 Previous Page |
This Study Index | Go to the Top | Bible Study Index | Next Page  |
|---|
There are three occasions in the Old Testament when a man could put away his wife, for what may seem to us a frivolous reason. The first is under the law of Moses when, after a victory at war, an Israelite man took one of the captive women to be his wife (Deuteronomy 21:10-14). If he then found "no delight in her," (v14), he could put her away if he let her go free. It is difficult to see how this can be applicable to us in modern times, at least in the west, as we do not obtain our wives this way. Even if we did, this would now be superseded by the instructions of Jesus, who commanded against divorce (Matthew 19:6; 19:9; Mark 10:9; #1.41). The second is the case of a man purchasing another man's daughter to betroth to himself or his son (Exodus 21:7-11; See #2.18). This seems to be a case of divorcing a slave-wife when the husband takes another wife, and is no longer willing to provide for her. This is certainly not for us today, as we no longer take slaves for wives, and polygamy is no longer acceptable anyway (1 Timothy 3:2; 3:12). The third one is the case of King Ahasuerus, who commanded his queen Vashti to present herself before the king and his guests (Esther 1:10-12). Vashti refused to come. For this disobedience she was put away (Esther 1:19-21), and the king took another wife (Esther 2:15-17). Again, this was done by a pagan king (Esther 1:1), who is no example for us to follow, and his reason is totally unacceptable according to the words of Jesus (Matthew 19:6; 19:9; Mark 10:9; #1.41). There are three other cases where Jewish people under the law seem to have had some kind of justification for putting away a wife:
(1) Israelites were specifically forbidden to marry foreign women (Deuteronomy 7:3-4; Joshua 23:11-13). However, this command was broken during the time of Ezra (Ezra 9:1-2) and Nehemiah (Nehemiah 13:23), so during times of correction, foreign wives were put away (Ezra 10:1-44; Nehemiah 13:23-30). The reason for this was to keep Israel from being enticed after false Gods (Deuteronomy 7:4; 1 Kings 11:4-6; Malachi 2:11). So in the case of Rahab the harlot, who believed in the God of Israel (Joshua 2:9; 2:11), and Ruth the Moabitess, who had decided to follow the God of Israel (Ruth 1:16), exceptions seem to have been made. Both of these women appear in the genealogy of Jesus Christ (Matthew 1:5). This command was not given to anyone except Israel, so it does not apply in a physical sense to any other nation today, and we cannot interpret this in typology to mean marriages between believers and unbelievers, because this would contradict the teaching of Paul (1 Corinthians 7:12-16). However, because idolatry was spiritual fornication, or adultery, (this is why these relationships were forbidden in the Old Testament) we may consider this as a type of fornication within the marriage relationship (See #5.2; #5.3 Adulterous marriage; #5.4 Homosexual marriage), and one that had to be terminated to escape the fornication. The apostle John described Israel as committing fornication (Revelation 2:14), when they went off with women from Moab (Numbers 25:1-9).
(2) Infidelity during the betrothal period (Deuteronomy 22:13-27), which is what Joseph suspected Mary of (Matthew 1:19-20), is another case. This was "before they came together," (Matthew 1:18), so before they had become "one flesh", lawfully joined together by God. Once this "one flesh" relationship had been established, the only separation acceptable to God is death (Romans 7:1-3; 1 Corinthians 7:37; See #3.7). Therefore adultery under the law was punishable by death (Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22), and a betrothed wife found not to be a virgin on the marriage night could be put to death (Deuteronomy 22:13-21; See #2.16). The alternative seems to be forgiveness (John 8:3-11), but Joseph's intended solution was to put her away privately, without making her a public example (Matthew 1:19). Following the conditions under which this occurred, this could only be applied today where a similar betrothal type of marriage is in existence, and before the marriage is consummated so that they become "one flesh". However, it is not equivalent to the modern, western type of engagement, and so could not be applied in such a case.
(3) A divorce was permitted by Moses for "some uncleanness" (Deuteronomy 24:1), the only place where a bill of divorcement was permitted in the Old Testament. We have concluded this to refer to an unlawful marriage relationship which was contrary to the commandment of God in the first place (See #2.17). Thus we can eliminate each of these reasons as an excuse for divorce today from a lawful "one flesh" marriage relationship, and go on to look for an explanation of Jesus' apparent exception clause for divorce and remarriage.
MATTHEW 5:31-32
31 It has been said, Whoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32 But I say to you, That
whoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication1,
causes her to commit adultery: and whoever shall marry her who is
divorced commits adultery.
MATTHEW 19:9
9 And I say to you, Whoever shall put away his wife, except it
be for fornication2, and shall marry another, commits
adultery: and whoever marries her who is put away commits adultery.
Note 1: The condition, saving for the cause of fornication1 (Matthew 5:32), is parektoj logou porneiaj, (Gtr. parektos logou porneias) in the Greek. The word "parektos" can be used as an adverb, or as a preposition with the genitive case, as it is here. Some lexicon definitions are, "except" or "with the exception of" (JHT p487); "apart from" or "except for" (BAGD p625); "except" (GAS p344). It is made up of two words, the preposition "para", which means "from beside", and is variously translated "of" (54x), or "from" (23x), with the genitive case, and "ektos" which has the basic meaning of "outside", or "outside of". It is the opposite of "entos" which means "inside". In this context it seems to mean "apart from", or "except for". The word "logou" is the genitive, singular, of the masculine noun "logos", which is variously translated "word/s" (218x), "saying/s" (50x), "account" (8x), "speech" (8x), "Word" referring to Christ (7x), etc., and so the most obvious interpretation would be "of a word". The word "logos" refers to written or spoken words, rather than to a deed or an act, and therefore may be considered not to refer to an act of adultery. One Greek Lexicon considers "logos" to be the opposite of "deed" (BAGD p477 logoj, 1.a.a.). Some examples from scripture will show that they are different:
(Luke 24:19) "a prophet mighty in deed and word
..."
(Romans 15:18) "to make the Gentiles obedient, by word
and deed."
(2 Corinthians 10:11) "such as we are in
word by letters when we are absent, such will we be also in
deed when we are present."
(Colossians 3:17) "And whatever you do in word or deed, do
all in the name of the Lord Jesus, ..."
(2 Thessalonians 2:17) "establish you in every good word
and work."
(1 John 3:18) "let us not love in word,
neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth."
All of the underlined words are translated from the Greek word "logos". So why did Jesus not use the word "ergon" (Matthew 5:32), which means "work", or "deed", if he intended it to mean an act of adultery? The answer is that the word "logos" often refers to the word of God (Luke 5:1; 8:11; 11:28; Acts 8:14; 18:11; 2 Corinthians 2:17 etc.), and even to commandments in God's word:
(Romans 13:9) "if there is any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying,
namely, You shall love your neighbour as yourself."
(Galatians 5:14) "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even
in this, You shall love your neighbour as yourself."
These are two quotations of one of God's commands in the Old Testament (Leviticus 19:18) which Jesus pointed people to several times (Matthew 5:43; 19:19; 22:39; Mark 12:31 etc.). In fact Jesus had a habit of answering people's challenges and questions by pointing them back to the Old Testament scriptures (Matthew 4:3-10; 15:1-9; 19:3-5; 19:16-19; 22:23-33 etc.). Even when John the Baptist sent his disciples to ask Jesus if he was the Messiah (Matthew 11:2-5), he sent them back with an answer from the scriptures (Isaiah 35:4-6; 61:1), which John would know. This is exactly what Jesus is doing here, he has been questioned concerning divorce, and he is pointing them back to God's commands concerning fornication in the Old Testament (Leviticus 18:6-22). The word "logos" is not used in the Sepuagint to translate the Hebrew word "davar" in the scripture that Jesus is quoting (Deuteronomy 24:1), but it should have been, because the most common use of "logos" in the Sepuagint is to translate "davar" (GAS p270 logoj). Some examples are:
(Exodus 34:28) "the ten commandments."
(Deuteronomy 10:4) "the ten commandments,".
The word "porneias" is the genitive, singular, of the feminine noun "porneia",
and means "of fornication". This gives us a variety of possible
interpretations to this passage, so let us start with the two most obvious
ones; "except for a word of fornication", or "apart from a word of
fornication." Let us now examine Jesus' other statement, except it
be for fornication2 (Matthew 19:9), which is
ei mh epi porneia,
(Gr. ei me epi porneia) in the Greek. The words "ei me"
literally mean "if not", or "except", again leading us to expect an
exception to follow. The word "epi" is a preposition which is variously
translated, "in" (53x), "at" (26x), "for" (19x), "upon" (18x),
"on" (12x), "over" (11x), "of" (9x) etc., with the dative case,
while the word "porneia" is the dative, singular, of the feminine noun
"porneia", and means "fornication". Therefore, the most obvious
interpretations of this are, "If not (or except) in fornication", or
perhaps, "If not for fornication". The word "at" is difficult to use
in this context.
Let me point out, that in doing these interpretations, we have only used the
very common meanings of the words. So we cannot be accused of twisting the
word meanings to favour our own interpretation. This scripture, then, does
appear to give a loophole whereby a man could legitimately divorce his wife
and remarry. So we need to examine carefully what this exception clause
means, because those who interpret this verse wrongly may either end up
committing adultery themselves, or teaching others to do so, which is worse
(Jeremiah 48:10; James 3:1).
Note 2: Now let us look at the Greek case of each of these exception clauses, because this will throw even more light on what Jesus really meant. Why did Jesus use the genitive case when he said, "except for a word of fornication," (Matthew 5:32), and not the accusative case, or the dative case as he did later (Matthew 19:9)? Let us examine some of the uses of the genitive case:
(1) We have several names for our first example, "The Genitive of Definition" (HPVN p43), "Definitive Genitive" (WP p109), "Explanatory" (SMB p102), and "Genitive of Apposition" (DBW p95; RAY p39). This refers to two nouns together, the second of which must take the genitive case, and further explains or defines the noun to which it refers, both nouns referring to the same thing. In English we could supply the words "namely", or "that is", to bring out the meaning. Look at some examples:
(Acts 2:38) "You shall receive the gift of
the Holy Spirit."
In this example the gift is the Holy Spirit, and we could say, "the gift,
that is, the Holy Spirit".
(2 Corinthians 1:22) "and given the earnest of the Spirit."
In this example the earnest (or down payment) is the Spirit, and we could
translate, "the down payment, namely, the Spirit."
(Ephesians 4:9) "descended first into the lower parts of
the earth?"
In this example "the lower parts" are "the earth", and we could say,
"the lower parts, that is, the earth?"
In each case we could leave out one of the nouns in apposition, and it would still make sense, for example, we could say, "receive the gift", or we could say, "receive the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). Bearing this in mind, let us now look at our exception clause, "except for a word of fornication." (Matthew 5:32). If we take "a word" to literally mean "one word" (not a commandment or a saying), and that word to be "fornication", then Jesus could have meant, that outside of "fornication" there is no other exception to divorce and remarriage. We could then say, "except for one word", or "except for fornication", which is identical to the clause "except it be for fornication," (Matthew 19:9), and it would still make sense.
(2) One of the uses of the genitive is to explain the "content" of a noun (NT p214; SMB p102; WP p110), or more specifically for our particular context, communicative content: the topic of a written or verbal communication (RAY p27). The words "about", or "concerning", could be used to explain this. Look at some examples:
(Matthew 13:18) "the parable of the sower" simply means
"the parable about the sower".
(Acts 15:7) "the word of
the gospel" simply means "the word about the gospel" which is preached.
(1 Corinthians 1:18) "the word
of the cross" refers to "the word about the cross" which is preached.
The Greek for word in these last two examples is "logos", from which we can see that "a word of fornication", could really mean "a word (written or spoken commandment) about fornication". If we add this meaning to our interpretation we would get:
(Matthew 5:32) "whoever shall put away his wife, except for a commandment about fornication, causes her to commit adultery:"
The exponents of divorce for adultery would have problems with this interpretation, because there is no command to divorce an adulterous partner; the penalty under the law was death (See #2.11Death for adultery; #2.13 Death for adultery).
(3) The genitive case can also used where it is required to indicate that a person or thing is "against" another. The most common construction for this is to use the preposition "kata" with a genitive noun or pronoun. According to the KJV Matthew does this twelve times (Matthew 10:35 (3); 12:14; 12:25 (2); 12:30; 12:32 (2); 20:11; 26:59; 27:1), and twice without the preposition:
(Matthew 10:1) "he gave them power against
unclean spirits,"
(Matthew 12:31) "but the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit
shall not be forgiven unto men."
If we add this meaning to our interpretation we would get:
(Matthew 5:32) "whoever shall put away his wife, except for a commandment against fornication, causes her to commit adultery:"
The exponents of divorce for adultery would have problems with this interpretation, because in their case divorce would more likely lead to fornication, while marriage is the way to avoid it:
(1 Corinthians 7:2) "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."
(4) The genitive case also includes the use of "the ablative", which denotes separation from something (HPVN p42; JWW p45), and is often used with the prepositions "apo", which means "away from", or "ek", which means "out of" (JWW p45; WP p107). The Greek word "apoluo", which we have taken to mean divorce in this verse, is made up of two words; the preposition "apo" and the verb "luo", "I loose" (See #4.2 Note 1), and it is a verb which denotes a separation. This meaning is inherent in the case even without a preposition; "to kainon tou palaiou" (Mark 2:21) literally translates as, "the new the old", but means "the new from the old", the word "away" being part of the verb. So if we add this case meaning to our interpretation, then we could get:
(Matthew 5:32) "whoever shall put away his wife, except for a command (to separate) from fornication, causes her to commit adultery:"
The exponents of divorce for adultery would find difficulty with this understanding also, because divorce does not get either partner out of adultery (which they call fornication). The "so called" innocent party would not be in it in the first place, and the so called guilty party would now be sentenced to live in it for the rest of their life, or at least until their partner died. On the other hand there are commands to separate from fornication, such as, "Flee fornication." (1 Corinthians 6:18).
Note 3: Now let us examine Jesus' use of the dative case, and the preposition "epi", where he said, "if not in fornication," (Matthew 19:9). In order to determine the real meaning of this phrase, let us investigate some of the various uses of the dative case that could apply here:
(1) One common use of the dative case is the so-called "Locative", which can refer to the "place at which", something or someone is (HPVN p47; WP p112). It can refer to physical locations, such as, " in a charger." (Matthew 14:8), " at the doors." (Matthew 24:33), " in her," (Mark 5:33), " in the porch" (Acts 3:11), or it can be used in a spiritual sense, such as, " in my name," (Matthew 24:5), " in God" (Luke 1:47), " in the Lord," (Acts 14:3), and can even apply to the way we live our lives:
(1 Corinthians 9:10)"he who ploughs should plough in
hope,"
(2 Corinthians 7:4) "I am exceeding joyful in
all our tribulation."
(Titus 1:2) " In hope of eternal life,".
Some of these examples could be translated in other ways, such as, " on a plate" (Matthew 14:8), and " on the porch" (Acts 3:11), but every one of them uses the dative case with the preposition "epi", and there are some similar examples without a preposition:
(Romans 6:1) "Shall we continue in
sin ...?" meaning, "Shall we continue (to live in) sin ...?".
(Ephesians 2:5) "Even when we were dead in sins,"
This idea of being "in sin" often takes the preposition "en" with the dative also (John 8:21; 8:24(2); 1 Corinthians 15:17), so the meaning, "if not in fornication," (Matthew 19:9) cannot be ruled out. If we put this meaning into the exception clause, we could get:
(Matthew 19:9) "Whoever shall put away his wife, if not (living) in fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery;"
Some may think that the fornication applies only to the wife, who is the object of the verb, but it could also apply to the husband, because he is the subject of every verb in the sentence. He is the one who puts away his wife, he is the one who marries another, and he is the one who ends up committing adultery.
(2) Another use of the preposition "epi" with the dative case, is to express the "reason" or "motive" behind words or actions, so that "epi" is equivalent to "for", "because of", or "on account of" (See JHT p233; RAY p51-52). Some examples:
(Luke 2:20) "glorifying and praising God for
all the things which they had heard and seen,"
(Acts 4:21) "all men glorified God for
that which was done."
(1 Corinthians 1:4) "I thank my God
always on your behalf, for the grace of God
which is given you by Jesus Christ;"
This is also a function of the dative case without a preposition:
(Romans 11:20) " because of unbelief they were broken off,"
This seems to be the way that the KJV translators have interpreted this verse:
(Matthew 19:9) "Whoever shall put away his wife, except it be for (or because of) fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery;"
(3) Another use of the preposition "epi" with the dative case, which is not very common in the New Testament, but is still a possibility, is to express hostility "against" someone or something:
(Matthew 10:21) "the children shall rise up against their
parents,"
(Luke 12:52) "three against two, and two against
three."
If we add this sense into the exception clause, we would get:
(Matthew 19:9) "Whoever shall put away his wife, if not against fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery;"
This is the same as one of the interpretations for Jesus' use of the genitive case earlier (Matthew 5:32; See Note 2(3)), and for the same reasons, this is also against divorce for adultery. Having now extensively explored the possible meanings of the scripture, if we meditate upon all that has been discussed here, there is one explanation that fits all the facts that we have looked at. That is that "porneia" refers to fornication between a husband and a wife, within a forbidden marriage relationship. Thus the reason for the divorce would be because they have discovered that they are both living in fornication before God (See #5.2; #5.3; #5.4), and the divorce is the means of separating themselves from that sinful condition, which they would have to do in order to be saved (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Galatians 5:19-21).
Note 4: Let us now finish this section with some definitions, and a conclusion.
Definitions of physical adultery (Gtr. moicheia) for a man:
(1) Remarriage by a man
who has divorced his wife for any reason other than "fornication" in the
marriage relationship (Matthew 19:9).
(2) Marriage to a divorced
woman (Matthew 5:32; 19:9), whose first husband is still alive.
(3) Any sexual union with
another man's wife (Leviticus 20:10).
Therefore we can define adultery for a married man as:
"An act of sexual union with any woman, other than his own lawful wife in
the sight of God." His adultery is an act of sin committed against his
wife (Mark 10:11), which may be considered to be a sin against his own
flesh, because he is one flesh with his wife. We can also define adultery
for a single man as:
"An act of sexual union with a woman who is betrothed to another man (Deuteronomy 22:23-24), or has been divorced by another man, who is still alive:"
(Matthew 5:32) "whoever marries her who is
divorced commits adultery."
(Matthew 19:9) "whoever marries her who is put away commits
adultery."
Definitions of physical adultery for a woman:
(1) Remarriage by a woman
who has been divorced from her husband for any reason other than "fornication"
in the marriage relationship (Matthew 5:32; Mark 10:12).
(2) Any sexual union by a
married woman with another man other than her own lawful husband (Leviticus 20:10).
Therefore we can define adultery for a married woman as: An act of sexual union with any man, other than her own lawful husband in the sight of God.
Definition of fornication: Fornication (Gr. porneia, Gtr. porneia) is a general word for various types of unlawful sexual union. In the physical sense, it may include adultery in the married relationship, sex between unmarried persons, prostitution, incest, rape, homosexuality, bestiality etc., and the interpretation of this word depends upon the context in which it is used. As Jesus used it in the context of marriage (Matthew 5:32; 19:9), fornication can be defined as, "any marriage relationship which is unlawful in God's sight, or expressly forbidden in God's word." (See Intro 5.(1); #5.2; #5.3; #5.4), which will exclude the offenders from the kingdom of God, and bring his judgement upon them if they do not repent (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Galatians 5:19-21; Hebrews 13:4; Revelation 21:8; 22:15). A man who commits fornication sins against his own body (1 Corinthians 6:18).
Conclusion: When Jesus was challenged by the Pharisees concerning his understanding on divorce (Matthew 19:3-9; Mark 10:2-12), he did not give an answer that agreed with any of the interpretations of the Rabbis, but gave his own deeper understanding of the Old Testament writing (Deuteronomy 24:1-4). This was that divorce was permitted when the marriage was contrary to the command of God concerning fornication in the law. In such a case, remarriage was permitted, but not to the original partner. Meditate on this section #5.1 with #2.17 and the consistency of God's word should become obvious.
LEVITICUS 18:16
16 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother's wife: it is
your brother's nakedness.
LEVITICUS 20:21
21 And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing:
he has uncovered his brothers nakedness
they shall be childless.
MATTHEW 14:3-4
3 For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him
in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife.
4 For John said to him, It is not lawful for you to have her.
MARK 6:17-18
17 For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for
Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife: for he had married her.
18 For John had said to Herod, It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife.
LEVITICUS 18:8
8 The nakedness of your father's wife you shall not uncover: it is
your father's nakedness.
DEUTERONOMY 22:30
30 A man shall not take his father's wife, nor discover his father's skirt.
DEUTERONOMY 27:20
20 Cursed be he who lies with his father's
wife; because he uncovers his father's skirt. And all the people shall say, Amen.
1 CORINTHIANS 5:1 (Paul)
1 It is reported commonly that
there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as
named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
Note 1: The New Testament church council commanded four things for Gentile believers to abstain from:
(Acts 15:29) "That you should abstain from meats offered to
idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication:"
(Acts 21:25) "As touching the
Gentiles who believe, we have written and
concluded ... only that they keep themselves from things offered
unto idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication."
James also quoted the same four things, in a different order (Acts 15:20), but where did they get them from? If we examine the Old Testament to see where these things were forbidden, we find this:
(1) Sacrifices to idols forbidden (Leviticus 17:7-9).
(2) Eating of blood forbidden (Leviticus 17:10-14).
(3) Eating animals killed without bleeding them forbidden (Leviticus 17:15).
(4) Fornication forbidden (Leviticus 18:6-23).
Thus the council at Jerusalem were quoting the Levitical laws of holiness, "without which no man shall see the Lord." (Hebrews 12:14); so it was important for the Gentile believers to receive this information. This being so, it gives us an excellent idea of what the early church thought fornication included, because the unlawful relationships covered by the word fornication, are listed for us to read (Leviticus 18:6-23; 20:11-17; Deuteronomy 27:20-23). These include various forms of incest, and specifically forbid a man taking his brother's wife (Leviticus 18:16; 20:21), which is what Herod had done (Matthew 14:3; Mark 6:17). It also forbids a man taking his father's wife (Leviticus 18:8; Deuteronomy 22:30; 27:20), of which we have three examples. Jacob's eldest son Reuben lay with one of his concubines (Genesis 35:22), for which he was cursed (Genesis 49:4; Deuteronomy 27:20). David's son Absolom lay with his father's concubines (2 Samuel 16:21-22), for which God saw fit that he should be killed by Joab (2 Samuel 18:14-15). The fornicator in the church at Corinth had his father's wife (1 Corinthians 5:1), for which he was cursed by being turned over to Satan (1 Corinthians 5:5). Significantly, when Jesus was challenged about divorce, he was near the border of Judea beyond Jordan (Matthew 19:1; Mark 10:1). This would be under the jurisdiction of Herod, who threw John the Baptist into prison for telling him it was not lawful for him to have his brother's wife (Matthew 13:3-4; Mark 6:17-18). It is quite possible that the Pharisees, who were "tempting him" (Matthew 19:3; Mark 10:2), were trying to get Jesus to make similar statements to John, so that Herod would throw him into prison also.
Note 2: There are certain reasons why we can say that this is certainly one thing that Jesus had in mind when he gave the exception clause, "from outside of a word of fornication," (Matthew 5:32), and "if not in fornication," (Matthew 19:9), to divorce and remarriage:
(1) The same word translated "fornication" (Gr. porneia, Gtr. porneia) where Jesus made this exception (Matthew 19:9), is the same word also used by the apostles (Acts 15:20; 15:29; 21:25) where they referred to the Levitical laws against incest (Leviticus 18:6-18), and the same word used by Paul referring to the incest at Corinth (1 Corinthians 5:1).
(2) The scripture declares that, "In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established." (2 Corinthians 13:1), and we have two clear examples to confirm this explanation in the New Testament: one is king Herod (Matthew 14:3-4; Mark 6:17-18), and the other is the fornicator at Corinth (1 Corinthians 5:1).
(3) The fact that this was specifically written to the Gentiles (Acts 15:29; 21:25), as well as to the Jews (Leviticus 18:6-18), makes it equally applicable to everyone today.
All this confirms, that in the context of divorce and remarriage, "from outside of a word of fornication," (Matthew 5:32), and "if not in fornication" (Matthew 19:9), refers to the fornication being committed inside an unlawful marriage relationship, which has to be forsaken for a person to escape the sin. The apostle Paul commanded it: "Flee fornication." (1 Corinthians 6:18). It does not refer to some other interpretation of fornication, such as adultery with someone outside of the marriage relationship by one of the partners: there are no examples of that.
LUKE 16:18 (Jesus)
18 Whoever puts away his wife, and marries another, commits adultery: and whoever marries her who is put away from her
husband commits adultery.
Note: Suppose that a man who had not been married before, married a woman who had been divorced, and whose husband was still alive. When he finds out that according to the words of Jesus, he is living in adultery (See #4.2), he has a decision to make. He can stay in the relationship and be excluded from the kingdom of God:
(1 Corinthians 6:9-10) "neither fornicators
... nor adulterers ... shall inherit the kingdom of God."
(Ephesians 5:5) "For this you know, that no fornicator ...
has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God."
On the other hand, he can repent, and put her away to escape the fornication that he is living in with her. In this case, it is proper for a person to put away their partner, and seek for a God ordained lawful relationship:
(1 Corinthians 7:2) "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."
Notice that to avoid fornication a man must have "his own wife", not somebody else's wife, because having somebody else's wife was also forbidden in the Levitical laws of holiness:
(Leviticus 18:20) "Moreover you shall not lie carnally with your neighbour's wife, to defile yourself with her."
We can see then, how the provision of Jesus, "if not in fornication" (Matthew 19:9), makes it possible for a man to escape from a relationship that would defile him and condemn him, without being sentenced to celibacy for the rest of his life. Thus in this context, "if not in fornication" (Matthew 19:9), refers to the fornication (and adultery) being committed inside an unlawful marriage relationship, which has to be forsaken for a person to escape the sin. The apostle Paul commanded it: "Flee fornication." (1 Corinthians 6:18). It does not refer to some other interpretation of fornication, such as adultery with someone outside of the marriage relationship by one of the partners. Jesus' words are still applicable to us today:
(Matthew 24:35) "Heaven and earth shall pass
away, but my words shall not pass away."
(Luke 16:18) "whoever
marries her who is put away from her
husband commits adultery."
(John 12:48) "He who rejects me, and does not receive my
words, has one that judges him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall
judge him in the last day."
The apostle Paul also confirmed the importance of Jesus' words:
(1 Timothy 6:3-4) "If any man ... does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, ... He is proud, knowing nothing,".
LEVITICUS 18:22
22 You shall not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination.
LEVITICUS 20:13 (The LORD)
13 If a man also lies with mankind, as he lies with a woman, both of them have
committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood
shall be upon them.
Note: We can see from these scriptures, that just as incest was forbidden by God (#5.2), so homosexuality was also forbidden. In the beginning, God created one male and one female to be his wife (Genesis 1:27; 2:22-25). He did not create two males to be together, or two females, and these relationships both oppose the command of God, "Be fruitful, and multiply," (Genesis 1:28). Although there may be no record of homosexuals or lesbians marrying in the scripture, it is certainly a modern day possibility which God foresaw. Such relationships are an abomination to God, and forbidden by him, therefore a homosexual or lesbian marriage is not lawful in the eyes of God, even if it is legal according to secular law. In such cases people are living in fornication, so when they become believers, and delivered from that lust, they would certainly not be expected to continue in a relationship that is an abomination to God:
(1 Corinthians 6:9-10) "Do not be deceived;
neither fornicators ... shall inherit the kingdom of God."
(1 Corinthians 6:18) "Flee fornication."
(Ephesians 5:5) "For this you know, that no fornicator ...
has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God."
In context, homosexuality and lesbianism are referred to by Paul (Romans 1:24-29), where he refers to them as "Being filled with ... fornication," (v29). Jude also refers to homosexuality as fornication:
(Jude 7) "Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
In such cases, it is proper for a person to put away their unlawful partner, and seek for a God ordained lawful relationship:
(1 Corinthians 7:2) "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."
Notice that, to avoid fornication, every man should have his own wife, not "his own husband", and that every woman should have her own husband, not "her own wife". Thus in this context, "except it be for fornication" (Matthew 19:9), refers to the fornication being committed inside an unlawful marriage relationship, which has to be forsaken for a person to escape the sin. The apostle Paul commanded it: "Flee fornication." (1 Corinthians 6:18). It does not refer to some other interpretation of fornication, such as adultery with someone outside of the marriage relationship by one of the partners.
If you have benefited from reading this study, then please tell your friends about this website.
If you have a web-site of your own, then please consider linking to this web-site. See the Website Links page.
To link to this page use: http://www.logosapostolic.org/bible_study/RP2095-Divorce-Fornication-porneia.htm