Something About "Fornication" and Matthew 5:28

Elijah writes and wants to know about “fornication” and what exactly is intended by the word; he also wants to know about the suggestion of some that one could “put away” his/her spouse for something like “lust” (especially in our pornographic society), based on a reading of Matthew 5:28 . . .

First, the Bible isn't an “all things legal” book, meaning that the whole holy text is NOT supposed to function as a legislative handbook. (That isn't to say that law is not included; see some of the pieces in the “hermeneutics” section on the site.) I mean to say that God, in the holy text, primarily seeks to give us, a human race, a trajectory. He points us in the right direction in hundreds – no, thousands! – of cases and leaves all of the little details to us to work out. How short of shorts becomes “too short?” They weren't supposed to “work” on the Sabbath Day, but what constitutes “work” and when, precisely, down to the millisecond does the Sabbath Day begin? And, what about a thousand other issues? Certainly, we're not supposed to charge God with these problems? Why, I don't even think that these things should be problems! In fact, the fellow with the right heart is going to want to approach all of these issues – rightly! – with the old mantra, “What would Jesus do?” No, that question isn't exhaustive, but it captures the right idea, I think. Asking that question solves thousands of issues for the individual who legitimately wants to follow the risen Lord.

Now, why have I started with all of that? Well, I'm merely pointing out that the holy text, as far as I know, never gives a clinical, sterile, lexical definition for “fornication.” Maybe you could find passages that would pretty well illustrate the idea? But, even with passages like Leviticus 18 – which is pretty clear on loads of scenarios – we don't get a clear definition for “lay with” or something like that. In fact, the Bible is quite vague as far as a definition goes. It says, “know” or “lay with” or “fornication” or something like that. Every once-in-a-while, when it seems that God's really gotten ill with the rebellion of some, the text will accuse some of “going a whoring” or something real sharp. Ah, okay, what's the point?

I'm saying that the Bible isn't interested to give us all of the little details. It suffices to say, “flee fornication” (1 Cor. 6:18; 10:14), leaving it there. If we can't work out what words mean, well, we really have no business reading the Bible until we do. The Bible ASSUMES definitions, as all good literature does, and is completely disinterested with defining all of the little words that it uses.

Where does the question, “What is 'fornication'?”, come from? I mean, who started asking? Who wants to know? I get the rub that the people asking are those of two sorts: 1) those who are legitimately interested for interpretive purposes and 2) those who are asking because of an emotional – even agenda-driven – reason. Do NOT misunderstand: I think that you can be of both sorts and ask legitimately while also tied up with the matter emotionally and have an “agenda.” (Whoever decided that “having an agenda” embedded in one's view makes the view wrong?! Sure, it may not look great and raise all sorts of human suspicions, but that's no argument against one's view, now, is it?!) So, let's see if this analysis helps us at all . . .

I think that everybody knows what “fornication” is. Don't misunderstand me. I think that some are asking for precise lines so that we can “know” exactly where to draw them and so that we can wrangle with all of the technicalities that might come our way. (Why, I used to be concerned with all of this myself! I used to have all of the technicalities drawn up and mastered in this department, or so I thought.) But, I think that this is precisely the kind of thing that Jesus really is NOT all that interested in. Let me illustrate . . .

Jesus' going as far as to say that “lusting after a woman in one's heart equals adultery” (Mat. 5:28) finds itself in a larger unit of 6 statements that Jesus reorients (5:21-26,27-30,31-32,33-37,38-42,43-48). In other words, Jesus takes 6 statements that had become common and begins to show the real intent of the law (cf. Mat. 5:21,27,31,33,38,43). This is really the purpose of the wider unit. Let me explain . . .

The Jews, for the most part, especially the leadership of the nation in Jesus' day, had become notorious for being “legalistic,” and so, they read “the law” in a “legalistic” way, rather than out of a full heart for God. They'd sacrifice and pay money before they ever tipped their hearts towards God. So, Jesus takes 6 examples as samples of a much deeper problem . . . Jesus is not interested in the 6 specific examples, here, as much as he uses them to address a much broader, problematic paradigm.

He shows how they had read “You shall not commit murder” at the base level and the base level only (Mat. 5:21). But, as Jesus points out, they were reading “legalistically,” making sure that they were “toeing the line” and not trying to bust open their hearts towards God. They read “the law” – well – “legally.” And, this is NOT the kind of relationship that the Holy Father seeks from His children. (This isn't the kind of relationship that physical fathers want with their physical children either, so why would we project this kind of arrangement onto the Holy Father with us?!) The other lines, “give a certificate of divorce” (Mat. 5:31), “don't make false vows” (Mat. 5:33), “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” (Mat. 5:38) and “love your neighbor” (Mat. 5:43), had all been read in this same way. Each of the 6 examples illustrates that many of the Jews read “the law” at the flat, base level and determined NOT to give his heart to God.

So, to be “right with God,” many Jews 1) did not murder, 2) did not commit adultery, 3) provided certificates of divorce, 4) did not make false vows, 5) returned good for good and evil for evil and 6) loved their neighbors. And, this – this! – was what they thought “justified” them?! They thought that their keeping of legalistic codes would “justify” them and that they could get “right up to the line” and still please God! Maybe, now, we're seeing the problem? In each case, Jesus points out that God gave these “laws,” but what Jesus can't stand is the “approach” to God's text. THERE IS MORE IN THE EXPLICIT LAW THAN ONLY WHAT IS STATED EXPLICITLY. And, THAT IS WHAT JESUS IS TEACHING!

The Jew was hating others, treating others unethically and then justifying the behavior by saying, “We don't kill anyone.” But, that's still ungodly behavior, and they actually should have been reading the law (“you shall not commit murder”) to prohibit much more than just anger. One who asks, “Well, what is murder?” so as to know where the prohibition “ends and begins” is asking the wrong question. Everybody knows what “murder” is, but the law actually said more. Here's a case where God has given ample information, and anybody who doesn't know what “murder” is and where it stems from needs to check his heart. “Murder” is not something that happens “out of the blue” but something that comes out of an entire ungodly process of anger and hatred. So, the Jew would develop anger, then hatred and then thoughts of murder and would then cut the whole process right at the point of murder. Jesus was making the point that this “legalistic” keeping of “you shall not commit murder” hardly came close to what God was saying with the law.

And, the Jews were approaching each of these things in such a way. Why, the last, “love your neighbor,” is particularly interesting, since everybody knows what a “neighbor” is . . . But, a “legalist” needs all of the clinical, sterile definitions so that he can know exactly where his requirement is and where his liberty exists. THE JEW WANTED “WATERED-DOWN” DEFINITIONS SO THAT HE COULD APPROACH GOD – not “love” God – WITH THE BARE-MINIMUM. In fact, in one case, one had to ask Jesus to DEFINE “neighbor” (Luke 10:25-ff. [esp. vs. 25,29]). Can you beat that?! Here's the Master saying, “Love your neighbor,” and a Jew comes up and needs definitions for everything that the Master had said?! The Jew wanted the “neighbor” to be only the fellow-Jew that saw everything in the same way that he, himself, did, but Jesus is saying that that's not “love” nor is it “neighborly.” Everything about the Jew's approach was 1) legal and 2) not loving God.

Now, how does this help us with the question about “fornication” and the “lust” question of Matthew 5:28?

Well, I'm one of those that thinks that developing context always helps us when approaching these sorts of questions, and I think that discerning the type of unit that Matthew 5:28 is in is quite helpful. Let's see if we can't develop it just a bit more . . .

Matthew 5:27-32 and Matthew 19:3-12 are certainly hand-in-hand. Both speak about the issue of fornication, adultery, divorce and how the Jews were viewing such.

Because of a combined reading, I get the impression that this sort of thing was going on . . . The Jew was married to Kate, had three kids, saw Sally at the market, wanted to get Sally in bed, decided to divorce Kate, ditching her in a number of ways, married Sally, bedded her, then saw Allison at the market the next week and the whole process started all over again.

Now, the Jew would've claimed that he “followed the law.” He had made sure that all of the divorce proceedings were in-order; he did have the right papers, he'd have claimed. In fact, he had the same papers/certificates for divorce that Moses had spoken of!

Now, does anything like that sound like God's way to you? Absolutely not! But, the Jew read Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and said that Moses was more-or-less encouraging such a lust-filled process as long as you had the right papers for it. (THIS IS LEGALISM! THIS IS THE IDEA OF THINKING THAT GOD IS PLEASED WITH HAVING THE RIGHT DIVORCE CERTIFICATE OR BAPTISMAL CERTIFICATE RATHER THAN A SUBMISSIVE AND LOVING HEART THAT SEES MUCH MORE IN THE ADMONITIONS OF GOD THAN STERILE, CLINICAL LAWS.)

This is where Jesus can't stand the APPROACH of the Jews of His day. They had “worked out” Deuteronomy 24:1-4 to self-justify and allow and even promote not only “adultery” but the entire process leading to it. Like “murder,” “adultery” is not something that just happens . . . It comes out of an entire “heart” that is full of blackness. (Didn't Jesus say something like this?! See Matthew 15:15-20 especially!) So, in “you shall not commit murder” or “you shall not commit adultery,” one, like a good non-legalistic child, should read/hear the words to say, “Stay away from the entire thing leading to such” – don't you see how the non-legalistic, submissive, full-of-heart, right approach STILL results in the same distance from murder/adultery that the legalistic one does but ACTUALLY DOES BETTER since the approach also keeps one from anger, hatred, lust, etc. in the process – but the legalist engages in all of the mess that leads right up to murder or adultery.

And, in Matthew 19, Jesus calls attention to Genesis 1,2, takes the Jew all the way back to the beginning and to a holistic, cohesive reading of ALL THE LAW rather than their favorite, pet passage in Deuteronomy 24:1-4, which they thought that they could favor at the expense of the entire holy text on the matter. Jesus insists that the whole scripture clears up what Deuteronomy 24:1-4 should be read as; it was not an encouragement of divorce (as long as one had the right papers) as much as it said that the Jews were already acting like goons and should at least do the women the service of having a second shot at life, showing that she was “put away,” COULD remarry another man, COULD have property rights and COULD have custody with the children. Without a PAPER, the woman would really be “left out to dry.” Without a paper, she'd look the part of an adulteress, whom others would shun. Without a paper, she'd have no job, no shot at remarriage, no right to children, no right to property. That is what Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is saying. Jesus interprets it, rightly, and says that Moses saw that the hardness of the Jewish hearts was already ongoing and that the least that they could do was the service to the women. THE PAPERS DIDN'T MAKE BLACK HEARTS PURE! The papers were a service to the women since the process was already going on. Moses wasn't encouraging lust and divorce and remarriage as long as the right papers were had. Jesus sorts all of this out in Matthew 19.

To develop more of the Matthew 19 passage, you might find this video helpful: https://cadleonard.com/blog/marriage-two-become-one

So, in spite of the length of all of that, let's see if we can't re-approach the question . . .

Is “fornication” reduced to “lust” by Jesus? Well, He's not saying that one is actually/technically a “fornicator” or “adulterer” by lusting (via pornography or other). That's not His intent with the remark, neither is it the context of Matthew 5. Like with “murder” (Mat. 5:21-26), one is not an actual/technical “murderer” by having anger or hate. But, Jesus' actual context is to speak against those who have “justified” themselves with the bare reading of the law, deciding quite-poorly and rebelliously not to submit to the deeper and wider trajectory that the law put into place.

It's my understanding that “fornication” is physical sex act . . . and I'll leave it there. For those interested, do a word study of “porneia,” the Greek word behind the English text. Because of that, I don't think that a female has a “right” to “put away” her husband for lust/watching pornography. Jesus still sees “adultery” as an actual, physical sex act, just as “murder” is an actual killing and not hatred/anger. (The ramifications of anger/hatred and murder and lust and adultery are all the same, and that is part of Jesus' point. One can't self-justify the “lesser” of the two.) I used to think that we needed to sort all of that out so that we can know where the messy, technical details should find themselves in “marriage, divorce and remarriage” scenarios . . . Maybe, there's still a place for that? But, let me develop TWO primary scenarios that I could see really happening . . .

FIRST, I could see a modern-day individual, like the Jews of Jesus' day, saying, “We don't commit adultery,” while watching pornography every night on the computer. I could see Jesus' saying that such an action is ungodly and doesn't come close to catching the “spirit” or “disposition” or “attitude” or “trajectory” of such a prohibition, “not to commit adultery.”

SECOND, I could see a group of “legalists” – here, NOBLE INDIVIDUALS in a way – that MUST know the technicalities and details of a text. (I'm speaking from experience, here. I used to “work out” all of the imaginable scenarios with MDR so that I'd know how to handle any situation with all of its technicalities.) I don't think that Jesus really wants us to develop all of this out, if you know what I mean. Let me illustrate . . .

If John is married to Kate but wants to bed Sally, can he murder her so that he'll have the scriptural right to remarry? If John is married to Kate but wants to bed Sally, can he leave town for a year in an attempt to wait until she cheats so that he can then “put her away” for fornication? Hundreds of scenarios like this could be duplicated . . .

LEGALLY, in both of the above scenarios, John could claim that he's “following the law” and thus “has a right to remarry,” just as the Jews were claiming to do in their own days. I think that Jesus would not be interested in a discussion about John's marital status. I think that Jesus would have an awful lot to say about John's heart . . . It's a complete dodge to approach the question of John's murdering his wife by saying, “Well, he'd be in jail.” That does NOT handle the point. What happens after John “does his time” and gets out in a few years and seeks to remarry? (And, what if he has “repented” of the murder while he was incarcerated?) Does he have the “right to remarry” then or not? LEGALLY, John is not married and his marriage is certainly not “in tact” (cf. Rom. 7:1-4). And, what about the “waiting game” scenario? John is certainly not guilty of fornication and his wife certainly had been? What is to stop him from divorcing and remarrying “scripturally”?

See, in both cases, in relation to the MDR issue (not on murder), John is an “innocent party” LEGALLY. He has the “LEGAL right” to remarry, doesn't he? BUT THIS IS WHERE JESUS IS SAYING THAT THE APPROACH IS TO BE ABHORRED. ONE CANNOT “TAILOR” THE LAW TO SELF-JUSTIFY. I think that Jesus is saying that there is a major difference between John's waiting for Kate to commit fornication so that he can marry Sally and if John had stayed at home, tried to be the kind of husband that he needed to be and then had Kate commit adultery in that context. AND, I think that asking questions of Matthew 5:27-32 and Matthew 19:3-12 like “what about the waiting game” or “what about murder” is 1) IN ONE SENSE to ask questions of Jesus that He is NOT answering but 2) IN ANOTHER SENSE, He is answering, since He is speaking against that very kind of APPROACH/HEART towards God.

In the above scenarios, with John, Kate and Sally, I get the impression that Jesus would frown towards John, not care about his “legal” status on “marriage” and start lecturing him about his heart and approach to God.

Today, I get the impression that too many are interested in all of the little, technical details in MDR than they are in the ethics affiliated with such. We can “justify” all sorts of marriages for individuals, but my question, like I think Jesus' would be, too, would not be as much – there'd still be questions that I'd have, don't misunderstand! – about marital status but about the status of one's heart.

John might be “legally innocent” – and years ago, because of my own “legalism,” I'd have “given him the 'right to remarry'” – but in SEVERAL of the scenarios, I'd be forced, now – because of my closer reading of Jesus, His teaching, His way and LESS OF MY OWN PHILOSOPHICAL APPROACH TO FIT ALL OF THE PIECES TOGETHER IN A SYSTEMATIC WAY – I'd be forced to tell John, who is “legally innocent” in several scenarios that He should not remarry because of His approach, His heart, His character, His lack of ethics. The LAW was FOR MAN and not against him (Mark 2:27,28). When we start “working the law” to our benefit and agenda selfishly, we've actually abandoned the REAL reading of the law and need an education and a new approach to “come to God” appropriately.

I think Matthew 5 and Matthew 19 say all of this.

I can't tidy all of this up nicely and neatly with the time that I have.

There are hundreds of other questions. Jesus' teaching needs to have more attention than our systematic approach to the matter. He'll sort out all of the difficulties, I think.