ONE-FLESH AND MARRIAGE-BED VERSUS FORNICATION
This page seeks to answer the following
Questions:
What is the marriage-bed?
Does fornication include only "adultery" in the Bible?
Did Jesus mean that the only exception for Biblical divorce was "adultery"?
What is Biblical marriage?
Is sex in marriage sinful?
Is sex outside of marriage sinful?
What is "defraud not" in Mark 10 and 1 Corinthians 7?
ONE FLESH AND BIBLICAL DIVORCE
- Gaylon West
There are many clerical opinions of what constitutes marriage and what is Biblical divorce. In a little town in north Florida, two Christian young male divorcees faithfully attended church services. The preacher was overheard saying that he felt sorry for one of the boys. That one had married a young girl who decided to quit the marriage and go back to her mother's home. The other one's wife had committed adultery. The first one according to the preacher could never marry but the second one could.
Sadly, that which is a devastating social hurt upon innocents such as the boy above has been compounded by misguided church leaders. This article deals with the divorce permission granted by Jesus to the innocent parties.
First, let it be established that neither marriage nor divorce is sinful.
Marriage is not a sin. The author of the Apocrypha: "The Story of Paul and Thecla" (supposedly, second century) would have it otherwise; he has Paul saying, "Blessed are they who have kept the flesh pure, for they shall become a temple of God," and "Blessed are the bodies of virgins, for they shall be well pleasing to God, and shall not lose the reward of their purity."i But the genuine Scriptures of Paul state, "Your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost"(1 Corinthians 6:19) and "Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled" (Hebrews 13:4).
If a certain divorce is authorized by God, such would not be a sin. "God hates divorce" (Malachi 2:16) is not an absolute statement. Someone has written that God hated divorce because He was a divorcee and had felt its suffering (Jeremiah 3:8). However, this passage is not talking about that.
The fact that God did divorce proves that all divorce is not sin. God is not a sinner. Malachi's context is about husbands dealing "treacherously against the wives of [their] youth" (verse 14). God hates this divorce. This divorce is sinful because it violates God's Law.
In the New Testament, Jesus authorizes divorce but the divorce mentioned in 1 Corinthians 7:10 is the kind that God hates. This divorce is departure from the marriage-bed and is sin. Nevertheless, if she can be reconciled to her husband, she can be reunited without sin (verse 11); this was God's plea to Israel for her to come back to Him (even though they were divorced, Jeremiah 3:1).
True story:
Young unmarried preacher (we will call John) fell in love with a lady of 18. The girl admitted to having sex with someone else and begged John to "help her." With a missionary spirit of compassion, John married the girl in spite of the admission of pre-marital sex. Starting with the honeymoon, the girl didn't like or want sex with John. Eventually the two were separated and the girl filed for divorce. John was overwhelmed with the guilt of an impeding divorce and quit the pulpit. After a year the girl went forward during a gospel meeting. She told the evangelist that she had considered sex as "dirty" from her childhood and that had caused her aversion to John. Meanwhile she had had sex with other men and wanted forgiveness. The evangelist got in contact with John who had been at this time inducted into the military. John was very willing to reconcile because he felt that he was following the example of Hosea who forgave and redeemed his wife from the slave market. Reconciliation only lasted long enough for John to add his rescued wife as his "dependent."
The moral of the story is that only two (2) types of sex experienced by the wife were "dirty." The premarital sex was "dirty." The extra-marital sex was "dirty." The marriage sex was the only sex that was ordained by God as "clean." God made "male and female" and He made them for marriage only.
WHAT IS BIBLICAL MARRIAGE?
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh" (Genesis 2:24). God created Adam first, and then Eve. God Himself brought Eve to Adam. God Himself ordained that they would be joined together in what we call "holy matrimony." This is the universal and absolute Law of marriage from the beginning. This is a picture of marital intimacy--the act of love that is never to involve anyone else. Jesus reaffirmed its statute through the Mosaic Dispensation and its binding under His Kingship. "He made male and female. 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? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder" (Matthew 19:5,6).
1. Natural bodies: both genders are necessary. Both male and female.
2. There is the social aspect: "a man leaves his parents and cleaves to his wife." Cleave, "proskollao": "to glue to, that is, (figuratively) to adhere: - cleave, join (self)." It is an unique joining of two people into one entity.
3. There is the sexual aspect: "They shall be one flesh." "Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh" (1 Corinthians 6:15,16). The Bible asserts the sexual meaning in "one flesh." Physical union with a harlot would not make a marriage but the intent of "cleaving and being one flesh" would. The gluing indicates the longevity of the "one flesh" and not a "one night stand." |
The cleaving and joining are illustrative of Israel to God and the church to Christ. "Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him" (Deuteronomy 13:4, KJV).ii "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church" (Ephesians 5:31, 32). The husband is the "head" of the wife as Christ is the head of the church. The wife is subject to the husband even as the church is subject to Christ in everything.
Men are to love their wives as their own bodies even as they love themselves and the wife is to reverence her husband. Husbands are to cherish and nourish their wives for they are his flesh and bones. Just as Christians are bound to Christ as one then are man and woman one flesh. This is marriage.
Defraud not 
The Law (from God through Moses) was very clear about the sexual rights of a wife: "If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage [cohabitation], shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money" (Exodus 21:10, 11). Violation of the sexual rights freed the wife from the marriage.
"One flesh" means man and woman are to be joined together sexually on an ongoing basis. Not a one time deal; it is even as the church being joined spiritually to Jesus is an ongoing thing.
Obviously, there are limitations to any comparison. For example, a Christian is supposed to be joined 24 - 7 with Christ. The love and respect is to be continually. Sexually, husband and wife are to yield to one another to each one's preferences. "The husband should give his wife what she deserves as his wife. And the wife should give her husband what he deserves as her husband. The wife does not have power [exousiazo¯, 'to control: - exercise authority upon'] over her own body. Her husband has the power over her body. And the husband does not have power over his own body. His wife has the power over his body. Don't refuse to give your bodies to each other" (1 Corinthians 7:3-5). Each has control over the other's body. Even mutual agreement to abstain which God "permits" is limited to a "time" (verse 5).
One translation says this is a "debt" owed each other and to "refuse" is to "defraud" the other. As Ephesians 5 points out, this is to be governed with "love" and "respect" for each other's health and well being while not purposely and insolently refusing the other. This "one flesh" obviously cannot be construed as 24-7. It is indeed a blessing from God to cuddle and snuggle with affection every night in the "one" bed, but even Sarah who obeyed her husband, and "calling him lord" (1 Peter 3:6), had her own separate tent (Genesis 24:67).
WHAT IS SIN?
One definition of "sin" is "transgression of the Law of God." "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression (violation) of the law" (1 John 3:4). "But sin is not imputed when there is no law" (Romans 5:13).
Since there is Law respecting the sexual responsibilities of husband and wife to each other, then a violation of this in marriage would be a sin, a sexual sin. "Defraud not one the other" in the one flesh debt (1 Corinthians 7:5); "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the Law" (Romans 13:8).
SINS OF COMMISSION. Someone has sought to distinguish sins in such a way as to minimize the sexual responsibilities of husband and wife. The argument is that there are sins of commission and sins of omission. The objection to the importance of 1 Corinthians 7's is that it is a sin of omission. Whether God has decided to wink at sins of omission I would venture to say is false (Acts 17:30). God's directive is "defraud not." This is a negative imperative. Just like "Thou shalt not kill." Whether murder is a sin of commission or omission, it is still a sin and cannot be tolerated. Furthermore, the command "Forsake not the assembly" is equivalent to "Defraud not." Is "to forsake the services" a sin of omission? If such are unimportant, why do churches make such an ado about disfellowshipping absentees?
IS THIS AN INCONSISTENCY
among churches that practice "disfellowship"?
1 Corinthians 7:5 commands the husband and the wife to NOT separate except by consensual agreement for prayer [only for a brief time]. Notice the command "come together again." The "come together" is epi to auto sunerchomai G4905 Strong:"(specifically) cohabit (conjugally)." Thayer's primary definition: "1) to come together 1a) to assemble 1b) of conjugal cohabitation." Since the subject is marriage, then 1b is the meaning in 1 Corinthians 7:5. What if there is a spouse that departs from the partner and refuses reconciliation?
The same word is used several times by the Holy Spirit concerning the assemblying of Christians xxi. For example: assembly worship in Corinth is taught, 1 Corinthians 14:23, 26; Lord's Supper's "come together" sunerchomenoiG4905, 1 Corinthians 11:17 ,18, 20, 33, 34. This sunerchomenoi is important enough to some that if one misses the Lord's Supper, they will be warned and even disciplined.
  Bible Riddle: In what ways is the Lord's Supper like the "marriage duty"?
God commands the positive "coming together" and the negative command forbidding noncompliance.
The inconsistency with this is that the sin ignored is the one that is specifically listed as subject for disfellowship, as will be pointed out below (1 Corinthians 5:9). "Defraud not" (1 Corinthians 7) is comparable to "Forsake not" (Hebrews 10:25). The positive command is the same wording in both cases: "come together again." If one deserves "disfellowship" for noncompliance, why not both? Of course, it may be answered, "You can see when someone's not attending services." But, what if the "separation" of the married couple is acknowledged and public? Personally, I can see potential fruit in the corrective measure toward the spouse rather than the other. If one has "disfellowshipped" the church by his lack of attendance, of what value is there in a "disfellowship" by the church?xxiii On the other hand, a spouse that is flouting a theft in marriage, may respond better from congregational pressure.
Paul uses "defraud" in both chapters 6 and 7; this verb in chapter 7 applies to marital relations. Neither husband nor wife can "deprive one another (apostereite)" (verse 5). Paul commands the husband to "repay the debt" to his spouse (v.3). He casts the withdrawal of intimate relationship by either spouse as a "robbery." This usage is similar to that found in Greek Exodus 21:10 where a man takes a second wife and is commanded not to "withhold (apostere-sei) ... necessities and clothing and marital rights" from the first spouse.xxii Furthermore, to those that would slight such a command, Jesus emphasizes this command in Mark 10:19. Jesus quotes the commandments one must obey for eternal life and one of them is "Defraud not." After commanding "Owe no man anything", Paul repeats several of Jesus' commandments in Romans 13:9 but ends with "If there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."
During the first century in countries where women were not allowed to initiate divorce (e.g. Jewish women), the wife would do something that would make the man divorce them. xxiv The female had wanted the divorce and she got her wish. In a similar way in the twentieth century, a woman would want a "Scriptural" divorce (i.e., for "adultery"), so she would move into another room and refuse relations with the husband. When he went "wandering" for "his needs", she would divorce him for "adultery" which she had been instrumental in causing. The late evangelist H.E. Phillips, editor of Searching the Scriptures years ago, a close friend of mine, preached a sermon one Sunday morning with his judgment that the woman leaving the "bed" had "divorced" her husband already and could not claim the "exception." She had indeed "departed" from the husband in violation of 1 Corinthians 7.
WHAT IS BIBLICAL DIVORCE?
"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" (Matthew 5:32). The Biblical authorized divorce is "for the cause of fornication."
SAVE FOR THE CAUSE OF FORNICATION
(the reason accepted for divorce and remarriage). What is "fornication"?
FORNICATION IS SEXUAL SINS
Let's look at the 'marriage-bed' vs. 'sexual sins [fornication]' of Hebrews 13.
Hebrews 13:4 [various translations and versions of the passage]:
(BBE) Let married life be honoured among all of you and not made unclean; for men untrue in married life will be judged by God.
(CEV) Have respect for marriage. Always be faithful to your partner, because God will punish anyone who is immoral or unfaithful in marriage.
(ERV) Marriage should be honored by everyone. And every marriage should be kept pure between husband and wife. God will judge guilty those who commit sexual sins and adultery.
(GW) Marriage is honorable in every way, so husbands and wives should be faithful to each other. God will judge those who commit sexual sins,especially those who commit adultery.
(ISV) Let marriage be kept honorable in every way, and the marriage bed undefiled. For God will judge those who commit sexual sins, especially those who commit adultery.
(WNT) Let marriage be held in honour among all, and let the marriage bed be unpolluted; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.
(KJV) Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. |
"Marriage-bed" is translated from koite¯; according to Strong's Dictionary, this word means "couch; by extension cohabitation; by implication the male sperm:- bed, chambering, X conceive"; hence, this is the "one flesh" of marriage. Fornication is uncleanness, immoral, unfaithful, impurity of the bed, sexual sins, pollution of the bed, and whoremongers. Adultery is added but distinguished from "fornication" as a violation of the bed.
A definition of "fornication" (New Testament Greek, porneia) is "any sexual sin."
The Complete Word Study Dictionary defines fornication as "lewdness, or any sexual sin." iii
John Groves in A Greek and English Dictionary defines porneia "all kinds of lewdness." Because of this the New International Version translates Matthew 19:9 as "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (editor, Gerhard Kittel) tells us that after the Old Testament period the term (porneia) came to mean all sorts of sexual perversion.
D.A. Carson, Reformed Evangelical theologian and professor of the New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School during 1970's, said, "Porneia covers the entire range of such sins [sexual immorality]... and should not be restricted unless the context requires it."
G. W. Lampe similarly describes porneia as "fornication, unchastity, and sexual impurity."iv
Louw and Nida's Lexicon defines porneia as "sexual immorality of any kind."v Malina summarizes the definitions calling porneia unlawful sexual conduct or unlawful conduct in general.vi
A search through all of the other uses of porneia in the NT confirms the reality of porneia's usual multifaceted meaning. It is used broadly for all kinds of sexual immorality ( Acts 21:25; 1_Corinthians_6:13, 18; 1_Corinthians_7:2; 2Corinthians_12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:23; Colossians 3:5; 1_Thessalonians 4:3), specifically for incest (1_Corinthians_5:1), in reference to temple prostitution or Gentile immorality ( Acts 15:20-29 and as an immorality not synonymous with "adultery" (Matthew 15:19; Mark 7:21).
Back in the forties, an English dictionary made a distinction between "fornication" and "adultery". Fornication was strictly premarital; i.e., it was defined as "intercourse between two unmarried people." In fact, the general meaning of fornication held by most Pentecostal Churches is "an act by an unmarried person." This causes a problem with church leaders unfamiliar with the passages of Scripture that uses fornication for various sexual sins including adultery. Since Jesus gave "fornication" as an exception in His prohibition of divorce (Matthew 19:8-10), some teachers decided that it only meant adultery; i.e., where at least one partner is married.
Some have taught that Jesus was taking Rabbi Shammai's position on Deuteronomy 24:1 of divorce and concludes that Jesus excepted only adultery from the prohibition of divorce. However, the OT passage nowhere mentions adultery and it is not clear that Shammai really took that strict position.vii In fact, if one studies the Mosaic Law, he will discover that adultery in addition to other sexual sins were capital crimes and merited death and not divorce (e.g., Leviticus 20:10). The innocent party didn't have to worry about divorce.
At any rate, Jesus did not come to teach the Mosaic Law but came to teach the gospel of His Kingdom ( Matthew 4:23). In fact, Jesus made this distinction: Under the Law only the man could divorce, but Jesus permits divorce by either man or woman. This would not exclude Jesus from binding a rule that had been under the Old Testament and/or modifying it (e.g., "Love thy neighbor"). See Case for Fornication in Deuteronomy, below.
The "fornication exception" in 1 Corinthians 7
 |
In 1 Corinthians 7 Paul tells us that it is sin to refuse one's spouse sexually. In the Old Testament men are specifically commanded to meet their wives' sexual needs (as well as provide her with clothes and food, Exodus 21:10), and in Jewish civil law, sexual refusal was a valid reason for divorce and remarriage even if the couple had children.
Paul H. Byerly: "It seems to us that the word porneiaG4202 includes sexual refusal, and as such forced abstinence could be a valid reason for divorce according to Jesus. What we are talking about here is not a difference of sex drive which results in one spouse saying 'no' on occasion, but to an ongoing rejection of sex which results in little or no sex."viii
Byerly would be right if we examine how the word porneiaG4202 is used in the Old Testament in Judges 19:2. Some will say, "Don't go back to the Old Testmaent." But the people to whom Jesus and the apostles ministered were taught in the Greek Septuagint translation of the "Old Testament" Hebrew Scriptures. Those that knew Hebrew were taught in the Hebrew text. However, when Jesus talks about divorce in Matthew 5 and Matthew 19, He is quoted in the Greek and not Hebrew. When He gives the exception for His prohibition against divorce, the word porneiaG4202 is used (translated into our English word "fornication"). This word was used in their Greek Scriptures. If they had been using the Hebrew, the word would have been zânâhH2181 .
What did "fornication" mean to Jesus and to His audience?
It is for our information to explore the meaning that the audience would have been able to ascertain when Jesus spoke His exception.
Fornication is porneiaG4202 in the Greek; it is zânâhH2181 or taznûthH8457 (derived from the root zânâh) in the Old Testament Hebrew ( 2 Chronicles 21:11, Isaiah 23:17; Ezekiel_16:26,29). God divorces Israel for zânâh (fornication) in Jeremiah 3:8, saying she had played the harlot (Greek: porneiaG4202 or Hebrew zânâhH2181 for our English word "fornication"). God set His standard for His divorce. Fornication! The people's heart was turned from Him and they went after "other gods." It was "fornication." Now this was while Israel was under the Mosaic Law. For us today, it serves for our defining Jesus' exception of "fornication" (Greek: porneiaG4202 or Hebrew: "zânâhH2181"). Jesus used the word that God had said Israel had done to cause His divorce.
In Judges 19:2 the desertion of the Levite's concubine from him is described with the distinct Hebrew term for "fornication" " zânâhH2181" [KJV: translates it "whore"] confirming the above observation.ix She then leaves her husband and goes home to her father. "And her husband arose, and went after her, to speak friendly unto her, and to bring her again" (v.3).
Did the woman become a prostitute and her husband went after her to speak friendly with her? No. Her leaving the marriage-bed, which is understood and a necessary inference, is called "zânâh: fornication." Barnes comments "Perhaps only meaning that she ran away from him, and left him, for she returned to her father's house."x "Neither the Vulgate, Septuagint, Targum, nor Josephus, understand this word as implying any act of conjugal infidelity on the woman's part. They merely state that the parties disagreed, and the woman returned to her father's house."xi Clarke adds, "If she had been an adulteress [with a stranger], it is not very likely that her husband would have gone afer her to speak friendly, literally, to speak to her heart, and entreat her to return." Rather, he may have sought her public stoning as the Law required. John Wesley commented that what she committed was "that is, against her faith given to him."
John Gill: "And his concubine played the whore [zânâh] against him...Was unfaithful to him and his bed, [my emphasis, gw] and broke the covenant and agreement between them; or 'with him', while she was with him in the house...some think this is not to be understood of adultery, but of her ill usage of him, and departure from him."xii "The Chaldee reads it only that she carried herself insolently to him, or despised him, and, he being displeased at it, she went away from him."xiii
The Targumxix is, "she despised him." So Kimchi and Ben Gersom (learned Jewish rabbis of the 13th Century AD) interpret it of her declining and turning aside from him, and returning to her father's house.
Charles François Houbigant, 1732+ scholar of Hebrew roots (Catholic Encyclopedia), translates the clause: quae cum ab eo alienata esset, vel irata in eum esset, eum reliquit"; "who when she was alienated from him, or angry with him, left him." xviii His Latin translation of the Bible according to Wikipedia (2013) is praised by some for the clearness, energy, and polish of the language.
Sir Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton's English translation of the Septuagint was published in 1844. The Septuagint translated the Hebrew as orgizō which is unusual. Brenton translates Judges 19:2 as "And his concubine departed from him, and went away from him to the house of her father to Bethleem Juda." It is interesting that his translation had the wife having two actions, the first being "departed from him" which coincides with what she was guilty of doing.
The Jewish historian Josephus wrote: "αλλοτοιως ειχε, that she was alienated, or separated herself, from him." He also wrote, "They quarreled one with another perpetually; and at last the woman was so disgusted at these quarrels, that she left her husband and went [back] to her parents." Nevertheless, the Bible calls what she did " zânâhH2181" which is Hebrew for "fornication."
Gesenius (the most widely quoted authority on Hebrew) defines zanah: "To commit fornication, whether married or unmarried."xx Henry Browne: Dictionary of Scriptural words in Hebrew, Greek and English:-- "ZANAH/porneia/fornication."xx The website article, from whence these sources, comments, "I have shown that the word Christ used [Greek: porneia]is the exact equivalent of the word God overwhelmingly used of His unfaithful erring "wife" Israel [Hebrew: zanah]. I have shown why porneia here is more appropriate than adultery would be, for it connotes a way of life."xx
1 CORINTHIANS 7
"And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband" (1 Corinthians 7:10). The word "depart" here in reference to the wife leaving the marriage-bed is the same as what Jesus proclaimed "put asunder." Let no one put the "one flesh" asunder (Matthew 19:6). To refuse one's body to the partner is to "depart" or "put asunder." It is divorce. "Let not the wife departG5563 from her husband" (1 Corinthians 7:10). G5563 is the same word that Jesus used for "put asunder" (in Matthew 19). The same command is given to both partners in the context.
"But if the unbelieving [disobeying spouse] separates him/herself, let him/her be separated; in such cases the brother or the sister do not remain bound" (1 Corinthians 7:15). Paul is not pitted against Matthew (both are apostles and guided by the same Spirit), the permission of divorce for desertion must imply that desertion from the marriage-bed is a form of fornication in God's evaluation, regardless of any issue of illicit sexual intercourse.
One purpose of "one flesh" is to have children ( Genesis 1:28). A second purpose of "one flesh" is to provide a spouse to meet one's sexual needs. In 1 Corinthians 7 Paul makes it clear that many do not have the ability to resist sexual sin without a spouse to meet their sexual needs. Paul did have the "gift." And during the distress period mentioned in chapter 7, he recommended others to not marry if they could "contain." In 1 Timothy 5:11 Paul says that widows under the age of 60 should not make a pledge because they will become so sexually desirous ["to live deliciously"] that they will set aside their commitment. Based on these things, we begin to understand why divorce for forced sexual abstinence would be allowed.
THE SLAVE, THE WIDOW, AND THE INNOCENT SPOUSE AND LIBERTY
When the spouse disobediently leaves the marriage-bed ("departs",cho¯rizo¯, "to place room between; put asunder"), the believing spouse is no longer a slave to the the marriage contract. Why? Because the spouse has committed fornication. The Holy Spirit elaborates here on the exception given by Jesus in Matthew 5 and 19 just as God elaborated to Moses on the inheritance law when clarification was asked for (Numbers 27:7ff). The innocent partner of the fornication is at liberty (not under slave bondage) just as the widow is (eleutheros, 1 Corinthians 7:39) and the freed slave (eleutheros, 7:21).
Our responsibility is not to bind where God has not bound (deo, Matthew 18:18).
CONCLUSION:
The universal law of marriage from the beginning requires that the marriage-bed's one flesh be honored and kept pure. Any violation will provide reason for the innocent spouse to divorce; especially is this true if sex is being refused. Those that say that Paul is contradicting Matthew and the other gospel writers ignore the multifaceted meanings of "fornication" and the seriousness of dishonoring the marriage-bed.
"FORNICATION IN DEUTERONOMY 24?"
POSTSCRIPT
The case for "fornication" in Deuteronomy 24
(Note: We are not under the Law of Moses; hence, Deuteronomy 24 does not directly apply to us. This is an exercise to see whether Jesus could have been reaffirming Moses' permission for divorce. We still have hardness of hearts in sinning against God and marriage.
"To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts" -Hebrews 4:7
"Let us therefore give diligence to enter into that rest, that no man fall after the same example of disobedience [KJV: unbelief].- Hebrews 4:11") |
When we look at Mary and Joseph's dilemna with the Holy Spirit conception which occurred under the Mosaic Dispensation, we would ask where did Joseph get his "just" authority to divorce Mary and not have her killed? Her husband Joseph was a "just" man and not wanting to make her a public example (which could have been death by stoning) decided to divorce her. Now the question is, where did he get the authority so that he is described by his action as righteous? The Old Testament Law on divorce is found in Deuteronomy 24. It does not mention adultery or fornication but it uses an unique expression of an "unclean thing."
"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 [nakedness of a thing]: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house" (Deuteronomy 24:1).
Jeffrey Tigay states that, since the phrase ("finds in her") in 24:1 refers to finding some sort of conduct ( 1_Samuel_29:3, 6,8; 2 Kings_17:4; cf. 1_Samuel_12:5), then the phrase unclean or "nakedness of a thing" probably refers to some sort of obnoxious conduct, "not to an unpleasant quality or physical feature."xiv
John Murray states that it is "some kind of shameful conduct connected with sex life." xv This would be reasonable since the woman could leave the husband for neglect in sexual matters (Exodus 21:10) and this would be giving similar authority for the husband to initiate divorce for his wife's refusal to respect the marriage bed.
These statements would support that Joseph was correct in using Deuteronomy's law to include the alleged sexual sin of Mary ( John 8:41) and if so, then that passage's uncleanness refers to "fornication".
Biblical scholars have debated what 'erwat däbär in Deuteronomy 24:1 really meant. "The word 'erwat, ‘nakedness,' elsewhere in the OT most often refers to the nakedness of a person's private parts or genitals, which should not be uncovered or exposed to be seen by those who should not see them; and the uncovering of one's nakedness usually has sexual connotations."xvi See, e.g., Genesis 9:22-23; Exodus 20:26; Exodus 28:42.
The word däbär occurs 1446 times, and is most often translated "word/s" (808x), "thing/s" (240x), "acts" (51x), "matter" (48x) etc. It occurs 242 times in the common expression, "the word of the LORD", and almost everywhere refers to spoken, commanded, or written words. It is translated "commandment/s" 20 times, including:
(Exodus 34:28) "the words of the covenant, the ten commandments."
(Deuteronomy 4:13) "ten commandments;"
(Deuteronomy 10:4) "the ten commandments."
In other words, God wrote with His finger the "Ten Things" on two tables of stone (Deuteronomy 9:10).
The most obvious literal translation of "'ervat davar" would be, "nakedness of a word", and an obvious meaning would be, "the nakedness (shame or dishonour) of one of God's words (commandments)". The "unclean thing" (Deuteronomy 23:14) refers to the "disobedience" to God's command to cover the excrement from their body (v13). This disobedience was said to be "in you" (v14), which could also mean "'by' you". In the case of the wife about to be divorced for "some uncleanness in her" (Deuteronomy 24:1), it would mean that the husband had found "nakedness of a word in (or by/with) her": something about her that was contrary to what God had spoken or commanded. xv Ezra 10:2-3's putting away wives undoubtedly references this rule as well. People who Israel was forbidden to have sexual relationships were abhorred by God ( Leviticus 20:23), so this was God's provision to allow repentance.
"Hardness of heart" refers to sin ( Hebrews 3:15). If we understand Jesus' statement in Matthew 19 of Moses permitting divorce because "of the hardness of hearts" to mean exclusively the act of the divorcing, then it wouldn't make sense, but if we understand it to mean "the hardness of their hearts" in marrying the foreign women in the first place, OR THE DISOBEDIENCE being in a spouse contrary to the command of God, then it makes perfect sense. It would also mean that when Jesus said, "except it be for fornication" (Matthew 19:9); i.e., he was reaffirming what was written in the Law. This would not be unusual, since he often pointed people to the commandments ( Matthew 19:17; Mark 10:19; Note: Jesus uses the same language as Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:5 "Defraud not", and says it is one of the commandments. Thus, a violation of mariage duty is breaking one of the commandments usually referred to as the "Ten Commandments." Romans 13:9-10 says it's binding today in the command "love your neighbor." Luke 18:20) when they were relevant. Surely this is more reasonable than to try and say that God divorced Israel and Judah because of the hardness of His heart.
______________________________
ihttp://calvinzelie.blogspot.com/2008/11/christian-apocrypha-story-of-paul-and.html
ii http://www.gotquestions.org/leave-and-cleave.html
iii 1616 Spiros Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study Dictionary (Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 1992), 1201.
iv G. W. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford, 1961
v Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1989), 771.
vi Bruce J. Malina, "Does porneia mean fornication," Novum testamentum 14, no. 1(January 1972): 11.
vii Hastings Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3 Pg. 275: http://www.angelfire.com/bc2/Bereans/MD/sh.html
viii DIVORCE - IS IT EVER OK? LOGICAL by Paul H. Byerly: http://site.themarriagebed.com/divorce
ix http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pe058.htm
x Albert Barnes', Notes on the Bible.
xi Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible.
xii John Wesley's Explanatory Notes
xiii Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible
xiv Tigay, Deuteronomy, 221, 386 n. 6.
xv John Murray. "Divorce.1." WTJ9 [1946], 42.
xvi Davidson, Flame of Yahweh, 390-391.
xvii http://www.logosapostolic.org/search.htm
xviii Catholic Encyclopedia: Houbigant, Charles François - Oratorian, one of the ablest Biblical scholars of his time. Born in Paris, 1686; died there 31 October, 1783.
xix The targumim (singular: "targum"), were spoken paraphrases, explanations, and expansions of the Jewish scriptures that a Rabbi would give in the common language of the listeners, which during the time of this practice was commonly, but not exclusively, Aramaic.
xx The Berean Christadelphians. "Twisting Words." http://www.angelfire.com/bc2/Bereans/MD/tw.html
xxi sunerchomenoiG4905Cornelius' group to hear the gospel, Acts 10:23,27,45; Jerusalem church assembly, Acts 15:38; women worship group in Philippi, Acts 16:13
xxii "124: "Do not Defraud" -- the Rich Man's Challenge (aposterein)". Internet Moments with God's Word. Dr. Larry Perkins, Professor of Biblical Studies, Northwest Baptist Seminar. http://moments.nbseminary.com/archives/124-do-not-defraud-the-rich-mans-challenge-aposterein-mark-1019/.
xxiii I must postscript such a statement on withdrawing fellowship. A gentleman who refused to attend worship services was Scripturally withdrawn from. He repented and returned to the flock in tears. But this withdrawal was like the Scriptures says, "No not to eat with such a one." This was being carried out in friendship circles (no fishing, no dinners invite, etc.) and in this case the disfellowship was real and was productive.
xxiv "DIVORCES BY JEWISH WOMEN IN THE FIRST CENTURY." Compiled by David McKee. http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/DivorcesByJewishWomen.htm.
|
