, whether or not you have any regard for the early Christian writers, or so-alled "Fathers", has no relevance to the discussion at hand. I didn't quote Clement of Alexandria for his theology. I quote him to give illustrate that he used the Latin word for "marry" as meaning "copulate." So far, you have not shown that he used it an any other sense.

There are far too many terrible heresies taught by a large part of those men that most protestants will reject outright, myself being one of them. So this mans views on marriage is irrelevance to me from the start.

I guess I have to address the side-issue! It is not the case that "a large part of those men taught many terrible heresies." It is true that many or most protestants reject some of the things they taught. That is because they imagine their own interpretations superior.

As for me, I reject your Protestant teachings propogated by Martin Luther, who greatly feared Hell, and tried to find a way out of the fact that he could not overcome sin, by his own private interpretation of parts of Romans. Thus the modern "church" is plagued by the "easy believism" version of "the gospel", and millions of practising sinners are convinced that they are "born again" and will go to heaven at death, that their life styles have no relevance to their "salvation", since "it is not of works, you know." One such person told my wife that she could go out and commit murder to morrow, and she would still go to heaven, even if she did not repent.

I am not a Protestant. Nor am I a Catholic. I believe in classic Christianity as it was taught by the Lord Jesus, His apostles, and elders whom they appointed. If by "terrible heresies" your refer to the blasphemies of the gnostics or the deeds of the Nicolaitans, then I wholeheartedly agree. But if you are refering to the writings of Clement of Rome, Paul's fellow helper, or to Justin Martyr or Irenaeus, then I vehemently disagree.

Gods word, and the context therein, is what Im concerned about.

What is "God's word?" Do you hold that His word is found exclusively in the Bible? Or maybe you equate the Bible with God's word. Never was this view held in classic Christianity until Athanasius proclaimed it in the fourth century.

So if you believe the Bible to be the exclusive Word of God, why do you accept the particular books of the New Testament as the only ones to be considered worthy of reading for Christian instruction? Is it because Athanasius, in the fourth century, pronounced them as the ones to be accepted by the Church? If so, was Athanasius inspired by the Spirit to select those particular books? And if that is the case, then inspiration didn't cease with the writing of the New Testament. And if it didn't cease, how can you be sure that Clement of Rome and Justin Martyr were not inspired?

But I really don't know that I understand the point you are trying to make to begin with.

I really got side-tracked here, didn't I? The only point I was trying to make was that words translated as the verb "marry", in both Greek and Latin, at least up to Clement of Alexandria's day (He is believed to have died in 217 A.D) were often used to mean merely "copulate."

So far, you haven't shown that Clement (in the passage I quoted) used the word in any other sense.

[Guest]

Hi, Paidion!

If I may butt in here ...

I posted above without any direct response, but I'll rehearse a bit here.

The word "marry" from ancient times right into the second century or later, seems to have meant primarily "copulate". If a man had a woman with whom he was living and copulating, this was called "marriage." There were weddings or celebrations of marriages which has already taken place.

This does not seem to have been the universal case, inasmuch as there were acknowledged concubinal relationships which involved regular communion of bed and board, yet seemingly were distinguished from marriage relationships. I suspect that the common denominator for these distinctions in relationship was relative standing in social class. Slaves were probably taken as concubines in most cases, not as wives.

In both Hebrew and Greek there is no special word for "wife." The word for "woman" is used for any woman, whether she was married to a man or not.

And yet there is a particular term for concubine (at least in Hebrew), so there does appear to be some sense of further categorization.

If I am mistaken in all of this please tell me what
Clement of Alexandria [153 – 217 A.D.] Clement meant by the word “marry” (Latin “nubere”) when he wrote:

Nicolaus, they say, had a lovely wife. When after the Saviour's ascension he was accused before the apostles of jealousy, he brought his wife into the concourse and allowed anyone who so desired to marry her. For, they say, this action was appropriate to the saying: "One must abuse the flesh." Those who share his heresy follow both his action and his words simply and without qualification by indulging in the gravest enormity. Stromata Bk 3 Ch 4

This is interesting, in that I expect that Clement's works would have been in Greek. When I researched some of his material for my Master's thesis, it was in the Greek series of the Loeb Library. Where does the Latin come into the picture?

It looks like one portion of the Stromata is in Latin in my ANF series, but that is because the editors for some reason decided not to render it into English, but to keep it under the veil of an academic language. This is an intriguing decision, as it makes one wonder what the editors found so objectionable that they wished to keep it from the eyes of the general readership(?!), but it does not indicate that the source language was Latin. In the nineteenth century, when the ANF series was produced, it probably could be assumed that serious scholars would be literate in Latin, and so I expect that the Greek text of Clement was rendered into Latin for that publication, just like the other chapters of the Stromata (clearly Greek, from the footnotes) were rendered into English for the series. Latin was simply chosen to limit the field of those who could access the translation.

As for Clement - anyone marginally familiar with his work knows that he indulges in florid and creative use of language and imagery. Even if the Greek text undergirds the sense of "marry" in your chosen passage, it is not impossible that Clement is exercising poetic license. I would prefer to see an example from another church father when establishing common linguistic usage.

Thank you for your posting!
Emmet

[Guest]

Also, if a man is living with a woman with whom he is regularly copulating, they are in a state of marriage.

Where does scripture say this?
Where does it say that we are automatically "married" just because we're living with someone having regular sex with them?
It doesnt.
There MUST be an intent to be husband and wife and for it to be a life commitment, or it is simple fornication.

That's too bad. The early Christian writers who were of the main church expressed the teachings of Christ and the apostles well.

Many of those men taught terrible heresies as well, lets not forget that.
Even our reformers were not above error. I love Martin Luther, but his horrid views of the Jews sickens me.
Expressing SOME of the views of the apostles means nothing.
A teaching can be 99% in agreement with Gods word and that other 1% can still be a damnable heresy.
I dont disagree with everything the ECFs said.
As I said, if I agree with them, it is coincedence and only because they agree with Gods word.
On many things I do agree with them....on just as many I probably dont (including Universalism, pre-existance of the soul, pennance, etc, that was taught by the ECFs)

Do you feel the same about modern Christian writers?

Depends on who youre talking about.
There are some more modern writers that I adore.
AW Tozer is a man I agree with in every area so far save one, tithing....something which isnt heresy, but simply his carrying over OT law and trying to apply it today.
Im sure he wouldnt say that its ok to live with someone having regular sex without making some sort of life covenant before God to this person, tho.

However, whether or not you have any regard for the early Christian writers, or so-alled "Fathers", has no relevance to the discussion at hand. I didn't quote Clement of Alexandria for his theology. I quote him to give illustrate that he used the Latin word for "marry" as meaning "copulate." So far, you have not shown that he used it an any other sense.

I dont care how the man used the word.
What I care about is how Gods word presents marriage and whoredom.
Marriage consists of a man taking a woman for his wife, THEN consummating that union.
Whoredom consists of a man lying with a woman, cohabitating or not, without making a life time commitment of being her husband.

I guess I have to address the side-issue! It is not the case that "a large part of those men taught many terrible heresies." It is true that many or most protestants reject some of the things they taught. That is because they imagine their own interpretations superior.

I take it you believe in Universalism and pre-existance of the soul then...seeing that some of these men taught these, among other things not found in scripture, since you seem to believe that anyone who disagrees with these are simply believing themselves to have a superior interpretation....whether that be the case or not.

As for me, I reject your Protestant teachings propogated by Martin Luther, who greatly feared Hell, and tried to find a way out of the fact that he could not overcome sin, by his own private interpretation of parts of Romans.

Ah. I see, so you arent protestant?

As I said, I reject that of Luther that isnt in Gods word.
The man said some horrible things about Isreal that turns my stomach.

I also dont agree with much of what was taught by those ECFs.
If they agree with Gods word, then I agree with them, where they depart from Gods word, they are simply presenting deception....no matter if it were Augustine or Calvin.

Thus the modern "church" is plagued by the "easy believism" version of "the gospel", and millions of practising sinners are convinced that they are "born again" and will go to heaven at death, that their life styles have no relevance to their "salvation", since "it is not of works, you know." One such person told my wife that she could go out and commit murder to morrow, and she would still go to heaven, even if she did not repent.

So shes a Luther fan, eh? So what?
She is deceiving herself into believe what Luther said...that he could commit these things 1000 time a day and still go to heaven. What on earth does that error have to do with making this man clement any more 'right' about believing that marriage = copulation/cohabitation (ie. "living together having regular sex=marriage") ?

Someone elses error has nothing to do with what I believe.

I am not a Protestant. Nor am I a Catholic.

If you rebel against Rome and her teachings, then by the churches definition you ARE protestant by default. Not that you are required to call yourself one.

I believe in classic Christianity as it was taught by the Lord Jesus, His apostles, and elders whom they appointed. If by "terrible heresies" your refer to the blasphemies of the gnostics or the deeds of the Nicolaitans, then I wholeheartedly agree. But if you are refering to the writings of Clement of Rome, Paul's fellow helper, or to Justin Martyr or Irenaeus, then I vehemently disagree.

Heres a bit about your precious ECFs.
http://divorceandremarriage.bravehost.com/heresies.html

Paul said this...
For I know this, that after my departure grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also men shall arise from your own selves, speaking perverse things in order to draw disciples away after them.
(Act 20:29-30 MKJV)

Youll have to forgive me if I dont see any man as being beyond error other than those Christ Himself chose.
Any man who would teach that a marriage doesnt consist of a life covenant between a man and woman, but is copulation and cohabitation alone, would be suspect, in my opinion.
When God made Eve for Adam, both God and Adam knew this woman was to be his 'wife'...his covenant partner for life.

What is "God's word?" Do you hold that His word is found exclusively in the Bible? Or maybe you equate the Bible with God's word. Never was this view held in classic Christianity until Athanasius proclaimed it in the fourth century.

Here we go.
Are you sure you arent catholic because I see this all the time from that group.
YES, I believe that the bible alone is 'Gods word'.

So you believe God can speak to people, but you dont believe God can use man to decide what His word is and what it isnt?

Clements writings do not belong in scripture or God would have seen fit to have other men make sure they were placed in those sacred texts.
Do you believe God that incapable?

So if you believe the Bible to be the exclusive Word of God, why do you accept the particular books of the New Testament as the only ones to be considered worthy of reading for Christian instruction? Is it because Athanasius, in the fourth century, pronounced them as the ones to be accepted by the Church? If so, was Athanasius inspired by the Spirit to select those particular books? And if that is the case, then inspiration didn't cease with the writing of the New Testament. And if it didn't cease, how can you be sure that Clement of Rome and Justin Martyr were not inspired?

Because some of those men outright defy the teachings in scripture what what they teach as presented in the link I gave you.

I personally believe that the last thing given to man as 'scripture' was Johns Revelation. A fitting closing to 'Gods inspired word', dont you think?
I trust God that He used men to put His word together.

I really got side-tracked here, didn't I? The only point I was trying to make was that words translated as the verb "marry", in both Greek and Latin, at least up to Clement of Alexandria's day (He is believed to have died in 217 A.D) were often used to mean merely "copulate."

Then fornication CANNOT exist friend, as anyone I 'copulate' with is by default, my 'wife'.

So far, you haven't shown that Clement (in the passage I quoted) used the word in any other sense.

Im not sure what Im going to have to do or say to you to get you to comprehend that I havent the slightest care in the world about what old clement believed.
You almost seem to follow him more than you do Gods real word on certain things.
Who cares what wording clement used?
Gods word does not portray marriage as simply having sex with someone, even living with them, without theyre being 'husband and wife'.

A man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his WIFE...and the two shall be one flesh (consummation).

I told you that I dont believe all the whistles and bells are required to be 'married'. But I dont believe for a second that I can live with a woman having sex with her day to day and never make a marriage covenant with her and not be living in fornication.

[Guest]

If you rebel against Rome and her teachings, then by the churches definition you ARE protestant by default. Not that you are required to call yourself one.

I don't think people are Protesants by default. There are plenty of people who "rebel against Rome and her teachings" who are atheists!
According to your definition, they are "Protestants."

My understanding, is that a "Protestant" is a member or adherent of a Protestest church, a church which has its origin in the Protestant Reformation (or as a Catholic professor termed it "The Protestant Revolution." Examples of Protestant churches are Lutheran and Presbyterian. Many Anglicans, Baptists, and Mennonites, for example, profess not to be Protestants.

Heres a bit about your precious ECFs.
http://divorceandremarriage.bravehost.com/heresies.html

I read this article. When I speak of early Christian writers, I am not referring to early Catholic writers. All of the quotes in the article are from the late 4th century, except the quote from Origen which comes from the 3rd.

But to discredit 1st and 2nd century writings just because they didn't find their way into "your precious Canon" seems illogical to me. Clement of Rome was Paul's fellow helper. Do you think he did not resonate with Paul and say the same things?

On the other hand have you ever wondered why Jude, in the Canonical book of Jude, quoted from the Book of Enoch as authoritative? The Book of Enoch was certainly not writte by Enoch, but was written under his name according to the cosmology of the day, probably during the first few centuries B.C. Yet, most of the early Christians, including Jude, considered it to be the genuine work of the antidiluvian Enoch who walked God and was not. Would God permit Jude who wrote part of "the Word of God" to quote such a book as an authoritive writing? I have read some of Enoch. It's cosmology is ludicrous.

Are you sure you arent catholic because I see this all the time from that group.
YES, I believe that the bible alone is 'Gods word'.

I may be "catholic" (part of the universal Church, by regeneration) but not Catholic (the institutional Roman Catholic Church).

Suppose the extant writing known as Paul's letter to the Laodicaeans were the genuine letter of Paul (it contains nothing contrary to Paul's writings, and is similar to the letter to the Colossians). Would you accept it as part of "God's Word"? Or would you exclude it, just because it didn't make "the canon"? If the latter, then you must believe that God did a special work of inspiration in revealing to Athanasius what ought to be included in the Canon. Thus "the Word of God" must have come to Athanasius in the 4th century when he decided which books should be included. Conclusion: It is illogical to believe that "the Bible alone is God's Word."

I trust God that He used men to put His word together.

How do you know which men? The Catholics include the Apocrypha, which has endured in Catholic Bibles almost as long as Athanasius' Canon has endured. What is your justification for not including it?

The only point I was trying to make was that words translated as the verb "marry", in both Greek and Latin, at least up to Clement of Alexandria's day (He is believed to have died in 217 A.D) were often used to mean merely "copulate."

Then fornication CANNOT exist friend, as anyone I 'copulate' with is by default, my 'wife'.

The Greek feminine word "pornA" is translated in the KJV as "harlot" or "whore". The masculine counterpart "pornos" means a man who consorts with prostitutes. The word "porneia" refers to prostitution or consorting with prostitutes. In one case in the NT, it referred to the act of a man who copulated with his father's wife, presumably his step-mother.

So with the view I expressed, "fornication", that is, "prostitution" or "consorting with prostitutes" is certainly possible, as is "adultery", the taking of another' person's spouse.

In our modern world there are many couples "living together", who have never committed themselves to each other for life, some with a marriage certificate, and some without. Is it your view that none of them are truly married? Or, in your view, is the possession of a legal marriage certificate the essence of marriage?

So far, you haven't shown that Clement (in the passage I quoted) used the word in any other sense.

Im not sure what Im going to have to do or say to you to get you to comprehend that I havent the slightest care in the world about what old clement believed.

And I'm not sure what I have to do either, to get you to understand that this is not about what Clement believed about marriage. Indeed, Clement didn't believe at all that in the story of what Nicolaus was supposed to have done, that he was acting morally. What I have tried to do is to show you how Clement used the word "marry". Do you think he didn't know how the word was used? Does not the fact that he
used the word to mean "copulate" not indicate that this was the general usage of the word in his day?


And so it seems to be used by our Lord Himself. He said that if a man leaves his wife (or possibly "sends away his wife") and marriesanother, he is committing adultery. In spite of how some translations read, it doesn't say that he "divorces" his wife. So how can he "marry" another, if "marry" means getting a legal marriage license, when he is already married? Or do you think our Lord referred to bigamy?

[Guest]

Paidion,

I don't know that a single example from Clement, or any other writer, can demonstrate beyond a doubt what the current and common usage of a word was in a given time and culture. As Emmett said, some writers (including Clement) take poetic license, and we would need a larger selection of passages from more than one writer to establish universal usage practices.

The example from Jesus' comments on divorce and remarriage does not strike me as establishing your point. To "put away" or to "send away" a wife, according to most of the scholars I have consulted, seems to have been an idiom equivalent to "divorce." The statement of Jesus, in its entirety, makes good sense to me if we understand Him to be speaking about divorce.

It seems to me that Jesus made a distinction between marriage and mere cohabitation in His manner of addressing the personal history of the Samaritan woman (John 4:18). He seemed to recognize the legitimacy of five consecutive husbands (implying valid marriage), but He did not place her current paramour in the same category.