Why is divorce never allowed?

[follower of Christ]

You seem to be arguing that actions are what counts and not thoughts. But this is precisely what Jesus is arguing against in his pronouncement about lusting in the heart. If someone looks on a woman lustfully, he has committed adultery "in his heart".

give it a rest guy....NO ONE here has the ability to determine what is in a mans heart without ACTION to show it.

This is nothing more than just a distraction to keep from just accepting what JESUS has excepted....Its just another twist, that Ive seen 100 times already.

YOU dont know my thoughts....neither does my wife.
If I dont COMMIT the act of fornication (porneia) then ONLY God knows what is in my heart.

I want us to be very clear: Lets say Fred is married to Jane and it is a fact that Fred has had lustful thoughts about Sue while married to Jane. Does Jane have biblical grounds to divorce Fred if she becomes aware of this fact? This seems to me to be a perfectly legitimate question.

Was sexual sin commited? No it wasnt.

Porneia doesnt deal with 'thoughts', it deals with the act of playing the harlot.

Im not about to fall for this maze of logic you are trying to drag me thru any more than Jesus or Paul would have.

Jesus has made His exception for sexual sin, not for what we ''believe'' a spouse to be thinking.

I am not a mind-reader and neither are you.

If you answer "yes", then I will reassert that virtually anyone can claim such grounds because (I claim - you might well disagree) it is a fact that almost every married person has had lustful thoughts about someone other than their spouse. So a "yes" answer really works out to a "everyone has grounds for divorce on the basis of the exemption" position.

And my answer was NO.
Which .....*IF* you had been paying attention to what I said instead of hoping Id follow the trail of cheese thru the maze....you would have known my answer to be already.

NO....one has not been given permission to divorce based on a spouse NOT commiting sexual sin.

GOD deals with our thoughts.....WE deal with mens actions.

If you answer "no", then you seem to be denying that "adultery in the heart" actually counts as porneia.

Ah yes....the old ''can God make a burrito so hot even HE cant eat it'' type of logic.

Jesus said 'except for sexual IMMORALITY"

Play this little semantics game with someone whos interested in philosophy, I am not.

This would seem to be a very difficult position to defend since Jesus seems to go out of his way to equate the thought with the act.

NEVER does He tell us, nor does Paul, to reject fellowship with a brother based on what we ''believe'' them to be thinking.

You have my example from scripture.
JESUS deals with the heart.
WE deal with action.

You might well claim that thoughts of adultery are not as truly damaging to a marriage as actual acts and are therefore not to be considered as counting under the exemption clause. I think that such a position is highly debatable.

I claim nothing of the sort.

Damaging? Probably.
Sexual sin? That is up to the person who is married and God to decide.

Please tell me if your answer is "yes", "no", or "I don't know".

Was ''porneia'' commited...actual sexual sin? NO.

I dont deal with mens hearts, I deal with their actions.
Only God and the wife of a man would be able to discern his heart without his doing something to defile the marriage bed.

This type of argument is nothing short of pharisaical and simply a game of semantics....word games.

All we have to do is LOOK at how porneia is used thru the NT and we can see what is being stated by Jesus in His exception.

I have never seen any reference to ''porneia'' as judging ones thoughts instead of ones ACTIONS.

Therefore the logical conclusion is the HEART is GODS area...ACTIONs are ours.

 

[Drew]

As I say in response to other responses like the one you have provided, I will let the readers judge the quality and tone of our respective arguments.

As a general observation, when people are backed into a corner, they often resort to transparent rhetoric.

 

[follower of Christ]

As I say in response to other responses like the one you have provided, I will let the readers judge the quality and tone of our respective arguments.

I see.
So your ''tone'' now determines truth?

My tone is most likely from listening to these persistant excuses that will do just what YOU have just done....find ANY reason whatsoever to make Jesus exceptoin mean ANYTHING other than what it does.

Have you read my site?
How much time and effort did you put into this little semantics game here, 10 mintues?
How much study did you devote to this topic?

Im sorry if I wont just fall for this line of illogic.
My tone means nothing.

Jesus told Peter ''get behind me satan'.....did His ''tone'' determine truth or lack of it ?
No, it did not.

The truth is just that, reality....no matter the manner it is stated in.


Readers....DO judge me on what I have said.
Dont let folks distract you with semantics like this last chap has just pulled.
''Porneia'', as far as I have seen never deals with thoughts without action.

IF* someone can present that ''porneia'' does included thoughts of men and not just actions, then by all means Jesus would also have been includingTHINKING about sex with someone other than your spouse.
*IF* that can be shown with scripture, then Ill agree wholeheartedly as Id have NO choice but to, because I believe what Jesus has said. I dont need to make up excuses and distractions not to.

I spend literally the last YEAR devoted to this topic, studying all the relevant details....scriptural, cultural, historical, etc......to find out what the truth on this matter is.......and you come along with something completely irrelevant to actual defiling of the marriage bed and what..... I was supposed to just ignore all that Ive LEARNED on this topic and concede error when I know that Im not errant on this particular issue?

Sorry, but it doesnt work that way.

My tone has nothing to do with truth or error...FACTS do.

The FACT is ''porneia'' is sexual sin by anyone, married or not.
And I cannot recall a single instance where WE are permitted to judge a person on what we believe them to be thinking.
Nor did Jesus tell us to.

He internalized sin with His words...He did not give us permission to judge someone on what we believe them to be "thinking'' without seeing it in their words and actions.

 

[follower of Christ]

As a general observation, when people are backed into a corner, they often resort to transparent rhetoric.

YOu are a funny man.
You hardly have me in a corner with this line of questioning you present.

Read my site...hardly rhetoric.

You on the other hand offered us nothing but a game of semantics.

As I said, read my site.
Take the time, offer some VALID refutations instead of this irrelevant nonsense.

Jesus used a word that was rendered into Koine as ''porneia'' and into english as "fornication''
Both of those words have consistant meanings throughout the NT.

We're not just going to dismiss those meanings because you found a nifty new twist to put on Jesus meanings with something that He said pertaining to the heart of the individual....that sin was a HEART thing, not only external.

Do I sin if I WANT to steal...Yes.
do I sin against the person who owns the item I wish to steal...NO......not unless I carry out the ACT.
Wanting to is against God alone. God alone has the right to judge in this area. WE dont read minds.
The ACT would be against the person....once we've stolen from them.

EVEN if you BELIEVE I am thinking to steal something from you, I have NOT sinned AGAINST you by what you BELIEVE to be in my heart.

You are taking GREAT liberties with Christs intent.

God bless

 

[Delicate]

Have to agree with Drew- you seem to be backed in a corner FOC. Having read your VERY ERRONEOUS site- I wonder where you get the nerve to accuse the 'anti-remarriage' group of disharmony. Case in point? YOUR OWN QUOTE!

Quoting FOC from his site: 'Marriage is a life covenant that can only be ended by death or ‘’porneia’’. '

Who seems alittle confused, here? Didn't you just spend several looooonnng posts stating 'proniea' means any sex sin with one you're not married to? So now we see you have even gone as far as forcing the meaning of 'death' on pornea to propogate your error!

You are marked, IMO as one who is in the gall of bitterness and DELIBERATELY twisting scripture for your own ends. The 'year of study' you threw in the last poster's face makes absolutely no difference, when it is portrayed and maligned to present a lie- with the potential to lead others into deception!

 

[Delicate]

Quoting Drew: I am not claiming to have any answers. However, my sense is that a strictly "technical" approach to this matter (e.g. determining the exact meaning of "porneia") does not work, for reasons such as the one I have given.

Agreed! The meaning of 'pornea' makes absolutely no difference to the CONTEXT of what Jesus is saying. In other words, in the Jewish custom of betrothal, it does not matter if beastiality, homosexuality, fornication, incest, etc. was the 'act' of immorality- the fact remains ALL are immoral. ALL are pornea. ALL represent the exception Jesus offered in the betrothal custom in that they defile the betrothed woman.

I have to add this as well. Some would take the Matthew 19:9 clause and use it to invalidate other scripture that 'seems' to contradict it. This is DANGEROUS! In correct bible exegesis, the verse in question must be seen in light of the others. When Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18, Romans 7:2-3, & 1 Corinthians 7:39 are made to say that one can remarry after divorce if the spouse was unfaithful, when they DO NOT, then it's time to RETHINK. FACT: The betrothal custom understood by the Jews, and refered to in Matthew is the ONLY interpretation that pulls ALL scripture together.

Thank you Drew, for 'stepping in'! Blessings to you.

 

[follower of Christ]

Have to agree with Drew- you seem to be backed in a corner FOC. Having read your VERY ERRONEOUS site- I wonder where you get the nerve to accuse the 'anti-remarriage' group of disharmony. Case in point? YOUR OWN QUOTE!

coming from someone who cant seem to get her facts straight on this topic, Id have to honestly say that your calling my site ''erroneous'' leads me to believe you havent studied this topic at all..

Quoting FOC from his site: 'Marriage is a life covenant that can only be ended by death or ‘’porneia’’. '

Who seems alittle confused, here? Didn't you just spend several looooonnng posts stating 'proniea' means any sex sin? So now we see you have even gone as far as forcing the meaning of 'death' on pornea to propogate your error!

What are you rambling about?
Can you not even grasp the simple concept I laid forth that marriage is until death unless one is put away for porneia?

Nothing has changed in my words or ideas. YOU have simply failed to understand them as I would assume is the case with the bible for you as well.

You are marked, IMO as one who is in the gall of bitterness and DELIBERATELY twisting scripture for your own ends.

Do you have something to offer in the way of evidence here or just personal remarks that show youve run out of arguements to present.

Ive almost tired of your posts and irrelevant nonsense.

The 'year of study' you threw in the last poster's face makes absolutely no difference, when it is portrayed and maligned to present a lie- with the potential to lead others into deception!

Is that all you have sis?

I should have figured.
Why did you waste your time posting ?

 

[Delicate]

FOC states: Can you not even grasp the simple concept I laid forth that marriage is until death unless one is put away for porneia?

Nothing has changed in my words or ideas. YOU have simply failed to understand them ...
___________________________________________________________________

Those words were: 'Marriage is a life covenant that can only be ended by death or 'pornea'. ' (quoting FOC)

Completely twisted to mean something other than what is originally meant.
In context, 'death' is the cessation of the physical life of a covenant spouse. Argue this till your blue in the face, it will NOT CHANGE! That fact alone proves your view to be in error.

 

[follower of Christ]

Agreed! The meaning of 'pornea' makes absolutely no difference to what Jesus is saying.

LURKERS PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT DELICATE HAS JUST SAID THERE.

SHE IS LITERALLY TELLING YOU THAT THE MEANING OF A WORD HAS NO BEARING ON WHAT JESUS MEANT.

NOW do you see how far these folks will go to spread this false doctrine?
Words have meanings....without those meanings, there is no point in language even existing.

Delicate may as well have just said ''The meaning of STEAL makes NO difference in what God says" (you shall not steal)
It DOES matter as it DOES define the sin and the meanings intended.

Typical nonsense.
Ill be adding your words to my site immediately delicate

EDIT.......there, your words are now immortalized for all to see.
You get a page one spot too

In other words, in the Jewish custom of betrothal, it does not matter if beastiality, homosexuality, fornication, incest, etc. was the 'act' of immorality- the fact remains ALL are immoral. ALL are pornea. ALL represent the exception Jesus offered in the betrothal custom in that they defile the betrothed woman.

YOU and YOUR doctrine ADD to Jesus words to say betrothed.
There is NOT ONE SHRED of evidence in the TEXT of Matthew 19 OR Mark 10 that would make ANYONE with the ability to reason think that Jesus had narrowed His words to ONLY included the betrothal period.

*IF* that is the case then again I say PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOuTH IS AND PROVE IT!!

*IF* it is the truth you should have NO problem proving me wrong, should you sister?

I have to add this as well. Some would take the Matthew 19:9 clause and use it to invalidate other scripture that 'seems' to contradict it.

Not those of us who DO know what the word "EXCEPT" means.
"these are the rules...EXCEPT"..get it?

This is DANGEROUS!

Ill tell you what is dangerous....THIS is dangerous....

" The meaning of 'pornea' makes absolutely no difference to what Jesus is saying.

Pay no attention to the FACTS......just listen to what *I* tell you to believe, isnt that right sister ?!

In correct bible exegesis, the verse in question must be seen in light of the others.

Oh, you mean all the others, including the OT that has shown that whoredom PREmarriage, PREconsummated marriage and POSTconsummated marriage was punished by the death penalty under Mosaic law....a punishment that was rarely carried out by Jesus time and instead ALL THREE were being dealt with by divorce....THAT light?

When Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18, Romans 7:2-3, & 1 Corinthians 7:39 are made to say that one can remarry after divorce if the spouse was unfaithful, when they DO NOT, then it's time to RETHINK.

That is EXACTLY what an EXCEPTION does, just in case you dont get it.

It states that "HERE ARE THE RULES FOR YOU TO FOLLOW........EXCEPT"

Get it?!!?


By YOUR way of thinking wed have to assume Jesus is a liar EVERY time He says something that isnt repeated somewhere else in scripture.

Is THAT how you study your bible? Jesus is WRONG unless Paul backs His story up?

Just asking because I do know folks who worship Paul and his teaching over our Lords

FACT: The betrothal custom understood by the Jews, and refered to in Matthew is the ONLY interpretation that pulls ALL scripture together.

Dead wrong and my site proves it...among a great many scholars.

The fact is the ONLY reason you think it works is because you change meanings and intents all thru the text.

*IF* the excpetion clause were ONLY for the betrothed, it STILL contradicts ALL of your other passages because a WIFE is a WIFE NOT from consummation but from the day she is contracted in marriage.

SEX is not marriage, a covenant is....otherwise our Lord had no earthly father and was illegitimate.....
But thats right, you cant allow yourself to make that kind of sense of this or it destroys your doctrinal stance.

We cant permit the plain FACT that *IF* Mary were not a lawful wife of Joseph that the pharisees would have had a field day with her and with Jesus over this fact.

You just keep ignoring the facts in this case sis.
Ill keep proving you wrong and doing damage control.

Thank you Drew, for 'stepping in'! Blessings to you.

yes, thank you drew for giving me more to add to my site.
I need ALL the false teachings I can get my hands on so Gods children are aware of as many false doctrines as I can expose.

 

[follower of Christ]

FOC states: Can you not even grasp the simple concept I laid forth that marriage is until death unless one is put away for porneia?

Nothing has changed in my words or ideas. YOU have simply failed to understand them ...
___________________________________________________________________

Those words were: 'Marriage is a life covenant that can only be ended by death or 'pornea'. ' (quoting FOC)

Completely twisted to mean something other than what is originally meant.
In context, 'death' is the cessation of the physical life of a covenant spouse. Argue this till your blue in the face, it will NOT CHANGE! That fact alone proves your view to be in error.

You really dont even see what was said, do you?
You keep quoting that line as if you found some contradiction or something.
YOu probably should READ them again and READ what it is I say.
That quote of mine is in perfect agreement with Jesus and His exception and scripture as a whole.

Marriage IS for life.......EXCEPT FOR FORNICATION by the words of Jesus Christ Himself.

Deal with it

 

[follower of Christ]

Delicate.

You have called my site ''erroneous''

Ill be expecting some VALID refutations to the points made on my site so that we can ALL see just how deceived I am.

If you dont take the time to refute the assertions on my site, it really will only go to prove that you dont actually have any refutations but only these meaningless accusations.

God bless

 

[follower of Christ]

MODERATORS

I went back and deleted a couple lines that I felt were out of line after I reread them.
Im trying to be more self-monitoring so that you dont have to do it for me

 

[Delicate]

FOC: (quote)... coming from someone who cant seem to get her facts straight on this topic, Id have to honestly say that your calling my site ''erroneous'' leads me to believe you havent studied this topic at all..
_______________________________________________________________________

FOC, you have no idea just HOW studied I am. You speak blindly in your accusations! However, there are others far more studied than I, who understand scripture to say remarriage after divorce to one other than the covenant spouse is adultry.

This site: http://www.bibleviews.com/divorce-remarried.html provides a statement of belief regarding the issue of d/r by the church it represents.

Chuck Crismier, former lawyer and pastor covers this topic often on his radio broadcast that can be found here: http://www.saveus.org .

A conference is being held regarding the issue. Information is found here: http://www.marriagesforlife.com .

These represent a few- in addition to those found at http://www.marriagedivorce.com. I know of people personally, who have studied this out and come to the biblical conclusion- that remarriage after divorce to one other than the original cov. spouse, is adultry. They are living in accordance.

The fact is, God is orchestrating a return to HIS ways- ways clearly taught by Jesus, highlighted by Paul. No deception will stop it, the Holy Spirit will Himself bring clear understanding to those who seek HIS will, to simply WALK IN OBEDIENCE TO IT. Obedience- the ONLY action of love Jesus understands.

 

[Delicate]

FOC citing my quote: The meaning of 'pornea' makes absolutely no difference to what Jesus is saying.


LURKERS PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT DELICATE HAS JUST SAID THERE.
____________________________________________________________________

This having been originally posted with a 'scream'- pretty emotional FOC!

Lurkers, please DO pay attention to what I'm saying, and take note to FOC's incompleteness in quoting me. The COMPLETE quote:

"The meaning of 'pornea' makes absolutely no difference to the CONTEXT of what Jesus is saying. In other words, in the Jewish custom of betrothal, it does not matter if beastiality, homosexuality, fornication, incest, etc. was the 'act' of immorality- the fact remains ALL are immoral. ALL are pornea. ALL represent the exception Jesus offered in the betrothal custom in that they defile the betrothed woman."

Not too hard to understand- 'pornea' whether it's fornication, incest, ect- ALL defile the betrothed woman before her wedding. And this is the ONLY exception Jesus gives- lack of virginity as part of the betrothal covenant.


FOC- in regards to offering rebuttal to your site- I will not. We stand in direct opposition on divorce and remarriage. What I have posted here on this forum- stands.

 

[follower of Christ]

FOC citing my quote: The meaning of 'pornea' makes absolutely no difference to what Jesus is saying.


LURKERS PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT DELICATE HAS JUST SAID THERE.
____________________________________________________________________

This having been originally posted with a 'scream'- pretty emotional FOC!

Lurkers, please DO pay attention to what I'm saying, and take note to FOC's incompleteness in quoting me. The COMPLETE quote:

"The meaning of 'pornea' makes absolutely no difference to what Jesus is saying. In other words, in the Jewish custom of betrothal, it does not matter if beastiality, homosexuality, fornication, incest, etc. was the 'act' of immorality- the fact remains ALL are immoral. ALL are pornea. ALL represent the exception Jesus offered in the betrothal custom in that they defile the betrothed woman."

Not emotional at all.
I capitalize to draw attention to what is being stated.

You made a HUGE error, your statement CLEARLY shows that your ability to understand this issue or any other is questionable at best.

you tell us that the MEANING of a word has NO bearing on what Jesus says, then YOU REDEFINE what Jesus says FOR US.

Sorry, but we dont accept that kind of false teacher stuff.
WE accept that the meaning of the word porneia tells us EXACTLY what Jesus is saying, especially given the FACT that the definition fits the use of the words THROUGHOUT the entire NT.

There is not a single thing in the context that makes Jesus exception ONLY pertain to the betrothal period.


Sorry sis, there is no recovering from your mistake.
NO amount of explaining away what you said will make it say anything other than what it said....words have meanings to most of us.

Not too hard to understand- 'pornea' whether it's fornication, incest, ect- ALL defile the betrothed woman before her wedding. And this is the ONLY exception Jesus gives- lack of virginity as part of the betrothal covenant.

YOU are the one ADDING (isnt that a sin) to our Lords words.
He NEVER makes a distinction of 'betrothed' and IF He had, youd be able to PROVE it, wouldnt you sister?

As it is, you are just redifining anything that doesnt agree with you and rejecting the meaning of the word ''except'' as well.
We easily see what you are up to, delicate.

FOC- in regards to offering rebuttal to your site- I will not. We stand in direct opposition on divorce and remarriage. What I have posted here on this forum- stands.

Who cares if what you have said ''stands''?
You have shown just in your last couple posts that you REdefine anything that you dont agree with.
Ive seen this so much the last week or so in my debates on a few other sites (CARM.ORG for one) that it amazes me some of you even have the audacity to try to teach.

When you make an assertion, then found that assertion on your REdefined terms and words, its no wonder that *I* am one of the few that waste their time to respond to this ridiculous doctrine.

If I had any self respect Id do like the rest here and just ignore you.
The only reason I even bother is for what just happened, I wait for you to say something absurd, then add it to my own material so that others can learn what to look for.

The FACT is NOTHING Jesus said shows that ANY of the 3 of the death punishable offenses, sexual sins, were omitted from His exception.

That you dont grasp that is of no consequence.
The readers here have eyes and minds of their own and are surely capable of reading my site and discerning for themselves if what I assert is true.

I dont have to REdefine anything for them....All i have to do is SHOW them that our Lord clearly made one EXCEPTION.

 

[follower of Christ]

FOC, you have no idea just HOW studied I am.

Comments like...
"The meaning of 'pornea' makes absolutely no difference to what Jesus is saying. "
...speak for themselves. I dont need to even add anything to that one ;)

You speak blindly in your accusations!

I have accused you of nothing.
Your level of study WILL be present in your assertions and comments.
I base what I believe on what you present.
Which is little at this point.

However, there are others far more studied than I, who understand scripture to say remarriage after divorce to one other than the covenant spouse is adultry.

EXCEPT for fornication (sex with someone youre not married to)

Not even the word fornication stands in for you now.

This site:  [url]http://www.bibleviews.com/divorce-remarried.html[/url] provides a statement of belief regarding the issue of d/r by the church it represents.

Chuck Crismier,  former lawyer and pastor covers this topic often on his radio broadcast that can be found here:   [url]www.saveus.org[/url] .

Thanks for the site. ;)
Expect to see some refutations to his material added to my own site.

EDIT...the first site was a complete joke.
I think Ive already read the other.

A conference is being held regarding the issue. Information is found here: http://www.marriagesforlife.com .

Already banned from that site for speaking my thoughts.
They dont want anyone proving them wrong there ;)


You can always tell a false doctrine by how quickly they try to silence anyone who shows them errant.
I lasted about 30 hours on their discussion board simply for posting my site.

These represent a few- in addition to those found at http://www.marriagedivorce.com. I know of people personally, who have studied this out and come to the biblical conclusion- that remarriage after divorce to one other than the original cov. spouse, is adultry. They are living in accordance.

Seen it. Refuted it.

The fact is, God is orchestrating a return to HIS ways-

precisely...

Marriage is for life....EXCEPT for whoredom.
That was returned from ''for any cause'' divorces.

what is hilarious is that I KNOW you accept the clause....you just dont want it to mean what it clearly does.

ways clearly taught by Jesus, highlighted by Paul. No deception will stop it, the Holy Spirit will Himself bring clear understanding to those who seek HIS will, to simply WALK IN OBEDIENCE TO IT. Obedience- the ONLY action of love Jesus understands.

Thats right....nothing will cause good, godly christian folks who OBEY the Spirit to DEFILE the marriage covenant they are in currently because they were whored on and deserted by another 30 years ago.

Only those allowing themselves to be deceived, or those secretly using this doctrine to escape a second or third marriage they arent happy with....will leave a godly marriage using scripture as their scapegoat.

Jesus said ''except'' delicate.....in a conversation about MARRIAGE and puttting away....your just going to have to learn to accept that, arent you?

 

[follower of Christ]

FOC- in regards to offering rebuttal to your site- I will not. We stand in direct opposition on divorce and remarriage

Interesting.

I have all that material for you to tear down and yet you refuse.
How is it that we disagree is any kind of reason for you NOT to take the time to refute the material on my website?

If you could refute it, then it should be a mission for you to do so, so that you could expose my error to everyone.
Do you not care enough to expose my error?
*IF* I am errant, then you should.

You surely spend enough time here to add some refutations from my site.

*IF* you change you mind and do decide to, rest assured *IF* you used copy/pasted material from another website, I WILL find out and make that known to the posters here as well.

Im not interested in copy/pasted material, Im interested in YOUR refutations to my assertions.

 

[Drew]

Greetings Delicate:

My concern with the exception clause is that if it is understood to be "sexual sin in general", it opens the door to practically anyone who seeks a divorce, precisely because everyone can truthfully claim that their spouse has committed porneia since every married person (or almost every married person) has had lustful thoughts about people other than their spouse, and this constitutes adultery by Jesus teaching ("he has committed adultery with her in his heart").

I cannot comment on your assertion about the exception applying to the betrothal period.

I am not "taking a side" in this oft rancorous debate - I am simply pointing out there appears a very real problem with the view that Jesus is referring to sexual sin in general. We married types have all lusted in our hearts for someone other than our spouse. So if the exception covers sexual sins in general, everyone is entitled to claim the exception clause against their spouse. That does not seem right to me.....

 

[follower of Christ]

My concern with the exception clause is that if it is understood to be "sexual sin in general", it opens the door to practically anyone who seeks a divorce, precisely because everyone can truthfully claim that their spouse has committed porneia since every married person (or almost every married person) has had lustful thoughts about people other than their spouse, and this constitutes adultery by Jesus teaching ("he has committed adultery with her in his heart").

Give the heart thing up guy.
Your changing Jesus internalizing sin into some blanket ability to judge thought that WE as human cannot know shows you have missed the points of both teachings altogether.

And so what?
We live in a day where many folks commit whoredom.
That does not change Jesus intent....in fact, it confirms it as Jesus KNOWs the evil hearts of men who will not keep vows they make to a spouse.

I cannot comment on your assertion about the exception applying to the betrothal period

id be very careful here too because *IF* youre teaching conflicts with delicates you can bet your last dollar I WILL draw attention to it. ;)

I am not "taking a side" in this oft rancorous debate

Now you have MY interest.
WHy oh why arent you backing delicates assertion about the betrothal period?
Could it be that you dont believe the same thing as she does?

I am simply pointing out there appears a very real problem with the view that Jesus is referring to sexual sin in general.

Just because MOST marriages today end over sexual immorality does NOT nullify what Jesus has excepted.

We married types have all lusted in our hearts for someone other than our spouse. So if the exception covers sexual sins in general, everyone is entitled to claim the exception clause against their spouse. That does not seem right to me.....

This has ALL been refuted.
YOU dont get to twist Jesus' internalizing sin (which was ALL He was doing with the passage in question) into some right to JUDGE a person on what we BELIEVE them to be thinking.

One has NO bearing on the other as far as WE are concerned.
Only God knows the state of the heart.

fornication (porneia0 throughout the NT shows sexual immorality, it does not show our judging what another person is thinking.

IF it did tho, as I said, then yes, Jesus would have been including that in His exception.

 

[Drew]

Greetings FOC:

Can make a case that "porneia" only refers to physical acts in the context of the Matthew divorce teaching? I would think this would be challenging in light of Jesus' teaching about how lustful thoughts are to count as adultery - to me, He seems to be very clearly saying that the thought and the act have the same status - they are both acts of adultery. As such, it would seem to follow that the exemption applies to both "physical" and "mental" acts of adultery (since certainly pornea includes adultery).

Is there something about the meaning of the word "pornea" that allows us to say that Jesus is only talking about physical acts, and that we are therefore justified in excluding lustful thoughts from the scope of the meaning of the word "pornea"?