In his Column last month, Bro. Jack Robinson made a comment which arrested our attention: “The extent of the deliberations that took place in Jerusalem [at the Jerusalem conference, Acts 15] suggests that fornication was a big problem in all the ecclesias. If one is to believe the frequent rumors, it is a growing problem in the ecclesias of today” (Tidings, 3/00, p. 86). Along with his wife, Sis. Shirley, Bro. Jack has maintained close contact with today’s Christadelphian young people. As well as being involved parents and grandparents, for years they have been a vital part of the support staff at the Manitoulin Youth Conference and they are counselors for the Truth Corps. Furthermore, as readers of his column will know, Bro. Jack’s approach is gentle and understated. So when Bro. Jack speaks in such terms, we listen!
The pagan world’s casual attitude
As pointed out in his article, fornication is an old problem. In the Jerusalem letter to the new Gentile ecclesias, it is listed along with, as it might seem to us, such innocuous practices as eating non-kosher meat: “That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication…” (Acts 15:29).
In the pagan world of New Testament times, it is evident casual sex was regarded very casually. The attitude was a result of the pagan temples raising money by selling the services of women who “dedicated” themselves for a time to the local fertility goddess.
Coincidentally, the same week we read Bro. Jack’s article, we covered the Dinah—Shechem incident (Gen. 34) in a seminar follow-up class. To see the relevance of this account to our days, we should note two facts: “And the young man [Shechem] deferred not to do the thing [be circumcised with all males in the town], because he had delight in Jacob’s daughter: and he was more honorable than all the house of his father…And they [Jacob’s sons] slew Hamor and Shechem his son with the edge of the sword, and took Dinah out of Shechem’s house, and went out” (Gen. 34:19,26).
How came it Dinah was still in Shechem’s house? Why hadn’t she returned home while the marriage discussions were in process? Shechem was an honorable man; he truly delighted in Dinah and was willing to do whatever was necessary to properly take her as his wife. Surely he would have let her go home if that’s what she wanted..
The evidence seems clear that as Dinah willingly consorted with the “daughters of the land” (Gen. 34:1), her relationship with Shechem was also consensual.
In today’s world no doubt many would ask, “If Shechem was honorable and Dinah was willing, what was all the commotion about?”
Hence we ask: Is a Dinah-Shechem attitude current among some in the household of faith?
Issue has been addressed
About 1960, we forthrightly addressed “The Way of a Man With a Maid” in a special issue of a youth magazine. Again, when our own sons began to mature, we produced “A Letter to My Sons” (available from the Tidings and from the Australian CSSS). Perhaps some further comments are again timely, for this is not a problem for whom only young people are concerned. The whole ecclesia needs to know God’s position and lovingly teach it at every level of ecclesial life.
God’s design
In order that the human race might reproduce itself, God built into our bodies certain instincts and pleasures. While this is true of all species in the animal kingdom, there is a major difference between humans and animals. The reproductive process in humans is to be part of a monogamous relationship forming the bedrock of the family. As Adam said upon first seeing Eve: “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh” and the inspired comment is made, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his wife and they shall be one flesh” (Gen. 2:23-24).
The Lord Jesus expounded Genesis when he said:
“Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh” (Mt. 19:4-6).
In writing to converts from paganism, Paul had to be most explicit that it was the physical union which was referenced in the discreet language of Genesis and that of the Lord:
“Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh” (I Cor. 6:15-16).
Obviously when they were pagans, a Shechem-like attitude had prevailed with those who were now in the ecclesia. In their former lives, they had given no thought to casual intimacy as being sin against God. Now they must realize fornication is an extremely serious violation of a fundamental Divine principle.
A lofty spiritual lesson
But there is more! God intended the life-long union of one man and one woman, cemented by their exclusive sexual union, to be a temporal, physical embodiment of the eternal, spiritual union of Christ and the ecclesia. Listen to Paul’s exposition:
“So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: for we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh” (Eph. 5:28-31).
Note the import of “for this cause.” God intended to build into human relationships a foretaste of the joy, intimacy and permanence of Christ and the ecclesia. If one man and one woman would come together for life and share physical intimacy exclusively between themselves, they would experience the exclusive and loving association which the Lord God planned in the relationship between His Son and his bride — the ecclesia.
God’s commands are clear
Rather obviously, mankind in general has completely missed the point. Pagans in New Testament times viewed the physical satisfaction of the reproductive drives as a physical pleasure with no moral constraints. They thought sexual intimacy was their right, rather than the privilege of marriage. Unfortunately, that’s not too far from the view of many in our own societies. But this is not to be the attitude among God’s people. That difference is dramatically seen in the Law of Moses. Consider the following laws:
Deut. 22:13-21 — If a man took a wife and complained she was no virgin, “the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house.”
Deut. 22:28-29– If a man lay with a virgin, “the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.”
In the New Testament, the same attitude is expressed in the absolute prohibition of fornication:
“The works of the flesh are these: Adultery, fornication…they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal. 5:19-21).
“Mortify [put to death] therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection…” (Col. 3:5-6).
“For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication…For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness. He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God” (I Thess. 4:3,7-8).
The engaged
We are good Bible students in Christadelphia and some have noted the Law said:
“If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife” (Deut. 22:23-24).
From this and other passages, it is evident engagements in Israel were treated as a binding contract similar to our marriage contract. Observing this fact, the assumption is sometimes made that engaged couples can rightly act as if they were married without sin being committed.
Is that a fair assumption? Is it fair to take advantage of a supposed liberty of the Law without also accepting the whole of the Law’s approach? After all, if an engaged couple were to practice such liberty and then split up, is the woman prepared to risk execution upon marrying someone else? Or are today’s couples prepared to marry upon losing their virginity? (Deut. 22:28-29).
Let’s be sensitive to the spirit of the will of God and not be looking for loopholes to act like a Dinah and a Shechem. The Lord God has graciously built powers and pleasures into our bodies that the race might be preserved. But in His knowledge of what is good for us, He has proscribed careful limits for the use of these benefits that the human race might be built on the bedrock of strong and lasting families and that we might have a foretaste of the joy of eternal fellowship with Christ. If we will align ourselves with the will of God, we will find true and lasting satisfaction which is far more valuable than the fleeting pleasures of casual relationships. God’s way is the best and only way; let’s practice it and flee fornication.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One