Except for Fornication

From the book Harden Not Your Hearts

How shall we harmonise this apparent contradiction?

“And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, [G4202] and marries another, commits adultery; [G3429] and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.” Matthew 19:9, NKJV

Compared with:

“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery.” Luke 16:18, NKJV

For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. Romans 7:2, NKJV

If a woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive then how can it be true at the same time that a person can be unbound from their living spouse to remarry, if that spouse commits adultery? They can’t both be true. Either you are bound to your marriage vows as long as both spouses have breath or you can exit the marriage if your spouse commits adultery. Clearly there is a contradiction here. We must continue searching until we can discover how to bring these two apparent opposing texts together in harmony.

The first question then is, what does Jesus mean by sexual immorality in the exception clause of Matthew 19:9? The Greek word here is porneia, [G4202] while the Greek word for adultery is moichaō  [G3429]

It’s correct to say that both adultery and fornication are sexual immorality, but does this make them the same thing? Let’s look at how the New Testament writers use these two words and see if they are used interchangeably or whether they mean different things.

For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries (moicheia), fornications (porneia), thefts, false witness, blasphemies. Matthew 15:19, NKJV

For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries (moicheia), fornications (porneia), murders, Mark 7:21, NKJV

Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery (moicheia), fornication (porneia), uncleanness, lewdness,
Galatians 5:19, NKJV

From these texts, it appears that the Bible writers saw fornication and adultery as distinctly different sins otherwise they would only have needed to mention one of the two words in these lists. This principle is compounded in the following verse. The Greek words in this text use the noun referring to the person rather than the act itself; meaning fornicator rather than fornication.

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 1 Corinthians 6:9, NKJV

We see here again that fornicators and adulterers are described separately. What is also interesting here is the use of the word nor. Look at this verse again in the New Living Translation.

Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, 1 Corinthians 6:9

Fornication here is translated “sexual sin.” It seems strange to say sexual sin or adultery because adultery is a sexual sin. It is like saying “I am sick and I have an illness.” But because in this list it says sexual sin (fornication) or adultery, it means this or that; meaning this is not that; meaning fornication is not adultery. The logic is simple.

Once again, we see the same distinction made in the book of Hebrews:

Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators (pornos) and adulterers (moichos) God will judge. Hebrews 13:4, NKJV

Why doesn’t Paul say fornicating adulterers to show these terms overlap? Why are the New Testament writers making this distinction? To answer this we need to examine how Greeks used the word porneia before and after the New Testament period.

While it is rare in pre-New Testament literature one thing that did stick out to me about its [porneia] usage in those writings was that it was generally used to refer to sexual behaviour by single people who were committing fornication either for pleasure or for pay (prostitution).[1]

Bible Commentator Adam Clarke agrees with this evaluation when commenting on Matthew 5:32 relating to fornication:

Saving for the cause of fornication—Λογου πορνειας, on account of whoredom. As fornication signifies no more than the unlawful connection of unmarried persons, it cannot be used here with propriety, when speaking of those who are married. I have therefore translated λογου πορνειας, on account of whoredom. It does not appear that there is any other case in which Jesus Christ admits of divorce. A real Christian ought rather to beg of God the grace to bear patiently and quietly the imperfections of his wife, than to think of the means of being parted from her.—Adam Clarke Commentary on Matthew 5:32

But Adam Clarke is not the only one to come to this conclusion.

Fornication: sexual intercourse between two people who are not married to each other—Merriam Webster Dictionary

Fornication: Sexual intercourse between people who are not married to each other, especially when considered as a sin.—TheFreeDictionary.com

Fornication: Illicit sexual intercourse on the part of an unmarried person.—Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary

Fornication: Sexual intercourse between unmarried persons or between a married and an unmarried person.—The Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English

According to these definitions of fornication, it is impossible for someone who is married to commit fornication. All married persons who have sexual relations outside of their marriage, commit adultery, not fornication.

Let’s consider some dictionary definitions of the term adultery.

Adultery: voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than that person's current spouse or partner.—Merriam Webster Dictionary

Adultery: Consensual sexual intercourse between a married person and a person other than the spouse.—TheFreeDictionary.com

Adultery: Generally speaking, [adultery is] voluntary sexual intercourse between two people, one or both of whom is married to someone else. Ordinarily, the crime of the married person is adultery, of the other, [the unmarried person] fornication.—The National Encyclopedia

Adultery: Sexual intercourse of a married person with other than the marriage partner.... Adultery is technically distinguished from fornication, which is intercourse between unmarried persons.—Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia

Despite these observations, it is evident that a large portion of the Christian world consider that fornication can apply to both married and unmarried persons. As we shall explore in chapter 16, Luther and Calvin played a vital role in setting the Protestant Churches in this direction.

One of the passages that suggests possible proof that fornication can include adultery is this one.

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. 1 Corinthians 5:1 KJV

The Adventist Bible commentary states:

Fornication. Gr. porneia. This word, appearing twice in this verse, is a general term describing illicit sexual relationships whether between married or unmarried persons (see Mat_5:32; Act_15:20).

The details of this case are limited. If this man has married his father’s wife then do we conclude that this woman is not his mother, as it does not say that he had his mother? If it was not his mother, then it might be considered that the father had remarried to a different woman than the woman that bore the son. Was the father dead or alive in this case? Did the man in question marry this woman or not. None of these details are provided.

If we conclude that Paul here uses the word porneia to mean both married and unmarried relationships, then we run into a problem two chapters later:

Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 1 Corinthians 7:2 KJV

The King James version indicates that being married is the process to avoid fornication. Other translations state, “because of fornincation, let every man have his own wife.” Either way, Paul lays down a distinction between fornication and adultery.

In the case of 1 Corinthians 5:1, if an unmarried man has sexual relations with a woman who married a divorced man, then this relationship would not constitute a biblical marriage and would indeed be fornication. Whatever the case, 1 Corinthians 5:1 must harmonise with 1 Corinthians 7:2.

Taking all these things into consideration, as Adam Clarke stated, it is impossible to apply the term fornication to a married couple who have consummated the marriage. What then did Jesus mean with regard to the except for fornication clause found in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9?

In Jewish society, it was the duty and prerogative of the father to secure wives for his sons. When the marriage agreement was made with the family of the intended bride, the damsel was brought into the presence of her suitor, and both simply acquiesced to the arrangements made. This was called espousing or betrothing.[2]

There was generally an interval of ten or twelve months, and sometimes considerably more, between the time of making the marriage contract, or the day of espousals, and the marriage itself.... During all this interval, however, while the bride continued still in her father’s house, she was considered and spoken of as the lawful wife of the man to whom she was betrothed; so that the bridegroom could not destroy their engagement, if he became unwilling to marry her, without giving her a bill of a divorcement, in the same manner as if she had been fully wedded; and so, on the other hand, if she proved unfaithful to her espoused husband [during the betrothal period], she was punished [in the same way] as an adulteress.—John W. Nevin, A Summary of Biblical Antiquities,
pp. 123-124

The law of Moses stipulates that if a betrothed woman, who is already called a wife, is claimed by her husband not to be a virgin[3] after their first sexual encounter, then she was to be punished.

If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and detests her, and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings a bad name on her, and says, ‘I took this woman, and when I came to her I found she was not a virgin,’ Deuteronomy 22:13-14, NKJV

We see in the verses above that the words wife and virgin are used together to cover the period of betrothal. We note carefully the words to describe the case if she were to engage in immoral sexual activity.

…then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done a disgraceful thing in Israel, to play the harlot in her father’s house. So you shall put away the evil from among you. Deuteronomy 22:21, NKJV

The Greek Old Testament translates this word harlot with a derivative of porneia. The Apostolic Polyglot translates the word as fornicate. Both in Greek and in English, we have direct connections to Matthew’s exception clause.

One of the reasons why Matthew probably included the phrase except for fornication in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 is because of the story of Joseph and Mary which found them in the situation of explaining Mary’s pregnancy before Joseph and Mary had slept together.

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away [divorce her] secretly. But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.” Matthew 1:18-20, NKJV

During the ministry of Jesus, His enemies tried to frame Christ’s birth outside the possibility that Christ was conceived by the Spirit of God.

“You do the deeds of your father.” Then they said to Him, “We were not born of fornication; we have one Father—God.”
John 8:41, NKJV

In mockery they [the Jews] answered, ‘We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.’ These words, in allusion to the circumstances of His birth, were intended as a thrust against Christ in the presence of those who were beginning to believe on Him.—The Desire of Ages, 467

As Mary was betrothed to Joseph, she was his lawful wife. The Jews being aware of the story accused Jesus’ mother of fornication, not adultery.

Therefore, the inclusion of the term except for fornication was included in the book of Matthew for the purpose of teaching that a man may reject a woman to whom he is betrothed, called his wife, if she is found to be unfaithful, in order to marry someone else. This would happen before the two of them had ever consummated the marriage.

With this understanding, we can find complete harmony in Scripture between the expressions of Matthew and those found in Mark, Luke, Romans and 1 Corinthians. The conclusion from Scripture is that the principles of God’s kingdom do not provide for divorce after a marriage is consummated under any circumstances and therefore there is no case for remarriage while a spouse is still alive.

For many people there will come a strong aversion to this conclusion. What about what Ellen White said about the ability of the innocent party to remarry? Does it seem fair that if my partner runs off with someone else that I am sentenced to remain alone for the rest of my life? If I have remarried, does this mean I am condemned by God and the church? These questions stir up a lot of feelings for many of us.

We need to step through this as gently as possible, seeking to understand the Father’s character in marriage. As man and woman are made in the image of God and His Son (1 Cor 11:3), there are things in the marriage relation which will teach us more about God’s relationship with His Son. As Christ is the bridegroom to the church, the marriage institution will also teach us about the true love of the Saviour for His church. We will cover this in depth in a later chapter but we simply ask at this point, has the human race been faithful to Christ and loved Him as a bride should love her husband? Has Christ done anything to warrant the church being unfaithful to Him? Has Christ ever come to the point where He decided He had had enough of the horrific treatment He has received from humanity, and then decided to walk away? This never has nor ever will be part of Christ’s character. Listen to Jesus in the garden as He considered whether He could go through with the torture and shame of the cross to save humanity.

He went on a little farther and bowed with His face to the ground, praying, “My Father! If it is possible, let this cup of suffering be taken away from Me. Yet I want Your will to be done, not Mine.” Matthew 26:39

Three times has He uttered that prayer. Three times has humanity shrunk from the last, crowning sacrifice. But now the history of the human race comes up before the world’s Redeemer. He sees that the transgressors of the law, if left to themselves, must perish. He sees the helplessness of man. He sees the power of sin. The woes and lamentations of a doomed world rise before Him. He beholds its impending fate, and His decision is made. He will save man at any cost to Himself. He accepts His baptism of blood, that through Him perishing millions may gain everlasting life. He has left the courts of heaven, where all is purity, happiness, and glory, to save the one lost sheep, the one world that has fallen by transgression. And He will not turn from His mission. He will become the propitiation of a race that has willed to sin. His prayer now breathes only submission: “If this cup may not pass away from Me, except I drink it, Thy will be done.”—The Desire of Ages, 690.3

Christ has not only endured the dreadful behaviour of one person over a life time, He has endured the most evil manifestations of the billions of humans for over 6000 years. This level of self-sacrifice none of us will ever be called upon to endure. But if we can’t endure the potential difficulties of marriage to one person in one life time, then how will we stand in the presence of one that is infinitely self-sacrificing. The mere look of His loving eyes upon our unforgiving selfishness will be like stones of conviction crushing our soul.

The 1888 view of the cross invites us into the fellowship of Christ’s suffering in a way not previously understood by the human race. The principles taught about the atonement by E.J. Waggoner open for us a door that can enable us to see the marriage relation framed into a new wine skin and restored to its Edenic glory.

As we discussed previously about the Sabbath, the natural human heart finds the Sabbath command a restriction of freedom, something arbitrary backed up with a death penalty for non-compliance. This is also how the natural heart sees marriage. In the light of the 1888 message, we are being offered old light in new settings. We must embrace this light in order to learn the deeper lessons of the marriage union which God intended.

What do you hear when reading the following text?

“For I hate divorce!” says the LORD, the God of Israel. “To divorce your wife is to overwhelm her with cruelty,” says the LORD of Heaven’s Armies. “So guard your heart; do not be unfaithful to your wife.” Malachi 2:16

Do we hear the rumblings of an angry violent God willing to condemn or do we hear the anguished cry of our Father in heaven for His children? Do we see tears in His eyes as He says that divorce overwhelms the heart of the victim and turns the heart of the perpetrator to brittle iron?

For those of us who have discovered the truth of our Father’s character, who have begun to comprehend the amount of suffering our Father is willing to endure, then maybe we are ready to listen to our Father’s reasons for why He hates divorce, and why the New Testament makes no provision for it.

For many of us, this takes special courage. For those who have been divorced and remarried, this conclusion can feel like complete condemnation. But our Father tells us that He condemns no one, but calls all of us to repentance. It does not matter where we have been or what we have done, God does not tell us these things to shame and condemn us, but rather He shows us these things to save us from having our hearts hardened, and losing our grip on our Father’s relational kingdom.

Within the context of the 1888 message, it is our privilege to place the marriage institution in its original design. Within the Old Covenant, marriage for life is frightening, but in the New Covenant it is transformed into a precious revelation of the Father’s love for us through His Son.

At this point, it is a moment for me as the author to ask our Father in heaven for forgiveness for wrongly presenting the subject of marriage and divorce. I was taught and had accepted that an innocent party could remarry someone. Over my years in ministry, I have discovered that often there is difficulty in determining who is guilty and who is innocent in such matters. People have called upon me to bless their remarriage and I have been faced with the difficult task of seeking to know if I can dispense such a blessing or not.

When people are desperate for love, they can frame words in the light that suits their desires. Information can be left out or stated in such a way that makes their case solid and acceptable. When I as a minister do not come to the conclusions that those seeking my blessing desire, I have sometimes been rebuffed for my “harsh, un-Christlike character” and rejected as a leader and friend.

I have asked the Lord in the past why these things happen? Why am I placed in this position? The answer now becomes clear, these are all the fruit of not coming into the fullness of the marriage institution as God designed it. I am not called to be a judge of any man or woman’s marital situation because it is ordained for life. God’s design makes the issue far simpler and easier to implement, while giving a clear path for married couples to take hold of the character of Christ to live as He lives, and to endure with Him the cross of self-denial.

If you have been studying the principles of the Father of Love movement, you should come to the place where you can trust our Father knows what is best for us and that His love and care is sufficient for all situations.

Dear Father in heaven, I come to you with a broken heart. I confess to you my false understanding of what the Scriptures teach. I didn’t truly realise that innocent party remarriage is a concession made for hard hearts, not the true intent of marriage. I am sorry for not studying this subject out sooner and preventing myself from giving people incorrect advice. I trust in your forgiveness and I pray for strength to stand on these principles.

I pray those who read this book will discern my motivation and not cut off their friendship from me. I choose to follow your truth Father wherever it leads me and I trust that you will help me to live and teach the truth always. I pray for all of your dear children who consider this subject, that they will be open to what the Scriptures teach and see the true blessing in marriage. You have restored to us the true joy of the Sabbath and expanded them into the feasts. Now in this restored Sabbath understanding, may we now have the other Edenic institution restored to its glory, so that the family unit can be elevated into the blessing fountain it was truly designed to be. Thank you, Father, for revealing these truths to me, in Jesus’ beautiful name, I pray. Amen.

[1] Daniel R. Jennings, Except for Fornication, (Sean Multimedia, 2011) p.4.

[2] Is Marriage a Contract for Life, https://sdarm.org/publications/good-way-series/is-marriage-a-contract-for-life

[3] The process of proving a woman to be a virgin, in the light of modern scientific empirical data, appears very concerning. The parents of the woman were to keep the bed sheet from the first sexual encounter which was to contain blood from the breaking of the woman’s hymen during intercourse. The problem with this, at least in the modern world, is that many women don’t bleed on their first sexual encounter. It is also possible to break the hymen in other ways than sex. It is also not proven that breaking the hymen will cause bleeding every time. All of these things suggest an accommodation in the law to men’s hard hearts as Jesus indicated regarding divorce. There was no virginity test for men, and it appears the hymen test was far from fool proof, placing the woman in a very difficult situation if her husband turned against her. What man would expose his wife to being stoned to death for unfaithfulness except a man with a hardened heart.