by Edward Ridenour
When debating the “fornication exception” found in the gospel of Matthew chapter 5:31 & 19:9, there is this ignorant and detrimental conclusion by some in Christendom that this “exception” by Christ is only applicable and valid in regard to “Jewish betrothals,” and not actual one-flesh marriages.
–
Their reasoning for arguing this false conclusion is two-fold:
1- Because they believe once a one-flesh union is made and exists, it is a lifelong union and can never be separated, no matter what, other than death. Therefore, because of this belief, Jesus would never advocate “putting away” for an act of fornication by a spouse of a one-flesh union and be allowed to marry another afterward. Doing so would incur the consequences Jesus identified – adultery.
2- It is believed that Matthew’s letter was written to Jews who practiced betrothals, which is why this exception condition is not declared in Mark and Luke’s record. Therefore, since they don’t believe it applies to one-flesh marriages, the only other reasonable application would be Jewish betrothed marriages.
–
Important Note: Right off the bat, those who “espouse” this false theology are in error in their knowledge of the Jewish betrothal. They presume to have knowledge, but in reality, they don’t. What they don’t realize is the difference that exists between a “betrothal” and an “espousal” (See my article “Betrothal vs. Espousal: What’s The Difference?“), and how the “betrothal” is inapplicable to their argument. However, I will proceed to delineate how, even in their failed presumptions that this applies to a betrothal, even though the word “espousal” should actually be used, their argument for this theology would still be flawed.
–
They are completely accurate when they conclude that Scripture teaches us that a one-flesh union can never be separated, except for death. This is declared by Paul in Romans 7:3. Death will always separate any union, which has been made sexually by a male and female. However, if you have read my articles on Biblical marriage, you should have noticed that even though this is true, other factors play into a marriage when fornication is involved and introduced into that marriage.
–
Since I have delineated in other articles the effects of fornication to the body, and to a marriage and the marriage bed, I will focus here on presenting other valid arguments as to why this concept fails the test of truth and Biblical alignment:
–
1- They cite Romans 7:2&3. The text is not a thorough teaching on Biblical marriage. It is a comparison of how death separates us from certain laws we were bound to. Paul spoke of two laws. One was O.T. law and the other was the law of marriage. He illustrated how death causes the power of each law to be negated and no longer having any hold and effect. Those who are in Christ, the O.T. law is dead to them through His fulfillment of it, death, and resurrection, as a wife is no longer under the law of marriage to her husband, who has died. Romans 7:2&3 exclusively speaks of a “legitimate” marriage and the resulting consequence and status of a wife joining herself to another man sexually, while either her husband is alive or dead. If her husband is dead, she is free to be sexually bound under the law of marriage to another man. However, what is also seen is how a wife “defiles” herself within the marriage, by placing herself under the law of another husband while still under the law of marriage to her first husband – adultery. She is now under two laws. Paul identifies and labels the woman no longer a wife, but an adulteress because of it. She has violated marital law. This is it. It doesn’t address what the husband can or cannot do regarding her fornicating herself and their marriage. It wasn’t Paul’s intention. So, to presume this is all to be said on the conditions of putting away is foolish.
–
2- They define fornication as “sex before marriage.” This supposedly means the betrothed woman has been sexually intimate with another man before actually marrying the one she is betrothed to. Well, this is wrong. It is wrong because, as I have already shown, sex before marriage is not a Biblical concept and never was. What she would have done, according to such an action, was not commit sexual fornication, but to have married another man, making him her married husband through her sexually intimate encounter, violating the covenant her betrothed husband had with her guardian for marrying her to be his wife. He would not now be able to physically marry her, because she is one-flesh with the other guy, wherein he would commit adultery with her by taking her. Because of this, he also suffered loss for payment he made for her. Once the betrothal agreement was transacted, he owned her (espousal). She was his possession. What she did after that, her father was not responsible. Paul shows this in 1Corinthians 7:36-38 of a man “toward his virgin.” This is instruction to a man who possesses an espoused wife and his authority as to whether she becomes his married wife. Under Hebrew law, she is his, once the transaction had concluded.
–
Firstly, these who espouse this false theology don’t even address the law that already governed such a situation for a true betrothal. That law is found in Deuteronomy 22:22-27. If betrothed wife is guilty of this infraction, then she died. There was no “putting away” for this occurrence. Death was the outcome. No “exception” considered. Since she had a legitimate sexual marriage with another man, accusing her of sexual fornication does not apply. She was a virgin who became married to another man. So, putting away for fornication would not have been valid. Hence, this would not apply to Matthew 19.
–
Secondly, they try to use Joseph and Mary as an example. They claim this as an example of their theology because Joseph was going to put Mary away, because of her “supposedly” being pregnant, which is what Matt 5&19 “supposedly” demonstrates. Well, a betrothed husband could put his betrothed wife away for any reason. It didn’t have to be for “sex with another before they got married” on her part. He held all the cards. However, as I stated, he would have forfeited all he paid in acquiring her by doing so (espousal only), which Joseph was willing to sacrifice for Mary’s sake. She was his possession, but not by marriage. Joseph, before knowing the truth, did it privately, so it would have the appearance that he broke off the “espousal” before her being taking by another man, sparing her from being stoned to death. As if he chose to not go forth and marry her according to Hebrew law. He set her free.
–
The reason Joseph was doing it privately was because he believed he could not now take her sexually. Being a just man, he did not want her to fall under the consequences of the law, which meant death. In fact, he doing as he did and willing to forfeit loss was a depiction of Christ setting us free and He suffering loss for our sin. In other words, they are trying to use unrelated Scripture to justify their “can’t ever put away a one-flesh married spouse for any reason” theology. So, in the process, they distort Scripture and use it out of context. They have nothing else, because there is nothing which they can find Biblically to back up their failed theology, other than an unrelated example. They expose their ignorance.
_
To think that Christ in Matthew 5&19 was instructing on this Hebrew law and not the law of God regarding a one-flesh union is preposterous. As if Christ would instruct on marriage to everyone else yet only instruct on betrothals to the Jews. Especially since Christ’s instruction in Matthew is so similar to His instruction in Mark and Luke, without the fornication exception. Take that away and they are all the same.
–
Matthew 19:9 supposedly addressing betrothals is a fabricated concept, and just because someone says that Joseph’s action toward Mary is applicable to Matthew 19:9 is ridiculous. One major reason is because nothing in the Matthew 19 text alludes to a betrothal or espousal situation. There is no hint of it. Just the opposite, e.g., reference to the Bill of Divorcement, which involved one-flesh unions exclusively; men putting away their wives for any reason, which they were doing to their “married” wives, not betrothed wives; Jesus referred to the beginning of creation, which didn’t involve betrothals; Jesus mentions “making them one-flesh,” which betrothals did not do. How could putting away a betrothed wife for taking another man sexually be considered a “hard heart by the man? Wouldn’t she be the one with the hard hart? Lastly, Jesus said to His disciples, that “all men cannot receive this saying,” if it only involved a betrothal and he could acquire another female, since they were never one-flesh married? Putting away a betrothed wife, who is still an unmarried virgin is different than putting away a one-flesh married wife, who is not a virgin.
–
3- The discussion between Christ and the Pharisees centered around the putting away by the Bill of Divorcement, which did not pertain to betrothals. It pertained to men who had consummated one-flesh marriages and were casting out their married wives, because of something they disapproved of from her (“for any reason”). So, As I stated, why would Christ consider them “hard hearted” for putting away a betrothed virgin wife who violated the covenant? What is hard hearted about that on his part? Otherwise, she being a married woman to him, she would not be a virgin and it would not be a betrothal anymore, which, then would truly depict a hard heart by the husband in putting her away. She couldn’t marry another, even though he could. Now if she being already married took another man sexually, it would be adulterous fornication. However, that’s in a marriage, not a betrothal. Just these facts alone within the whole context of the conversation rules out any reference to a betrothal (or espousal), as to the purpose of the instruction Jesus was giving to all present. Yes, to the Jews and any Gentiles. Hear me, Jesus was instructing on Biblical marriage, as I teach it. Hence the perplexity in the minds of the Pharisees as to what He was declaring. Just like Christendom!
–
4- The instruction given by Jesus would be nonsensical anyway for this reason: How could the betrothed man, who has not yet been sexually intimate with her by consummation, commit adultery if he were to put her away for “any reason” other than fornication, which is part of Christ’s instruction? There is no one-flesh union involved. So, how could either of them commit adultery by marrying another? She is still a virgin, so she couldn’t commit adultery by marrying another. Betrothals were only made for virgin females and none other, who were under the authority of a guardian, usually a father, brother, or uncle. So, she can still be married off to another and never commit adultery, neither would the man who marries her. This theology is contrary to the committing of adultery when marrying another, which is what Jesus was alluding to. Remember what I quoted Paul saying in 1Corinthians 7:34 about there being a difference between a wife and a virgin. One is married and the other isn’t. It is all about their sexual condition and not by any agreements of covenants made.
–
5- They say, “because the exception wasn’t declared by Jesus in Mark 10:10 or Luke 16:18. Well, there is a good reason for this. First, Mark’s account is referencing the same event that Matthew records in chapter 19 with the Pharisees. However, Mark is not giving the account of Christ answering the Pharisees, but the disciples, later in the house, asking him a question, which appears to involve marriage. Howbeit, no one knows the content of the question prompting Jesus to exclude the fornication exception in His answer. And without the fornication exception, what He said is true. As I said, we don’t know what the question consisted of. Not only this, but Christ’s answer now included wives who put away their husbands. How does this square with the B.O.D., which applied only to men and their hard hearts?
–
Although, without fornication being part of the equation, what he said to the disciples “in the house” was the same as was said to the Pharisees. Without fornication of the spouse, the consequences of putting away and committing adultery would be the result for both. But if the putting away was for fornication the consequences would not apply as Christ stated. That is the point of the exception when putting your married spouse away. Putting away for fornication, excludes the consequences presented afterward by marrying another for both. The wife is already defiled sexually because of her sexual fornication, but the husband is not. This is why, in order for him to stay undefiled, he must put her away.
–
Also, if unconsummated betrothals are different from actual consummated marriages, then how can him putting her away cause her to commit adultery? In a betrothal it can’t occur. One cannot commit adultery against an agreement. Until consummation, the betrothed female is still a virgin. This is the ridiculousness and ignorance of their theology. Married couples are physically joined. Betrothed couples are not, until the betrothal is consummated. The instruction by Christ in Matthew 5&19 most assuredly is in reference to a one-flesh Biblical marriage and not a secular legalistic betrothal agreement.
–
In Luke, which records a different encounter with the Pharisees, nothing is alluded to regarding the BoD or anything else, as to why Jesus didn’t include the exception in that conversation. To speculate this Scripture as proof of their theology is foolish. One important consideration to all of this is the answer to this question: Can a marriage be made without a betrothal? Scripture shows clearly that it can be. This alone refutes the “Betrothalists” theology. Fornication is a violation of a marriage, not a betrothal, where the other is adversely affected.
–
6- As well as in a marriage, under the betrothal, the Jewish man had all the power. If Jesus was speaking and advocating secular Hebrew law, then there was no mention of or recourse for the female, if the betrothed man had “sex before marriage.” Why? Because under Hebrew law, he could have more than one wife, as long as they were virgins or widows. Those that espouse this false theology never seem to consider this. Jesus was not supporting Jewish betrothals or the Jewish way for men. Everything Jesus was teaching in Matthew was about doing away with the acceptance of being married to more than one wife, showing under Him, for a man to do so is adulterous. Hence, He was teaching Biblical marriage.
–
7- If fornication is “sex before marriage” and can only happen in a betrothal, then why did Paul, in 1Corinthians 5:1 say the man being sexually intimate with his “father’s wife” was committing fornication? Do they consider this sex before marriage? This is purely incestuous adulterous fornication.
–
8- Jude said in verse 7 that the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah were committing fornication. Is this what God destroyed them for, having “sex before marriage” in a betrothed state? And the women were totally responsible for this destruction? Here again, it appears as in #7, fornication does not mean sex before marriage, but rather any and all sexually defiling encounters.
–
9- Throughout Scripture a male and a female in a betrothal were never identified as “married.” Even describing the account of Joseph and Mary, Scripture describes them as being “espoused,” twice, and never married. They were referenced as a espoused, not betrothed, husband and wife under Hebrew law, yet not husband and wife under God’s law of marriage. In the KJV, when the word marriage is used, it is stating from Greek a one-flesh union, never a betrothal. That is because betrothals are not Biblical “one-flesh” marriages and Jesus was addressing “one-flesh” Biblical marriages and not secular betrothals in Matthew 5&19.