The understanding of
Jewish
Culture
in reference to the word Wife
_____________
______________________________________________________
___
Still Rewriting Questions 37-57 (Including this section). PLEASE Pray that I finish sometime in August of
2001
_______________________________________________
__________
Understanding Jewish Culture
It is of no small importance that Jesus uses the word “por-ni-ah” (fornication) in
Matthew 5 & 19 instead of “moy-khah-o” (adultery). For Jesus (and everyone else), the
two words are not synonymous and do mean two different things (again see Matthew
15:19; Mark 7:21 ; 1 Cor 6:9, and...ESPECIALLY, ESPECIALLY,
ESPECIALLY Heb 13:4).
In the Hebrew culture a woman who was engaged was considered the wife of the man she was engaged to, so much so that
anyone who “messed with her” was to be put to death. Notice I did not say that if she was
defiled, the man who did the defiling was to marry her, but he (and her for that matter -
if it was a voluntary act) were to be put to death. She was under a valid
marriage covenant, and if broken a death must occur to end the covenant Again, engagement was a valid covenant.
“If there is a girl who is a virgin ENGAGED TO a man, (did
you catch that? “ENGAGED TO a man”) and another man
finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of
that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the
city (i.e. was a voluntary act, not rape), and the man BECAUSE HE HAS VIOLATED HIS
NEIGHBORS WIFE...(Deuteronomy
22:23,24)
Again, if you read on you will find other verses where the
same principles are at work. The post engagement period is just as sacred a
covenant (and it is a covenant!) as the post marriage period.
Jacob
“Then Jacob said to Laban, Give me MY WIFE, for my time is
completed, that I may go into her” (i.e. to consummate the agreement). Genesis 29:21
Samson
“Then Samson went down to Timnah and saw a woman...and told his Father and
mother...get her for me as my wife (Judges 14: 2,3) ...Then it came about on the fourth
day (of the pre-marriage feast) that they said to Samsons WIFE, “entice your
HUSBAND” (vs 15)... But Samson’s WIFE was (eventually) given to his companion who
had been his friend (vs. 20)
It is interesting to read on in chapter 15 and see the ground that Samson had to take
revenge on the Philistines (i.e. they took his WIFE {broke a marriage covenant} and gave
her to another man 15:6) The woman - even though the marriage was not consummated
(15:1), was considered his wife,even by Philistine
standards (15:6), so both parties (Jews and Philistine) had
more than ample ground to take revenge on the guilty parties if they wanted to. Check
out what the Philistines did to someone who broke a covenant.
“The Philistines said “Who did this?” (i.e. set the fields and vineyards on fire) and they
said. Samson, THE SON-IN -LAW of the timnite, BECAUSE HE (i.e. the father of the
bride) TOOK HIS WIFE and gave her to his companion (Notice that the marriage was
not consummated). So the Philistines came up and burned her and her father with fire”
(Judges 15:6)
Samsons wife committed fornication according
to the Semitic cultural understanding of the concept (unlawful sexual
intercourse see footnote), therefore -
BECAUSE SHE BROKE
A LAWFUL COVENANT - she had ground to be
killed. If - on the other hand - she had sexual
relations with the same man after her marriage covenant with Samson was
consummated - it still would have been an unlawful act, but a different concept -
according to Semitic cultural understanding (actually according to everybody’s cultural
understanding) would have been used to describe it - and that concept would be
adultery (moy-khah-o). Most cultures see these things the same
way. The only difference is that in most western cultures the
betrayed spouse would not kill the person who cheated on them during their
engagement period, (not that the betrayed spouse wouldn’t want to), but they would
more likely take whatever action they deem necessary to end their lawful engagement
covenant. (Remember, it is a 2 part covenant and both parts need to be in effect for it to
be in full BINDING covenant. IOW’s since it has not been completed or consummated it
can be ended, but ONLYunder ONE
condition. (more later)
but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife (now do you see what Jesus is talking about), except for the cause of
fornication (por-ni-ah or pre - consummated sex)
, makes her commit adultery...(moy-khah-o) ” Matthew 5:32
A covenant is a covenant is a covenant and should not be broken, not at all.
It really
doesn’t matter at what point in the heterosexual relationship the covenant is made (i.e.
engagement or
consummation). A covenant is a covenant. Again, the only difference between this
covenant and other covenants is that a marriage covenant contains 2 parts.
Another thing to consider, the above verse in Matthew makes the point that an
engagement
covenant - even though it could be broken under ONE condition - is NOT to be treated
lightly. The engagement covenant (i.e. part 1 of a marriage covenant) is still a valid
marriage covenant and a person who breaks it - except for the cause of an unfaithful
spouses fornication (where merciful divorce is the solution. do
you see why this verse is found in the grace passages?) -
anyway a person who breaks it (EXCEPT for the
cause of fornication, did you notice the word “except?”) will still be guilty of committing
adultery - maybe not according to most western cultures, but definitely according to
mid-eastern understanding of covenant as well as Jesus understanding. (more later).
Remember, a marriage covenant - even if it’s an engagement covenant - it’s still a
marriage COVENANT, and CAN NOT be treated lightly. There are ramifications to
breaking a covenant, ANY COVENANT. The betrayer in Matthew 5 & 19, even though
she committed fornication or por-ni-ah in this case (i.e. sex outside a fully
consummated covenant), even though she committed fornication (That’s is what it says
in the Greek: por-ni-ah not moy-khah-o or sex outside a consummated covenant) would
NOT be charged (if you look at it from a legal prespective) with committing adultery, but
fornication, for even though she was NOT under a fully consummated covenant, it was
still a valid
enough marriage covenant to be charged with a moral crime, but it would be a moral
crime of fornication. (it’s a technical point, for BOTH crimes ended in death in the OT).
but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, EXCEPT (a key point) for the cause of fornication(por-ni-ah or pre - consummated sex) WILL BE CHARGED WITH THE
MORAL CRIME OF ADULTERY
IOW’s your married enough to be charged with adultery if you break the
covenant for - let’s say irreconcilable differences BEFORE the marriage was
consummated (That is what Jesus says), but when fornication (or sex) is the reason for
the split, when THAT comes into play, the charge is different - fornication (that’s what
Jesus says). It’s a sex crime. “EXCEPT FOR THE REASON OF FORNICATION” Jesus
says, thus the guilty party will be charged in this case with fornication NOT adultery.
Again, the guilty party (or either party) would be charged with adultery if they leave for
stupid reasons, but if they leave for the cause of fornication they will not be charged with
adultery if they remarry (more later). Again, the charge of fornication is - in relation to
this particular moral crime of breaking a covenant - is a term that puts the crime in a
time frame. (post engagement - pre consummation).
So - in Matthew 5 & 19 - what is “the charge” against the betraying spouse? Fornication
or adultery? In regards to sexual reasons it’s fornication, but if divorce for any other
reason (i.e. non - sexual reasons) the charge will be adultery. Get it? It’s a technical
point, BUT IT IS WHAT JESUS SAYS (“except, except except”). The guilty party is
charged with fornication in the case of sexual unfaithfulness, for a fully
consummated / married spouse cannot commit fornication but only adultery. Again fornication - when mentioned in relation to the term “wife” - speaks
of a time frame moral crime, at least according to Jewish cultural understanding, and
possibly everybody’s understanding of the word.
Again, REMEMBER JESUS DOES NOT SAY moy-khah-o (i.e. adultery) AS GROUNDS FOR DIVORCE, BUT por-ni-ah (or fornication) AS GROUNDS. (That IS
significant).
ALSO REMEMBER THE TWO WORDS - in regards to a 2 part marriage covenant
(remember “wife” definitely has a 2 part meaning) - the two words
(adultery/fornication) - when “wife” is mentioned in the SAME verse - is talking about a
time frame in a relationship. THAT IS WHERE THE EMPHASIS IS the time frame. IF
JESUS MEANT THAT moy-khah-o (i.e. sex outside a
consummated covenant) WOULD BE GROUNDS FOR DIVORCE HE WOULD HAVE
SAID AS MUCH, BUT BECAUSE HE DID NOT (remember, they are two different
words, again read Hebrews 13:4) He is more than likely talking about the
pre-consummated state.
AGAIN, remember, when all three words (wife, fornication, adultery, are mentioned in
the SAME verse - as in Matthew 5:32, and 19:9 - something is up)
Also remember, Jesus is not ambiguous when He is talking about marriage and divorce
and He does say some pretty harsh things about it. I
do believe that He wants us to have clear answers to our questions. Jesus doesn’t allow
for divorce in a consummated state, period (read 1 Cor 7:10, 11). Irreconcilable
differences are definitely, definitely out. So to is adultery (see His teachings John 8, also
remember that He does not use the word “moy-khah-o” in Matthew 5 & 19). So what’s
left? Only fornication in the pre consummation state. Covenants, even if they are
engagement covenants ARE sacred to Jesus, but because of the nature of that particular
covenant (i.e. 2 parts) it can be broken, but only under ONE condition.
Now again, why should the person (betrayer) who sexually breaks the marriage covenant
not be charged with adultery, but fornication? It’s a legal thing, because of the nature of
the 2 part covenant. Fornication is the cause or reason for the disolvement (for it IS a
time related moral crime and fornication puts it in the time frame). REMEMBER JESUS
DOES USE THE WORD “EXCEPT”.
Still don’t get it? Hmmm... Look at it this way... the betrayed (i.e. the not guilty of any
moral crime) spouse, would NOT be guilty of adultery (even though he was “married” to
the betrayer), if He did indeed REmarry after divorcing his unfaithfully engaged spouse.
THAT IS WHAT JESUS SAYS. Again THAT IS WHAT JESUS SAYS.
You would think otherwise since they were “engaged married” and the
betraying divorced spouse was allowed to live (i.e. not be stoned), but
the thing is this...
... fornication (pornneia) is a time related offense, and according to Jesus the act of
fornication is the only thing - ONLY THING - that can negate the engagement
covenant, because again it is a 2 part covenant. For Jesus the two engaged partners
“cannot” - because of the previous joining together of the sinful parties - “cannot” be
“joined together” anymore. IOW’S the betraying spouse has ruined herself, her
virginity, shes defiled, she is no longer marriage material (in this
particular case). You have to remember that the marriage covenant is a very special type
of covenant were intercourse plays the “joining together” part. Sex is the unifying aspect
to this covenant. Sex is VERY important (i.e. what God has JOINED together let no man
tear asunder”) Paul “goes ape” when he hears about the Christians joining themselves to
prostitutes (1 Cor 6:15,16). The two become one by this act (1 Cor 6:16) . Jesus thinking
follows the same line of thought (Matthew 19:5), the fornication of the engaged wife in
this case has in effect joined her to another man. Therefore the covenant can be broken,
for it is a 2 part covenant and was in effect broken by the betraying spouse. She is joined
to another. (See “15 insightful pictures” for a clarification on this view by Clicking Here).
The betrayed spouse can now - if he chooses - mercifully divorce her, get remarried AND
NOT BE CHARGED WITH COMMITING ADULTERY IF HE GET’S REMARRIED, for
this is the exception that proves the sacredness of the rule.
Also - it is helpful to note here, as just said - that the divorced spouse would not be
stoned according to Jesus, but divorced. Hence mercy under the
law.
Again, it’s a technical thing for in the case of fornication, according to the old covenant -
the betraying spouse was to be put to death. The issue of divorce in the OT, for a spouses
moral crime of fornication, is really not the question at all. (See above verse in Deut
22:23,24). It’s more the legal charge behind the execution. Jesus was being merciful in
allowing for divorce in this passage, that is why it is found in
the grace section of Matthew 5 (i.e. the sermon on the mount).
Another thing, this is the reason why Jesus says you cannot marry a divorced person
(i.e. a divorced person who was divorced for irreconcilable differences or petty reasons
MT5:32), they are still
under covenant.
but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife (now do you see what Jesus is talking about?), except for the cause of
fornication(por-ni-ah) In other words if you divorce your wife for any
other reason including stupid ones. You
, makes her commit adultery(moy-khah-o) If she remarries
; and whoever marries a divorced woman (i.e. divorced for reasons other than
fornication, stupid reasons) commits adultery (moy-khah-o)(if he marries her) ”
Matthew 5:32 See Matthew 19:9
Again, the idea of an engagement covenant being valid marriage covenant before the
actual consummation of a marriage is a truth of Jewish culture (and probably most
eastern cultures). A covenant is still a
covenant. You can see this idea carried over into the New Testament culture
too.
Joseph
and
Mary
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows. When his mother Mary had been
BETROTHED to Joseph, BEFORE THEY CAME TOGETHER she was found to be with
child by the Holy Spirit. And Joseph HER HUSBAND, being a righteous man, and not
wanting to disgrace her, desired to put her away (i.e. bill of divorcement) secretly.
But...an angel of the Lord appeared to him...saying Joseph...do not be afraid to take
Mary as your wife... (Matthew 1:18-20)
____________
Now what does this mean for today in our culture?
You may want to reread question #3 for part of the answer (i.e. the part that has to do
with pre-salvation engagement’s), as far as broken post salvation engagements go... I
would think that if any of them were made with someone who was not saved they could
be broken (IMHO), as far as the ones that were made - and broken - with people that
were saved (i.e. a post salvation covenant) I would think (and I’m not sure about this,
but...) that they could be broken by the father of the bride if he disagreed with it (see law
of Moses on the subject for the specific details and qualification), The father of the bride
did have a lot of power to break vows (at least under the old covenant and IF it met a
certain qualification), but to tell you the truth I’m not so sure that if a Christian couple -
who made an engagement covenant, and broke it themselves, and
remarried other people - if the new covenant - according to Jesus view on
covenants - if the new covenant is in fact a legitimate covenant. I would think that the
first engagement covenant is still a very binding covenant (and you can make a good case
from scripture to back that up). A covenant is still a covenant and cannot be broken for
trivial reasons. I know at least one christian couple that was engaged and broke up and
the "betraying" party married someone outside the covenant that they made. The
“betrayed” spouse in this case became very upset (and with good reason, very good
reason) and the “betrayers” - well...
(It could be a case in point, but I think I should study it
more).
____________
* Please Note: even though I define Fornication as “unlawful sexual
intercourse between single people”, in regards to Samson, it could also be defined as
unlawful sexual intercourse between people outside a fully consummated marriage
covenant. IOW’s since Samsons wife had sex with another man during the engagement
period, even though she was “married” what she did would still be defined as fornication
(unlawful sex) for it was sexual relations outside a lawfully
consummated covenant. If she had sex outside a consummated marriage covenant it
would still be unlawful, but another word would come into play to describe the act -
adultery.
_____________
To return to Question 37
Click Here
_____________
***
This is an open source web-site. In
other words you can freely copy its pages and put them any server you wish. [If
you’re not sure what I’m talking about... just right click your mouse (if you have
Microsoft Windows) and
click on “View Source” and you will see the HTML code that underlies the particular
page you are viewing. If you ‘cut and paste’ what you see into a word processor you will
then be able to ‘save it’ and then ‘cut and paste’ (or upload) that particular page on any
server which
supports HTML (just about all of them). The pictures themselves can also be
copied by right clicking your mouse and using the “Save Picture As...” feature].
Thus you can have your own web site [Angelfire
(Lycos ) offers free web pages as well as many
other sites Click here
and ask around].
Periodically I will update the links on these pages. Below you will find the dates of the
‘last update’ of a particular page. If you wish you can use the below “updates” as a guide
to update your own pages or you can update your own at you own discretion.
Feel free to improve on any of the pages you copy.
Also, feel free to use this entire sites content (Music, Theology,
Divorce and Remarriage etc.) in any way you wish (for example: if you wish to publish a
page in whole or in part in another medium (let’s say in tract or book
form), you have my permission to do so (and you don’t have to inform me or put my
name on the work).
You can also sell the work at a profit if you wish, just having these works circulating in
the world is reward enough for me).
Again, this is an open source web site. The code (as well as content) is
free to all. Feel free to tinker, dabble and fiddle around with both code and
content. God is a very creative Spirit. Who knows what kind of page(s) you will develop.
Also, who knows what kind of influential tracts or books you may write. (If you want
you can change the sentence structures around and put this sites content in your own
words. Then put your name on the book or tract and shop it around to some
publishers. Most of this sites content is desperately in need of rewrite so putting your
name on a rewritten work is probably a good idea, actually a
very good idea).
May God bless you in your efforts.
P.S. If you copy these pages to a server make sure you place your
own e-mail address on the pages so people will know whom to write if they have any
questions (you can also leave my e-mail address on them if you wish (i.e.
StevenMRyan@cs.com), but as of now I don’t have the time to answer everyone’s
questions so I think your e-mail address would be a better idea).
Last Update of this Particular Page: 00/00/0000