Dr. Brown discusses religious freedom with the Benham brothers, and takes your calls today on all relevant subjects and answers your e-questions, including: Is the concept of the soul found in the Hebrew Scriptures, or is a later, Greek concept? Is it right for a woman to divorce her husband because he comes out as gay, even if he hasn’t committed sexual sin? and discusses religious freedom with the Benham brothers. Listen live here 2-4 pm EST, and call into the show at (866) 348 7884 with your questions and comments.
Hour 1:
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: You can’t relate to God by philosophy from a distance as just a theological entity. You’ve got to come to know Him for yourself.
Hour 2:
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: The reason for so much moral confusion in the society around us is because the Church has failed to be the salt and the light.
SPECIAL OFFER! THIS WEEK ONLY!
This week, Dr. Brown is offering an incredible resource package containing Jonathan Cahn’s The Mystery of the Shemitah book, DVD, and CD interview with Dr. Brown on the Line of Fire radio program. These 3 mega-popular resources will only be packaged together for a limited time for the discounted price of $30, postage paid (US Only)! Order Online Here!
Other Resources:
No matter the situation, it is never right for a woman to divorce her husband. It is never right for a husband to divorce his wife either. The only qualifications to the above statements are that the marriage is lawful according to scripture. Being married to a divorced woman is not a lawful marriage. Divorcing ones wife and marrying another is not a lawful marriage. Subsequent marriages with first spouses still living are almost always considered to be adulterous relationships and not marriage, scripturally speaking.
1Co 7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
Lu 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
Mt 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Shalom
Important words from the above post are “almost always” as was pointed out that there are “qualifications” given by Yeshua and the apostles as to when it is permissible to divorce and also remarry. Such as fornication with someone other than your spouse, and if the marriage contract is a violation of a former contract such as the case in Ezra’s day.
Ezra 10:3-4 (Malachi 2:13)
3 We should make a covenant with our God to send away all these wives, along with their children, in obedience to the advice of Adonai and of those who tremble at the mitzvah of our God; let us act in accordance with the Torah.
4 Stand up, and do your duty, for we are with you; take courage, and do it!”
Matthew 19:8-9
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Have a great weekend everyone.
Grace and peace,
Of course the word fornication in the above passage does not refer to adultery after consummation of the marriage. That would be called adultery, but Messiah uses a word that would indicate that the divorce must come before the consummation of the marriage…during the betrothal period like Joseph was going to do when he discovered that Mary was pregnant not by him before they had come together.
Shalom
For readers new to this topic, a good read is found over on this other topic where Bo, myself and others discuss Fornication and Adultery:
http://www.lineoffireradio.com/2014/01/07/an-interview-with-a-pastor-who-affirms-same-sex-marriage-thoughts-on-gay-christianity-and-four-hyper-grace-fallacies/#comment-642563
For those that want to start at the beginning of the conversation, instead of very late in the discussion, you should start Here:
http://www.lineoffireradio.com/2014/01/07/an-interview-with-a-pastor-who-affirms-same-sex-marriage-thoughts-on-gay-christianity-and-four-hyper-grace-fallacies/#comment-629725
It says:
Did Messiah disagree with Moses?
Luke 16
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
Matthew 5
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
What does Moses say?
A woman can be betrothed, and not be taken.
Deuteronomy 20
7 And what man is there that hath betrothed a wife, and hath not taken her? let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man take her.
A woman can be taken, and not gone in unto.
Genesis 20
3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man’s wife.
4 But Abimelech had not come near her: and he said, Lord, wilt thou slay also a righteous nation?
Going/coming in unto and lying with are the same thing.
Genesis 19
31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:
32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
Going in unto/lying with is not the same as being married.
Deuteronomy 21
13 and turned aside the raiment of her captivity from off her, and hath dwelt in thy house, and bewailed her father and her mother a month of days, and afterwards thou dost go in unto her and hast married her, and she hath been to thee for a wife:
Deuteronomy 22
22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
The woman above was married to one man but was found lying with another. She was not considered married to the one she was found lying with.
What does theMoses teach about divorce?
The background:
Deuteronomy 22
13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
16 And the damsel’s father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
If the husband goes in unto his virgin bride and then wants out some time later, he may not put her away. (Vs. 19) If the husband goes in unto a woman that has been a harlot in her father’s house, he can have her stoned to death. (Vs. 21) It does not say that he may divorce her. The man would have to be quite hardhearted to use the woman for his pleasure and then have her killed. I would also be hardhearted to hold the possibility over her head to get his way.
Deuteronomy 22
22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.
28 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;
29 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.
If the woman was found with another man while she was married or betrothed, she was to be stoned to death along with the man she was found with, except in the case of rape. (Deut.22:22-27) If she was found with a man before she was betrothed, she was to be married to him and, once again, there is no divorce allowed. (Deut. 22:28-29)
To be continued.
Continued from above.
When can a Husband divorce his wife?
Deuteronomy 24
1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.
The man may give the woman a bill of divorcement if he finds “uncleanness” in her when he marries her. The word for “uncleanness” is the word used in Leviticus 18 and 20 for incest. If the man cannot bring himself to accept her (she find no grace/mercy/favor in his sight…he is hard hearted toward her) once her condition is known, he may dissolve the marriage…before it is consummated.
If the man finds that his bride has been defiled, he may divorce her even if the marriage “ceremony” has taken place, as long as it is before he goes in unto her. The only option he has after he goes in unto her is to have her stoned to death if he wants out. And that would be very hard heated.
Summing up the instructions in Torah:
From the above we find that in all cases but one the defiled woman must die if the husband is to be free of marriage relationship. So, the only case that is different is the one where the marriage is not consummated. It is only if the man and woman never became one flesh. There is no divorce allowed in any instance when there is a marriage and the man has gone in unto his wife…even when the going in unto came before the marriage covenant. YHWH ratifies the one flesh relationship and joins the two together once there is covenant and consummation.
Did Y’shua say anything different?
Matthew 19
3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
Y’shua says that it is not lawful to divorce a wife “except it be for fornication.” “Fornication” is used in the specific sense here. He could have said “except if be for adultery” but chose to use the word that means unchastity outside of wedlock. (Adultery, which is unchastity within wedlock, is grounds for stoning not divorce.) The woman, once she is betrothed, is in a state of wedlock. So Y’shua is stating emphatically that the term “uncleanness” in Deuteronomy 24 is limited only to defilement before wedlock. He is also restating that once the couple has been joined by YHWH, via covenant and consummation, there is no option for divorce. Man may not put this one flesh relationship asunder. “They are no more twain.”
Y’shua carries this to its logical conclusion by saying that the only way to gain the kingdom of heaven, if a man has divorced his wife, after they were one flesh, and subsequently is married to another or his first wife has married another, is to remain celibate; because to continue to go in unto the subsequent spouse would cause him to be in a continual state of adultery. And we know that no adulterer can inherit the kingdom of heaven. (1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21) This is why it is adultery for the woman to remarry…except the divorce be for fornication or her first husband dies. (Rom. 7:2, 1 Cor. 7:39)
There is no difference between the full teaching of Torah and Y’shua’s summary. Messiah answered the temptation of the Pharisees with precision and accuracy. His stance is more stringent than the oral law, but exactly what Torah stipulates.
The second man:
Deuteronomy 24
3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
In light of all the discussion above, we are reading into the text to assume that the second husband in Deuteronomy 24 can give a legitimate divorce certificate if he has become one flesh with the woman…and there is no indication, either that he has or hasn’t. (It only says that he “took her.”) We only know that YHWH considers it an abomination for the legitimately divorced wife, once she has entered wedlock with another man, to return to the man that divorced her in the first place.
There are some more nuances to this discussion that could still be hashed out, I’m sure. But for sake of brevity and cohesiveness, this should answer most of the bigger and more necessary questions.
In conclusion:
Matthew 5
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Messiah did not change anything or contradict anything that Moses commanded. He taught the Law perfectly and completely. He had to or He would not be the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven…He also would have been guilty of being a false prophet. (Deut. 13:1-5) If He broke the law, He is a sinner and cannot be our savior.
He summarized the Law of YHWH concisely and fully clarified/confirmed that the uncleanness spoken of in Deut. 24 was fornication, not adultery, and that this is the only valid reason and timing for a divorce.
Messiah covered all the bases. Marriage is only between male and female because YHWH made them and it that way. The man shall leave his parents and cleave to his wife…not to another man. YHWH ratifies the covenant and consummation by making the man and woman one flesh. They are no longer twain. They may not divorce after this. It is adultery, if they divorce, for the man or woman to remarry unless the divorce is before consummation. The hardheartedness of man is the reason that a divorce is allowed for the woman’s sake. Those that are married after being unlawfully divorced are to live as eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.
Shalom
Should have been:
“It would also be hardhearted to hold the possibility over her head to get his way.”-post 5
“The only option he has after he goes in unto her is to have her stoned to death if he wants out. And that would be very hardhearted.”-post 6
For a further explanation please start at the following link and read the next one in line too:
http://www.lineoffireradio.com/2014/01/07/an-interview-with-a-pastor-who-affirms-same-sex-marriage-thoughts-on-gay-christianity-and-four-hyper-grace-fallacies/#comment-645072
Shalom
Marriage is “the lifelong union of one man and one woman … coming together, with the biological norm of reproduction,” but, more so, it is the lifelong union of one man and one woman coming together FOR THE PURPOSE of reproduction. The PURPOSE of marriage is reproduction; that is, the raising and education of children. The marital act, that consolation through which the spouses unite, serves that purpose. It is directed to that purpose, ultimately to that purpose alone. Everything else: love, companionship, etc, is secondary.
We must be very clear about this. This is key.
It’s been said that marriage isn’t for the purpose of making a man happy but rather for the purpose of making him holy. It was seen by one who wrote a book about it, as it being about making one perfect spiritually, being about two becoming one in the love of God. Without the love of God being first, whatever follows might not work out very well, seems to me.
Noelle,
Why does any one thing (e.g., marriage) have to be for no more than one purpose?
Humans consumption of fruit (e.g., mango) does not have only one purpose; rather, the fruit conveys benefits to many levels of the individual: beautiful color for the eyes, nice taste for the tongue, juice for the body’s needs of being hydrated, enzymes to aide in digestion, antioxidants, fiber , sugars, vitamins, minerals.
Each of these individual things serve separate purposes, but are all found in the convenient act of picking and eating fruit.
So why does it have to be that sexuality (of course, I’m talking about the sexuality sanctioned by God: heterosexual and marital) is for but the singular purpose of procreation when it is obviously a multi-tiered reality correlating to the multi-tiered reality that is a human being?
Not that I even care about sexuality. I’ve never had a girlfriend and I would rather die than be chained to a relationship.
Dan1el,
Having a girlfriend would be against scripture anyway. Scriptural betrothal has nothing in common with dating.
Shalom
Dan1el,
YHWH didn’t consider Adam and Eve “chained to a relationship.” He called it being blessed. Messiah is not “chained to a relationship” with His bride. He is betrothed and looking forward to the marriage.
Shalom
Bo,
I meant I am not involved in that “world”.
G-d made marriage in the context of a perfect world; we live in a fallen world and it brings unnecessary trouble with it. No one will be married in heaven, and that is the best position we can be in.
As far as Christ being a “husband”, I’m sure He isn’t sexually interested in little children so this “betrothal” cannot be about sexuality.
I accidentally wrote “G-d” because I write it speaking with Jews sometimes.
Dan1el,
Just do not start thinking that you are better or more spiritual than those that are married or are drawn to marriage. One cannot be an elder or a deacon without having a wife and family…that have stood the test of many years with the the children grown and following Messiah. These are the ones that are in the trenches of ministry in this fallen world. Marriage was not invented for a perfect world or perfect humans. It was invented/planned for mankind and I am quite sure that YHWH knew that we would fall since Y’shua is the lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
Shalom
Dan1el,
The whole idea of the bride price and being redeemed and the betrothal period are not something that was an after thought. These all picture the true marriage. YHWH always wanted a redeemed people.
Shalom
Bo,
“Just do not start thinking that you are better or more spiritual than those that are married or are drawn to marriage.”
I just don’t want the trouble. I have enough trouble understanding and walking in the Truth as it is; I don’t need another distraction.
“One cannot be an elder or a deacon without having a wife and family…that have stood the test of many years with the the children grown and following Messiah.”
You can’t be serious.
Doesn’t the verse say, “IF he is married, it must be: i. with the opposite sex, and ii. only one of them;” not, “only the married can be deacons or elders.”
If you insist on your reading, then wouldn’t you be saying that Apostle Paul was teaching that he was not qualified to be an elder or a deacon? Yet this same person, who isn’t qualified to be an elder or deacon, established entire churches.
Paul also says it is better not to be married; I guess what ever his counsel is it is teaching men it is better not to be elders or deacons than to have that status too? Your reading doesn’t make sense.
“These are the ones that are in the trenches of ministry in this fallen world. Marriage was not invented for a perfect world or perfect humans. It was invented/planned for mankind and I am quite sure that YHWH knew that we would fall since Y’shua is the lamb slain from the foundation of the world”
Just because He knows people are going to do something does not mean it is the best thing they can do.
Paul says it is better not to be married, and the only reason to get married is if you cannot control yourself. I rest my case.
I won’t be investing any more time in this discussion.
Thanks
Bo,
correction: “Doesn’t the verse say, ‘IF he is married…”
Rather, shouldn’t that be how it is read?
Daniel,
Marriage serves more than one purpose. It is also for holiness, as Ray pointed out, to make the spouses holy, to sanctify them and to help them remain in the fellowship of God, but the purpose of the marital act, and marriage itself, by definition, is the singular end of procreation, the raising and education of children. What is marriage? It is a covenant between a man and a woman for the purpose of bringing into the world offspring to the glory of God. Of course, it conveys other benefits to the spouses, as well. But marriage is by definition the agreement to make children and to care for them. If this were not so, then marriage could, potentially, be redefined as any union between two persons.
Noelle,
I’ll go ahead and disagree.
Bo posted a sample of what we chatted about, and the links listed above also include the responses and look closer at Jesus’ use of the Greek word ‘pornea’, or fornication.
Dan1el,
No if clauses in the qualifications. He has to have a household and rule it well to be in charge of the household of YHWH. It is fine for Paul to be an apostle, a church planter and even write scripture and not have been married. It is not fine for a deacon or bishop to be single.
Shalom
Dan1el,
1 Corinthians 7
25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.
26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.
27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;
30 And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not;
31 And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.
32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.
34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
35 And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.
Please note that it is for the “present distress”…a special, extreme situation that Paul offers his own opinion, and not a commandment from YHWH. He thinks that it is better to be unmarried in order to serve YHWH more fully. I guess if everyone followed this advice, we would not have anyone around to follow it in the very near future. It is obviously only for those that are called to it. And this calling is for a very, very small percentage of the population. It is for those that have a “short” time left and that are intent on serving YHWH in some sort of extreme way…not just living the modern American life.
All that said, do not seek a wife. Let YHWH mature you and bring you one…if that is what He wants. If you are called to devote 100% of your time in extreme ministry without distraction, go for it.
Shalom
Two people come together in marriage to… have sex? Okay, but to what end? To have children, right? This is why contraception is against God. Sex has to be for children. That is the purpose of sex. The pleasure is secondary. Therefore, marriage itself is for the purpose of having children. The love is secondary.
Thus, two males burning with desire for each other’s rectums cannot be marriage.
Noelle,
Suffice to say I do not pattern my life in accordance with the RCC.
Noelle,
We agree that only heterosexual marital sexual relations are acceptable in God’s sight, but as far as the rest of your treatment of the subject, it is just going to come down to RCC dogma vs. my beliefs based on Scripture and observation.
Thanks
Dan1el,
Contraception has always, until quite recently, been see by all denominations as worldly and unchristian. It is not a RCC thing. It is a scriptural thing. YHWH never took back the command for us to be fruitful. Contraception is the opposite of fruitful. It is a lustful selfish thing to think that we have the right or even privilege to pleasure ourselves and not allow YHWH’s design and command to bring forth children which are His heritage. What passage of scripture do you see that supports birth control procedures?
Psalm 127
1 Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.
2 It is vain for you to rise up early, to sit up late, to eat the bread of sorrows: for so he giveth his beloved sleep.
3 Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.
4 As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth.
5 Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate.
According to the above passage, how can birth control be in accordance with YHWH’s heart? They that build households by their own standards labor in vain. Those that go to war with as few arrows as possible are not the warriors that they think they are. Those that forgo children and apply for debt have gotten life backwards. Debt is a curse and children are a blessing. Why does modern churchianity do just the opposite?
Shalom
Dan1el,
You wrote:
“… it is just going to come down to RCC dogma vs. my beliefs based on Scripture and observation.”
This is not a fair statement unless you show the supposed scripture that your beliefs are based on. The statement is only an assertion and carries no weight in a truly scriptural discussion. As to the accusation of the other side only being RCC dogma, that is just rhetoric and insult instead of an accurate portrayal of the stance.
Shalom
Bo,
Further evidence to the meaning of fornication:
Evangelical Dictionary of Theology: Fornication – In its more restricted sense, fornication denotes voluntary sexual communion between an unmarried person and one of the opposite sex… The same use of porneia in the sense of adultery (moichatai) is found in Matthew 19:9. In its widest sense porneia denotes immorality in general, or every kind of sexual transgression.
Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, vol 2: Fornication – Some form of porniea appears forty-seven times in the NT… 1. In 1 Cor 7:2 and 1 Thess 4:3, Paul is warning of unmarried people about the temptation to fornication. In both cases he advocates marriage to prevent a single life of sexual immorality… 2.In two passages (Matt 5:32; 19:9) fornication is used in a broader sense as a synonym of adultery… 3. In some passages fornication is used in a general sense referring to all forms of unchastity.
The Complete Word Study Dictionary: Porneia – Any sexual sin; coupled with moicheia, adultry, and other sins. Used generally to refer to any sexual sin.
Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary: Fornication – The word group to which porneia belongs generally relates to any kind of illegitimate sexual intercourse – that is, sexual immorality or fornication.
Beacon Dictionary of Theology: Fornication – In the Scripture, “fornication” describes three levels of sexual activity between persons of the opposite sex. It is used to denote sexual relationships between unmarried persons of the opposite sex in its narrowest and most general usage. In a broader sense, it relates to cohabitation of a person of either sex with a married person of the opposite sex. It thus becomes equivalent to adultery. In its broadest usage, “fornication” may refer to immoral conduct in general.
Brian,
Are you married to a divorced woman or have you been married more than once?
Shalom
Ahhh…. lol…. Classic Bo.
When he is exposed he seeks to evade the truth. Thanks for your response. Once again, No need to dialogue any furher with one who has no argument.
Shalom
Brian,
I have not been exposed. I have been married to my first and only wife for almost 33 years. I was asking a question to find out if you have a dog in this fight. I already know from past dialogue where Benjamin is in this regard. I just thought that an honest person would answer an honest question. But of course you never did tell us if you voted for Obama either. Your post 31 was for what reason?
Shalom
Brian,
And for the record, I do not take issue with any of what you posted above in 31 except for: “The same use of porneia in the sense of adultery (moichatai) is found in Matthew 19:9.” and, “2.In two passages (Matt 5:32; 19:9) fornication is used in a broader sense as a synonym of adultery…”
Concerning the above 2 quotes, there is nothing in the context of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 that necessitates that fornication is used as a synonym of adultery. As in this case, the writers of the Bible use different words in the context of each other to make us aware that the two words are not synonymous. Take for example:
Ga 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
The above is a big list of just about every kind of sin. One can correctly argue that fornication includes adultery and that uncleanness includes all types of fornication. So there is no need to include adultery and fornication in the list above if it is for the purpose of giving a general list of sins to someone knowledgeable of scripture.
Paul is not being redundant. He is making sure that we do not understand him to only be speaking of sex outside of marriage or only of adultery, or that he is speaking only of uncleanness that is sexual in nature, when he lists uncleanness, for he has already included all types of sexual sin. Among other things, we can also become unclean from eating unclean animals according to scripture. So Paul lists all three words for clarity, not to give us a list that is poetic or synonymous.
Another example:
1Co 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
At first glance in English, one might get the idea that Paul is saying that A woman’s hair is her covering. But the Greek shows a much different idea. Paul uses 2 different words. The first he uses is katacalupto which means a veil or something that covers and hangs down from the head. The second word Paul uses is peribolaion. It means something that is wrapped around. Paul is not saying that the veil is the hair. He is delineating that the hair is not a veil. A katakulupto is not a peribolaion. The English does not do justice to the passage.
In the case of the Matthew passages, the English does do a certain amount of justice to the two Greek words. If Messiah was meaning that the only exception for a man being remarried and it not constitute adultery was the confirmed adultery of his wife, Matthew could have used moichatai twice in a row instead of using the word porneia for Y’shua’s words. So the words are not synonymous and are being used to teach us something specific. And for that matter, specific to the Jewish/scriptural version of betrothal and marriage. The other gospel writers do not address this aspect, for they have different audiences that would not understand the nuances. And so it is for most of us in this culture that is far from Biblical.
Mt 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Lu 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
The only time that a woman can have fornicated and it not have been considered adultery, is before she was married. If the man finds this out, he can divorce her and marry another woman without causing her to commit adultery or be in adultery himself. It is also true that the one that marries a divorced woman commits adultery…unless she is freed before the marriage is consummated. The only time that this is acceptable is before the man goes in unto her and they are made one flesh by YHWH. (“What YHWH has joined together, let not man put asunder” is an absolute statement.) In other words, it is only during the betrothal period that this divorce procedure can happen. If they are not betrothed yet, there is no need for a divorce certificate.
Keep in mind that according to the scripture that Messiah accepted fully, if the couple have become one flesh, the only option is for the husband to have her killed as being a whore in her father’s house. This is for her not being a virgin when they got married, not that she committed adultery after they were married.
Deuteronomy 22
13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid…
20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
But for the hardness of men’s hearts, we have another precept that can be followed for the sake of the woman.
Deuteronomy 24
1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.
This is the exact passage that is being discussed in Matthew 19. The woman can be remarried in this case and it is not adultery. The only way this can be the case, is if her first husband did not lie with her. This is exactly what Messiah is saying. If the divorce happens for any other reason, it is adultery for her to be another man’s wife. So for it not to be adultery in the case of the woman and her new husband and for it not to be the case that her first husband is not causing her to commit adultery and for it to be the case that the first man is not committing adultery if he marries someone else, the divorce must happen before the first marriage is complete.
Messiah says that it is adultery on everyone’s part if the divorce is for any reason other than “fornication.” Moses indicates that it is not adultery if the divorce is done because of “uncleanness” before consummation. After consummation, fornication is adultery. Matthew is obviously using the word “fornication” in place of the word “uncleanness” and is thus telling what Messiah and thus YHWH thought that Moses and thus YHWH meant by the word in question. If “fornication” is synonymous with “adultery” in the passages in Matthew, then Messiah is teaching against the law of YHWH, for YHWH said through Moses that the woman is not committing adultery if she remarries and Messiah is saying that she is not free to be remarried. Such a contradiction would disqualify Y’shua form being Messiah.
A scriptural divorce must happen only if the woman has been defiled…and only if it is for the cause of fornication before consummation, and not adultery, for adultery is dealt with much differently.
If adultery is attested by 2 or more witnesses, both the man and woman are to be put to death. This frees the spouses to remarry. There is no need for a divorce certificate…and thus no statute in scripture that allows for such. If adultery is only suspected (less than 2 eye witnesses) and the man wants to do something about it, there is a procedure involving bitter water and curses and divine judgement that shows whether she has been faithful or not. And there is no mention of a divorce certificate being appropriate in this situation either. (Nu. 5:11-31)
Shalom
Brian,
The crux of the matter in short…
Deuteronomy 24
1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.
Mt 19:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Mt 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Lu 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
Messiah says that it is adultery on everyone’s part if the divorce is for any reason other than “fornication.” Moses indicates that it is not adultery if the divorce is done because of “uncleanness” before consummation. Fornication on the part of a married woman is adultery.
Matthew is obviously using the word “fornication” in place of the word “uncleanness” and is thus telling what Messiah and thus YHWH thought that Moses and thus YHWH meant by the word in question. If “fornication” is synonymous with “adultery” in the passages in Matthew, then Messiah is teaching against the law of YHWH, for YHWH said through Moses that the woman is free to remarry and thus not committing adultery if she remarries and Messiah is saying that she is not free to be remarried and thus committing adultery if she has a second husband. Such a contradiction would disqualify Y’shua form being Messiah.
Shalom
Brian,
And so it would seem that I have not been evasive at all. It would also seem that you have, on many occasions, failed to answer simple questions. Questions that would tell us reasons why you hold your views. My question was not for evasiveness, but to have a better idea how to answer you. So it seems that you are the evasive one.
Shalom
I would like to quote a response given to Bo in regard to what he has been claiming about the use of fornication by our Lord from the discussion previously linked to:
“A study of the word fornication quickly reveals that it has a meaning far different from what you understand it to mean Bo.
πορνεία porneia is the word used by Jesus.
“But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication[porneia], causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”
Does it mean sex before consummation?
Not according to the Bible.
1 Corinthians 5:1
“It is reported commonly that there is fornication[porneia] among you, and such fornication[porneia] as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.”
I’m sure his father consummated the marriage. And as we both know, this fornication[porneia] with a consummated married woman, is adultery as she is engaging in unlawful sex outside of her marriage. So the definition of fornication you are using is inaccurate.”
In addition to the above quoted portion I would just ask: Is the father’s wife and son only guilty of “fornication” or are they guilty of “adultery”?
Just something for everyone to consider.
Benjamin,
Many scholars believe that the “fornication” was with his father’s widow and therefore not adultery but only fornication. Depending upon how one takes the laws of incest in Leviticus, some may think that it is wrong to uncover a father’s nakedness even after his death. It is looked upon as breaking the 4th commandment by others. Some others might think that once the father is dead, she may be married to her step son. This is possible, but does not have scriptural or cultural precedent.
It would be called adultery if the father was still living. It would be fornication if the father was dead and the son had not married her. Depending upon ones view of Leviticus, it would still be fornication/uncleanness/incest if the Father had died and the son had married her.
It is not as cut and dried as you suppose and I have faithfully dealt with Messiah’s exact statements in regard to being asked about Moses statements. Context is on my side. The fact that Messiah would be teaching against Moses if
fornication is equal to adultery is on my side.
My definition is not inaccurate. As Brian showed, there are many uses of the term “fornication.” I have used the context of the specific situation to render the definition.
You wrote:
“Does it mean sex before consummation?
Not according to the Bible.”
Then you proceed to only bring up one instance that is questionable. What is it called when two singles lie together? Fornication. What is it called when a married woman lies with someone not her husband? Adultery. Is adultery a type of fornication? Yes. Are the terms synonymous? No! Are the words adultery and fornication used side by side in scripture to mean something different? Yes.
From Adam Clarke’s Commentary:
“That one should have his father’s wife. Commentators and critics have found great difficulties in this statement. One part of the case is sufficiently clear, that a man who professed Christianity had illegal connections with his father’s wife; but the principal question is, was his father alive or dead?… After all that has been said on this subject, I think it most natural to conclude that the person in question had married the wife of his deceased father, not his own mother, but stepmother, then a widow.”
From Commentaries by Charles Hodge:
“The word fornication (πορνεια) is used in a comprehensive sense, including all violations of the seventh commandment. Here a particular case is distinguished as peculiarly atrocious. The offence was that a man had married his step-mother. His father’s wife is a Scriptural periphrase for step-mother, #Le 18:8. That it was a case of marriage is to be inferred from the uniform use of the phrase to have a woman in the New Testament, which always means, to marry. #Mt 14:4 22:28 1Co 7:2,29. Besides, although the connection continued, the offence is spoken of as past, vs. 2. 3. Such a marriage Paul says was unheard of among the Gentiles, that is, it was regarded by them with abhorrence. Cicero, pro Cluent. 5, 6. speaks of such a connection as an incredible crime, and as, with one exception, unheard of…We have here therefore a clear recognition of the perpetual obligation of the Levitical law concerning marriage. The Scriptures are a perfect rule of duty; and, therefore, if they do not prohibit marriage between near relatives, such marriages are not sins in the sight of God. To deny, therefore, the permanency of the law recorded in #Le 18, is not only to go contrary to the authority of the apostle, but also to teach that there is for Christians no such crime as incest.
From Matthew Poole’s Commentary:
“Ver. 1. The apostle here giveth a reason of the question which he propounded in the former chapter, whether they would be willing that, when he came to them, he should come unto them with a rod? Because such horrid wickedness was committed amongst them, as he, being an apostle to whom Christ had intrusted the government of his church, could not pass over without correction: he instanceth here in one, which he calleth fornication; by which word is often in Scripture to be understood all species of uncleanness, though, in strict speaking, we by fornication understand the uncleanness of a single person, as by adultery we understand the uncleanness of a person married, and by incest the uncleanness of a person with some near relation, as a mother, a sister: in strict speaking, the sin here reflected on was incest; but the Scripture by this word comprehends all species of unlawful mixtures.”
From John Trapp’s Commentary:
“That one should have his father’s wife] Ethelbald, king of West Saxons, with great infamy marrying his father’s widow Judith, enjoyed his kingdom but two years and a half. (Daniel’s Hist. of Eng.)”
Now if this thing was known in the Corinthian assembly, and it obviously was common knowledge, and if it was an ongoing incestuous relationship while the father was living, how could the believers, and more importantly the leadership, allow this to continue? Why was there not immediate action taken? They know adultery when they see it. But if it was a man that was living with his father’s widow without marrying her or if it was a possible illegitimate marriage according to Leviticus, then there is room to understand the lack of action without a judgement from an apostle. And if it was adultery, why does Paul not call it such? He uses the word over and over. He knows the definition.
Shalom
Benjamin,
Please answer this problem:
I wrote:
“Messiah says that it is adultery on everyone’s part if the divorce is for any reason other than “fornication.” Moses indicates that it is not adultery if the divorce is done because of “uncleanness” before consummation. [We all know that] fornication on the part of a married woman is adultery.
Matthew is obviously using the word “fornication” in place of the word “uncleanness” and is thus telling what Messiah and thus YHWH thought that Moses and thus YHWH meant by the word in question. If “fornication” is synonymous with “adultery” in the passages in Matthew, then Messiah is teaching against the law of YHWH, for YHWH said through Moses that the woman is free to remarry and thus not committing adultery if she remarries and Messiah is saying that she is not free to be remarried and thus committing adultery if she has a second husband. Such a contradiction would disqualify Y’shua form being Messiah.”
Shalom
Benjamin,
From Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible:
“…and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife; not but that such unnatural copulations were practised, as among the Indians, Moors, Bactrians, Ethiopians, Medes, and Persians, as reported by sundry writers (y); and among the Arabians, before prohibited by Mahomet (z); but then such marriages and mixtures were not allowed of among the more civil and cultivated nations, as the Grecians and Romans, and never mentioned but with detestation and abhorrence: and if this man was a Jew, it was an aggravation of his sin, that he should be guilty of a crime decried by the Gentiles, as well as it was a violation of a known law of God given to the Jews, Leviticus 18:7 and, according to the Jewish writers (a), such a man was doubly guilty: their canon is,
“ba tva le abh he that lies with his father’s wife is guilty, on account of her being his father’s wife, and on account of her being another man’s wife, whether in his father’s life time, or after his death, and whether espoused or married;”
and such an one was to be stoned. Of this kind was this man’s crime; he had his father’s wife, not his own mother, but his stepmother; for there is a distinction between a mother and a father’s wife, as in the above canon.
“These are to be stoned, he that lies with his mother, or with his father’s wife.”
Whether this man had married his father’s wife, or kept her as his concubine, continuing in an incestuous cohabitation with her, is not certain, and whether his father was dead or living…”
Gill does think that the father was still living in this case, but that does not mean that it is for sure the case and does not lessen the fact that marrying or lying with ones fathers wife was taught to be a grave sin even if the father was dead.
Shalom
The text would seem to indicate within itself that the father was still living since if he was dead, the woman would no longer be his ‘wife’.
Romans 7:2-3
2 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.
3 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.
1 Corinthians 7:39
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; only in the Lord.
This is the strawman you continuously use even after it has been shown otherwise:
“If “fornication” is synonymous with “adultery” in the passages in Matthew, then Messiah is teaching against the law of YHWH”
No one has equated fornication and adultery to mean the same thing. I havent seen it said that they are synonymous. One is an act, and one is a result.
Contraception was not permitted by any denomination (unless you include the Albigensians and Cathars) until the 20th Century, when humanistic infiltration of the churches lead to the seeds of apostasy, especially in the US. Sex is for children. The pleasure is a benefit for the spouses, but the primary purpose is to bring offspring into the world. Duh.
Benjamin,
From post 31:
“The same use of porneia in the sense of adultery (moichatai) is found in Matthew 19:9.” and, “2.In two passages (Matt 5:32; 19:9) fornication is used in a broader sense as a synonym of adultery…”
No straw man intended or exhibited. Brian posted a bunch of “Scholarly” definitions of fornication. I took issue with 2 of the “Scholarly” definitions that said that fornication is a synonym of adultery in Matthew 5 and 19. And no matter the semantics, you are basically saying the same thing. You are saying that when a wife that is in a consummated marriage fornicates, it results in adultery and that this fornication that results in adultery is grounds for divorce. Messiah says that fornication, not adultery, is the only grounds for divorce and that any other kind of divorce with either spouse remarrying is adultery. Messiah did not say that adultery is grounds for divorce.
You have not dealt with the fact that your treatment of fornication is too monolithic. The word is used in different contexts to mean different things. Using 1 Corinthians 5 as a proof text does nothing to show what the meaning is in Matthew 19. I have shown via many commentaries that it is quite debatable whether or not the the situation in Corinth was adultery or prohibited incestuous marriage after the death of the father.
Here is another of the dozens and dozens:
From John Dummelow’s Commentary on the Bible:
“1. It is reported commonly] RV ‘It is actually reported.’ His father’s wife] The father may have been dead or separated from his wife: the stepson had then married her. The Corinthian Church was evidently unconscious that there was anything sinful in such a union. Had the man and woman been living in sin without marriage the Church could scarcely have made even a show of defending their conduct…”
Just because you use the term “father’s wife” to mean that he is still alive, does not mean that it is not just another way of saying stepmother. And one’s stepmother is still one’s stepmother after her husband dies. And even if the Father is still living, it would seem that he had divorced her and that the son had married her according to the normal usage of “have his” concerning male female relationships in the NT.
From Commentaries by Charles Hodge:
“The word fornication (πορνεια) is used in a comprehensive sense, including all violations of the seventh commandment. Here a particular case is distinguished as peculiarly atrocious. The offence was that a man had married his step-mother. His father’s wife is a Scriptural periphrase for step-mother, #Le 18:8. That it was a case of marriage is to be inferred from the uniform use of the phrase to have a woman in the New Testament, which always means, to marry. #Mt 14:4 22:28 1Co 7:2,29. Besides, although the connection continued, the offence is spoken of as past, vs. 2.”
And even if the above situation was both incest and adultery, that Paul uses the term fornication is not incorrect, nor does it show that Matthew was using it to include adultery. Porneia had the original meaning of prostitution. Matthew may have been using it similar to this since De. 24’s companion passage in De. 22 specifically states that the defiled wife was a whore in her father’s house before the marriage.
So lets do this again…
Mt 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Messiah is asked to interpret Deuteronomy 24. He says that only in the case of “fornication,” not adultery, is there the true use of a divorce certificate and that the parties are not free to remarry if the divorce is for any other reason.
I think that you agree that fornication on the part of the wife, after the marriage is consummated, is called adultery. Let me know if this is not what you believe.
The passage that Messiah is explaining is:
Deuteronomy 24
1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.
YHWH’s instructions say that the woman may be remarried if she is divorced for some “uncleanness” that is found in her. You have agreed with me before that the word used in Hebrew seems to be indicating incest, or at least that is a possible interpretation. It is used more generally to not only mean incest, but any shameful sexual act. As far as the timing of this divorce, we know that it is before the man goes in unto her.
To be continued below:
Continued from above:
Lu 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
In Luke which is written to a Greek named Theophilus (maybe not a person but to every gentile that loves Elohim), Messiah says categorically that it is adultery for a divorced woman to be remarried. He does not speak of any exception clauses. Why? The gentiles did not have the same marriage customs as Israel. The exception clause only applies in a specific situation.
Paul in writing to the Corinthians:
1Co 7:11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
Paul evidently does not think that a wife can remarry if she departs. It would seem that for a wife to depart, she would have to have been living with a husband. But what if, as Israel practiced, she was considered his wife, but had never lived with him? Enter the exception clause…
Moses says that it is fine for a divorced woman to be remarried in a specific instance. Messiah in Matthew is discussing that very instance to which Moses refers. He says that only a specific kind of uncleanness (“fornication,” not adultery or burning the toast or picking her nose in public) can be grounds for a true release. Do the statements square with each other? Yes, but only if the divorce comes before the marriage bed. For fornication after the marriage bed is adultery.
It is not adultery if the defilement of the woman happened before she was a man’s wife. This would be called fornication and could not be called adultery. And since all fornication after consummation is adultery, it would seem obvious that Matthew is being quite specific in his use of the term “porneia.” Maybe to mean prostitution in her father’s house. Maybe to mean defiled by a relative when she was a child. Maybe to mean to mean any uncovering of her nakedness prior to the marriage bed. But he did not say that adultery is grounds for a divorce…and he could have simply used the word for adultery if that is what he meant, because he obviously does use it a few words later in the sentence…and not as a synonym to fornication.
Properly understood, Moses is saying that if the hardhearted man finds that his new bride, that he has not humbled, has had her nakedness uncovered previously; he can legally release her and she is free to be remarried to some softhearted man that will overlook her past defilement that probably came via a hardhearted male relative or because of a hardhearted father that did not protect her…or that might even have prostituted her.
Properly understood, Messiah is saying that the marriage can be annulled if “fornication” and not adultery is found in the bride. After the marriage bed, any fornication is adultery. Adultery is not a grounds for divorce after the two have been made one flesh. Only death can dissolve what YHWH has joined together. YHWH’s law provides for this via the death penalty on the testimony of at least 2 eyewitnesses.
If YHWH, in De. 24, was allowing the woman to be divorced and remarried after the marriage bed, he is at odds with Messiah, His Son, who says in Luke that the woman is in adultery if she remarries. If Messiah is saying that adultery is grounds for divorce He is teaching against His Father’s instructions.
One more possibility is to take Messiah as saying that a divorce by the man of a woman that has been proven to be an adulteress releases both the man and woman to remarry and that only if the divorce is for another reason are the spouses committing adultery if they remarry. But this adulterous remarriage of the wife would then be grounds for a divorce, since it is adultery and adultery is grounds for divorce, and then they would both be fine to remarry…over and over and over. All that one would need to do to be released from a marriage and then to marry another is to commit adultery. There is just something wrong with that idea. This is basically what is practiced in our nation and sadly in the church…except it is called no fault divorce.
The only reconciliation consistent with the scripture is that the divorce has to happen before the marriage bed…and this is what is indicated by the language of both Matthew and Moses. The gentile cultures of Luke’s day do not need to know about this because they did not consider themselves married before the consummation of the marriage. No divorce is needed for an engagement.
Messiah’s absolute declaration that after the couple have been made one flesh by YHWH there is no putting it asunder by man is further proof that the divorce must come before the marriage bed. The only thing that dissolves the marriage is death…which the verses you quoted above prove.
Shalom
So did Messiah mean “uncleanness” when he used the word ‘porneia’ as Bo posits. The answer remains no. He could have used that word quite easily but he did not.
All the verses that actually use porneia, he will not allow into the conversation that would shed light on the usage. Let’s look at a few that use the word for unclean and incidentally, most below also use the word fornication as well.
The word which would better have been used if meant to convey Bo’s idea would be the Greek word “ἀκαθαρσία akatharsia” which is Greek for ‘unclean/uncleanness’.
Here are some of the passages which use the word:
2 Corinthians 12:21
21 And lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and that I shall bewail many which have sinned already, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed.
Galatians 5:19
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, [note the back to back usage of both words in most of these passages]
Ephesians 4:19
19 Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.
Ephesians 5:3
3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;
Colossians 3:5
5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:
1 Thessalonians 4:7
7 For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness.
I just don’t see how one can get around the fact that the Lord’s usage of fornication means sexual immorality.
Benjamin,
You wrote:
“I just don’t see how one can get around the fact that the Lord’s usage of fornication means sexual immorality.’
Me either!
But I also do not see why you do not acknowledge that, depending on the context, there is a difference between using the word generally and specifically. The definitions that Brian posted show this. When you try to force a monolithic definition upon a dynamic word in various contexts, you create a tunnel vision that wrecks the meaning that the authors intend. Or maybe it is the tunnel vision that that is the cause instead of the result.
You are not only missing my point, but arguing my case. I agree that fornication means sexual immorality. The issue is that the Hebrew word used for uncleanness in De. 24 is a word that also denotes sexual defilement.
Messiah is asked if divorce is lawful for every cause. The Jewish leaders have redefined the word to mean anything abhorrent to the husband. Messiah basically says that the only kind of uncleanness that is meant in De. 24 is sexual defilement…fornication.
The other issue is that by using the term porneia, Matthew is saying, like Moses, that the timing of the defilement is before the marriage bed. Any sexual defilement after the consummation of the marriage is called adultery. Matthew does not say that Messiah said that adultery is grounds for divorce. He says that porneia is grounds for divorce. Since all porneia after consummation is adultery, he is differentiating and not equating.
Galatians 5:19
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Paul does the same thing when he uses fornication and adultery in the same sentence to denote the difference between defilement while single and defilement after marriage. Adultery is a specific timing of sexual defilement…after the marriage bed.
Fornication can be, and is, used to mean both sexual defilement in general and sexual defilement before the marriage bed. It was used even more narrowly by those that spoke Koine Greek to mean prostitution. There is no need for Paul to use both adultery and fornication in the above passage if fornication means all sexual immorality. It is covered under the term fornication.
You are importing your narrow concept into the passage instead of taking into consideration the topic of De. 24 that was being discussed.
Do you deny that fornication falls into the categaory of uncleanness, but does not define all of what uncleanness is? Do you deny that adultery falls into the category of fornication, but does not define all of what fornication is? Do you see that when the words are used side by side, it is for the purpose of not limiting the said uncleanness to fornication or limiting the said fornication to adultery? I have to ask…what other types of Biblical uncleanness do you think are sin?
When asked by the Pharisees when a divorce is lawful, Messiah emphatically answers that fornication is the only kind of uncleanness that is meant by YHWH in De. 24. When one realizes that the timing of the divorce has to be before the consummation of the marriage, the only realistic deduction is that Matthew is using porneia in a limited sense.
This becomes especially obvious when we see that Mark and Luke do not include the exception clause in their version of the statement. Since the Jews mandated a divorce certificate from the time of betrothal and since Matthew was written to the Jews in Hebrew according to the early church writings, we can see that His inclusion of the exception clause only applies to this concept.
Mark and Luke do not include the exception clause because it does not apply to those that only think of marriage as after consummation. They say emphatically that any divorce is not acceptable…no exception for fornication or adultery or uncleanness.
Mr 10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
Lu 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
It is also quite obvious in even a cursory reading of the synoptic gospels, that Mark used Matthew as a source and that Luke used them both. Why did not Mark and Luke include the exception clause? They were quite aware of it. The audiences that would not understand the concept were most likely the reason. You are not understanding for the very same reason. Your culture has virtually no concept of a divorce before the marriage bed…and that is what Moses was addressing and what Messiah was restoring.
Shalom
Benjamin,
Me thinks that it is you that is setting up straw men.
You wrote:
“So did Messiah mean “uncleanness” when he used the word ‘porneia’ as Bo posits.”
Bo posits no such thing. Bo says that Messiah is saying that YHWH’s use of “uncleanness/nakedness” in De. 24 is limited to fornication and not what the pharisees taught…that divorce was appropriate for any cause that abhorred the husband. Bo says that porneia is used as a translation of what Matthew wrote in Hebrew to the Hebrews regarding specific practices not recognized by gentiles concerning betrothal and marriage. Luke and Mark do not include such statements in their gospels to the gentiles.
Shalom
Benjamin,
You wrote:
“All the verses that actually use porneia, he will not allow into the conversation that would shed light on the usage.”
Galatians 5:19
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Nothing could be further from the truth. I was the first one to quote one of them in this conversation and it shows that fornication (porneia) is used side by side with adultery and thus the meanings are different. So Messiah can’t be saying that adultery is grounds for divorce. He only says that porneia is grounds for divorce. All sexual defilement after the marriage bed is adultery, so Matthew is using porneia in a specific sense to exclude proven adultery.
Shalom