Hi <B>F A</B>,<P>Yep...<BR>...from what I understand from scripture, and (my) church's teaching, is that it is both adultery and fornication.<BR>...I can't think of any other definition for those 2 words that are significantly different than what was on the site I referenced.<P>And of course... it follows that based on Matthew 5:28... "looking at someone with a lustful heart" is adultery...<BR>... so what does that say about "emotional affairs"?...<BR>...talk about "limiting" opposite-sex friendships when you're attempting a reconciliation with your WS (and still married).<P>-------------------------------------------<P>Where do I find this stuff?... you ask..<BR>...sometimes from other people's posts that I try to keep in my <A HREF="http://www.marriagebuilders.com/forum/Forum29/HTML/000013.html" TARGET=_blank>Notable Posts/Threads</A> post...<BR>and... <A HREF="http://www.marriagebuilders.com/forum/Forum29/HTML/000038.html" TARGET=_blank>Other Useful Sites</A> (see... <A HREF="http://www.probe.org/docs/adultery.html" TARGET=_blank>Adultery</A> ... with mention of Dr. Harley)<BR>and sometimes... with "Internet search engine lookups" (eg. yahoo, hotbot, altavista,... etc.) based on a few keywords...<BR>and... sometimes from my own collection of religious articles/books/etc.... (I am a CCD teacher... as <B>was</B> my W)<P> <P>Jim<p>[This message has been edited by NSR (edited July 22, 2000).]

I was going under the assumption that "saving" was not being used in the context of salvation. Thanks for the specific translation.<P>B<P>------------------<BR><P>May the roads rise to meet you,<BR>May the winds always be at your back,<BR>May the sun shine warm upon your face,<BR>The rains fall soft upon your fields,<BR>And until we meet again,<BR>May god hold you<BR>In the hollow of his hand.

Yup, Greek sure is a rich language. My point, however, is that there very likely were Aramaic words which didn't translate directly into Greek - or which the ancient translators may have "fudged" because they did not always understand the Aramaic wording or concepts. There was also the possibility that the Galilean accent or dialect of Aramaic may have caused words to be recorded completely incorrectly.<P>My source on this particular thing is Ian Wilson's "Jesus: The Evidence" - a quite fascinating book.<P><P>------------------<BR>terri<BR>I can see clearly now,<BR>the rain is gone ...

Well, I'm sorry I've been avoiding this site recently. This looks like a facinating discussion.<P>I would not describe myself as a scholar, but I have done quite a bit of study in the past several years and would be glad to share what I have found.<P>First, terri, you are correct. It is believed that Jesus spoke Aramaic. The "Old Testament" was written in Hebrew, and it is likely that early transciptions of Jesus' teachings (remember, he spoke to people; he did not write letters--at least not ones that the early church saw fit to include in the Bible)were also in Hebrew. When the early church decided that a follower of Jesus did not have to first be Jewish (discussion in Acts about whether Timpthy needed to be circumcised), the followers of Jesus adopted Greek as their lingua franca ("Christ" is from the Greek). So anything Jesus said was recorded as remembered in Greek. A few centuries later the church ditched Greek in favor of Latin.<P>Young's Literal Translation of the Bible seeks to provide an English translation of the most original "received" (accepted by the church) texts of the Bible. Robert Young has used Greek originals for the New Testament. In this translation, Matthew 5:32 reads as follows:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> but I -- I say to you, that whoever may put away his wife, save for the matter of whoredom, doth make her to commit adultery; and whoever may marry her who hath been put away doth commit adultery.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>In John Gill's "Exposition of the Bible," he explains that Jesus' interpretation of the Law was different from the interpretations of the prominent Rabbis of the time, who interpreted the Law to allow for divorce in a variety of circumstances. That was the interpretation the Pharisees used.<P>Jesus was referring to Deuteronomy 24:1, by the way, which is where divorce is discussed in God's law. In Young's Literal Translation it reads:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>When a man doth take a wife, and hath married her, and it hath been, if she doth not find grace in his eyes (for he hath found in her nakedness of anything), and he hath written for her a writing of divorce, and given [it] into her hand, and sent her out of his house,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Today's English Version gives a somewhat more understandable translation of the Hebrew:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Suppose a man marries a woman and later decides that he doesn't want her, because he finds something about her that he doesn't like (alternate: something . . . like; (or) that she is guilty of some shameful conduct.) So he writes out divorce papers, gives them to her, and sends her away from his home. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>So, as was usual, Jesus was not coming up with something new, but rather providing an interpretation of a rather ambiguous passage of law.<P>So, what does God think about divorce? Ultimately, God's thoughts are known only to God. Man's interpretation of the words attributed to God varies.<P>--HurtButCoping

HurtButCoping - Young's Literal Translation of Matthew 5:32 opens up a whole new can of worms. "whoredom"......what constitutes "whoredom"? Does one affair constitute whoredom, or does multiple affairs constitute whoredom? Does that make the person who has an affair a whore, or should the "act" itself be considered whorish?, and can the person be separated from the act?<P>This is very interesting in that there is another thread "I'm not a Whore", where this very topic came up. I am very interested in seeing opinions about this particular translation. <P>Initially I looked at my wife as a whore right after D-Day, which BTW is today. I have tried over the past year to separate her behavior at that time from the person I hope and believe she really is, and this translation has me wondering that maybe she <B>was</B> being a whore at the time, but that she is now <B>reformed</B>, if that makes any sense. <P>

Interesting facts about the Bible's text can be found at===><A HREF="http://www.auckland.ac.nz/acte/pmb/language.htm" TARGET=_blank>Languages of the Bible</A>.<P>Here are a couple of resources where Aramaic versions of Bibles can be found:<P><A HREF="http://www.aramaic.org/index.shtml" TARGET=_blank>The Aramaic Bible Society, Inc.</A><P>and<P><A HREF="http://exegesesbibles.org/default.htm" TARGET=_blank>Exegeses Bibles</A><P>and<P><A HREF="http://www.v-a.com/bible/" TARGET=_blank>ARAMAIC BIBLE</A>...<BR>...with a link to Matthew <A HREF="http://www.v-a.com/bible/matthew-5.html" TARGET=_blank>Testament of Matthew (5)</A><BR>FYI: verses 31-32... <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>31. "It is said, 'Whoever divorces his wife should give her a letter of cause.,'*<P>32. "But, I am telling you, whoever divorces his wife because of an act of adultery, leads her to fornication. And whoever takes a divorced [woman as wife,] is committing fornication.*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>*5:31 Lit. Ar. id. "Divorce document."<BR>*5:32 The grammatical implication is clearly: "In such cases.<P>Interpretation using the word "fornication" may make <B>this</B> verse one of the "strictest" implications that remarriage after divorce, is itself a sin... (fornication)...<BR>...seems almost like the <A HREF="http://www.divorceinfo.com/catholic.htm" TARGET=_blank>Roman Catholic</A> interpretation (per it's Catechism).<P><B>BTW:</B> Here is a link that will display several versions of the Matt 5:32 verse ===> <A HREF="http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/versions.pl?book=Mat&chapter=5&verse=32&version=kjv" TARGET=_blank>versions of Matt 5:32</A>.<BR>Words used in addition to 'fornication' include...<BR>..."lewdness", "sexual immorality" and "unchastity"<P>---------------------------------------<P>The Aramaic version is one I will most likely look into after my divorce...<BR>...the unstoppable (civil) force... to be thrust upon me. <P>Prayers for reflective thought on the Word.<P> <P>Jim

So here's my question. In all of these translations, it is the man divorcing the woman. Who is being unfaithful--the husband or the wife? If the man divorces his wife because he was unfaithful, is he condemning her to a life of being single? Is it scriptural for a wife to divorce her husband because he is unfaithful?

Well, I appreciate everyone's thoughts and efforts on this thread. I certainly learned quite a bit by bopping through these links.<P>Again, it's interesting to see the huge disparity in the old (aramaic) translation that Jim points out (where divorcing a spouse because of adultery IS a sin), versus the KJ adultery "loophole" (which isn't mentioned in any of the other gospels).<BR>

Not to beat a dead horse...<BR>...but I happened across a Catholic Q&A site that had a Q/A directly related to this...<P>Those interested can check it out ===><A HREF="http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=167509" TARGET=_blank>Biblical support for Divorce Question</A>.<P>Since these Q&A posts don't last forever...<BR>... I'll reproduce it below:<P>---------------------------------------------<BR>Mt 5, 19; 1 Cor 7 -- Biblical support for Divorce Question from Lexie S on 05-29-2000:<BR>-----------------------------------(question)<BR>Could you please explain the Catholic Church's response to Christ's allowance for divorce in cases of adultery/sexual immorality, as cited in Matthew 5:31-32 and 19:1-12 (both NIV citations; JKV uses the term "sexual immorality" instead of "adultery" or "marital unfaithfulness") Matthew 19 also indicates that the betrayed spouse may remarry and does not commit adultery in a new marriage. (I am aware that Mark 10, also Christ's words, does not include the adultery/sexual immorality exception)<P>Also, Paul, in 1 Corinthians 7:10-16, clearly states that if an unbeliever is married to a believer, and the unbeliever leaves/adandons the believer, the believer is no longer bound to the marriage and may obtain a divorce. I can see where this passage might serve as a basis for the CC's allowance for anullment, but still, the passage is clear that divorce is permissable.<P>My understanding is that the term used in the Matthew passages -- the Greek word "pornea" -- refers to sexual immorality and is clearly distinct from terminology used in the Old Testament referring to an illicit marriage, such as a sanguinous marriage, which would be considered illegal.<P>I understand the sacredness of the marriage vows and the covenant between husband, wife, and God, and that God hates divorce. However, the Matthew passages, especially, which are attributed to Christ directly, as words he spoke -- not an interpretation of what He might have said -- seem to clearly state that the vow and covenant is broken by the man or woman who has cheated on one's spouse and thus, the betryaed spouse is no longer bound to that covenant.<P>Does the CC recognize the Matthew passages, that is, Christ's allowance for divorce in cases of marital unfaithfulness, and how are these passages analyzed and evaluated in the church's position on divorce?<P>I look forward to your response.<BR>-----------------------------------(response)<BR>(Answer by Fr. John Echert on 06-22-2000: )<BR>---------------------------------------------<BR>As recorded in St. Matthew and translated by the RSV, Jesus taught:<P>19:1 Now when Jesus had finished these sayings, he went away from Galilee and entered the region of Judea beyond the Jordan; 19:2 and large crowds followed him, and he healed them there. 19:3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?" 19:4 He answered, "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, 19:5 and said, —For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? 19:6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder." 19:7 They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?" 19:8 He said to them, "For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 19:9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, XX XXX XXXXXXX and marries another, commits adultery." 19:10 The disciples said to him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry." 19:11 But he said to them, "Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given.<P>You will notice that I replaced three words with X’s in verse nine; these three Greek words are at issue in this text. In particular, the Greek word “porneia” which appears here is a matter of dispute in translation. Our word pornography comes from this root, and the word has a variety of meanings in the Greek, all of which are related to something sexual. In its most generic sense, it encompasses anything which would fall under fornication, or that which is sexually inappropriate. The RSV renders this text as, “except for unchastity” which is taking it in this broad sense. In other instances the word can have a specific sexual matter in mind, referring to prostitution, adultery, or an illicit marriage or relationship. The NJB takes this latter approach of illicit relationship, “I am not speaking of illicit marriage.” In such a case, Jesus would not be binding Christians to marriages which were not regarded as acceptable in the first place, such as marriages which were incestuous or in too close a line of affinity. Some others understand this text to refer to adultery as the one exception. <BR>In addition to issues surrounding how to render “porneia,” there is another issue regarding the clause itself: “except for porneia.” For you will note that this seeming exception does not come at the end of the sentence but follows upon what our Lord says about divorce. In other words, it is possible that Jesus was allowing divorce in the case of unfaithfulness, but did not allow for remarriage following upon divorce. In other words, adultery is such a terrible act against a spouse that may be the one reason for which God allows separation (civil divorce, as we would call it today), but it does not follow that there is freedom to marry after such a divorce, for in Christian marriage there is a covenant against which one may not act. And this is precisely the situation which many Christian couples find themselves in today: they have a civil divorce (perhaps for a legitimate reason, such as unfaithfulness) but are not free to remarry because the sacrament remains.<P>Beyond this, we must look at the context and circumstance to better discern what our Lord meant. As noted in the text, divorce was already allowed in some circumstance(s), though there was disagreement in this matter within Judaism as to grounds for divorce. The more conservative approach interpreted Moses to allow divorce ONLY for adultery (porneia), whereas a more liberal approach allowed a man to divorce his wife for any reason. Some commentators suggest that the test or trap of the Pharisees was to get Jesus to take a position, thereby alienating at least some Jews while siding with others. But Jesus avoids this trap and gives a new teaching. No longer can there be divorce and remarriage as previously allowed because of the sinful condition of man. If Jesus had allowed divorce and remarriage for adultery, He would have been simply repeating the conservative understanding of Moses. But clearly this was not the case, for look at the response of the disciples: “If such is the case, then better not to marry.” In other words, Jesus had gone far beyond what had been allowed, so that marriage was truly binding until death. And while we can debate this seeming exception, clearly it does not allow for what we would describe as sacramental divorce and subsequent remarriage, even in the case of adultery. And quite frankly, for many Christians who might want to argue this case because of a marriage gone bad, adultery is often (though certainly not always) a symptom of a marriage gone bad long before one or both partners acted out upon marital infidelity.<P>It is worth noting that St. Mark includes this episode, but without the complicated so called exception clause. <P>Now, as to how to deal with issue with non-Catholic Christians, there are a couple suggestions I have. First of all, many would have no idea about the ambivalence of the Greek text behind the English and just assume their translation is the accurate Word of the Lord. You may not convince of the complexity of this text but can ask if they understand the Greek and issues involved. Secondly, I suspect in many cases in which Christians argue for the legitimacy of divorce and remarriage based upon Matthew, adultery is not the real problem or cause for the divorce. Our Lord mentions nothing else which could be interpreted by anyone as grounds for divorce and remarriage. So ask them if they limit this to adultery alone. Thirdly, other references to divorce and remarriage make no exception, as recorded by St. Mark and in a reference to the permanency of marriage by St. Paul in his letter to the Corinthians. Finally, this is another example of what happens when one is not in full communion with the life of the Church and depends only upon a personal interpretation of Scripture. The Catholic Church is in perfect accord with our constant practice and belief in regarding Christian marriage as enduring as long as life remains.<P>Having said this about the Christian sacrament of marriage, which is a covenant, let us examine the natural bond of marriage. As to bonds that are purely natural, in which one or both partners are not Christian, the bond is not a reflection of the covenant in the same manner as Christian marriage and so there is the possibility of a dissolution of the natural bond. St. Paul himself provides one such exception, as related in his letter to the Corinthians: 7:10 To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband 7:11 (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband) -- and that the husband should not divorce his wife. 7:12 To the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. 7:13 If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy. 7:15 But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace.<P>This is referred to as the Pauline Privilege and may still be applied today to such a situation as is appropriate. The other exception is the Petrine Privilege, in which an unbaptized person wants to become Christian and therefore seeks to be free from a natural bond relationship with a non-believer (pardon me, any canonists, if my description is inadequate or inaccurate on this last point). In both cases, the Church carefully examines the situation and the decision can only be made by the authority of the Church. So we see, even in natural bond relationships, the Church exercises care in observing the nature of the bond but also recognizes that from the apostolic times, these natural bonds did not constitute the equivalent bond that exists in the Christian bond of marriage.<P>Thanks, Lexie<P>Father Echert<BR>---------------------------------------------<P> <P>Jim

What I find a bit confusing is this verse:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><BR>19:11 But he said to them, "Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given."<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Would anyone like to take a shot at explaining it? <P>

TS:<P>The disciples were asking Jesus "wouldn't it be better to be celibate than marry". His reply basically indicates that celibacy is a "gift" from God and this gift is not bestowed upon all men.<P>

Oh.<P>In the context presented, it sounded to me like he was saying that not everyone could accept what he said about divorce, and that if you couldn't accept it, then it was indeed best not to marry as the disciples said.<P><BR>

Just reading through these posts..and was wondering how many here look at all the commandments as sins..and not just adultry..<BR>and how many are just as adament about standing up and talking against them..<BR>the lying, taking God's name in vain..remebering the sabbath and keeping it holy..honoring your mother and father, bearing false witness against thy neighbor..<BR>not having anything before God..not coveting things you neighbor has...<P>how many of us can HONESTLY say we have never committed one of these sins??? And have so adamently preached against them as we do against adultry?? <P>I realize this is about divorce and adultry..<BR>and all..but..when one says that divorce is a sin..so are the rest of these things..I was just wondering if all who are so adament about the one is also as adament about the rest of these...

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ThornedRose:<BR><B>Just reading through these posts..and was wondering how many here look at all the commandments as sins..and not just adultry..<BR>and how many are just as adament about standing up and talking against them..<BR>the lying, taking God's name in vain..remebering the sabbath and keeping it holy..honoring your mother and father, bearing false witness against thy neighbor..<BR>not having anything before God..not coveting things you neighbor has...<P>how many of us can HONESTLY say we have never committed one of these sins??? And have so adamently preached against them as we do against adultry?? <P>I realize this is about divorce and adultry..<BR>and all..but..when one says that divorce is a sin..so are the rest of these things..I was just wondering if all who are so adament about the one is also as adament about the rest of these...</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I am. I am a work-in-progress everyday. This past year has not just made me grow to despise divorce and infidelity, it has truly brought me closer to God, to His ways and to His teachings. I now even find it difficult to watch TV anymore (one of my favorite things) because it feels like my eyes have really been opened to what is really going on in our country. I find myself thinking more and more about the Roman Empire and its eventual outcome.<P>But at the same time I am so cautious to not judge others - to not belittle or put someone down for their mistakes and misgivings.<P>AND I am just as careful to try not to judge others who may be following an even higher path than me. If someone professes to follow God and states what he/she believes about God, I would never argue or attack them. I think when I do, it is only out of the guilt I may have deep down about my own misgivings. I try to take them at their word. If they fail, when they fail, I try to remember the times (the many times) that I fail...<P>God doesn't want us to be "part-time Christians" but He also knows that we are human, we do often fail in His eyes. I think it is that as long as we keep trying, faithfully trying, He is pleased with us. And yes, that means following ALL his commandments, not just the ones that we "like".<P>Mike<BR><P>------------------<BR>God always waits for the right time to do the right thing in the right way.

Another reason adultry or fornication (immorality) can seem to be "worse" that other sins, and thus "preached" agains more, is found in Paul's writing to the Corinthians:<P><B>I Cor 6:18 Shun immorality. Every other sin which a man commits is outside the body; but the immoral man sins against his own body. </B><P>While all sin is sin, some sins have more far-reaching consequences than others, generally speaking. It appears from this scripture that that is what Paul is referring to.<P>Just my thots....<P>Aloha,<BR>Mrs.O<BR><p>[This message has been edited by Mrs.O (edited February 28, 2001).]