I don’t think I am being asked to clarify the Greek definition. I think I am being asked to clarify the English definition of “fornication”. Those are two separate languages.
I’m sorry it is taking me so long to make my meaning clear. The question I am now asking you has to do with the Greek noun porneia, not with any other word in any other language. Here is my question again, which I hope I have now managed to express in clear, unambiguous English. In your post No. 104 on this thread, you wrote: The man in 1 Corinthians 5:1 was being a toy-boy, the woman was the dominant, he was the article, a possession, he was the concubine to the woman. The question I am now asking you is this: Does that information about the man being – in your own words – a “toyboy,” an “article,” a “possession,” and a “concubine,” and the woman being – again in your own words – “the dominant,” come from just the one source, namely Paul’s use of the noun porneia, or is that knowledge about the man being a “toyboy” etc. and the woman being “the dominant” derived from some other source?
Darryl, my question is this. What is the source of your information about the man and woman in 1 Cor 5:1?
I think we have to assume that Jesus recognized that it was a valid marriage as he specifically addresses the couple as husband and wife and not as fornicators. The OT is clear that a previously married woman may not go back to her ex-husband even if the ex-husband is willing to, if she had remarried after her divorce. Because she has been defiled. Deu 24:1-5.
In the two verses @rcwitness is dealing with on this thread, Jesus does not use the word “husband”. A literal translation would be “everyone who divorces his wife” in one of the verses and “he who divorces his wife” in the other. But that’s not the end of the story. The Greek verb here translated as “divorce” really means something like “to send away”. Later in his Gospel Matthew uses the same verb again in connection with Pilate’s offer to release, or “send away”, a prisoner at Passover. And the word for “wife” can also mean simply “woman” (link below).
Paul only mentions that a man is having his father’s wife.
I think there is “messiness” as a result of Moses’ allowance for divorce. And since adultery was punishable by death, i think Moses was allowing a divorce for things other than adultery.BartholomewB:
I think we have to assume that Jesus recognized that it was a valid marriage as he specifically addresses the couple as husband and wife and not as fornicators. The OT is clear that a previously married woman may not go back to her ex-husband even if the ex-husband is willing to, if she had remarried after her divorce. Because she has been defiled. Deu 24:1-5.
The Matthew verses are interesting because it did not prohibit divorce per se, but prohibit remarriage. This reinforces the point that Jesus made in that initially man/woman are joined as one. But if the wife were to be unchaste, the man is no longer bound to her as she has been defiled and the union has been broken as Deu 24 indicates. If there is no unchastity involved, both the man or the woman can not remarry because it results in adultery as the union remains valid in God’s eyes. Sure one can divorce but not remarry. Unfortunately during Mosaic days, women is considered as chattel, and usually requires subsistence support from the males which always end up in them having to remarry in order to survive. The hardness of the heart as Jesus put it. Also in those days where wars are frequent, the women also ended up as widows with no one to take care as they do not get any inheritance, especially if they are without sons. But that was revoked upon appeal eventually Numbers 27.
Ahh, if only you’d gone to BibleHub and actually used the Thayer’s to search out the particular meaning:
So… yeah. This phrase really does mean to take the wife of his father as his own woman. In the context of sexual immorality, and given the witness of Mt 14:4 and Mk 6:18, it seems clear what’s being discussed is the man’s sexual relationship with his own stepmother.
Sure, the dictionary does provide some insight as to the various possible meanings of the words used, but you have to admit the context in which the subject was brought up in Mat 19 by the Pharisees does refer to a husband and wife proper. Even in Mat 5, a certificate of divorce does refer to a valid husband/wife unit. Moreover the Mosaic law pertaining to divorce applies only to valid marriages and not to mere cohabitants. Deuteronomy links the bill of divorce to proper marriages and I can not find any evidence to link a bill of divorce to unmarried couples. Perhaps you can point me to a source if I have have been mistaken. However, we must read these verses in the context of how/why the Pharisees were questioning Jesus and not as some sort of a language interpretation issue to be determined by a dictionary. One simply could not divorce someone who is not one’s spouse. A certificate of divorce is not needed if an unmarried couple is just breaking up.