Two ways at looking at living together

Laurie is talking about living together and he calls it sin, “wrong on so many levels”. (“What Jesus Taught” 00:11:00-43) He is correct in the sense he is speaking. However, there are different ways of looking at this. Today, many people live together and sin because they are not intending to be husband and wife for God. They are merely satisfying their fleshly desires. They may not even have been virgins before their relationship, and that would definitely cause a problem or reason to annul a marriage, and bring reproach so as to prevent the male from becoming an official of a local church.

However, on the other hand, Adam and Eve lived together. They did not sin. As a matter in fact, Jesus Christ referred to their marriage as an example for all. For one, they were pure, both were virgins. They never divorced. Their marital lives were transparent and approved of God.

Remedy to legitimatize living together as man and wife

Regardless, when the law of Moses came into effect, couples who possessed eligibility to marry and who lay down/slept or lived together were expected to make a public covenant of marriage by the male parent of the girl publicly permitting and officiating the wedlock. The groom was never allowed to divorce her. So, a chaste female who had no other sexual relationships with any other men and lived together with a man through a one night/day stand was demanded and given the opportunity to legitimatize it.

Female purity is a prerequisite for marriage

Christian marriages must be based on purity and transparency as Jesus demonstrated in Mt. 19.9. The women are required to be virgins as the dowry wives of the OT. and the husband must never divorce her under her chaste circumstances.

Remarriage was permitted in the second law era to more loose women than dowry wives

Women who were not virgins could even marry under the redaction of Moses (Dt. 24.1-3) and to depart from that contract of wedlock required a document to be in writing and given to the girl. However, she could not make her former family an abomination by returning to an ex-husband after marrying another man. (Dt. 24.4)

The NT is more strict than the second law era

Sometimes people think of the concurrence of marriage only as the mutual consent of a male and female, but this perception may be an illusion if the female is not a virgin or a widow--marriage was also instituted to prevent unchastity in ancient Israel. God honors moral-sexual cleanliness, purity and unity in marriage. The Lord upheld the virginity of a woman in the first and second law era (Mt. 19.4-6), so as if a male shared through consent (Dt. 22.13-17) or even violated through rape (Dt. 22.28-29) her chastity, he was obligated to marry her since he completed the sexual bond with her, the physical part of the marriage unity that Adam and Eve accomplished, who the bible testifies they and the institution of marriage were undefiled (Heb. 13.4).

God protected virgins from divorce

The obedience, moral cleanliness, beauty, glory, purity, magnificence and innocence of virginity possesses perpetual oversight and protection from the Lord. According to Dt. 22.29, a male was commanded to marry (take for a wife) a girl if he raped her; and it was disclosed; and under the condition that she was not engaged to anyone. He was never able to divorce her. The virginity of a girl is more than a state of chastity before marriage--it is the undefiled housing of potential reproduction of life, significance of sexual purity--God honors its holiness and innocence; and he protected the virgin against impulsive divorce once having married. The OT. Law states specifically, "She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives" (Dt. 22.19).

The OT. gave rules so as to take a wife after sleeping with her

Women under the OT. law were under the subjection of the male parent so as to give her to the man she slept with. They were dowry wives. Before they were given in marriage, they had to be virgins before they slept with the man, whether he raped, seduced or consented with her to have sex. Women that were not virgins and slept with a man and claimed that she was previously chaste but lied and was found guilty before a court were put to death for folly, at least in a case of consent. Chastity was a requirement for marriage whether a woman slept with a man (Mt. 19.9) before or after a marriage ceremony.

So, it seems, it is not the act of living together that makes a continuous sin (although the first sex encounter may have begun with a sin). It is the process of choosing a sexual relationship without reverence toward God and not fulfilling his purity laws as to marriage that brings condemnation. We have many people today living together in fornication or adultery although they are legally married. God will judge such. (Hebrews 13.4) State laws and biblical laws are not the same thing. Biblical marriage must be established upon the premise of virgin purity and God's written word. Widow chastity agrees.

Don't listen to men; let the Scriptures be your guide

Laurie mentions Ruth Graham and her saying of what a successful marriage is! (“What Jesus Taught” 00:27:08-17) This poor woman is a spiritual catastrophe, my heart bleeds for her to repent of her promiscuity and live single. Her parents, Billy and his wife, were known throughout the world as religious leaders and great people but Mr. Graham erred as to not rebuking remarriage and went astray, and so did his daughter. The at-one-time famous parents had to be reproved (2 Tim. 3.16) and their passivity led to their daughter's destruction according to Ruth's testimony, they didn't tell her specifically that remarriage was adultery. (Billings) Christians are following a myth if they think many of the former well-knowns were on target with the Scripture as to the aspect of biblical marriage.

Laurie says adultery is not only grounds for divorce, it is also a “grounds for forgiveness” (“What Jesus Taught” 00:36:15-44). He seemingly intends to promote it is alright for a man to live with an adulterous wife. He is deceived and incorrect on the second part of his statement. Of course, people have to forgive others if they want to be forgiven by God, but a man should never accept an unclean or defiled wife back. (Dt. 24.4) It would be an abomination. Nevertheless, Laurie lied on God and said Jesus gave this allowance. (“What Jesus Taught” 00:37:34-37) God forbid!

Singleness remedy for defiled wife

King David could not sleep with his former concubines who were evidently defenseless and slept with Absalom. Adultery was a death penalty sin in the Old Covenant. The adulterer and adulteress both were sentenced to death. (Lev. 20.10) Even as there was a remedy for folly (Dt. 22.20–21) and before marriage, there was also a remedy for female illicit sex after marriage. Nevertheless, the widows were not killed for their sexual act with Absalom because it was not their fault. However, their relationship with the king was broken and he didn't violate their lost ability to have sex with him. So today, obviously a hidden defilement-act of the wife after marriage would make her unclean and unable to continue a former clean marriage.

The former death penalty “put evil away” and eradicated the uncleanness of female folly of fornication (Dt. 22.21). However, in NT times, we are not under the extreme penalty of the OT. Law. Nevertheless, hypothetically, the once pure but now defiled marriage after post-marriage female sexual defilement would also have to be dissolved. King David could not have sex with his defiled concubines (a fulfilled prophecy of Nathan the prophet) after the treachery of Absalom (2 Samuel 12.11, 2 Samuel 16.22); they lived as widows (2 Samuel 20.3). Marriage is based upon purity, not secret female promiscuity, open-defilement or remarriage.

Cognizance factor

Two people that join physically but are unclean cannot form a biblical marriage. They can become as one flesh but in an unclean way. When a cognizant, married woman and a man other than her husband concur this realization of knowing each other in a defiled, pro-creative manner, the woman's mind no longer holds the intellectual purity of knowing only one, living, man anymore.

Penetration of the vagina is an accepted opinion that would determine such defilement; however, actually the issue of discernment of sexual cleanliness bears upon the consciousness of the individuals involved. Dry sex—no penetration of the vagina but rubbing the external vulva—out of marriage would be filthy but not as intimate. However, it may be enough for a man to refuse a woman.

Purity and cleanliness must be stressed. When a female becomes first-time defiled by a man without marriage, her life and psychological and physical state after defiled contact with another man becomes divided and unclean, leaving repentance and a life of sexual singleness as the only peaceful resolve.

“Free to marry” lie

Laurie mentions “free to remarry again” (“What Jesus Taught” 00:39:47-50). Well, as to “remarry again”, you are never allowed to remarry, especially more than once. Remarriage is adultery. However, actually, the Scriptural text he is referring to does not even allow to “marry again” ever; it means the divorced spouse is free to remain single. It seems he is following the well known Robertson misinterpretation.

Pat Robertson once wrote to me and attempted to falsely convict me of his erring theology. Either Pat didn't understand the same verse under discussion and just blurted out something for an explanation or willfully misinterpreted it, I would like to think probably the former.

Realizing his fallacy, I reproved, “I would like you to understand a very important point. On page 167 and 168 you stated that 'if an unbelieving spouse leaves a believer, the believer is not bound to the marriage relationship, but is free to remarry.5' That is a falsehood! It simply is not true. What such a situation does induce is the freedom for the believer to 'remain unmarried' mene'tow a'gamos (I Cor 7:11, 15).” (Billings)

Obviously, Greg Laurie distorts the Scripture. When people look unto men instead of the Scriptures, they are putting their eternity at risk! He does not tell his clients that marital purity is a necessity, he even leads them into fornication and adultery. Don't consider Ruth Graham or Greg Laurie counseling. Neither are worthy ministers. Learn to respect only the Scriptures for marital purity authority.

Concluding, make marriage pure and keep it that way

Marriage is an institution of God (Eph. 5.25) and monogamy is a divine, institution of the church. Both institutions are in process of fulfillment during a pure wedding. At least four people: Two guarantors and the marrying couple.

I would prescribe things to assure purity and be simple: One guarantor (the daughter's father or guardian) say, "I give this bride in respect of chastity according to Ex. 22 and Dt. 22, KJV." Another (the son's father or guardian) say, "I give this groom in respect of monogamy (I Cor. 7:27 and I Timothy. 3:12, KJV), and that he has no obligations to any former virgins. You will be joined together at consummation (Gn. 2:24, KJV)."

Or,

I would prescribe things to assure purity and be simple: One guarantor (the virgin daughter's father or guardian) say, "I give this bride in respect of chastity and that she is not as ‘the whore in her father’s house’ in Dt. 22:21 (KJV)." Another (the son's father or guardian) say, "I give this groom in respect of monogamy (1 Cor. 7:27 and 1 Ti. 3:12, KJV), and that he has no pre-marital sex obligations to any former virgins. You will be joined together at consummation (Gn. 2:24 KJV)."

However, in the case of a previous virgin consummation fulfilled as a one night stand and remedy with continuation of no promiscuity, the same guarantees and recognitions with an alternative declaration of marriage: “You have been joined together” (Gn. 2:24 KJV).