Adultery - eternal condemnation?

RDKirk · Jul 1, 2016

PeterDona said:
This is not in line with Jesus' sayings in e.g. Luke 16:18,
and it goes against some clear distinctions made in Paul's letters:
1 Corinthians 7:39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth, but if her husband be dead she is at liberty to be married to whom she will
Romans 7:2-3 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
I would say, that your interpretation is in a grey area, where there is some sliding the meaning of words. A divorced person can not be the same as a widow. Also, 7:15 is quite unclear if you want to use it for a remarriage license, since the word "bound" in 7:15 is probably itself a slided meaning. It is the greek "douluoo", which means "enslaved". If it meant "bound" it would have been the greek word "deo", see e.g. 7:39.

You can "slide" the meaning of "bound" around if you with, but what Paul said was:

But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances;

So whatever else he has to say about being "bound," he has already said that the abandoned spouse is a circumstance of being not bound.

With regard to Luke 16:18, has the marriage been adulterated in that case? Well, certainly. Paul has already explained that the Christian's marriage to the unbeliever is sanctified--recognized by Christ despite the fact that one party is a pagan.

So, yes, this is an adulterated marriage. But:

But I say that a man who divorces his wife, unless she has been unfaithful, causes her to commit adultery. -- Matthew 5

Jesus is neither an idiot nor a martinet. He knows with whom the fault lies in the adulterated marriage. And if one party left the marriage without actually leaving the house, He knows that too. Jesus is nobody's fool.

He said to His disciples, "It is inevitable that stumbling blocks come, but woe to him through whom they come! Luke 17

yeshuaslavejeff · Jul 1, 2016

Trouble is, once so many people all together and separately have voided the Word of God of Power in their lives,
....
God sends (has sent) a famine.
(they cannot hear the Word of God )

PeterDona · Jul 1, 2016

Hi RDKirk,
Thanks for your response.
I need to be more direct in my opposition to your viewpoint. Here goes ....

RDKirk said:
You can "slide" the meaning of "bound" around if you with, but what Paul said was:
But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances;
So whatever else he has to say about being "bound," he has already said that the abandoned spouse is a circumstance of being not bound.

You are misusing this scripture. It does not say, "not bound", it says "not enslaved". There is not a permission to remarriage here, only a permission to live alone, which btw is not even granted to the believers confer verse 10.

RDKirk said:
With regard to Luke 16:18, has the marriage been adulterated in that case? Well, certainly. Paul has already explained that the Christian's marriage to the unbeliever is sanctified--recognized by Christ despite the fact that one party is a pagan.

Even if a marriage has been "adulterated", it is still binding and lawful, and in function. Adultery does not break a marriage covenant, but it violates the covenant, and carries in it the meaning of polluting a covenant (see example Jeremiah 3:8-9)

RDKirk said:
But I say that a man who divorces his wife, unless she has been unfaithful, causes her to commit adultery

This is yet another faulty translation of Matthew 5:32. The exception clause refers back to Deuteronomy 24:1-5, and it can be shown that it only applies to a woman who was not a virgin when married.
Coincidentally, for our discussion, Matthew 5:31-32 is exactly Jesus comment to those who want to widen the permission to divorce and remarriage. He really does slam the door on such excessive interpretations.

RDKirk said:
Jesus is neither an idiot nor a martinet. He knows with whom the fault lies in the adulterated marriage. And if one party left the marriage without actually leaving the house, He knows that too. Jesus is nobody's fool.

Jesus is God incarnate. He has all authority to speak, and we are only positioned to recieve his words as we best can. Therefore we should study the Word diligently, and seek Jesus diligently.
The idea that someone is at fault in a divorce, and someone is not, is not something you get from the Bible. Yes, Jesus knows that there will happen adultery, he even goes to the length of callling our generation wicked and adulterous. (Matthew 16:4 and 12:39) But again, adultery is NOT a legal ground for doing apart a covenant that has been made before God.
A covenant is binding for both parties, even if one of them commits a violation. This is good to know concerning our covenant with God, that he will still be there when we stray off.

Best regards, Peter

Goodbook · Jul 3, 2016

Revelation 21:8
Lists some of those who will be kept out of the kingdom. Amongst that list is not adultery on its own but I imagine adulterers would share at least some of those traits. Eg fearful, unbelieving, abominable (in sexual practices), murderers (yes, crimes of passion) whoremongers, sorcerers, idolators and all liars - to commit adultery many people lie to their spouse.

Remember these are the people that didnt repent and kept on sinning regardless. King David commited adultery and murder yet he repented.

shioks · Jul 3, 2016

PeterDona said:
The woman who had had 5 husbands, and the one she had now was not her husband, is in John 4:1-26. One of the longest accounts in the Gospels at all. So we are given a quite detailed account of this.

I would certainly like to be able to do evangelism like this: having people come and beg me for living water, and then I just had to point out some of their sins

Well, clearly the point of the narrative is, that admitting your sin before God is part of recieving the living water. So I would say, that adultery or fornication (this woman was proficient in both) is not a damning sin, but you have to repent and turn from it, and recieve the living water.

Btw there is an interesting interpretation problem here: why did Jesus say, you have had 5 husbands?
1) one view could be, Jesus recognized all 5 as valid marriages
2) another is, that Jesus actually starts to enlist all her sins, and thus having 5 marriages is sinful
I opt for option 2. But I have seen people use option 1.

would it be possible that she was abandoned by her "5 husbands" due to their unfaithfulness? Historically and culturally, men back then married and divorce a female like no business. She was a victim that led her to sins?

shioks · Jul 3, 2016

PeterDona said:
Hi RDKirk,
Thanks for your response.
I need to be more direct in my opposition to your viewpoint. Here goes ....
You are misusing this scripture. It does not say, "not bound", it says "not enslaved". There is not a permission to remarriage here, only a permission to live alone, which btw is not even granted to the believers confer verse 10.

Even if a marriage has been "adulterated", it is still binding and lawful, and in function. Adultery does not break a marriage covenant, but it violates the covenant, and carries in it the meaning of polluting a covenant (see example Jeremiah 3:8-9)
This is yet another faulty translation of Matthew 5:32. The exception clause refers back to Deuteronomy 24:1-5, and it can be shown that it only applies to a woman who was not a virgin when married.
Coincidentally, for our discussion, Matthew 5:31-32 is exactly Jesus comment to those who want to widen the permission to divorce and remarriage. He really does slam the door on such excessive interpretations.

Jesus is God incarnate. He has all authority to speak, and we are only positioned to recieve his words as we best can. Therefore we should study the Word diligently, and seek Jesus diligently.
The idea that someone is at fault in a divorce, and someone is not, is not something you get from the Bible. Yes, Jesus knows that there will happen adultery, he even goes to the length of callling our generation wicked and adulterous. (Matthew 16:4 and 12:39) But again, adultery is NOT a legal ground for doing apart a covenant that has been made before God.
A covenant is binding for both parties, even if one of them commits a violation. This is good to know concerning our covenant with God, that he will still be there when we stray off.

Best regards, Peter

When you say "adulterated marriage", do mean it is when a person divorced his/her spouse not in accordance to the scriptures and then remarried? And, this lead to eternal condemnation since he/she has violated the first marriage covenant?

shioks · Jul 3, 2016

hedrick said:
I think I used words inconsistently. Let me try to clarify.

Many people think that the sin against the Holy Spirit can’t be forgiven at all, even if you repent. Personally I doubt it. But that’s what many people mean when they call it unforgiveable.

But the OP asks about adultery. It says that many Christians say it is an eternal sin and condemned eternally. To my knowledge, no one thinks that adultery is like the sin against the Holy Spirit. That is, I’m reasonably sure that all Christians believe it is forgiven if you repent. I believe the only debate is whether it can be forgiven if you don’t repent. That is, can someone who continues living in adultery be forgiven.

So the question I’m looking at is whether sin you *don’t* repent from can be forgiven. I argue that it can be forgiven, because we all have at least some sins we don’t repent from. Maybe we forget them. Maybe we don’t realize that they’re sins. Or maybe we just can’t give them up. I think most people who are honest will admit that this is the case.

But if everyone has some sins they don’t repent from, the next question is whether some sins are special, and if you don’t repent from them you’ll be damned. This is an area where Catholics and Protestants have traditionally disagreed. Catholic moral theology says that there are minor things we do wrong which we should stop but if we continue we can still be saved. However they believe that serious sins such as murder and adultery are “mortal,” meaning that they can’t be forgiven unless we repent.

Protestants traditionally do not accept the distinction between mortal and non-mortal sins. They believe that Christ’s death for us pays for all sins, as long as we have faith in him. I agree with this. So I would say that even an unrepentant adulterer could be saved if they have faith in Christ.

I think most of the responses to this thread agree with me. One response was by a Catholic. Not surprisingly, he gave the correct Catholic answer, which is that adultery is a mortal sin, and you must repent.

There is actually a division even among Protestants. As far as I can tell the people posting in this thread have given the usual Protestant answer. But there are Protestants who hold that people who have truly accepted Christ as Lord won’t sin, or at least won’t do certain sins. This is called “Lordship salvation.” So if someone is living in ongoing adultery I think they would say that this person hasn’t really accepted Christ as Lord, and thus their sin will be condemned. I’m not the right person to defend, or even describe this position. But it doesn’t appear that anyone in this thread holds it.

The problem with Lordship salvation from my point of view is that I don’t think it’s realistic about the fact that even those of us who follow Christ are still a mix of saint and sinner. The traditional term going back to Luther is “simul justus et peccator,” both righteous and sinner. It is based on Romans 7:14-24, where Paul says that he is at war with himself. He wants to be good, but he can’t be.

The reason I’m describing all of these positions is because that’s what you asked for in the OP.

A summary:
* Catholics say that some sins are mortal, and if you don’t repent of one of them you’re in trouble. In principle you’ll go to hell, but I think they recognize that God will judge our hearts and it may not be quite that black and white in the end.
* Traditional Protestants say that if you have faith in Christ all your sins are forgiven.
* Lordship salvation says that traditional Protestants are right, but that if you really have faith there are some things you’ll never do. So people who do them can’t possibly be real Christians. (At least I think this is what they say.)

There’s a little bit of Lordship salvation in most traditional Protestants. Obviously Christ expects his followers to show it in our lives. We will certainly tell an adulterer that God expects him to turn his life around. And if he's part of a Church, we may use Church discipline to encourage that change. But we'll be more inclined to demand that he fix his life than to claim that he isn't a Christian.

Thanks for the summary. It really helps.

Coincidentally, I'm reading Book of Leviticus on all Offerings and I can't help but to relate to NT and all repentance and seek forgiveness from God. And, can I say OT book of Leviticus 5:15 reflects Protestant's view?

hedrick · Jul 4, 2016

Only in part. The normal Protestant view is that what’s more important than individual sins is one’s overall orientation, towards God or something else. Someone who is a follower of Christ (typical language in the Gospels) is said by Paul to have faith. Recall that faith isn’t just a belief. When you have faith in something you trust it.

Look up repent in a concordance sometime and see how Jesus uses it. He uses it primarily for a change in orientation of your life. “Repent, and believe in the good news” (Mark 1:15) He seldom if ever used the word for turning away from specific sins.

Once we’re followers of Jesus we are certainly supposed to do the right thing, and repent when we fail. Lev 5:15 is aimed at believers who realize they’ve done something wrong. I would agree, and I think all Protestants would agree, that they should repent at that point. I think the sacrifices in Leviticus help dramatize that repentance, and perhaps help a person make a real commitment to change. But the repentance that really matters is changing from enemies of Christ into followers of Christ. I don’t think failure to make one of the sacrifices in Leviticus when you’ve sinned would doom you, nor as far as I know is that ever said in Leviticus. Since all sacrifices had to be made at the temple in Jerusalem, it simply wouldn’t have been possible for people to have made a sacrifice every time they realize they had done something wrong, even if they could have afforded it.

PeterDona · Jul 4, 2016

shioks said:
would it be possible that she was abandoned by her "5 husbands" due to their unfaithfulness? Historically and culturally, men back then married and divorce a female like no business. She was a victim that led her to sins?

I think that the text in John 4 does not even talk about husbands, but simply that she had had 5 men. We are left guessing what is the history, but we know that the woman in conclusion goes into the city and says, that Jesus told her all that she had done. I think it is probably not that she was just impressed with Jesus skills as a fortune teller, but rather that he had put the finger right on her sore spot - her sin.

If I am right, it would make less sense that she had been abandoned by 5 husbands. It would make more sense, that she by some means was able to get 5 men to walk out on her, and then she even gave up on marriage and just went and lived with the guy, something that Jesus seems to take note of. Maybe it is more fornicational in that way.

shioks · Jul 5, 2016

hedrick said:
Only in part. The normal Protestant view is that what’s more important than individual sins is one’s overall orientation, towards God or something else. Someone who is a follower of Christ (typical language in the Gospels) is said by Paul to have faith. Recall that faith isn’t just a belief. When you have faith in something you trust it.

Look up repent in a concordance sometime and see how Jesus uses it. He uses it primarily for a change in orientation of your life. “Repent, and believe in the good news” (Mark 1:15) He seldom if ever used the word for turning away from specific sins.

Once we’re followers of Jesus we are certainly supposed to do the right thing, and repent when we fail. Lev 5:15 is aimed at believers who realize they’ve done something wrong. I would agree, and I think all Protestants would agree, that they should repent at that point. I think the sacrifices in Leviticus help dramatize that repentance, and perhaps help a person make a real commitment to change. But the repentance that really matters is changing from enemies of Christ into followers of Christ. I don’t think failure to make one of the sacrifices in Leviticus when you’ve sinned would doom you, nor as far as I know is that ever said in Leviticus. Since all sacrifices had to be made at the temple in Jerusalem, it simply wouldn’t have been possible for people to have made a sacrifice every time they realize they had done something wrong, even if they could have afforded it.

I guess for those who have committed adultery, the verses for them to fall upon is Mark 1:15 and 1 John 1:9.

daydreamergurl15 · Jul 8, 2016

It is an eternal punishment if we do not repent of the sin. Not simply saying "Forgive me" but actually change the lifestyle of adultry and do not continue in the sin.

PeterDona · Jul 28, 2016

actionsub said:
Disagree. Paul even said in I Cor 7 with regard to one who has been "loosed" from a wife via divorce "But if you marry, you have not sinned."

I definitely believe that it would be nice to have an answer to, what is the difference between a divorce and "being loosed". Until then 1 cor 7,27-28 is on the "did not understand" list. Your interpretation is in conflict with Luke 16,18, therefore loosening can not be the simple process of divorce. By this I mean, divorce in a secular court. David Instone-Brewer makes the point that this refers to Exodus 21:7-11. I cannot prove him wrong, and you should probably read his book to get a thorough exposition of his viewpoint, but as far as I am thinking, loosening has never been practised in the church, since the very first church, so I would hesitate to use these verses.

actionsub · Jul 30, 2016

PeterDona said:
I definitely believe that it would be nice to have an answer to, what is the difference between a divorce and "being loosed". Until then 1 cor 7,27-28 is on the "did not understand" list. Your interpretation is in conflict with Luke 16,18, therefore loosening can not be the simple process of divorce. By this I mean, divorce in a secular court. David Instone-Brewer makes the point that this refers to Exodus 21:7-11. I cannot prove him wrong, and you should probably read his book to get a thorough exposition of his viewpoint, but as far as I am thinking, loosening has never been practised in the church, since the very first church, so I would hesitate to use these verses.

I've actually read Instone-Brewer and found his book very influential on my understanding of the issue. I would, however, suspect you're overthinking a difference between "apoluo" and "divorce" seeing as how in that culture the secular and sacred realms legally were far more intertwined than they are now.

PeterDona · Jul 30, 2016

actionsub said:
I've actually read Instone-Brewer and found his book very influential on my understanding of the issue. I would, however, suspect you're overthinking a difference between "apoluo" and "divorce" seeing as how in that culture the secular and sacred realms legally were far more intertwined than they are now.

In my thinking, a loosening is something that happened by jewish priests. Luke 16:18 was presumably also spoken to a jewish people (the pharisees). What is your thinking around secular/sacred? How is the line drawn into todays world?

Optimax · Jul 30, 2016

There is only one "sin" that the Blood of Jesus cannot cover.

Adultery is not it.

shioks · Jul 30, 2016

Optimax said:
There is only one "sin" that the Blood of Jesus cannot cover.

Adultery is not it.

Why not? Could you justify why Jesus died on the cross is insufficient for adultery sin?

hedrick · Jul 30, 2016

PeterDona said:
I definitely believe that it would be nice to have an answer to, what is the difference between a divorce and "being loosed". Until then 1 cor 7,27-28 is on the "did not understand" list. Your interpretation is in conflict with Luke 16,18, therefore loosening can not be the simple process of divorce. By this I mean, divorce in a secular court. David Instone-Brewer makes the point that this refers to Exodus 21:7-11. I cannot prove him wrong, and you should probably read his book to get a thorough exposition of his viewpoint, but as far as I am thinking, loosening has never been practised in the church, since the very first church, so I would hesitate to use these verses.

I agree that there are oddities to 1 Cor 7:27-28. By and large Paul’s position is clear: Paul would advise people who aren’t married not to get married, but there is certainly nothing wrong if they do. But what’s the difference between “if you marry” in 28 and “if a virgin marries”?

One interesting possibility that many interpreters have used is that “bound” in 27 actually refers to engagement. So the main question in 27 is whether people who are engaged should go ahead and get married. In that case 28 makes sense. It becomes “if you who are engaged marry, you don’t sin, and if someone who isn’t engaged marries, they don’t sin.”

27 is translated “Are you bound to a wife.” The problem is that γυνή is a bit ambiguous. It often means wife, but can simply be woman. “bound” is a legal obligation. Hence it’s at least possible to understand “Are you engaged to a woman.” Thiselton’s NIGCT commentary implies that most recent commentators understand it this way.

In this case 7:36 would be a continuation of this.

There are exegetical questions with it as well. The translations typically suggest we’re talking about an engagement. But there’s a traditional interpretation that the “he” in 7:27 is the girl’s father (or someone caring for her, such as a slave’s owner), and the question is letting her get married. There’s also the suggestion that this is referring to “spiritual marriages,” where a man and women live together without sex. Most modern interpreters, however, think it refers to an engaged couple.

PeterDona · Jul 30, 2016

actionsub said:
I've actually read Instone-Brewer and found his book very influential on my understanding of the issue. I would, however, suspect you're overthinking a difference between "apoluo" and "divorce" seeing as how in that culture the secular and sacred realms legally were far more intertwined than they are now.

OK, to go further with the discussion on 1 Cor 7:27-28, I googled that and found this resource: Chris Terry: A limited case for divorce and remarriage who makes the argument that vv27-28 is in the context of vv25-40 which deal with virgins. Therefore, it seems reasonable that "bound" refers not to the state of being married, but to the state of being engaged. Which was usually a pretty obligating situation, but however something that you could seek to be released from.

I feel that this is a sufficient explanation for me. However, then I am not sure where to put Instone Brewers usage of Exodus 21:7-11, but we should take note that the coupling between the 2 passages, that Instone-Brewer makes is his own original idea. So maybe the coupling was not intended by Paul (?)

I feel that I have had the dots connected now. There is not a remarriage permission, however in the case that you are only engaged, you can seek to be loosed. This makes me also to disagree with an interpretation that I have heard from some, that once you are engaged, you are as good as married and you can start having sex (!)

Edit: Hedrick, I see that you just posted something that goes to the same direction.

actionsub · Jul 30, 2016

PeterDona said:
In my thinking, a loosening is something that happened by jewish priests. Luke 16:18 was presumably also spoken to a jewish people (the pharisees). What is your thinking around secular/sacred? How is the line drawn into todays world?

Given the fact that while a church can solemnize a marriage, but only a secular court can dissolve it, the line is fairly blurred. That, IMO, creates a lot of the confusion around this issue.

Optimax · Jul 30, 2016

shioks said:
Why not? Could you justify why Jesus died on the cross is insufficient for adultery sin?

Sounds like you misunderstood what I said.

The Blood of Jesus covers sin including adultery. Must be repented of like any sin to be forgiven.

The only sin not covered is the failure to receive Jesus and be born again (rom 10:9).

Adultery - eternal condemnation?

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

Well-Known Member

Reading the Bible

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Daughter of the King

Well-Known Member

Sir, this is a Wendy's...

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Sir, this is a Wendy's...

Senior Veteran

Similar threads