Misrepresented sexual past

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Misrepresented sexual past

Post by Homer » Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:56 pm

RStephenB,

Is it possible what you think is in the scripture is actually an argument made by some who say adultery is not a legitimate reason for divorce, but pre-marital sex with another man is what Jesus had in mind? There are some who make this argument rather stridently.

User avatar
Jepne
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:08 pm

Re: Misrepresented sexual past

Post by Jepne » Thu Feb 27, 2014 12:44 pm

Is it possible what you think is in the scripture is actually an argument made by some who say adultery is not a legitimate reason for divorce, but pre-marital sex with another man is what Jesus had in mind? There are some who make this argument rather stridently.
Perhaps their 'stridency' gives them away. I should think that a current adulterous affair would be a more serious problem than something in the past - and look how Jesus handled the 'woman taken in adultery'.

Is divorce OK in any case??
I had a husband who moved in with another woman, had two children, was negligent to the point that he was incurring huge debts, and I, not having a career in anything, was living off a little bundle my parents had left me. After six years of tearful prayers and chanting, "My husband is saved, changed and home" in true word of faith fashion, I finally thought it only made sense to get a divorce. So I did.

I still can't say I did absolutely the right thing, and I cried every time I saw the paper headed, "In the matter of the marriage of....." I have told people that I would NEVER recommend divorce. Maybe a legal divorce if one partner has dementia and buys a new Cadillac every week - I have heard of cases like that - or a divorce in order for an ill spouse to go on Medicaid so they can keep the house.
"Anything you think you know about God that you can't find in the person of Jesus, you have reason to question.” - anonymous

RoyHobs
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 11:17 am

Re: Misrepresented sexual past

Post by RoyHobs » Sat Apr 23, 2016 9:46 am

RStephenB wrote:I recall something basically saying that if after a husband discovers his wife was unchaste before marriage and didn't tell him he could divorce.
Unchaste being 'not a virgin'.

Joseph and Mary is the example here. The Exception Clause is simply this. Divorce is permissible because a righteous one flesh union does not exist.

Jesus said, "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery...."

Jesus referring to the law written in Deuteronomy -- 22:13. Virginity is absolutely essential for a righteous marriage. Only virgins and widows can have a husband. Why widows? Because the 'one flesh' union has been dissolved. http://www.areyoumarried.wordpress.com

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Misrepresented sexual past

Post by Paidion » Sat Apr 23, 2016 12:06 pm

Virginity is absolutely essential for a righteous marriage. Only virgins and widows can have a husband.
Are you saying that a woman who was raped can never have a legitimate marriage? Or that one who had intercourse when she was young in a moment of passion, must remain unmarried for the rest of her life? There's nothing in the teachings of Jesus to support such a position.
Jesus said, "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery...."
Actually, Jesus didn't say this. This is a translation (or should I say a "mistranslation") of what is written in Matt 5:32.
It actually says, "And I tell you, whoever sends away his wife, except for prostitution, make her commit adultery. And whoever marries [the word can also mean "swives"] a woman who has been sent away commits adultery.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Misrepresented sexual past

Post by Homer » Sat Apr 23, 2016 10:47 pm

Hi Paidion,

Are you saying that porneia means only prostitution in the context of Jesus' statement regarding divorce or that the word in its many other contexts always means prostitution and nothing else, such as any other forms of sexual immorality?

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Misrepresented sexual past

Post by Paidion » Sun Apr 24, 2016 8:25 am

I am aware of only one passage in which it may mean something else, but I am not sure that this is the case even then.
Other forms of sexual immorality are called by their own names, just as porneia is. For example, "to commit adultery" is moichneuō.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Misrepresented sexual past

Post by steve » Sun Apr 24, 2016 11:03 am

The porneia of 1 Corinthians 5:1 was not prostitution, but incest. Likewise, the porneia of Jude 7 was not prostitution, but sodomy. The porneia of Israel, throughout the LXX, was not regarded as her becoming a prostitute (in fact, the reverse! She paid her lovers! Ezek.16:33), but as adultery.

Lexicons agree with most modern translators in saying that porneia simply speaks if sexually immoral behavior, generically. My wife (and yours) both are legitimately divorced (as we believe) from former husbands, due to those men's adultery—though neither man, I assume, became prostitutes. This would suggest that we both believe that our wives' former husbands committed porneia in their committing adultery.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Misrepresented sexual past

Post by Paidion » Sun Apr 24, 2016 3:23 pm

The porneia of 1 Corinthians 5:1 is the possible exception to which I referred in my last post. But even that may not be an exception.

The man swived his father's wife (not his mother). It is possible that when his mother died, his father married a prostitute, and therefore as Paul mentioned, this was "prostitution of such a kind as does not exist even among the gentiles [non-Christians], that someone has his father’s wife."

That "porneia" doesn't refer to sexual immorality in general seems clear from its usage together with other words for sexual immorality in the New Testament. For example, Matt 15:19.

For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, moicheia, porneia, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.

If "porneiai" is a broad term to include all forms of sexual immorality, why does Matthew list "moicheia" (adulteries) along with it?
If "porneiai" INCLUDES adultery, why list adultery as if it were a separate offense?

The King James translators rendered "pornos" as "fornicator" 5 times, and rendered the same word as "whoremonger" 5 times.
Does not that suggest that "fornicator" and "whoremonger" are synonyms? If not, then the King James translators either arbitrarily or intentionally decided when the word meant "fornicator" and when it meant "whoremonger."

Also, the apostle Paul saw fit to distinguish "arsenokoitai" (sodomites) as well as "moichoi" (adulterers) from "pornoi" ("consorters with prostitutes", or "whoremongers" as the King James translators rendered it).

Surely, if "pornoi"(masculine) referred only to males who committed any form of sexual immorality, it would have been superfluous for Paul to have included both adulterers and sodomites in the same sentence as "fornicators" (I Cor 6:9).

The Greek word "pornā" (feminine) means "prostitute," and the Greek word "pornos" (masculine) means "whoremonger."

By the way, Steve, the Ezekiel 16:33 passage to which you referred, is translated thus in the NKJV:

Men make payment to all harlots, but you made your payments to all your lovers, and hired them to come to you from all around for your harlotry.

The fact that her actions are called "harlotry" in the NKJV, and presumably in the Hebrew, corroborates my position. For that word in the Septuagint is "porneia". Thus the Septuagint translators rendered the Hebrew word for "harlotry" as "porneia."
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Misrepresented sexual past

Post by Homer » Sun Apr 24, 2016 11:31 pm

Scot McKnight is known as a knowledgeable historian of early Christianity. McKnight has commented in his blog:
What is Porneia to a 1st Century Jew?

The term porneia is a Greek term that has two basic meanings:

1. Sex with a prostitute; prostitution.

2. Sexual immorality in general.

The issue for biblical studies is two-fold: (1) which meaning is in view in this text? and (2) what does the sexual immorality in general mean?

If one thinks a given NT text (say Matthew 5:32) is sexual immorality in general, and we are looking at a Jewish speaker (which Jesus was), then we are driven to one classic defining text in the Jewish world that defines sexual immoralities for the Jew, namely, Leviticus 18.
In other words, according to McKnight, all of the forbidden sexual behaviors discussed in Leviticus 18 were included in the meaning of porneia in the mind of the Jew at the time of Jesus.

It is interesting that porneia was the only sexual offense that the church in Jerusalem required new Christians to avoid. This is clear proof of its inclusive nature (see Acts 15:20,29). They certainly would not have condoned adultery, bestiality, incest, or male homosexuality, all specifically prohibited in Leviticus 18. Why would they have taken care to forbid a visit to a prostitute and omit the others if porneia did not cover them all?

You are in the same position as those who argue Jesus had nothing to say, and thus no concern, about homosexual relations. If your definition is correct, then He said nothing about it.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Misrepresented sexual past

Post by steve » Mon Apr 25, 2016 9:21 am

Paidion,

I do not find your arguments persuasive. Can you cite a major lexicon that agrees with you—that is, which does not identify porneia as general sexual immorality?

Post Reply

Return to “Marriage & Divorce”