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