There are some who take Matthew 5:28 where Christ speaks of adultery of the heart as true physical adultery and thus grounds for divorce. I think this is a heart issue as noted in the context of the entire 5th chapter. Clearly lusting after a woman is a sin yet does it rise to the level of true physical adultery which may be grounds for New Testament divorce. I am looking for input on this issue. “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭5‬:‭28‬ ‭NIV‬‬ https://bible.com/bible/111/mat.5.28.NIV

Which denominations interpret these verses as *not* permitting divorce in the case of adultery, for those in a valid marriage? >St. Matthew 5:32
But I say to you, whosoever shall dismiss his wife, **excepting the cause of fornication (*porneia*)**, maketh her to commit adultery. And he that shall marry her that is dismissed, committeth adultery. >St. Matthew 19:9
And I say to you, that whosoever shall dismiss his wife, **but for fornication (*porneia*)**, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is dismissed, committeth adultery. For example, the Catholic Church calls these "exceptive clauses ." In other words: fornication does not make a marriage.
It also seems these exceptive clauses could refer to "diriment impediments ," which prevent there from ever being a marriage in the first place; examples of diriment impediments being incest, perpetual impotence, vow of chastity/celibacy, etc.). Note: I am not asking about the Catholic interpretation of Matt. 5:32 and 19:9, as this question here does , but which denomination(s) interpret those verses similarly to the way the Catholic Church does.

In Matthew 5:27-30 Jesus affirms very unambiguously the sinfulness of lust: > 27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that **everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart**. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell. (ESV) However, if one asks the follow-up question *"But what's wrong with having lustful thoughts?"*, a [Divine Command Theory](https://iep.utm.edu/divine-command-theory/) advocate might say *"Well, lustful thoughts are evil because God has commanded that you shouldn't have them"*. I'm not interested in that sort of answer here. That's why I'm scoping this question to Christians who do *not* adhere to Divine Command Theory. If we assume that Divine Command Theory is false (for scoping purposes), what would be alternative ways within a Christian worldview to defend the claim that lust (of the kind that Jesus is describing in Matthew 5:27-30) is universally evil? What's wrong with lust without appealing to Divine Command Theory? EDIT: Someone in the comments rightly pointed out that the word "evil" is not literally mentioned by Jesus anywhere in the passage I quoted. Instead, the literal word used is "sin". That's a fair observation. In the way I phrased the question I'm intuitively using "wrong", "evil" and "sinful" interchangeably, but for some Christians that might not be the case. Can something be sinful without being evil and vice versa? I leave the space to answerers to answer that question as they see fit, as long as they are coming from a Christian ethical viewpoint other than DCT.

I am having a discussion with my friend about what church doctrine is applied to the 6th Commandment, "Thou shall not commit adultery." I believe it falls under the doctrine of faith/salvation, he believes it falls under the doctrine of marriage. I argue that the last five commandments of "...shall nots" really falls under the umbrella of soteriology and that to single #6 out for marriage would not fit the context of these 5 commandments. Does the Catholic Church have a preference or position on this?

The Lord Jesus said, "He that is without sin may throw the first stone." Since all of the accusers went away beginning with the oldest, does that imply that the scribes and pharisees (accusers) guilty of the specific sin of Adultery / fornication? > If there be any of you who is without sin, without sin of this nature, that has not some time or other been guilty of fornication or adultery, let him cast the first stone at her. Or, does Jesus mean in that instance that only he who has no sin at all, may throw the first stone?

| Matthew 19:9 (NIV) | | -- | | I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery. | Many Christians believe it is okay to remarry if a previous marriage ended due to adultery. However, there are Pentecostal strands in my country that regard any second marriage as sinful and adulterous regardless of whether the prior marriage was dissolved due to spousal infidelity. Is there a biblical basis for this view, especially one focused on Matthew 19:9? one of the strongest arguments is that the word sexual immorality refers to fornication with the current woman, that is, there is no marriage, so it would not be a sin to marry another woman because the individual would be in fornication with the current woman, but this translation uses "divorce" not "separate", presuming a previous marriage with his atual woman.

It is generally accepted that "having a concubine" = "not socially accepted." However, 1. Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. 2. Having concubines was mentioned in the Old Testament. 3. I cannot find any New Testament verse against having concubines. Thus, the question: What is the scriptural evidence against a man having a concubine?

Is it possible for a married Catholic to be invincibly ignorant that adultery is gravely wrong? I am interested in an answer from the Catholic viewpoint.

A (Christian) acquaintance of mine offered the opinion that the two valid grounds for divorce are adultery and criminality. Matthew 5:32 says, "Everyone who divorces their spouse, except on grounds of adultery, makes them an adulteress/er." Apparently divorce is permitted for adultery. Adultery is self explanatory. "Criminality" would probably refer to a felony such as robbery, assault, or murder. (Rape would also be a form adultery.) Maybe certain "nonviolent" crimes such as embezzlement, drug use, or even "shoplifting." Are there any Christian denominations, doctrines, or faith traditions that would make a similar provision for criminality? Could there even be a "work around" whereby criminality is considered more serious than adultery, so making an adulteress/er by divorcing a spouse is less serious than the spouse's criminal behavior? (I don't know this acquaintance well enough to ask where he was coming from.)

1 Corinthians 7:4 says: > The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. If a man sleeps with another woman without his wife's knowledge or consent, that would be adultery. But what if he does so at the **behest** of his wife, with her knowledge and consent, even instigation, as Abraham did with Hagar at Sarah's suggestion? Is he then relinquishing "authority" over his own body but yielding it to his wife? I'm interested in an _overview_ of the views of various Christian denominations on this, or other forms of consensual (on the part of both/all parties) open marriages - are there any that consider them to be okay?

I read here point 33. > **If a marriage is declared null, does it mean that the marriage never > existed?** > > Not exactly. It means it did not exist in the way the Church > says that marriages exist. A declaration of nullity does not deny that > a relationship existed. It simply states that the relationship that > existed was not what the Church means by marriage. If it never existed according to what the Church means by marriage does this make their previous "relationship" full of fornicating after the church declare the annulment? Does the annulment make their previous cohabitation full of fornications?

In the Gospel according to John, we can read about the encounter of Jesus with women caught in adultery. Jesus saved the women from being put to death by stoning. Let us suppose that a similar situation happened again the next day, with the difference being that Jesus did not come to rescue. Would it be moral to stone the women? **Why**?

I was reading and trying to understand [_Amoris Laetitia_](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoris_laetitia) and came up with this question below. The documents talk about irregular couples and basically say that everyone undergoes different timing of conversion. This is a situation: A non-practicing Catholic couple "divorces" and re-marry by state. They end up having families, let's say with 3 or more kids with another husband/wife. According to the Catholic teaching, they live in adultery. Now, they start to be interested in spiritual life and undergo what we call a conversion. But they are stuck because they can't just split and leave their kids or whatever dependencies they have. I know the ideal would be to get an annulment and solve this problem. But let's say they aren't entitled to an annulment. My question is what does the church offer to such couples as a solution? Suggesting to live like a brother and sister isn't going to work unless they stop living in the same household but that might not be ideal for kids (I guess) or it can still cause a scandal. Is splitting couples really the only way to go if they want to live a sacramental life? I know this happened to St. Augustine but his situation wasn't that complicated. Do we have other examples from the past where families needed to separate in order to return back to living in the state of grace? Have Catholic theologians written on this subject and if so could someone explain it to me?

I think the title says it all. Are there rules/guidelines for Church Discipline for members of the Church that are blatantly involved in adultery? Specifically, I'm referring to well-known, unabashed involvement, not a one-time or short-term slip up. Understanding that we are all human and all able to fall into temptation, I am not referring to a situation where a person falls into sin, and then repents. I'm talking about openly unashamed sinful behavior. For example, a member becomes involved with a married man, becomes pregnant with his child, then works actively to break up the marriage, with no sign of a repentant spirit. Without focusing on what we think ought to happen, I'm looking for a defined policy or set of guidelines, similar to the Catholic guidelines , or those found in other denominations?

On June 29, 2016, 45 theologians from all over the world presented a critical study of *Amoris Lætitia* to the Dean of the College of Cardinals, Cardinal Angelo Sodano. (source )
cf. "Filial Correction of Pope Francis for the Propagation of Heresies ," issued August 11, 2017, and signed by 40 clerics and academics What theological censures did they issue against *Amoris Lætitia*?

I recently learned that [Karl Barth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Barth) , while he was married, had a decades-long romantic relationship with his personal assistant, Charlotte von Kirschbaum. She actually moved into the Barths' home in 1929, straining the family. I'd like to know how Karl Barth justified this relationship. After a few internet searches and my own recollections of Barth's theology, the following possibilities come to mind: 1. Barth did not have a sexual relationship with von Kirschbaum, and therefore did not think that he was committing adultery 2. Barth, who argued that the Bible "contains" the Word of God, did not consider the prohibition of adultery in the Ten Commandments as "the Word of God" and therefore not binding 3. Barth could not overcome his love for von Kirschbaum, and thus considered it acceptable. Which of these arguments, or others that I might be missing, did Barth use? **How did Barth justify his relationship with von Kirschbaum?**

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says that marrying a divorced woman is a sin. Certainly having sex with a married woman is adultery, but Jesus also calls it adultery to marry a divorced woman. However he says this in the context of the Sermon on the Mount. “You have heard it said X, but I say to you Y” where Y seems to really redefine terms to be much more expansive and broad. No one is really going around gouging their eyes out to prevent looking at married women lustfully. And Jesus says “if your eye offends you” which implies the sin of adultery already took place. However, it ony took place in the heart. Same with being angry with your brother. The sin of murder has taken only place in the heart. But when it comes to divorce, Jesus seems to describe real adultery. It doesn’t make much sense to me when he is quoted as saying that te man commits adultery if he marries another woman. Adultery was ONLY defined as a man sleeping with a married WOMAN, in fact Jewish men had polygamy, and in fact it was commanded to marry your deceased brother’s wife even if you already were married, an example brought to Jesus by the Sadduccees. So, according to Catholicism, how does the definition of adultery and the context of the Sermon on the Mount affect what we should do? No one is plucking their eyes out or cutting off their hands, so was it just meant to shock people? Mentioning adultery, I mean.

In Bryan Litfin's book, [*Getting to Know the Church Fathers*](https://books.google.com/books?id=9RdGDAAAQBAJ) , I was surprised to read the following about concubinage in the early church, in the context of Augustine's life before conversion: > In Roman society, the practice of concubinage was widely accepted. Even the Christian church was prepared to accommodate it as a kind of common law marriage so long as there was lifelong fidelity. ((https://books.google.com/books?id=9RdGDAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=common%20law%20marriage&f=false)) In Augustine's case, he had no intention of lifelong fidelity, so the point is rather moot. But in many places around the world, both historically and currently, government restrictions make it difficult or impossible for some men and women to be officially "married." My personal response might be to disregard the government's restrictions and consider a man and woman publicly committed to faithful monogamy as married, and not fornicating, particularly if they have a "church wedding." But in the Dominican Republic, at least, where I periodically do some ministry, the church I work with insists that those living together while not officially (legally) married are committing adultery, despite the legal barriers preventing some from marrying.1 All that to say, this isn't idle curiosity. **Did the early church "accommodate" faithful concubinage, as Litfin says? In what sense – was it in the musings of a single church father, or set down at an ecumenical council? And if so, under what circumstances would it be allowed?** ---- 1. For more on these barriers, see [this documentary](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAqGuj8AT1U) or [its trailer](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDCidZGov1M) .

The Old Testament records many instances of men having concubines or many wives. Why did having concubines not fall under the sin of adultery? 2 Samuel 5:13 - "After he left Hebron, David took more concubines and wives in Jerusalem, and more sons and daughters were born to him." Genesis 25:6 - "But while he was still living, he gave gifts to the sons of his concubines and sent them away from his son Isaac to the land of the east." (Abraham) I suppose the issue here must've been consent between all parties.

After David committed adultery with Bathsheba, David began to contact her husband, Uriah. >2 Samuel Chapter 11 Verse 6 [New Living Translation] > >6 Then David sent word to Joab: “Send me Uriah the Hittite.” So Joab sent him to David. 7 When Uriah arrived, David asked him how Joab and the army were getting along and how the war was progressing. 8 Then he told Uriah, “Go on home and relax.[b]” David even sent a gift to Uriah after he had left the palace. 9 But Uriah didn’t go home. He slept that night at the palace entrance with the king’s palace guard. > >10 When David heard that Uriah had not gone home, he summoned him and asked, “What’s the matter? Why didn’t you go home last night after being away for so long?” > >11 Uriah replied, “The Ark and the armies of Israel and Judah are living in tents,[c] and Joab and my master’s men are camping in the open fields. How could I go home to wine and dine and sleep with my wife? I swear that I would never do such a thing.” > >12 “Well, stay here today,” David told him, “and tomorrow you may return to the army.” So Uriah stayed in Jerusalem that day and the next. 13 Then David invited him to dinner and got him drunk. But even then he couldn’t get Uriah to go home to his wife. Again he slept at the palace entrance with the king’s palace guard. I might not know the best course of action to take after doing what David did, but I can't understand why David would choose to send Uriah back to his home. If Uriah did go back home, wouldn't he learn that his wife became pregnant? Why send him back now?