That Greek has one word designating adultery does not imply that no other Greek words can have the same meaning. English, for example, has numerous sets of synonyms. Moreover, noting the root of the word porneia does not speak to its semantic content.
Examining the uses of the word in the NT, it clearly designates incest in at least one instance. This fact alone should make us wary of interpreting the word exclusively in terms of its root. In Acts, the word is regularly used in the context of prohibitions against pagan rituals. In these cases, it likely does designate prostitution. But given that it seems to pick out different kinds of serious sexual sin in different contexts, I don’t see why we should consider it unlikely that the word can apply to many kinds of sexual sin.

Well CDKG let me be clearer… in no cases does the word porneia refer solely to adultery so far as I can see and there is no reason to think it means that in the texts in question in Matthew. The reference to porneia in Acts 15 has nothing to do with mere pagan rituals, it has to do with sexual dalliance at meals which took place in pagan temples, and I am not talking about relationships with sacred prostitutes. Eidolothuton refers to meals eaten in the presence of idols (see 1 Cor. 8-10). Furthermore, moixeia is often used as a technical term for
adultery, including in Matthew 5-7! Then there is the further issue of historical context. John the Baptist lost his head for critiquing the incestuous relationship between Herod and Herodias.
BW3

Dr Ben, would the ‘porneia meant incest’ position be strengthened with the incest mentioned in Leviticus 18ish (LXX) as well as 1Corinth5:1 (+John the Baptist vs Herod of course)?
Also with Act 15, do you mean that they were actually committing incest as well as all that other stuff there, while eating meals!? If so, then yuck! Would that mean Luke (and Matthew) had the LXX meaning of the word in mind?
I think you are more in line with Jesus in regards to this topic Dr Ben. Like I always tell my wife, I will be her husband till death (period).

I can’t comment on the Greek as it wasn’t my strongest subject at Bible college, but I was led to believe that Jesus’ meaning here had a wider sense than mere adultery, rather along the lines of sexual perversion, which I guess could then include incest.
But it also raises the question on what grounds divorce is allowed biblically. For adultery and sexual perversion don’t cover those that suffer emotional and physical abuse at home for instance. Is it really God’s will that they should suffer indefinitely. Doesn’t Exodus have something to say about providing a place (marriage home) that includes emotional, physical and practical care?
Richard

Two more points. Firstly our earliest evidence about Jesus’ view of divorce is from 1 Cor. 7. Paul says that Jesus’ view was no divorce— period. Now the exception clauses are explicable if porneia there means incest or even prostitution because by definition a marriage undertaken with those impediments, particularly incest is not a true marriage from the outset. It is in other words not a marriage where God has joined them together. So while it is possible that porneia is a catchall word in Mt. 5 and 19 to mean all kinds of sexual perversion, it is unlikely since the disciples find Jesus’ teaching more restrictive than they are used to, not less. 1 Cor. 7 suggests the same.
BW3

Interesting. I have never looked into this root word. I would like to see your comments, Ben, in respons to Richard Marzetti’s comment above regarding the issue of abuse.
Thanks,
—Jonathan

See, e.g., David Instone-Brewer’s writings on the NT view of divorce:
http://www.instonebrewer.com/divorceremarriage/

Hi Eric: I’ve read David’s views, and he is clearly mistaken.
Blessings
Ben W.

Ben,
Can you provide the NT instances where porneia is used of incest?

Not being someone who speaks Greek, I have little of intelligence to add to this discussion. However, I was once told that the word in question implies a continued sexual sin (do to tense or some other complicated thing), leading the person I was listening to to interpret it as an ongoing pattern of sexual sin. In other words, if your spouse were unfaithful, but came to you in repentance, it isn’t grounds for divorce, but if your spouse is a serial and unrepentant cheater, that removes your obligations. Is this an accurate view?

Hi Ben,
Have you read Dr Alex Deasleys ‘Marriage And Divorce In The Bible And The Church’ ?
I find his position to be solid. Whats are your thoughts?
Peace
Caine

Hi: I don’t know Deasley’s work. Secondly, there is nothing in Jesus’ teaching that suggests a time limit on forgiveness for cheating. Thirdly, the discussion in 1 Cor. 5 is indeed about incest, and in 1 Cor. 6 we discuss prostitution as well.
BW3

Please share your approach to the concept of no marriage existing, such as information being withheld that would have caused a person to cancel the wedding.

It seems clear from what Jesus says that he distinguishes between marriages where God brings two persons together, and other situations when humans couple themselves together against God’s wishes, for example when one is involved in incest. The basic theology that undergirds Biblical marriage is the theology of creation, namely that God created persons male and female meant for each other, and joined together by God. This naturally rules out certain kinds of relationships being called marriage by Biblical definitions.
Blessings
BW3

I just read something that was very confusing. am I to understand that if you are married to someone that is constantly commiting adultery and just because they come to you and repent and ask for forgivenes, that you as the offended spouse must forgive them and continue in a relationship with this spouse, even though this person continue to be adulterous. do we treat each offense of adultery as an individual one? So that means that if this person repents each time then the other must sit there and take the risk getting an infectious desease because they are married to someone that is promiscous? I don’t think that the Lord meant forgiveness to be used in such a manner.

Hi Ben. I’m an Asbury College alum, class of 2003. Thanks for your blog and the completeness with which you present and discuss issues.
My question is on your thought from your last comment:
“This naturally rules out certain kinds of relationships being called marriage by Biblical definitions.”
Is this understanding narrow in it’s consideration of personal transformation and the redemptive work of the cross in our lives? I believe I understand what you are speaking to but could greatly benefit from your expounding upon that thought from 2 perspectives:
1. What of children born from that marriage? Would you consider
their existence unbiblical?
2. Do you see any potential for a marriage to be restored and/or
redeemed by the grace of God in Christ?
Thanks again for your time and heart after God.
Luke

Ben,
Interesting discussion. First, I’m not so sure the narrow definition of porneia that is given is certain (there certainly are a number of scholars – conservative and liberal – who would disagree). But, that’s not the real point.
The real challenge here is clarity. You seem to obfuscate and never really get to the point very clearly. It’s like you are throwing out a bunch of hints but never plainly state what you mean (For example, clarity would say, “Neither Jesus nor the NT teaches one may divorce for the cause of sexual infidelity.” Or, “The only reason permitted by God in the NT for divorce & remarriage is prostitution.” I’m not saying that’s what you believe, in either case, but that would be clearer and more directly answer the point). It reminds me a bit of NT Wright, beloved scholar, on Justification. He keeps saying, “not this … not that …” But doesn’t really speak clearly on what he believes.
It’s one thing for the Holy Spirit in the Word to give us hints/clues and not be clear on some matters. It’s another thing when theologians are unclear in delineating their conclusions about the text. Now, if one were to say – “I think this is what God is saying, but there are difficulties.” That’s fine. But, you seem to be write with dogmatic certainty about your conclusions – that tend, themselves, to be a bit vague or obscure. Thanks for a response.

Yes… i also really like to visit new place, your idea is good.

i am happy to find it thanks for sharing it here. Nice work.

This is an interesting article. Thanks for sharing.
Download Internet Explorer 8

fRyDdig

iMcZjKv