|
series"MARRIAGE": An article “Fornication” in a Search magazine got my attention. The writer defined “fornication” as “an illicit sexual activity which includes,” he says, “identified deviant sexual behaviors, such as 'adultery', 'homosexuality', and 'beastiality.'” He correctly concludes that these behaviors are “'illicit', i.e., 'prohibited by law'--God's Law, not man's.” It is refreshing to see correct information. When I was young, I was confused on what fornication meant. Someone taught that fornication was sexual activity between single people while adultery was limited to married people. Of course, that was based on ignorance (and a lie). INTRODUCTION. His definition on “fornication”[i] is compatible with Thayer's Greek Dictionary which proves his broad understanding of the word as used in Scriptures. What is meant by "illicit"? Merriam-Webster English Dictionary Online defines his key word “illicit” as “not allowed by law, unlawful or illegal.” But I would like to also point out what the article does not indicate, i.e., that God adds in 1 Corinthians 7 the refusal of legal sex as being (1) against God's Law on marriage, (2) causes fornication, and (3) therefore is a sin. If illicit means illegal sexual relations, and to refuse sexual relations in marriage (according to this Bible text) might not only cause “fornication” but would be illicit itself and its violation could rightly also be called “fornication.” That would have been included in Deuteronomy 24's authority for divorce. Unfortunately for the lay people, writers and preachers do not usually mention this fact. Sex subjects have been “dirty”, “hush, hush”, and “taboo” throughout history to church leaders. To suggest sexual relations are an obligation in marriage is forbidden to be discussed. It is the idiom “elephant in the (bed)room.” And yet, without sex in marriage there would be no difference in a marriage relationship than that of average roommates, house mates, or neighbors. Those that are interested in the perverted views of those supposedly men of learning in the apostate churches historically are urged to read an article prepared by me over some years ago. It is copied from my book on divinely approved marriages and I have made it available free on this website. JESUS AND MOSES ON FORNICATION. Teachers on “marriage and divorce” often restrict their studies to Jesus' teachings during the earthly ministry which are recorded in the “gospel” accounts. The relative one exclusively for the New Testament which is in 1 Corinthians 7 is minimized or ignored perhaps due to a belief that if Jesus didn't say it, it must not be relative. The unfortunate result of this restriction is that one is only reteaching the Mosaic Law. That is because Jesus' earthly teaching was restricted to a divine commentary on Moses.[ii] Jesus clearly says that He is teaching on the Law in His commentary. For example, in “the Sermon on the Mount” Matthew 5:17f, His preface to commands on “anger”, “lust”, and followed immediately by His “marriage/divorce” remarks says, “I have not come to destroy the Law but to fulfil it.” And He confirmed that He was to teach it or else He also would be least in the Kingdom. Actually, according to the Law, He would have to be put to death (Deuteronomy 13:5). On marriage and divorce, Jesus corrected both of the two main divisive Pharisee schools on the Deuteronomy 24 subject of divorce (Matthew 5; 19; Mark 10:12; Luke 16:18). Jesus did this again in the teaching in Matthew 19:4-7. They all, including Jesus, were under His delegated Law to Moses at that time. The gospel would come into force after Jesus' death on the cross (Colossians 2:14, “things contrary to us nailed to cross”; Hebrews 9:16, 17). There would be “new things” but also some selected “old things” brought forth into the New Testament (Matthew 13:52). The latter would include Deuteronomy's divorce law. MOSES IS RESTRICTIVE BUT RELATIVE TODAY. The KJV for Deuteronomy 24 uses the Hebrew “‛ervâhH6172” [iii] (which is generally translated as “uncleanness” or “nakedness”); on the other hand, Jesus' quote in the Greek is “fornication.” This is compatible with all references and quotes in the New Testament from passages dealing with the sexual deviations, etc., of Leviticus, etc. Hence, we can confidently say of Moses' moral teachings, that they are relative ([1 Corinthians 5:1--uncleanness/nakedness = fornication]; 10:1f). The priest and temple activities obviously are not. (They were then in 1st century and that's why Jesus would instruct the healed to go to the priest--Matthew 8:4). Jesus' statement on Moses and marriage is relative including His remark on a spiritual eunuch (Matthew 19:12; Paul elaborates on separation and divorce while applying the spiritual eunuch to himself, 1 Corinthians 7, when he refers to his being single). Jesus through His Spirit has His apostle, Paul to elaborate on both marriage and eunuch in His epistle in 1 Corinthians 7. So, what Paul says is very relevant to the Christian on marriage and divorce. THE IDIOM: THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM. The article on “Fornication” selects third-party aberrations but omits an obvious one but that I believe is always ignored. That one is the partner in the marriage that has promised to love and honor the marriage relationship which uniquely include sexual relations but for selfish reasons has determined to rule the roost by using the marriage bed for their personal designs or, should I say, the unuse of it. People can be friends in any relationship, but sexual relations are legally exclusive to marriage. As a complainant wrote, “Why did I get married if it wasn't to enjoy a sexual partner?” To refuse conjugal privileges is a basic divine obligation for each partner ever since the beginning when He created man and woman (Genesis 1, 2). “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” Not only are there illegal perversions and actions in marriage sex, there are illegal omissions of the marriage bed sex. Notice, the Scriptures require: 1. Be benevolent in the marriage bed (this is obviously not to be coercive but willing). 2. To refuse is a sin of defraud, one of the moral commandments (Mark 10:19). 3. To refuse violates a sexual requirement; it meets the definition of “fornication.” “Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (Hebrews 13:4, NASB). The MARRIAGE BED IS TO BE “undefiled.” This word "undefiled" translates amiantos (Greek) which means, “free from that by which the nature of a thing is deformed and debased, or its force and vigour impaired.” To refuse the marriage bed is to deform, debase, and impair its force and vigor. It therefore meets the definition of fornication. 1 Corinthians 6 and 7 just clarifies the Law for us. Purpose omission of the marital sex is “fornication”; it defiles the sanctification of the marriage bed. Crimes differ overtly and covertly. If you solicit someone to
shoot and kill some person, you may not actively pull the trigger of the gun but you covertly are guilty and will be held
responsible. “Safe driving” laws are helpful; some violations are more active
or visible than others. One quickly visualizes the arrest or ticketing for
speeding. But maybe more dangerous is the slow driver or one who fails to
respect the right of way or the signal before turning, etc. In the fifties I
was riding with a caravan of cars of youngsters (and shamefully a church group)
and the lead car driver clowned around driving 5-10 miles an hour on a narrow
strip of highway that forbade passing. Consequently, the lead car driver was
ticketed for causing a car jamb behind him along the road. One cannot claim,
“But I wasn't doing anything when they are causing the deed.” What goes on
behind doors may only be open to the couple and God. But be assured, God knows and will judge. Meanwhile, where is the brave teacher, elder, or counselor that encourages love, honor in the “marriage bed” relationship which is holy and not to be trifled with? SUMMARIZING: Stay faithful in the benevolence responsibility of the marriage bed.[iv] Failure to do so is (1) “to defraud” (one of the ten commandments, Mark 10:19; 1 Thessalonians 4:6); (2) it will defile the honorable marriage bed. Therefore, (3) it is an illicit sexual practice. It joins the list of fornication practices itself (1 Corinthians 7:1ff). APPLICATION TO DIVORCE.
The alternative to fornication is the marriage bed. So Jesus and the Spirit authorize divorce for
fornication (just as under Moses, Deuteronomy 24:1) and permission to remarry (just like a widow "in the Lord", 1 Corinthians 7:40, 28).
- GAYLON
WEST THROW OUT THE LIFELINE ed. Janie Ward/Mary West [i] Fornication;
πορνεία porneia por-ni'-ah Thayer's:
1) illicit sexual intercourse - 1a)
adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
1b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18. 1c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man
or woman; Mark 10:11-12. 2) metaphorically the
worship of idols - 2a) of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the
sacrifices offered to idols [ii]
The message of John and Jesus was “Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is near.”
Repent of what? Their sins would have been against Moses, etc. Jesus taught a return to righteousness which at that time
was taught by the Law of Moses. He said for one not to teach it would be
labelled as one “least in the Kingdom of Heaven.” So
Jesus was teaching Moses. [iii] ”Fornication” in the KJV OT is usually
translated from Hebrew zânâhH2181,
e.g., 2 Chronicles 21:11. However, the NT Greek uses “fornication” to refer to
the KJV's OT “nakedness” ‛ervâhH6172
practices (such as is in Deuteronomy 24:1 and Leviticus 18, etc. E.g.,one practice incest referred
to as fornication 1 Corinthians 5:1), etc. [iv] There are extenuating circumstances of
inability to perform, such as sickness, etc. That's no doubt why the Bible uses
the word “benevolence.” Love and deliberation for understanding is a two way street. Fornication in the context is a manipulating
refusal. KJV: “benevolence”--agreed; kindness; euphemistically conjugal
duty. (Strong's). |
