Thank you for that perspective, Mike.

I was in a situation working at one of our institutions in Asia at one point where two unmarried staff committed "fornication." Unfortunately, the administrator counseled them to separate, as he thought they were ill-matched. They separated. So much for following the Bible.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Hey Green,

Do you know any church administrators that follow the Bible & SOP?

_______________________________

It is something to think about, Gordon. Do we still choose to follow those old "Levitical Laws" today? Or is our modern way superior to those now?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I don't believe that is the correct definition of fornication. 1Cor 7:36 it doesn't say so and there's other scriptures to evaluate.

Fornication used in Mat 5:32 is mis-understood and so is why Jesus said what he said in Mat 5:31. Most interpret that it says that adultery is the only reason for divorce. So I need to address Mat 5:31 to come later with the correct understanding of fornication in this text. This is a study I did in another forum that I tailored it a little bit for here.

Context

Mat 5:31 is part of the sermon of the mount.
In a nutshell, the purpose of the "Sermon on the Mount" was to improve upon the Laws of Moses interpretation and application. Jesus started with the 10 C's and followed with other laws found. Jesus was giving the true spirit of the laws by which had been lost through the traditions of the elders and the Leaders.

Jesus Emphasizing to Give a Written Divorce
With that context in mind, and knowing that Jesus did not come to destroy the law, let us look at Matthew 5:31, 32 in greater detail. These two verses are a part of His comment on "Thou shalt not commit adultery,"(v.27) that is part of the 10 commandments. So the final thrust of His comment is to define adultery in relation to the laws of divorce and remarriage found in Deut 24:1 which Verse 31 simply refers to. In that Law, God demanded that men give their wives a WRITTEN bill of divorcement before they could lawfully put away their wives. Deut 24:2, of course, allowed divorced wives to remarry after a lawful divorce. So let us take another look at Matthew 5:31, 32, inserting a few key words in the original Greek, so that we get a proper translation of the passage.

31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away (apoluo) his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement (apostasion). 32 But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away (apoluo) his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery; and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced (apoluo, lit. "put away") committeth adultery. ”

To paraphrase this: The law says that she commits adultery if she remarries (or lives with another man ) without a written bill of divorcement. BUT I SAY UNTO YOU that whoever puts her away (without divorce papers; that is, unlawfully) causes her to commit adultery (if she remarries or lives with another man under such conditions). Thus, he who simply put her out of his house without divorcing her properly is JUST AS LIABLE AS SHE IS. And whosoever marries her (or lives with her) that has been put away (without divorce papers) also commits adultery, because he is marrying another man's wife.

Jesus is here condemning men who put away their wives the Babylonian style (verbally), instead of putting her away in the manner prescribed by God's law. Under the laws of liability, this would make him (the husband who neglects to give a bill of divorcement to his wife before putting her away as God prescribed) guilty of adultery if she were to remarry or living with another man. So we see that the whole point of this commentary is to bring out a point of law that had not been covered by the Pharisees in their interpretations.

Besides for the Cause of Harlotry
But what of the section, "saving (parektos, near outside, i.e. besides) for the cause of fornication (porneia, harlotry)?" What does this mean? Most people assume it means that if a wife commits adultery then it is lawful to divorce her. However, it does NOT say, "because of ADULTERY." It says “besides for the cause of fornication or harlotry”. Further, the penalty for adultery was death -- not divorce. So what is meant by "fornication?" Why is it alright to put away one's spouse without divorce papers in a case of fornication?

A look on the Biblical Meaning of Fornication
Prostitution is the main sexual relationship that is call Fornication which is considered unlawful.

In Ex. 22:16, this is where a man has sexual relations with an unmarried woman. In Deut 22:23-29 gives more details on all the different circumstances. If she is bethroth and does not cry for help and is a rape, only the man is to be stoned. But if she is bethroth and doesn’t cry for help then both are stoned. This is not fornication. This is adultery and the penalty is stoning.

Now, if the damsel is not bethroth, then the man has to marry her and he may not put her away(divorce her) all his days of his life. The father of the damsel decides whether she is to marry him or not. If it is rape like in the case of Dinah the Daughter of Jacob, Jacob still decided to give her as a bride even with the case of rape. So regardless if it was rape or not, the man has to pay up the dowry to the father that is kept for her needs. I don’t know if the rape in this case would be considered fornication. I don’t think if it was a consenting affair it is fornication because in 1Cor 7:36 says they did not sin and to let them marry.

Esau a Fornicator

In Hebrews 12:16 Esau is called a fornicator ; yet there is no record in Scripture of his buying the services of a prostitute. But Genesis 26:34 does say that he married Hittite wives. From the account in Scripture, this obviously went against God's command not to take a wife from among the Canaanites. Thus, it may be classified as an unlawful marriage.

Incest is Fornication

We find the term "fornication" is used again in 1 Cor. 5:1. “ 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.” Thus we see that Paul uses the term "fornication" to describe another unlawful marriage or sexual relationship that had been forbidden in Leviticus 18:7, 8, namely, incest.

Homosexuality is Fornication

In Jude 7 we read of the people of Sodom and Gomorrha who had given themselves over to "fornication," going after "strange flesh." This, too, is obviously a sexual sin, and yet the only thing we have on record of their sexual tendencies is homosexuality, or "sodomy" (Gen. 19:4-8).

Unlawful Sexual Relationships is Fornication

Each of these examples have one thing in common: they are unlawful sexual relationships, and therefore, there is no LAWFUL marriage contract to bind the two parties together. In other words God does not recognize the "marriage" in the first place. It is void from the start.

Conclusion

So, when Jesus says it is alright to "put away" (separate without divorce papers) one's spouse in the case of fornication(or harlotry), the reason is quite obvious. There was no lawfully-binding marriage contract in the first place, so how can one appeal to the law of God to have it voided? God requires no such divorce papers. However, if the couple had obtained a marriage license from the government such as those of this world order, then they would have to petition it for a divorce as well, because governments recognize many marriage relationships that God's law does not. God does not recognize relationships which are homosexual, incestual, or otherwise forbidden as in the case of Esau, even if the parties sign a marriage contract. Another case where divorce papers are unnecessary is in the case of prostitution. Since prostitutes do not enter marriage contracts with a client, the solution is separation, not divorce.

Elle, what word does the Bible use in the case of consensual premarital sexual relations?

According to the Biblical definition, it is considered as a marriage. Intercourse between two people is the marriage itself. That is why this matter must be taken seriously. If there is intercourse between a man and a woman they are in the eyes of the Lord married for they have become one flesh, even in the case of a man having intercourse with a prostitute, as it is written, "Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For 'the two,' He says, 'shall become one flesh.'" 1 Cor.6:16.

It is true that God does not recognize as a marriage relationships when men buys a prostitute's services, or sexual relationship between two persons of the same sex, or incestial relationships. But anything outside of these "fornication" is viewed as a marriage. Even in the case of rape if the father of the maiden agrees to allow the union. God is wise and have put it in the hand of the father the decision in the case the young man was workable and since the dowry to be paid was large, the young man needed to work it off in the father-in-law household where there would be plenty of time to teach him to be a proper young man for his daughter.

So today's definition of what constitute a marriage is very different from God's definition. As a church we should look to have the same outlook as God and not the world.

Elle, I used to serve the church as a pastor and an evangelist. We were taught people living together under common law must get married before they can be baptized and join the church. I hear you saying, no, they are already married in the eyes of God.

Also, the punishment for rape was death not marriage.

The following statement made by glenm in Post #134285 is to me quite indicative as to where God stands on this issue of polygamy and/in the Bible:



Along these lines of a “plurality”, I find quite significant that in the examples in the Bible where bigamy/polygamy is explicitly discussed (i.e., in the accounts of Biblical episodes), and where God did not express a displeasure, nor deliberately visit that household with judgements, as with David, there is always an underlying issue of a wife not being (at least at first/naturally) able to have children. (Though I have not gone through all of the Biblical mentions cited in this website). That can be seen with Abraham; Jacob; Elkanah (1 Sam 1:2).

Summarily said, my view that this was one of the ‘post-marriage discovered indecencies’ for a man could divorce his wife (Deut 24:1ff) , however for those who did not want to divorce their wive, but still have children/descendants, as the Law of God, greatly encouraged, indeed as this was also the Plan of God for this planet (Gen 1:22, 28; 8:17; 9:1, 7; cf. 17:6; (17:20); 35:11), particularly with (His) righteous people, God may have allowed for bigamy, or even polygamy (as I see it, only in Jacob’s case; Abraham was no longer married to/living with Hagar when he later also took Keturah as his wife, -apparently he wanted to have more than one child and Sarah of course was past the age of (natural) child bearing), so that either those men/women could have children. That would explain the regulation of this in the Law (Deut 21:15-17 - notice the specific: “two wives” and not “two or more”; or even: “one or more”).

So as God had condemned in the Law for kings (Deut 17:17) as it was indeed common and facilitatively likely for monarchs to do so, God was opposed to this “mindless” multiply of wives, i.e., having more than two =(polygamy vs. (tangibly-reasoned) bigamy). That may indeed be what the sin of the Antediluvians was (CC 36.5) and also other instances where God considered this to be “sin”.

I also see a relation with the justified bigamy and the Levirate unions, i.e., the issue of having children/descendants. In that prior discussion, I have not seen a Biblical reference to where this brother had to be a batchelor.

So my “working thesis” understanding thus far is that God allowed for only a second wife for legitimate issues/reasons of child bearing, and those who married outside of this justification or took more than two wives, were indeed acting contrary to God’s Law and sinning. (In the case of Jacob, it can be seen that he was tricked into marrying a extra wive with Leah, and then was actually jsutified, as I understand it in taking Rachel’s maid as a wive since Rachel was manifestly barren. So it is really with the issue of Leah’s maid that he would have sinned, merely giving to Leah’s jealousy and competitiveness with her sister to have children. However this was done under an apparently genuine worry of Leah that she had become barren (Gen 30:9); though that was not the case (vs. 16ff). And God did consider those 2 children of Zilpah, Leah maid (Gad and Asher) as equals in His Israel.)

Mike,

Despite what the church may or may not say, Elle has the Biblical support for her stance on both of the points above. The church, for as much as God has honored us with wisdom, has not always been right. This is one of those points where I feel the church has diverged from a clear "thus saith the Lord."

Now, if you can show Bible support for your position....

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

NJK, very interesting perspective. I've never seen anyone lay it out quite like that. I'm not entirely sure that I agree with it, but will give it some thought. There were some good points made there.

Regarding David, God disciplined him for stealing Bathsheba at the cost of Uriah's life. There is nothing in the Bible which adds to God's reasoning behind that discipline. That Mrs. White says it was partly on account of his polygamy is interesting. If that is true, I wonder if David got the message? We don't see David picking up lots of wives after that...mostly just one more, from what I can tell, and that being one in which the marriage was never consummated. Since David was king, he was indeed in the wrong to have so many wives. He transgressed a commandment just for kings on this point. (As with the issue of wine, polygamy was not for kings.)



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.