Is it adultery to marry after pre-marital sex?

[A Cup of No]

This is a spinoff of the other thread, which I think is asking another question.

[James Peter]

If having sex with somebody causes the two of you to become one, that is, married in the sight of God then any sexual encounters with people other than your 'first' has to be adultery. If having sex with somebody doesn't cause a permanent bond between you, if there is a difference between sex and becoming married, then the answer is 'not necessarily'.

It all hinges on the spiritual/metaphysical 'effect' of sexual intercourse. What exactly is sex? Merely a physical act or something much more? Is there an implicit 'I do' even when both partners explicitly state 'I don't'? That is the question here, it overlaps with the other thread and the answer to this quetsion have implications for the other one but it is certainly a question worth discussing in its own right. In fact I'm starting to think the other thread is too unwieldy and perhaps it would be beneficial to split it off into several different threads temporarily...

[adavila]

I think you're right..this topic is worth of having its own thread..I have discussed a similiar issue with my fiancee and we sort of came to a different conclusion..that is that sex is adultery committed against your future spouse. Now sex and marriage are not essentially the same in nature, however there is something there that is deep and that we still try to figure out..

[A Cup of No]

I guess it could get more complicated. If person A has sex with person B, and B had already had sex with person C before having sex with person A, does that mean that A and B's union is not legit, since B was already committing adultery? Can you "marry through sex" someone who is already united in that way?

[Teallaura]

Ahem... "The Woman at the Well" ring any bells? How did Jesus refer to her 'partners'?

As to the topic question, could you be a bit more specific? If you are talking about marrying the partner, the answer is obviously no (OT Levitical Laws). A subsequent partner? The answer would seem to be yes, judging by what Jesus said of divorce, which has in effect occured. A concurrent partner? I would say definitely yes.

[semmie]

teal,

regarding the woman at the well...i don't follow your point. :huh: jesus tells her to call her husband; she says she has no husband; and here is jesus' reply:

You are right when you say you have no husband. The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband.

she'd had five different husbands. jesus' response to her doesn't give any indication that the four latter husbands were not technically her husband because she'd already been with a man before them. and i don't see anything in the exchange that specifically indicates that she wasn't legally married to these first five men. :shrug:

could you clarify your thoughts on this passage? i'm pretty sure i don't understand your reference to it, and i'd like to. :smile:

thanks, teal!
~semmie

[Teallaura]

Sure.

Jesus refers to the men she has been with as her husbands:

You are right when you say you have no husband. The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband.

*emphasis mine

Jesus clearly distinguishes between proper marriage and her relationships, but He maintains the husband reference in so doing. The implication is obvious - those relationships have had much of the force of marriage.

One cannot commit adultery unless one is married. She hasn't been formally married, but judging from Jesus' words, she has been 'married' sufficiently to commit adultery. The passage doesn't give us any indication that she has or has not specifically committed adultery; however, the inference is fairly strong. What the passage does establish is that extramarital sexual relationships do create a union much like marriage.

In my opinion, it answers ACoN's hypothetical. If those partners are in any real sense husbands, then having sex outside that relationship violates it in the same manner as adultery.

[A Cup of No]

So if you have pre-marital sex as a teenager, and end up getting right with God and getting married later on, are you already married to the person you had sex with as a teenager and therefore committing adultery?

[Teallaura]

So if you have pre-marital sex as a teenager, and end up getting right with God and getting married later on, are you already married to the person you had sex with as a teenager and therefore committing adultery?Yep. Not in the strictest legalistic sense, but yeah, you have violated a union you chose to form. I'm not sure repentance actually dissolves the union. I know it's a harsh assesment - but I don't see anything in Scripture that let's you (general) off the hook merely because you were young.

However, that said, I think the adultery here is in the same vein as the adultery that accompanies divorce. I also think that the sin does not perpetuate into the marriage - i.e. the sin is a single occurance, not a continuous one by staying with the new spouse.

Our culture doesn't take sexual sin very seriously - but God certainly does.

[semmie]

Jesus refers to the men she has been with as her husbandswhat, in the text, makes you think that she wasn't actually and legally married to the five men, though? she doesn't say "i have never been married." she says "i have no husband" which makes just as much sense if she has been divorced five times, IMO.

thanks for the clarification!
~sarah

[themuzicman]

It could also mean that the previous five died....

[semmie]

So if you have pre-marital sex as a teenager, and end up getting right with God and getting married later on, are you already married to the person you had sex with as a teenager and therefore committing adultery?
i vote no. :thumbd:

[JackC]

Our culture doesn't take sexual sin very seriously - but God certainly does.

You have missed the forest for the trees.

The adultery that God is concerned with is spiritual adultery.

The desires that lead to physical adultery are revealed so that the greater truth of our spiritual adultery can be seen.

Remember that Jesus teaches just looking at the opposite sex lustfully is committing adultery. So by His standards, if sexual relation implies a marriage, just how many 'wives' do you think we have all had?

It is the passion for the pleasure of self that leads to physical adultery - whether acted out or not - just as the same leads to spiritual adultery.


Jack

[themuzicman]

From another thread:

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

"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."

[rmwilliamsjr]

Sure.

Jesus refers to the men she has been with as her husbands:

You are right when you say you have no husband. The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband.


so?, she had been married 5 times and those husbands are either dead or they divorced her.



Jesus clearly distinguishes between proper marriage and her relationships, but He maintains the husband reference in so doing. The implication is obvious - those relationships have had much of the force of marriage.

snip to address a single point

look at the last piece.
the man you now have (live with and have sex with) is NOT your husband.
having sex does NOT create a marriage.
so yes, Jesus is distinguishing between sex and marriage but not showing that sex creates the marriage but the opposite.

Jesus point is that she is correct, she has no husband, despite the fact that she has been married 5 times before and now lives with her boyfriend. If sex created the marriage then she would be married now to him, but clearly this is not the case.

[Teallaura]

what, in the text, makes you think that she wasn't actually and legally married to the five men, though? she doesn't say "i have never been married." she says "i have no husband" which makes just as much sense if she has been divorced five times, IMO.

thanks for the clarification!
~sarah

Look at the text again carefully.


You are right when you say you have no husband. The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband.

*emphasis mine

Unless he's number 6, the implication is that they aren't formally married yet Jesus refered to him as her husband.

She goes on to dodge the issue (telling Jesus He's a prophet and asking about where to worship). That was a hot button issue and a good way to change the topic. Her timing indicates some unease, don't you think? People aren't generally uneasy when they haven't done anything wrong.

But most telling of all is verse 39 - she doesn't say "He told me how many husbands I've had" - she says "He told me everything I ever did". That sounds a lot more like an admission of guilt.

[Teallaura]

so?, she had been married 5 times and those husbands are either dead or they divorced her.




look at the last piece.
the man you now have (live with and have sex with) is NOT your husband.
having sex does NOT create a marriage.
so yes, Jesus is distinguishing between sex and marriage but not showing that sex creates the marriage but the opposite.

Jesus point is that she is correct, she has no husband, despite the fact that she has been married 5 times before and now lives with her boyfriend. If sex created the marriage then she would be married now to him, but clearly this is not the case.

Nope - you've no evidence that he's number 6. The implication there and in the rest of the story is that he's number 5. Her subsequent actions aren't those of a legitimate widow.

[Lady Gooner]

It all hinges on the spiritual/metaphysical 'effect' of sexual intercourse. What exactly is sex? Merely a physical act or something much more?


For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh

Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.

Foods for the stomach and the stomach for foods, but God will destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 And God both raised up the Lord and will also raise us up by His power.
15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot? Certainly not! 16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For “the two,” He says, “shall become one flesh.” 17 But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him.
18 Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? 20 For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.

when we make Love there is a soul connection, sex is not just a physical pleasure it is also binding spiritual and emotional. It is a giving of oneself. One flesh physical covenant monogomy is a metaphor for His spiritual redemptive relationship between Christ and the church. It is a deep soul connection. An intimacy that surpasses our wildest dreams and it is a reflection of the intimacy we can have with God.

15 Drink water from your own cistern,
And running water from your own well.
16 Should your fountains be dispersed abroad,
Streams of water in the streets?
17 Let them be only your own,
And not for strangers with you.
18 Let your fountain be blessed,
And rejoice with the wife of your youth.
19 As a loving deer and a graceful doe,
Let her breasts satisfy you at all times;
And always be enraptured with her love.
20 For why should you, my son, be enraptured by an immoral woman,
And be embraced in the arms of a seductress?
21 For the ways of man are before the eyes of the LORD,
And He ponders all his paths.
22 His own iniquities entrap the wicked man,
And he is caught in the cords of his sin.

God looks at the heart and virginity is not just restricted to the condition of our bodies. The marriage bond was created by God not man. Sex was created by God and the bible gives us our answers whether we like them is another matter


And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?

By biblical standards premarital sex is fornication, there are many scriptures which warn us about the reprisals from fornication. I would expect therefore that it would be classed as adultery,


27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

however there is hope

If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

[rmwilliamsjr]

Nope - you've no evidence that he's number 6. The implication there and in the rest of the story is that he's number 5. Her subsequent actions aren't those of a legitimate widow.

It amazes me to encounter discussions like this. No wonder there are so many denominations, all claiming to be true and yet all different.

go to http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1148581848-8544.html#18
look at the Greek verb "echo" translated as "you have had"
aorist indicative, past completed action. the relationships are OVER, done, finished.

how can this boyfriend be both husband number 5 and "you are correct, the one you live with is NOT your husband" be correct at the same time? he can not both be her husband because they are having sex and not be her husband.

read the text.

[Teallaura]

You have missed the forest for the trees.

The adultery that God is concerned with is spiritual adultery.

The desires that lead to physical adultery are revealed so that the greater truth of our spiritual adultery can be seen.

Remember that Jesus teaches just looking at the opposite sex lustfully is committing adultery. So by His standards, if sexual relation implies a marriage, just how many 'wives' do you think we have all had?

It is the passion for the pleasure of self that leads to physical adultery - whether acted out or not - just as the same leads to spiritual adultery.


Jack

Well, that would mean I've never had a husband. :rasberry:

I never discussed the 'spiritual' adultery you refer to here. However, you can't commit adultery without a spouse - illicit sex when you are unmarried is fornication, not adultery (since we're now being technical); therefore, if this verse is to be understood literally and not metaphorically, then you've had quite a few wives, judging by your own words above..

The better interpretation of the verse you refer to is that lust carries the same weight as adultery, but is not literally the same.

In the case presented we are talking about an example that cannot be metaphorical. Therefore, your comparison here is not valid.

[Lady Gooner]

Nope - you've no evidence that he's number 6. The implication there and in the rest of the story is that he's number 5. Her subsequent actions aren't those of a legitimate widow.

Jesus said to her, “Go, call your husband, and come here.”
17 The woman answered and said, “I have no husband.”
Jesus said to her, “You have well said, ‘I have no husband,’ 18 for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; in that you spoke truly.”

I always thought Jesus was man number 7, the 5 she had had the one she had now and then Jesus. 7 being the number of completion.

From her experience we can see she believed that her desires would be fulfilled by the right man, but after six tries, she had not found him until she met the Messiah. (the seventh man )

[Teallaura]

It amazes me to encounter discussions like this. No wonder there are so many denominations, all claiming to be true and yet all different.

go to http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1148581848-8544.html#18
look at the Greek verb "echo" translated as "you have had"
aorist indicative, past completed action. the relationships are OVER, done, finished.

how can this boyfriend be both husband number 5 and "you are correct, the one you live with is NOT your husband" be correct at the same time? he can not both be her husband because they are having sex and not be her husband.

read the text.

Dig deeper before you make idiotic assertions.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1148582591-7698.html

[attachment=1]

From your own source: there is an untranslated conditional that indicates the the reason for the conclusion. Hence, the relationships are illicit since the conclusion follows from the current one.

[Teallaura]

Jesus said to her, “Go, call your husband, and come here.”
17 The woman answered and said, “I have no husband.”
Jesus said to her, “You have well said, ‘I have no husband,’ 18 for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; in that you spoke truly.”

I always thought Jesus was man number 7, the 5 she had had the one she had now and then Jesus. 7 being the number of completion.

From her experience we can see she believed that her desires would be fulfilled by the right man, but after six tries, she had not found him until she met the Messiah. (the seventh man )

Hmmmm, maybe at the the philosophical level, but I don't think it flows from a literal understanding of the verse that he is in fact number 6. :shrug: Even so, that doesn't prove 1 - 5 were legit.

[rmwilliamsjr]

Dig deeper before you make idiotic assertions.
now children play nicely.

there is an untranslated conditional that indicates the the reason for the conclusion. Hence, the relationships are illicit since the conclusion follows from the current one.

the 'oti joins the two phrases, "you have truly said" and "I have no husband"

on the page at:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1148582591-7698.html
look at 5, the paragraph above the II. the recitative usage of 'oti, placed before direct discourse, for Jesus is quoting her. (note that Jn 4:17 is in this section not the following II, the reason why) It has nothing to do with the illicitness of their relationship. Jesus is saying that she speaks the truth, the man she is living with is not her husband, the 'oti marks the fact that He is quoting her.

for a nice discussion of 'oti as a marker for indirect speech see: http://www.und.edu/dept/linguistics/wp/1999Levinsohn.PDF page 11 talks about the usage in John 4:17 itself.

In summary, the absence of τι recitativum before an embedded speech or writing usually indicates that the reporter purports to repeat verbatim what was communicated on a specific, pre-vious occasion.

[themuzicman]

Just a comment on the woman at the well... Jesus' intent isn't to speak about marriage and whether she was married or not, but to show her that He was a prophet and, in fact, the Messiah.

I think we should be careful to draw too much from this passage in this regard, especially in light of the Deuteronomy passage.

Michael

[semmie]

Unless he's number 6, the implication is that they aren't formally married yet Jesus refered to him as her husband.jesus referred to the man she was currently with as not her husband. that's exactly why we read him to be number 6. he mentions five who were her husbands, and one now who is not.

She goes on to dodge the issue (telling Jesus He's a prophet and asking about where to worship). That was a hot button issue and a good way to change the topic. Her timing indicates some unease, don't you think? People aren't generally uneasy when they haven't done anything wrong. :no: i absolutely disagree that this was an indication of unease. i think it was an indication of thirst. remember--that's what this encounter was about: living water. in the middle of this remarkable discussion about water and thirst, when she asks christ to give her the water he speaks of, he brings up the topic of her husbands. and her response is not "shoot, he knows what i've been doing." her response is "i can see that you are a prophet." if jesus hadn't brought up her husbands and spoken of something that a stranger should have no knowledge of, would she have believed that he could satisfy her longings? she might have written him off as a fruitloop who hangs out by a well. remember--it was already odd that a jew was speaking to a samaritan. so no...i don't think she is dodging the issue at all (and i daresay, if christ thought she was dodging, why didn't he bring the discussion back around to it?); rather, i think she is realizing that jesus is speaking truly, that he is a prophet, and that he might actually have this water she could drink and never thirst again!

But most telling of all is verse 39 - she doesn't say "He told me how many husbands I've had" - she says "He told me everything I ever did". That sounds a lot more like an admission of guilt.i don't think that makes your case. :shrug: her marriages aren't the only thing they talk about.

i just really don't understand your point in bringing this text to the table. i'm trying to, and i appreciate your patience with me. :smile: but it seems to me that a very basic reading of the text says that this was a woman who'd been married five times, and was now either living with or sleeping with a man she wasn't legally married to. and i don't see how that makes any point, except maybe jesus is more gracious regarding sex than we think. :shrug:

[Teallaura]

Just a comment on the woman at the well... Jesus' intent isn't to speak about marriage and whether she was married or not, but to show her that He was a prophet and, in fact, the Messiah.

I think we should be careful to draw too much from this passage in this regard, especially in light of the Deuteronomy passage.

Michael

However, He does mention marriage in a particular context and I think it's perfectly acceptable to look at this passage in reference, although I concede not as the authoritative passage.

You folks do realize that if her preceding relationships are all legit, the reference is purely unnecessary - Jesus doesn't do a lot of unnecessary verbiage. He establishes His prophetic status by telling her about her current living arrangements. Yes, it is humanly possible to have come by that information - but that's also true of the preceding five (little town + no TV = Gossip Central). He doesn't need to mention any other husbands - but He does. That makes a great deal more sense, taken in the entire context, if He is refering to illicit rather than legit relationships.

[themuzicman]

Jesus came to call for repentance and faith in Him, not to condemn sinners.

Michael

[Teallaura]

Dig deeper before you make idiotic assertions.
now children play nicely.

...

You've nowhere to talk. You came in firing - and not over the bow. If you don't like an uncivil tone, you shouldn't start off with insulting insinuations.

[Teallaura]

Jesus came to call for repentance and faith in Him, not to condemn sinners.

Michael

And that has what to do with the issue? It's a given - but that doesn't tell us whether or not marriage subsequent to premarital sex is adultery.

Okay, that's it. I'm not taking on five people at once (opps, make that four). Gang up on somebody else....

[semmie]

Okay, that's it. I'm not taking on five people at once (opps, make that four). Gang up on somebody else....
i'm sorry, teal; i wasn't trying to gang up on you. i love and respect you...and i was just trying to understand your reference to the passage. i do sincerely apologize if i fed into something that became a gang-up on you!

[Gabby]

Look at the text again carefully.


You are right when you say you have no husband. The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband.

*emphasis mine

Unless he's number 6, the implication is that they aren't formally married yet Jesus refered to him as her husband.

She goes on to dodge the issue (telling Jesus He's a prophet and asking about where to worship). That was a hot button issue and a good way to change the topic. Her timing indicates some unease, don't you think? People aren't generally uneasy when they haven't done anything wrong.

But most telling of all is verse 39 - she doesn't say "He told me how many husbands I've had" - she says "He told me everything I ever did". That sounds a lot more like an admission of guilt.


He wasn't her husband but maybe he was someone else's husband.?

[Teallaura]

i'm sorry, teal; i wasn't trying to gang up on you. i love and respect you...and i was just trying to understand your reference to the passage. i do sincerely apologize if i fed into something that became a gang-up on you!

It wasn't you. :hug:

[rmwilliamsjr]

you shouldn't start off with insulting insinuations.

show me where i did this, and i will apologize for it.
i make it a practice not to be insulting.

[Trinitarian]

To jump in here, I think a couple of points are being missed.

First, if the physical act of sex established a marriage relationship, doesn't that mean that a person who is raped is de facto married to her rapist and thus prophibited from ever marrying without committing adultery? If the answer is that rape doesn't constitute marriage the way consensual premarital sex does, then that seem to say that the physical act of sex itself isn't the issue but what is being done in sex. And I don't think it can be shown that what is being done by people engaging in premarital sex is what constitutes a marriage.

Second, I think the idea that sex constitutes a marriage relationship is ridiculous anyway. Marriage in scripture is not simply constituted by the act of sex (though that's what the "one flesh" statement is often taken to refer to), but also by the "leaving one's father and mother". In other words, the formation of a marriage relationship involves making vows and committments to another person and forming a shared life with them that involves a marked break with one's past single life. Obviously how those vows have been expressed implicitly or explcitly has varied in different cultures, but universally marriage is seen to involve vows to take on a common life with another person. Premarital sex does not make these vows which is another reason why I think arguing that it constitutes a marriage relationship is untenable.

None of this is to say that premarital sex does not deeply affect those who engage in it (as someone in a relationship with a person who has had premarital sex, I can testify firsthand to the fact that it does). But, to say that the first time you have sex you've just got married is to make a leap that Scripture does not authorize.

[Lady Gooner]

However, He does mention marriage in a particular context and I think it's perfectly acceptable to look at this passage in reference, although I concede not as the authoritative passage.

You folks do realize that if her preceding relationships are all legit, the reference is purely unnecessary - Jesus doesn't do a lot of unnecessary verbiage. He establishes His prophetic status by telling her about her current living arrangements. Yes, it is humanly possible to have come by that information - but that's also true of the preceding five (little town + no TV = Gossip Central). He doesn't need to mention any other husbands - but He does. That makes a great deal more sense, taken in the entire context, if He is refering to illicit rather than legit relationships.


John's gospel was written to reveal the Son of God. In chapter one there's an introduction to Jesus the Word of God, in chapter two he deals with the uniting of a man and a woman in marriage, in chapter three he deals with Jesus confronting a man and in chapter four, Jesus confronts a woman. All components of a marriage present and correct.


Sex is to be used for pleasure, see the song of solomon. Rape is certainly not about pleasure, Sex is not love, Rape is not love. A sexual relationship should be the outworking of the ahavah love. Love of commitment, without that commitment sex becomes merely lust and lust is sin. Lust often leads to adultery.

It is important that men learn to respect a womans body and all that goes with it , just as it is important for women to repect mens natural urges or functions. Education about this subject for a christian should be taken directly from source : The Bible, our sons and our daughters need educated biblically, our sons may have sisters , become husbands and also have daughters, and even tho today women are sexually emancipated by God's standards the onus always lies with the man.

But he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power as touching in his own heart, to keep his own virgin daughter, shall do well.

A father is responsible before God to protect his daughter's virginity, as far as he possibly can. It is important that "girls" understand that keeping their virginity is not only their responsibility, but their father's. They need to know that men are sensitive to their romantic/love needs, but that no man is allowed to look upon or touch any private area of her body, without her father's permission if that offends tough that is scriptural.

Any father worth his weight, will not give permission, unless the man is willing to lay down his life for his daughter and commit to marriage

3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual immorality; 4 that each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, 5 not in passion of lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God; 6 that no one should take advantage of and defraud his brother in this matter, because the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also forewarned you and testified. 7 For God did not call us to uncleanness, but in holiness. 8 Therefore he who rejects this does not reject man, but God, who has also given[a] us His Holy Spirit.

premarital sex is fornication. It is a sin against one's body. Once you have indulged there's not alot you can do about it. Scars are left, wounded hearts, feelings of rejection, pain, disappointment ......Sex before marriage is against God's law, we know that it is wrong, God tells us it is wrong. As Believers we are able to benefit from the mercy of God and the forgiveness of our sins.

Read the bible before you've hit the NT every imaginable sexual union has been discussed.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

From another thread:

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

"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."Although there are exceptions spelled out elsewhere. For example in Exodus we read that there may be grounds for the father to refuse the man the right to maryr his daughter.

The prima facie expectation is that sex is part of a lifelong union, and only very good reasons should ever override that (e.g. rape, or when everyone can see it would destroy the woman etc). So while sex is not marriage, and therefore having sex with someone who has had sex is not quite adultery, having a chain of sexual relationships is a lot like adultery.

[Teallaura]

Although there are exceptions spelled out elsewhere. For example in Exodus we read that there may be grounds for the father to refuse the man the right to maryr his daughter.

The prima facie expectation is that sex is part of a lifelong union, and only very good reasons should ever override that (e.g. rape, or when everyone can see it would destroy the woman etc). So while sex is not marriage, and therefore having sex with someone who has had sex is not quite adultery, having a chain of sexual relationships is a lot like adultery.

:yt:

[Trinitarian]

So while sex is not marriage, and therefore having sex with someone who has had sex is not quite adultery, having a chain of sexual relationships is a lot like adultery.

Ok, so it's not "quite" adultery to marry and have sex with someone who's had sex before. What is it then? Just less than ideal, given our fallen world (I would agree with that). Or is it somehow sinful? There I would not agree.

[themuzicman]

Although there are exceptions spelled out elsewhere. For example in Exodus we read that there may be grounds for the father to refuse the man the right to maryr his daughter.

The prima facie expectation is that sex is part of a lifelong union, and only very good reasons should ever override that (e.g. rape, or when everyone can see it would destroy the woman etc). So while sex is not marriage, and therefore having sex with someone who has had sex is not quite adultery, having a chain of sexual relationships is a lot like adultery.
Where in Exodus is that? I didn't see it in Deuteronomy....

[Taran Wanderer]

I also think that the sin does not perpetuate into the marriage - i.e. the sin is a single occurance, not a continuous one by staying with the new spouse.
I think this was the main point of the original question--if someone has premarital sex, does marrying someone else put them in a perpetual state of adultery? I'm glad you said no, but why do you think so? I'm interested to know your reasons. Others, chime in too.

[semmie]

Where in Exodus is that? I didn't see it in Deuteronomy....
i think he was referring to this:

If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride price, and she shall be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride price for virgins.

[themuzicman]

i think he was referring to this:

If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride price, and she shall be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride price for virgins.
Ah, thank you.

(So, if dear old Dad only sorta refuses, then she's still getting married?)

So, if a man has sex with a woman, then they have to go to her father to see if she's going to marry him, then?

Michael

[Teallaura]

:be:


Okay, you guys may be right about the first 5. I've found a source that agrees with you (although it points out that it's extremely unlikely all five died). I still think it an odd inclusion, that being the case.

Since this passage wasn't central to my thesis (which I made clear early on - popular opinion notwithstanding) I haven’t changed my mind on that. The sexual union is a lot stronger spiritually than our popular culture acknowledges. It creates a relationship unlike any other and one that is designed for exclusivity.

Yes, I still think taking up with a second partner, even in marriage, is initially at the very least cheating on the first partner - that union isn't so easily broken. Fornication, despite being a sin, isn't cheating in any sense by itself, but adultery is. Being completely technical, no, it's not legalistically adultery. However, looking at the spirit of the law, I believe it very much is.



As to defending that thesis by chapter and verse - yes, I think it defensible, but no, I won't be doing that here. I've had quite enough of the 'being ganged up on' thing.

And I'm really disappointed in you, LadyG. I didn't expect backhanded insults from you. You're usually better than that.

[Gabby]

:be:




:sad: :hug:

[semmie]

Since this passage wasn't central to my thesis (which I made clear early on - popular opinion notwithstanding) I haven’t changed my mind on that. The sexual union is a lot stronger spiritually than our popular culture acknowledges. It creates a relationship unlike any other and one that is designed for exclusivity. i absolutely agree with you; and i think we all knew (whether anyone was admitting it or not) that this particular text (john 4) wasn't your main defense. from the start, i just didn't even understand what you meant in mentioning it. i almost wish now that i'd asked you privately to explain your thoughts, because it wasn't central to your thesis. so again--i apologize, laura! i've got nothing but love and respect for ya...and lots of both, at that! :hug: getting back to the topic, however...i think one would be extremely hardpressed to show scripturally that sex is only physical, or that it wasn't intended solely for an exclusive and committed relationship (ie: marriage).

Yes, I still think taking up with a second partner, even in marriage, is initially at the very least cheating on the first partner - that union isn't so easily broken. Fornication, despite being a sin, isn't cheating in any sense by itself, but adultery is. Being completely technical, no, it's not legalistically adultery. However, looking at the spirit of the law, I believe it very much is. i guess i agree and i don't agree. :hehe: i agree that the union isn't so easily broken (and therefore shouldn't be entered into lightly); but i don't agree that marriage becomes "cheating on the first partner." i won't blame ignorance, but in our culture, sex is not perceived clearly; and our young people are taught that it's OK as long as they're safe (which, as it turns out, isn't usually safe at all)--that the only possible negative consequences are teenage pregnancy, or an STD. discussion of union and commitment are never brought to the public (secular) table, and unfortunately, a lot of churches (and christian parents) have struggled to teach young people about the purpose and design of sex and marriage. so if a young person simply gives in to the physical urge to have sex, and later realizes it was wrong, then i think i would classify that as a mistake; sin; but not marriage.

i know it's a difficult topic to approach, but maybe we could talk about rape a little bit. i could be wrong, but i doubt you would hold the same standard if it was a discussion of rape. what makes the rape victim not "married" to her rapist (and i'm using the term "married" here to refer to the union itself, on whatever level this union exists; not a legal marriage)? what is it about the rape scenario that excuses the woman from the union?

i think it very much has to do with a real commitment and a willful decision to enter into a union. i'll refrain from saying more until (unless) you respond...i don't want to encourage you to keep participating in a discussion where you're being attacked, but again--i really do love and respect you, and i'm really interested in discussing this more (if you want to). if not here...maybe you could shoot me a PM sometime!

love and blessings to ya, teal!
~sarah

[Teallaura]

I retract my statement about LadyG. I took what she said the wrong way. I apologize for the misunderstanding and for having taken exception to it publically - I should have asked privately. My apologies.

Semmie, Honey, it wasn't you, I promise. :hug: I'll get back to you on the stuff you brought up in a day or two. I need some time away from this right now (that and I've got stuff I really need to get done). Is that okay?


-Teallaura

[Lady Gooner]

I retract my statement about LadyG. I took what she said the wrong way. I apologize for the misunderstanding and for having taken exception to it publically - I should have asked privately. My apologies.

-Teallaura

No problem honey, :tlaura: apology accepted, :hug: thanks for taking the time to rectify it, i'm sorry you took exception in the first place :blush:

[semmie]

Semmie, Honey, it wasn't you, I promise. :hug: I'll get back to you on the stuff you brought up in a day or two. I need some time away from this right now (that and I've got stuff I really need to get done). Is that okay?
absolutely. :hug:

[Nazaroo]

One thing bothering me here is that people have quoted and discussed John 4:18 a dozen times, and somebody even brought in the Greek verb, but nobody has actually looked at the nouns:


πεντε γαρ ανδρας εσχες, και νυν ον εχεις ουκ εστιν σου ανηρ. τουτο αληθες ειρηκας.

"...for you have had five MEN, and the one you have now is not your MAN. This you spoke truly."


The last bit indicates clearly that Jesus is being IRONIC here, which is a major device in John, which drips with irony.

Jesus is making a play on the Greek word MAN (aner) which can mean either a 'male' or a 'man', or a 'husband' depending upon context. And this crude statement is abundantly clear when rendered plainly into English.

Jesus is not legitimizing this woman's sexual relations at all. In fact, the strong implication is that she has only had one true marriage (her FIRST), and the next four relationships are of course ADULTERY, whether the other men had previous relations with others or not.

To miss this, is to miss the whole point of Jesus privately exposing her intimate dirty laundry while alone with her, and showing her his supernatural knowledge.

This woman according to O.T. Law could only be married once, unless all these men had died, or divorced her using the Mosaic exception ruling. Yet if the men had actually just died, then Jesus' statement about her past would be meaningless, since she was obeying the Law.

This is NOT the case: Jesus is exposing her sinful lifestyle, which falls short of the one man/one woman lifetime partnership ideal laid out in the Priestly Code. For example, priest weren't allowed to marry DIVORCED women, even if they were legitimately divorced, or they would lose their HOLY status.

In the New Testament, Paul also insisted that divorced woman remain single until the ex--husband died.

Miss all this, and you've missed the point of the conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well.

[ayaania]

The woman at the well might have had five husbands who all divorced her. The man she's having now is not her husband, perhaps because that man is somone other woman's husband.
She committed adultery with him, not against her own husband but against his wife. I think.

[ayaania]

There is a law who says a rapist must marry the victim and never divorce her. If the girl is not married to him, she must yet live alone all her days ass Amnon's victim Tamar did. She never married. If you have had pre-marital sex you can't marry another one than the one you had pre-marital sex with in Old Testament.

[Teallaura]

:no: Rape victims were not barred from marriage. Culturally, it was unlikely that they would find husbands since they were no longer virgins but there is nothing in Scripture that says they are not allowed to marry.

[ayaania]

But aren't they yet bound in God's eyes? Jesus declares that if a wife remarries, even if her husband comitted adultery, she also commits adultery. But in the Old testament the wife was allowed to remarry after being divorced. Was she yet committing adultery even if God allowed that? Isn't that what Jesus is saying? Isn't it the same thing with a girl who is seduced that she may marry another but that will also be adultery since she's bound to the man who seduced her? They are joined and one flesh and man should not separate them. How can I know that despite these words they are un-bound anyway when there are verses claiming that they are one in God's eyes?? Adam and Eve was joined by the sexual act alone, nothing else happened, then if Eve all of sudden would marry another man in a church including a ceremony, priest, vows and all would this be more valid to God? Some claim that there was a ceremony, but I can't see that.