John 8:3-11 and 1Cor. 7:8-9

[KJVisTruth]

I noticed a few threads about John, chapter 8 in Theology and so I was curious... I didnt read them though, lol, too many pages... however, I went back to my KJV and read the chapter, and the verses 3-11 got my attention. I actually noticed it when I first started reading my KJV cover to cover but I wanted to wait till I finish the whole bible.

From the verses, it seemed to imply that if a woman isnt spoken for, her "adultery" is not sinning. Verse 11, Jesus tells her to sin no more, BUT he did not condemn her. He didnt even say that her sin was forgiven, he would say that to others in his ministry... "Your sins are forgiven." Why is this? It is a little different from what Paul said to believers in his letter, 1Cor. 7:8-9, about the unmarried and widows... that if they cannot contain, its better to marry than to burn. I thought that "to burn" was referring to hell cuz of the fleshly sin, but perhaps it was referring to passion one feels for another? As we all know, once you marry, the passion or love either matures or dies. Adultery is when you are spoken for by one and are sleeping with another, emotionally, mentally or physically. Fornication is whoredom. So sex while being unspoken for and not a harlot (nor a gigolo) is not wrong??

Is this where some people get the idea that premarital sex is not wrong, as long as they arent spoken for? I know that some (if not all?) reformists/puritans of the past didnt think that was a sin, that marriage was simply a ceremony/ritual they may choose to observe.

I sincerely want your thoughts on this. Thanks =)

 

[ThinkofHim]

Sighs........

Fornication is seen as incorrect-remember that in old days it led to the birth of bastard children who had no fathers to rely upon.

Such children lived in disgrace, and had no birthright. So there were very good reasons for desiring that people either refrain or marry.

That Jesus told the adultress to sin no more would seem simple kindness. It would seem that he still felt strongly enough over her sin not to offer absolution-his reasons for his actions will have to remain his own. (In other words,I'm clueless) To even use such a term did mean she was married-not merely fornicating.

1Cor 8- Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Note that he says burn with passion. It is better for those with strong drives to marry than to fornicate.



1Corninthians refers to the rights of an apostle and the zeal to spread the word-can you point out what specifically pertains to your question?

 

[KJVisTruth]

Of course, bastard children is one of the consequences of fornication (and premarital sex). Although one of its definitions is idolatry.

It was the men who brought that woman to Jesus, that said it was adultery.... if they were truthful, she must have been a widow, for she had no man to speak for her or to condemn her. To me, its sorta hearsay.. the men could have been testing Jesus but Jesus would know for certain. And he didnt see it fit to forgive her. The fact he asked if she had a man, and she said no.. that seems to me its worth noting that as long as its not offending anyone... such as premarital sex in her case... its not a sin, and therefore, nothing to forgive?

I used to believe that premarital sex is wrong.. now I am not so sure.

 

[ThinkofHim]

You will find many Bible passages condenming sexual lasciviousness-if you search.

And none *truly* justifying it.

If we read with eyes of righteousness-we find righteousness.

Eyes that seek sin will find that as well.

 

[KJVisTruth]

I am just trying to understand why Jesus warned, rather than forgave the woman of her sin. The accusers were not even present, and his point was already made and understood, that no one is "righteous" enough to cast the first stone. Matthew Henry said that when Jesus asked the woman if she had a man to speak for her, and there was none, Jesus was actually speaking of the accusers, not who was espoused to her. Not sure how Henry got that interpretation either.

 

[heymikey80]

Jesus used specially careful responses to care for the woman's redemption. She'd been shamed enough. What Jesus wants is repentance for sin, not shame for sin. And so He dealt with her gently to gain what He seeks.

One of the better inductive studies pointing this out in Jesus' ministry is "Love Walked Among Us"

 

[KJVisTruth]

Jesus used specially careful responses to care for the woman's redemption. She'd been shamed enough. What Jesus wants is repentance for sin, not shame for sin. And so He dealt with her gently to gain what He seeks.

One of the better inductive studies pointing this out in Jesus' ministry is "Love Walked Among Us"

Ahh thanks, thats a good point.

Thanks for the link also, the introduction and chapter 1 can only be viewed without purchase. Any other resources? =)