Does adultery really break the marriage bond?

[Guest]

Has Jesus said "go and sin no more" or go and undo the adultry you have committed?

Hi Allyn
I am not sure. What do you think?
Andre

[Guest]

Hi Andre,

There are some things we cannot undo. Jesus told the woman accused of adultry to go and sin no more. To me its as simple as that. We can choose to be legalistic and force our views on others and demand things as the pharisees did or accept the fact that we are all sinners no matter what and let God judge the heart. If God truly does look upon us now through the image of Christ then we are no longer condemned since it is Christ Who He sees. Of course we should try not to sin, and there are plenty of passages to verify that, but when we do sin we have a way of forgiveness. It is my firm belief that one should not find a way out of the sin that adversely affects others.

[_foc]

Hi FOC

Mate, your write so much that it is hard to take it all in and impossible for me to respond to it all. Sorry. So i will just grab that bit that i am working through.

Thats fine.
Bear in mind that Im not writing 'for' you, but for the readers of the threads I post in. Most folks dont get into the study as deeply so might need a bit more explaination.

The scenario I gave is, as best as i can tell, identical to the one described in Mat 5, Mat 19 and Luk 16. In those passages Jesus says clearly (i think) that the innocent woman, if she remarries is guilty of adultery and the person who marries her is guilty of adultery and the original husband is guilty of causing her to commit adultery.

And I explained this situation.
You are looking at it as if it were given in a vacuum...no context, no 'issue' that Jesus is dealing with.
His words mean just what they say, but there IS a very specific context to those words as is shown in the history of the Hebrews from the time they left Egypt. It ALL plays into Christs words in the gospels.

But, if I understand what you have said, the innocent woman is perfectly free to remarry.

True christians dont abandon their believing spouses for no just cause.
We discern a man by his fruits as that is ALL we have to go on.
This woman was deserted and as per Pauls words in 1 cor 7:12 on, she is 'not in bondage' to this union but is free.

Why does there appear to be such a mismatch between what you are saying (the innocent woman is free to remarry) and what Jesus is saying (the innocent woman commits adultery if she remarries)?
Thanks
Andrew

There is no mismatch.
YOU assume that adultery is perpetual for one...that is your first mistake.
Your second mistake is in assuming that Christ is condemning the innocent woman...He isnt.
If you notice Jesus is speaking TO the man who has put away his wife. This was a very common thing in Israel for many centuries (and we see it today as well) to throw out a spouse for no just cause at all.
Christ isnt condemning the innocent woman here at all....He is showing the guilty man the extent to which HIS sin against this woman carries.

I agree with Christ that adultery is committed where HE shows that it is committed, but I do not agree with your view that there is any intent that this marriage itself is 'adulterous' in any perpetual sense.
That was not Christs intent at all. His ONLY intent is to show these guilty men their sin. Not to condemn the innocent.
You have seemingly missed that point as those of your doctrines always do.

In Matt 5:32a it shows very clearly that BEFORE any REmarriage has taken place that this man 'causes' her to 'commit adultery' by putting her away NOT for any wrong she has committed.
Are you claiming that she is an adulteress just because he put her way when she was INNOCENT ?
Please do NOT insert that the text shows that this is AFTER she remarries...it doesnt show that at all in Matt 5:32a there.

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.
(Mat 5:32 KJV)

Its entirely DIShonest to say that this is because she must remarry as not all women did remarry...some returned to their fathers homes instead.

This man CAUSES her to 'commit adultery' by putting her away even tho she has not sinned against the marriage at all....at least, according to the CLEAR text.


As I said, there is more to this than a handful of pet passages.
If I were a hypercalvinist I could show you how GOD HIMSELF foreordained ALL of our sins with CLEAR scripture.....then casts us into hell for sins we had no choice but to commit.
Its very easy to miss the point when we study ONLY those passages we want to spend time with and refuse to understand what it actually going on.

Jesus is condemning hardhearted putting away...THAT is the point. He hates putting away, remember? Your doctrines seem to minimize what GOD hates and focus on secondary things instead.
He is showing the men who do this the extent of the damage they cause. Our Lord is not condemning innocent women who have done nothing wrong.


I will say this, that Pauls words in 1 Cor7:12-15 make this WHOLE picture a lot clearer.
The difference between you and I is I believe that I understand 'not in bondage' a bit better.
A freed slave has no master...a wife who isnt in bondage to a husband has no husband...she is FREE of the law of the husband entirely, thus FREE to marry.

Your doctrines keep her IN bondage to that man where Paul shows that she is not.

[Guest]

Hi FOC

I still fail to see how you can come to a conclusion so different to Jesus statement. Is not:

1. Jesus dealing with men who divorce their wives unjustly 'for any cause' (as you describe in your scenario)

2. Jesus dealing with men who you would call not a 'true Christian' since they don't bear the fruits of a Christian (as you describe in your scenario)

3. And clearly in Luke 16 he is dealing with a man and woman who remarry as opposed to returning to their father's house or remain single.

But you say the innocent person is free to remarry where Jesus says she commits adultery if she remarries. Can you describe a contemporary scenario that fits Jesus words precisely? Maybe that will help.

YOU assume that adultery is perpetual for one...that is your first mistake.

Not yet i dont.

Your second mistake is in assuming that Christ is condemning the innocent woman...He isnt.

Nope, not yet either. I have simply repeated Christ's words that an innocent person who remarries in the situation described 'commits adultery'. But that is for another thread.

Andrew

[_foc]

Hi FOC

I still fail to see how you can come to a conclusion so different to Jesus statement.

apparently you arent listening.
I AGREE with Jesus statement.
What I DONT and never will agree with is YOUR assessment that any ongoing state of adultery exists in this new covenant.
THAT is where your doctrines fail to have any foundation.

But you say the innocent person is free to remarry where Jesus says she commits adultery if she remarries.

And did you READ my post?
according to the EXACT reading of the text He says she 'commits adultery' just for being put away for NOT committing fornication.
I see you ducked out of responding to that issue tho

Can you describe a contemporary scenario that fits Jesus words precisely? Maybe that will help.

No need. Any divorce scenario works where the divorce ended for no just cause at all...ie, except for fornication.

Not yet i dont.

have i missed something?
Are remarriages 'adulterous' or not ?

Nope, not yet either. I have simply repeated Christ's words that an innocent person who remarries in the situation described 'commits adultery'.

And do you call that new marriage a state of adultery or is it commit upon remarriage ?
If you add that it is an ongoing state of adultery and not just a single act at a point in time, the yes, you HAVE added to the words as presented in the greek.

And as I have said a few times already....hypercalvinists ONLY REPEAT Gods CLEAR words.
And they make HIM responsible for EVERY sin you and I will ever commit.
And believe me, THEIR arguments are FAR stronger than anti-remarriagers and there is little in scipture that can refute their viewpoints.

So parroting what Jesus 'said' doesnt always mean much.
Rightly dividing the word of truth so that we UNDERSTAND the WHOLE issue is the ONLY way to go

[Guest]

Hello foc,

Just a suggestion. Please tone it down a bit. Many of us enjoy this forum because we love and respect one another. It seems to me that you have some emotional tie to your understanding and therefore you seem to feel the need to pursuade rather than converse. I may be full of hot air on this since I don't know you but really I felt I needed to say it.

With all due respect.

[Guest]

Hi FOC

I have not mentioned 'adulterous marriages' in this post i dont think. So it looks like you are going down that path alone. So let's try and stay away from that, hey?

Can you describe a contemporary scenario that fits Jesus words precisely? Maybe that will help.

No need. Any divorce scenario works where the divorce ended for no just cause at all...ie, except for fornication.

OK, so if i divorce my innocent wife and remarry another (exactly as described in Luke 16) then I commit adultery. We agree there don't we?

And if my innocent wife who has been put away for 'any reason' remarries she commits adultery (exactly as described in Luke 16). You disagree with that?

Thanks
Andrew

[Guest]

Thanks for your thoughts on this Allyn.

We can choose to be legalistic and force our views on others and demand things as the pharisees did or accept the fact that we are all sinners no matter what and let God judge the heart.

There is a fine line between legalism and obedience which i can blur easily. I don't think it is legalistic to forbid categorically adultery or murder. I think you would agree with me on that.

But how does one then take that principle and apply it to a remarriage that, under some circumstance at least, Jesus calls adultery. Do we forbid that?

I know FOC has plenty to say on this and i am sure will have to respond so i have started a new thread with this discussion. Hope that is ok...

http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?p=25998#25998

[Guest]

I have no problem with a new thread.

I guess my stand is more towards the compassionate side. I know God is serious that we live a holy life, but lets face it, without Him we couldn't even begin to live one. The Disciples themselves wondered how it could possibly be that one could be saved. Its a terrible thing to be in the Hands of the Almighty. Therefore my opinion is to act on what ones knows to be right in their heart (however that goes) and let God work out the rest.

[_foc]

Hi FOC

I have not mentioned 'adulterous marriages' in this post i dont think. So it looks like you are going down that path alone. So let's try and stay away from that, hey?

I think this might be where Im having some trouble.
You havent yet confirmed or denied whether you believe that remarriages are inherently 'adulterous' so I cant really discern where we're at in this discussion.
I assumed that was your point, but maybe it wasnt.

OK, so if i divorce my innocent wife and remarry another (exactly as described in Luke 16) then I commit adultery. We agree there don't we?

Absolutely....otherwise I would be in defiance of Christ Himself

And if my innocent wife who has been put away for 'any reason' remarries she commits adultery (exactly as described in Luke 16). You disagree with that?

Not at all.
When we divorce our spouses 'for EVERY cause' (ie hardheartedly) we commit adultery against each other when we remarry.
Again, I must accept that fact or be in opposition to Christ Himself.

Where I disagree with you, apparently, is that Jesus was meaning to keep anyone from remarrying where that first marriage cannot be reconciled for whatever reason.