What does Porneia mean?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rcwitness
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rcwitness said:
Well, if He was referring to sexual immorality within a marriage, wouldnt they all be considered adultery? Especially when He had just explained that even lookimg at a neighbor’s wife with lust is commiting adultery!
Click to expand...
There is a question of whether we are talking about porneia before or after the marriage. If before, then no, it wouldn’t be adultery – but this would be grist for the mill of the Church, which would counsel annulment.

If we’re talking about after the marriage, then I’m becoming more interested in this notion that any adultery in 1st century Israel was punishable by death. Given that, isn’t Jesus just saying here something relatively empty: that there is an “exception” for people whose wives are being put to death? And that’s not a real exception, since you will soon be a widower anyway.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
40.png
rcwitness:
Well, if He was referring to sexual immorality within a marriage, wouldnt they all be considered adultery? Especially when He had just explained that even lookimg at a neighbor’s wife with lust is commiting adultery!
Click to expand...
There is a question of whether we are talking about porneia before or after the marriage. If before, then no, it wouldn’t be adultery – but this would be grist for the mill of the Church, which would counsel annulment.

If we’re talking about after the marriage, then I’m becoming more interested in this notion that any adultery in 1st century Israel was punishable by death. Given that, isn’t Jesus just saying here something relatively empty: that there is an “exception” for people whose wives are being put to death? And that’s not a real exception, since you will soon be a widower anyway.
Click to expand...
Very intriguing.
 
Hmmm… that is a good point. Which i think supports the position that He would not have been referring to adultery, right?
 
Last edited:
rcwitness said:
Hmmm… that is a good point. Which i think supports the position that He would not have been referring to adultery, right?
Click to expand...
Well, it means that if he was referring to adultery, it would not mean – at his time period – that any man would be permitted to divorce a woman for adultery. How we apply the statement to another time period would be very puzzling to me.
 
Interestingly, your point seems to raise questions with the divorce which Moses permitted, then.

Moses must have offered reasons other than adultery for his concession of divorce, since adultery would have meant the death of a guilty spouse and therefore no need to worry about divorce.
 
rcwitness said:
Moses must have offered reasons other than adultery for his concession of divorce, since adultery would have meant the death of a guilty spouse and therefore no need to worry about divorce.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that men were allowed to divorce a woman without any reason given, and women were never allowed to divorce men.
 
Talmudic and Rabbinic tradition give examples such as a wife burning dinner as being grounds for divorce. I kid you not!
 
Last edited:
That is quite probable.

So Jesus first rejects this concession by Moses (which is interesting because it is in Scripture).

**And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’? So they are no longer two but one. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” **

It is only after this that they inquire further and Matthew inserts the “exception clause”.
 
Last edited:
rcwitness said:
That is quite probable.

So Jesus first rejects this concession by Moses (which is interesting because it is in Scripture).

**And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’? So they are no longer two but one. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” **

It is only after this that they inquire further and Matthew inserts the “exception clause”.
Click to expand...
Was there question sort of like asking “are you still beating your wife?”
 
You mean as in a trick question?

I think they definitely tried to trick Him to some sort of mistake. But obviously it is still a good question to ask. And why does His answer still leave room for confusion?

Why does Matthew (alone) insert a term with various meaning? Isnt it reasonable to see that he intended a more narrow use of the term?

Thistle posted some good articles here in the thread. In one, there is reference to the uses of porneia in the New Testament. One is incest (such as John the Baptist boldly admonished Herod to turn from), another is prostitution (which St Paul says joins two as one flesh), and another is unfaithfulness after a betrothal, yet before consumation (such as St Joseph thought about Mary).
 
Last edited:
Here is a use of porneia by St Paul:

1 Cor. 7
It is well for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But because of the temptation to (porneia), each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.

This refers to sex outside of marriage. This is known as fornication. This union of flesh can be dissolved, since it is not bound by the Christian priesthood of the couple (Sacrament).
 
rcwitness said:
Interestingly, your point seems to raise questions with the divorce which Moses permitted, then.

Moses must have offered reasons other than adultery for his concession of divorce, since adultery would have meant the death of a guilty spouse and therefore no need to worry about divorce.
Click to expand...
As I understand it the two major Jewish schools of thought both thought you could divorce. One thought you could divorce for adultery the other thought you could divorce for any reason. When the Pharisees ask him about divorce Jesus basically says neither of you is right. You can’t divorce for adultery or for any reason.

Pornea would make sense as being something before marriage. In the context of Matthew 5 Jesus uses the word for adultery when he says if you marry a divorced woman you commit adultery. Pornea wouldn’t mean adultery since in the very same sentence Jesus uses the word for adultery.
 
I agree. Many Christians believe Jesus was agreeing with the the Pharisees who thought adultery was the only reason. If He was agreeing with them, He would have said adultery was a valid reason.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
Speaking as a person schooled in Greek, not in Biblical scholarship, I have difficulty imagining how “unlawful marriage” could translate “porneia”. Nor do I understand how it could mean, narrowly, “incest”. It includes incest, certainly. It means something like “gross sexual misconduct”, most of the time. I have never heard of any usage of it that refers to any sort of marriage, and I would be interested in other passages in Greek texts where it is used to refer to any sort of marriage.
Click to expand...
I am wondering the exact thing.

I hear cases where the Catholic tribunal declares a marriage invalid when a person was pressured into marriage etc. But what’s that got to do with “porneia”?
 
rcwitness said:
Here is a use of porneia by St Paul:

1 Cor. 7
It is well for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But because of the temptation to (porneia), each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.

This refers to sex outside of marriage. This is known as fornication. This union of flesh can be dissolved, since it is not bound by the Christian priesthood of the couple (Sacrament).
Click to expand...
I have to disagree there. St Paul tells us a person is bound to their spouse till death.

For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man. - Romans 7:2-3
 
Porneia is a sexual union that does not uphold Christian law.

A marriage that was coerced, is not a pure Christian marriage, because the will was violated and therefore the body.
 
Thanks, I had a quick read of the article. I don’t think it answers my question…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top