Misrepresented sexual past

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 » Mon Apr 25, 2016 12:55 pm

So, Steve, you are not persuaded by my arguments. You seem to be better persuaded by "major lexicons."
Well, major lexicons also give "divorce" as a meaning for "ἀπολυω" (apoluō) and the major translations so render it in translating Jesus' words. For example, the NKJV has it:

"Furthermore it has been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery." (Matt 5:31,32)

If this passage is correctly translated, then you (and I) have been committing adultery by marrying a divorced woman.
However, the word "apoluō" is often translated as "leave" or "send away." The NKJV translates it as "send away" in Matt 15:39, stating that Jesus sent away the crowds and got into a boat. (He didn't divorce the crowds). Indeed, the NASB translates it as "send away" in the passage quoted above. The King James translates the word as "put away". Strangely, the NKJV also translates "apoluō" as "put away" in Matt 1:19, "Joseph... was minded to put her away secretly." Furthermore, from the quote above, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce’ doesn't make sense. For if a man has divorced his wife, what need is there of a certificate? Rather Moses said that if a man leaves his wife or sends her away, he is to give her a divorce certificate.

Now let's see what the passage looks like as I understand the Greek words:

"Now, it has been said, 'Whoever sends away his wife, let him give her a divorce certificate'. Now, I tell you, whoever sends away his wife except for prostitution, makes her commit adultery, and whoever has intercourse with a wife who has been sent away commits adultery."

If the rejected wife is prostituting herself, her husband is not making her commit adultery. She is already committing it! Hence the "exception clause." And how can anyone marry her in the legal sense, if she is already married? I have pointed out in the past that the New Testament word "gameō" basically means "swive" or "have sexual intercourse with." It's okay to translate it as "marry" as long as this is understood. When a couple so married, their marriage was then celebrated with a public wedding party. Legal marriages such as we have today, were unknown. Yet it was understood that the married couple were bound to each other. Christians of the day knew that "God hates sending away" (Malachi 2:16). Indeed, Jesus clearly stated that it is wrong to send away one's wife.

He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to send away your wives, but from the beginning it was not so."(Matthew 19:8)

So why do I think it not sinful to marry a divorced woman, one who has been loosed from her husband? I am not sure. But Paul seems to indicate that a divorced man (I have never been divorced) can remarry without sinning.

I have considered the apostle Paul's words in 1 Cor 7:25-28.

25 ...I give judgment as one whom the Lord in His mercy has made trustworthy.
26 I suppose therefore that this is good because of the present distress—that it is good for a man to remain as he is:
27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife.
28 But even if you do marry, you have not sinned


To have been bound to a wife sounds a lot like the bond of marriage to me. A married man should not seek to break that marriage bond— to be loosed from his wife. If he has been loosed from her, the bond of marriage has been broken. Or he has been "divorced". So Paul says that if a man is loosed from a wife, or divorced, he should not seek a wife. But if he does marry, he has not sinned.
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 » Mon Apr 25, 2016 3:50 pm

So in other words, you have no lexicons that support your definition of porneia. You think it strange that I believe the lexicons? There is a reason that they are respected. They consider every available usage of a Greek word, and determine from that data the meaning of the word (the same way we learned our native tongue—by noticing regular usage of words among those speaking around us). Your arguments do not make more sense than following the Greek authorities. In fact, I am not able to see how your arguments make sense at all.

You said that Matthew 5:32, by its standard translation, condemns your marriage and mine. It does not, by any sensible reading I can see. However, if porneia, the only grounds Jesus allows for divorce with the right to remarry, can only mean prostitution, as you say, then you and I are in violation, inour present marriages, because my wife (and yours, I presume) were not divorced for having committed prostitution.
Other forms of sexual immorality are called by their own names, just as porneia is. For example, "to commit adultery" is moichneuō.
This makes as much sense as quoting: "[lay] aside all malice, all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and all evil speaking" (1 Peter 2:1), and then arguing that "evil speaking" would not include deceitful, malicious or hypocritical speaking, since those vices have their own names, and are listed separately. I am not buying your logic.

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 » Mon Apr 25, 2016 8:16 pm

So in other words, you have no lexicons that support your definition of porneia.
Certainly I have lexicons that support my definition. All lexicons do. In this discussion, I have quoted several passages, in which "porneia," means only "prostitution" or "consorting with prostitutes." Also where "pornā" means only "prostitute," and "pornos" means only "whoremonger." The question being considered here is whether these words have another meaning as well. I think I have also made a convincing point about the AV translating "pornoi" (plural of "pornos") as "whoremongers" 5 times and as "fornicators" 5 times. If the AV translators believed that "fornicator" means a committer of any sexually immoral acts, then on what basis did they translate the word as "whoremonger" in half of the occurrences of the word?
You think it strange that I believe the lexicons? There is a reason that they are respected. They consider every available usage of a Greek word, and determine from that data the meaning of the word...
That is precisely my own approach to determining the meaning(s) of a Greek word. I do a search for the word in the New Testament, and see how it is used, as well as the Septuagint, and some of the second-century writers. But what I have found is that several well-known lexicons list many multiple meanings whereas in actuality there are far fewer. What is frequently done, is that someone interprets a passage in a particular way, and then gives an additional meaning to the Greek word to fit his interpretation, and this invented meaning finds its way into lexicons. This has happened many times, and as a consequence some words are listed as having many, many different meanings, when in actual fact, they have one or a few meanings. The additional meanings make sense in a passage, but the question is, "Did the writer mean that when he used the word?"

Consider, for example, the many ways in which the NASB has translated the Greek word "logos":

account (8), accounting (2), accounts (2), answer (1), appearance (1), complaint (1), exhortation (1), have to do (1), instruction (1), length (1), matter (4), matters (1), message (10), news (3), preaching (1), question (2), reason (2), reasonable (1), remark (1), report (1), said (1), say (1), saying (4), sayings (1), speaker (1), speech (10), statement (18), story (1), talk (1), teaching (2), thing (2), things (1), utterance (2), what he says (1), what (1), word (179), words (61).

In particular contexts each one of these "meanings" can make sense in English. However, that fact does not imply that "logos" actually has all those different meanings.
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 » Mon Apr 25, 2016 9:53 pm

Certainly I have lexicons that support my definition.
When I asked, I was hoping you might mention one or two. Can you name any?

Though you have asserted it, you certainly have not shown that porneia means prostitution in Matt.5:32; 1 Cor.5:1 or Jude 7. I am not sure why you are insistent on a narrowing of the definition, despite the bulk of lexicans and even New Testament usage.

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

Re: Misrepresented sexual past

Post by Homer » Mon Apr 25, 2016 10:58 pm

Paidion,

Did you miss my last post? Please explain how your definition makes sense in Acts 15:20 &29.

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 » Tue Apr 26, 2016 6:52 pm

Homer, you wrote:Did you miss my last post? Please explain how your definition makes sense in Acts 15:20 &29.
No, I didn't miss your post. I guess I must admit that I didn't take you seriously.
James said:
Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things offered to idols, and from porneia, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. (Acts 15:19,20)

Do you actually think James was presenting a comprehensive list of all things from which Gentile Christians should abstain?
Should we not abstain from torture, murder, extortion, deceit, idolatry, impatience, covetousness, drunkenness, reviling, taking pecuniary advantage of the poor, domineering behaviour, causing others to stumble, arrogance, foul language, using Christ's name as a cuss word, and much, much more?

James was responding to the Christian Pharisees, who said, (vs 5)“It is necessary to circumcise [the Gentile Christians] and to order them to keep the law of Moses.” Peter's response was even stronger that James' (vs10): "Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?"

Even the rule "things offered to idols" did not seem to be necessary for the apostle Paul, who seemed to indicate that eating "things offered idols" was okay, as long as it didn't stumble people with a weak conscience when they see you do it. (1 Cor 8:1-13). Possibly James thought abstaining from things strangled and from blood would be good for the health, and so he included it. It is interesting that James included, "porneia." If it means exclusively "prostitution" or "consorting with prostitutes" as I believe, it did not seem to have been forbidden by the Mosaic law. Many of the Hebrew men of God had intercourse with prostitutes, without a word of rebuke from God, Moses, Joshua, or anyone else. But James saw it as something to be avoided.


So, since James' short list is not a comprehensive list of practices to avoid, why could not porneia have meant "prostitution" or "consorting with prostitutes" in this list of rules?

Now, I would like to ask you a question. Consider 1 Corinthians 6:9,10.

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

If "pornoi" (fornicators) has a broader meaning than "consorting with prostitutes," and includes all forms of sexual immorality, then why does Paul list adulterers, homosexuals, and sodomites separately? Wouldn't those three be comprehended in the word "fornicators"? But if "fornicators" means only "men who consort with prostitutes", then each word denotes a different class of men.
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 » Wed Apr 27, 2016 11:45 am

Hi Paidion,

You wrote:
No, I didn't miss your post. I guess I must admit that I didn't take you seriously.
James said:
Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things offered to idols, and from porneia, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. (Acts 15:19,20)

Do you actually think James was presenting a comprehensive list of all things from which Gentile Christians should abstain?
Should we not abstain from torture, murder, extortion, deceit, idolatry, impatience, covetousness, drunkenness, reviling, taking pecuniary advantage of the poor, domineering behaviour, causing others to stumble, arrogance, foul language, using Christ's name as a cuss word, and much, much more?

James was responding to the Christian Pharisees, who said, (vs 5)“It is necessary to circumcise [the Gentile Christians] and to order them to keep the law of Moses.” Peter's response was even stronger that James' (vs10): "Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?"

Even the rule "things offered to idols" did not seem to be necessary for the apostle Paul, who seemed to indicate that eating "things offered idols" was okay, as long as it didn't stumble people with a weak conscience when they see you do it. (1 Cor 8:1-13). Possibly James thought abstaining from things strangled and from blood would be good for the health, and so he included it. It is interesting that James included, "porneia." If it means exclusively "prostitution" or "consorting with prostitutes" as I believe, it did not seem to have been forbidden by the Mosaic law. Many of the Hebrew men of God had intercourse with prostitutes, without a word of rebuke from God, Moses, Joshua, or anyone else. But James saw it as something to be avoided.

So, since James' short list is not a comprehensive list of practices to avoid, why could not porneia have meant "prostitution" or "consorting with prostitutes" in this list of rules?
The Church faced two problems in the council at Jerusalem: first, do gentiles have to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses to be saved (15:1,5), and second, how are converted Jews and gentiles going to have fellowship harmoniously? The first question was determined to be "no". As for the second, It is well known that the gentile culture of the day did not stigmatize sexual behavior that was scandalous to the Jews. Promiscuity was widely practiced. As far as idols go, I do not believe James had in mind the worshipping of idols; they could not be Christians at all and worship idols. It is likely he had in mind the eating of things sacrificed to idols which would be a problem for the "weaker" brethren. And eating blood and things strangled would be regarded as unclean. So James' advice was fitting regarding fellowship in particular, and the four things mentioned were of particular concern to the Jewish converts. As you have acknowledged, visiting a prostitute was no great sin among the Jews. It was not even considered to be adultery if the woman had no husband. Limiting the meaning of porneia to prostitution makes no sense here.

And you asked:
Now, I would like to ask you a question. Consider 1 Corinthians 6:9,10.

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

If "pornoi" (fornicators) has a broader meaning than "consorting with prostitutes," and includes all forms of sexual immorality, then why does Paul list adulterers, homosexuals, and sodomites separately? Wouldn't those three be comprehended in the word "fornicators"? But if "fornicators" means only "men who consort with prostitutes", then each word denotes a different class of men.
Here Paul is addressing a gentile audience. He might have mentioned adulterers, homosexuals, and sodomites separately because those were particularly grievous forms of porneia. He could have just as well omitted thievery and extortion; coveting would have covered all three.

Post Reply

Return to “Marriage & Divorce”