Fornication, Pornography, and Homosexuality – Biblically Defined

     The noun pórnos (lit. a male prostitute) is employed in the New Testament of anyone engaging in illicit sex, i.e., a fornicator (1 Cor. 5:9, 10, 11; 6:9; Eph. 5:5; 1 Tim. 1:10; Heb. 12:16; 13:4; Rev. 21:8; 22:15). The noun porneía applies to any type of illicit sexual intercourse, i.e., fornication (Matt. 5:32; 15:19; 19:9; Mark 7:21; John 8:41; Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25; 1 Cor. 5:1 [x2]; 6:13, 18; 7:2; 2 Cor. 12:21; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:3; Col. 3:5; 1 Thess. 4:3; Rev. 2:21; 9:21; 14:8; 17:2, 4; 18:3; 19:2). In its singular form porneía refers to the specific sex act, and under this broad umbrella term would be various types of porneía, such as adultery, incest, homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, etc. Porneía is any kind of sexual intercourse that is not within the context of a divinely approved marriage (cf. Heb. 13:4).

     While the English word “pornography” is derived from this Greek term, porneía does not mean the same thing as the English word, and vice versa. The English translation “sexual immorality” is somewhat vague, thus contributing to common misunderstandings. Although pornography is not “fornication,” it is still sinful, not only because of its addictiveness and the other immoral thoughts and behaviors it inevitably leads to (Rom. 6:19; Jas. 1:14-15; 2 Pet. 2:18-19), but its inherently selfish, lustful, lewd, degrading, objectifying nature is utterly contrary to the mental and moral purity that God expects of his children (Matt. 5:28; Gal. 5:16-17; Eph. 4:17-20; 1 Thess. 5:22; 2 Tim. 2:19-22; 1 John 2:15-17). Nevertheless, while the English word “pornography” is derived from the Greek porneía, viewing pornographic images does not constitute the sexual intercourse that is required for porneía to have occurred.

     The Greek malakoí (plural of malakós) in 1 Cor. 6:9 essentially means “soft,” and precedes arsenokoítai (see also 1 Tim. 1:10), a combination of arsēn (“male”) and koitē (“bed”). These are sexual terms descriptive of homosexual behavior (ASV, ESV, ERV, HCSB, ISB, NASB, NIV, N/KJV, NRSV, etc.).¹ Malakoí describes men who submit to dominant homosexual partners, and the compound arsenokoítai applies to men who actively engage in sodomy. The words arsēn (“male”) and koitē (“bed”) appear together six times in the LXX (Greek translation of the OT, the version Paul extensively quotes in 1 Corinthians), four times referring to men lying with women (Num. 31:17, 18; Judg. 21:11, 12) and twice in reference to men lying with men (Lev. 18:22; 20:13).² Dionysius of Halicarnassus (ca. 60-7 BC), in his Roman Antiquities, describes a man named Aristodemus, who was called malakos or “effeminate,” and one reason for the nickname was the presumed effeminacy of his youth, allowing himself “to be treated as a woman” (7.2.4).

     Irrespective of how these terms and concepts might be viewed in secular societies, to understand God’s revealed will on these matters we must define biblical terms biblically and then live and teach accordingly. 

-- Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Variously rendered “homosexuals” (NKJV), “effeminate” [by perversion] (NASB), “catamites” [those submitting to homosexuals] (NKJV mg) – descriptive of passive homosexual partners; and “sodomites” [male homosexuals] (NKJV), “homosexuals” (NASB), descriptive of active homosexual partners. The ESV combines these two words: “men who practice homosexuality.”

     ² See also Lev. 15:18, 24; 18:20; 19:20; Num. 5:13, 20. 

Related Posts: Biblical Doctrine of Divorce & Remarriage Part 1; Postmodernism & Homosexual Christian Part 2 

Related Articles: Mike Benson, Does Lust Equal Adultery?. Wayne Jackson, Is Lust Fornication?, Cindy Colley, Porneia in Matt 19:9

Image credit: http://ap.lanexdev.com/user_images/image/rr/2013/What-is-Sexual-Immorality--KB2.jpg

The Biblical Doctrine of Divorce and Remarriage: Part 2 of 3

Relevant Scriptures continued:

4. Matthew 5:31-32. This is a portion of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, in the context of “preaching the gospel of the kingdom” (4:23), wherein Jesus opposes the lax attitudes of the Jewish scribes and Pharisees toward the divine will (5:20).¹ The Lord’s contrasting statement in 5:32 is in response to what had been “said” (and heard) about divorce among these Jews. While it was not the time to teach exclusively Christian doctrine or set aside the Mosaic Law (5:17-29; 7:12), it was necessary to address the fallacies of their hypocritical leaders (5:20; 6:2, 5, 16; 7:15-20, 29) and prepare the way for the coming kingdom (cf. 6:10, 33; 7:21). Jesus is contrasting the traditional misinterpretations of the Law vs. the loftier conduct expected in God’s kingdom. The Law did not justify unrighteous anger, or lust, or divorce for any or no reason, or questionable oaths, or senseless retribution, or hatred, irrespective of what others had “said” to the contrary. The current Jewish attitude toward divorce (succinctly stated in 5:31) had apparently become as lax as their attitude toward other moral issues discussed in this chapter. Jesus affirms that adultery (illegitimate sex) is committed in a second marriage following a divorce for any reason other than sexual infidelity. Divorce and subsequent marriage is implicitly allowed to the one betrayed by the other who violates the very heart of marriage (cf. Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:4-9).

5. Matthew 19:1-10; Mark 10:1-10 [parallel accounts]. The Lord’s directives were prompted by hostile questions within the circle of Judaism. Matthew’s Gospel was written with a Jewish audience in mind,² whereas Mark’s account was recorded for a Roman audience,³ which helps explain why Mark incorporates into his record certain parts of the Lord’s discourse that are omitted in Matthew, and vice versa.⁴ Jesus affirms that while it is sinful for a man to divorce his wife, it is not adultery; the sin of adultery is added to the sin of divorce if the man goes on to marry someone else (Matt. 19:9; Mark 10:11). The words "except for sexual immorality [fornication]" in Matthew’s account (19:9; cf. 5:32) are absent from Mark. The exceptive phrase would have had greater significance to Matthew’s audience, seeing that in Judaism infidelity warranted the death penalty (cf. Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22) and had become a cruel weapon of ruthless men in their mistreatment of women (cf. John 8:3-5). Among the Romans this was already understood as sufficient grounds for divorce.

     Mark’s inclusion of the phrase “against her” (10:11b) is intriguing. Both the Jews and the Romans understood adultery as sexual intercourse with a married woman. Accordingly, when a woman committed adultery it was against her own husband, and when a man committed adultery it was against the woman’s husband. Jesus, however, informs his Jewish listeners, and Mark in turn informs his Roman readers, that from the divine perspective adultery is also committed against the innocent wife.

     Matthew omits the following words that Mark has recorded in 10:12, “and if she, having divorced her husband, marries another, she is committing adultery.” Within the context of Judaism, since only the husband could initiate a divorce and not the wife, the applicability of this statement would have been lost among Matthew’s readers. On the other hand, under Roman law the marriage could be terminated by either party, so Mark’s inclusion of the statement is most relevant.

     Adultery (moichaō) involves voluntary sex between a married person and someone other than his/her lawful spouse. The two verbs “divorces” (apolusē) and “marries” (gamēsē) are in the AORIST tense and therefore naturally describe punctiliar (completed) action. In contrast, the verbal tense is changed to the PRESENT when “commits adultery” is mentioned, suggesting a different (incomplete/ongoing) time reference. As long as sexual activity continues in the second relationship, the adultery continues.

6. Mark 6:17-19. Herod Antipas was tetrarch of Galilee and Perea (4 BC to AD 39). John the baptizer had confronted the tetrarch about his unlawful marriage to Herodias, resulting in John’s execution (Matt. 14:3-12; cf. Luke 3:19-20; 9:9). Antipas had divorced his wife Phasaelis, the daughter of the Nabatean king Aretas IV, in order to marry Herodias, who had previously been married to his half-brother Philip I (see Josephus, Ant. 18.5.1, 4).⁵ When Jesus is later asked whether it is “lawful” for a man to divorce his wife, he is “across the Jordan” in the region governed by Herod Antipas (Matt. 19:1; Mark 10:1), i.e., a divorced man married to a divorced woman, a union deemed “unlawful” by John.

7. Luke 16:18. Jesus is speaking to antagonistic Pharisees, and his directives are in opposition to their lax attitudes toward the divine will (vv. 14-15; cf. Matt. 5:20, 31-32; 15:1-3). Once again Jesus affirms that adultery is committed in the second marriage following a divorce. The “except for fornication” phrase (Matt. 5:32; 19:9) is omitted here, probably because those to whom Jesus was speaking on this occasion were teaching, condoning, or practicing divorce for other reasons.

8. Romans 7:2-3. To the saints at Rome Paul affirms that marriage is for life, whereas the marriage bond is broken when a spouse dies. If a woman marries another man while her husband is still living, “she will be called an adulteress.” But if her husband is dead, adultery is not committed in a second marriage.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Jesus is not taking issue with or negating the Mosaic Law but rather opposing wrongful interpretations of it. Note, “You have heard that it was said ...” (vv. 21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43), NOT “It is written …” For example, the Law never states, “… hate your enemy” (v. 43b), but apparently that’s what these Jews had heard from their teachers (cf. 15:1-3).

     ² See K. L. Moore, Matthew's Audience.

     ³ See K. L. Moore, Mark's Audience.

     ⁴ See K. L. Moore, Jesus on Divorce and Remarriage.

     ⁵ Josephus: “Herod the tetrarch had married the daughter of Aretas; and had lived with her a great while …. However he fell in love with Herodias, this last Herod’s [Philip’s] wife …. One article of this marriage also was this, that he should divorce Aretas’s daughter…. But Herodias, their [Aristobulus & Agrippa’s] sister, was married to Herod [Philip], the son of Herod the Great …. Herodias took upon her to confound the laws of our country, and divorced her self from her husband, while he was alive, and was married to Herod [Antipas], her husband’s brother by the father’s side. He was tetrarch of Galilee” (Ant. 18.5.1, 4). 

Related Posts: Divorce & Remarriage Part 1, Part 3,  Preventing Divorce, Why was Herod's marriage unlawful?

Image credit: http://jmmwealthmanagement.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Divorce-Planning_services-2.jpg

The Biblical Doctrine of Divorce and Remarriage: Part 1 of 3

Definition and Clarification of Terms:

1. Marriage is the lawful union of a husband and wife (1 Cor. 7:2), ordained by God (Matt. 19:4-6) and consummated according to the legal system to which the couple is amenable, as long as it does not conflict with the divine will (Rom. 13:1-5; cf. Acts 5:29). However, not all “marriages” are sanctioned by God even if recognized by civil law (e.g. Mark 6:17-18; 10:11-12).

2. Divorce is the dissolution of marriage. The NT Greek verb apolúō (Matt. 5:31-32; 19:3-9) means to “let go, send away, dismiss … divorce” (BAGD 96). The verb chōrízō (Matt. 19:6; Mark 10:9; 1 Cor. 7:10, 11a, 15, 16) means “to sever, disunite … to dissociate one’s self, to part” (H. K. Moulton, Lexicon 441); “act. divide, separate … pass. separate (oneself), be separated [of divorce]” (BAGD 890). This particular Greek term may simply refer to a separation, or it could be synonymous with divorce, as the separated state is described as “unmarried” (1 Cor. 7:11b) and is parallel to aphíēmi (v. 11c). However, “abandon” is also a plausible nuance (cf. Mark 14:50). The verb aphíēmi (1 Cor. 7:11c, 12, 13) means to “let go, send away … divorce … abandon” (BAGD 125-26). As with marriage (above), a divinely authorized divorce would have a fundamentally different meaning than a divorce God does not approve (e.g. Matt. 5:31-32).

3. Adultery involves voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his/her lawful spouse. The noun moicheía (John 8:3), the verb moichaō (Matt. 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10:11-12), and the verb moicheúō (Matt. 5:27; 19:18; Rom. 2:22) are all related. The secondary sense, used figuratively of spiritual adultery, is applied to the relationship between God and his erring people (cf. Jer. 3:6-9; Ezek. 16:32; Hos. 3:1; 4:12; Jas. 4:4), but when used with reference to a man and a woman, it refers to illegitimate sexual intercourse (cf. Lev. 20:10; 18:20; Deut. 22:22; Prov. 6:32; Matt. 5:28; John 8:3; Heb. 13:4).

4. Fornication or Sexual Immorality (Matt. 5:32; 19:9) is translated from the Greek noun porneia, used generally “of every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse” (BAGD 693). In its singular form it refers to the specific sex act, whether with a woman, man, child, horse, etc. Under this broad umbrella term would be specific types of porneia, such as adultery, incest, homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, etc. The bottom line is that porneia is any kind of sexual intercourse that is not within the context of marriage as defined above. While the English word “pornography” is derived from the Greek porneia, viewing pornographic images does not constitute the sexual intercourse that is required for porneia to have occurred.¹

Relevant Scriptures:

1. Genesis 1:27; 2:24. These are the passages Jesus quotes in Matt. 19:4-5, demonstrating God’s design for marriage from the beginning involving the joining together of a man and woman for life in a monogamous relationship. Becoming “one flesh” indicates a sexual union that establishes an intimate connection between two previously unrelated individuals. This “one flesh” bonding is the basis of God’s categorical denunciation of all other types of sexual activity (cf. 1 Cor. 6:16-18; 7:2).

2. Deuteronomy 24:1-4. This is an example of casuistic or case law (“if … then”): the case is presented in vv. 1-3, and the ruling is given in v. 4. This passage assumes the prevalence of divorce among the Israelites at the time of writing (cf. 22:19, 29; Lev. 21:7, 13, 14), and only the husband could initiate the divorce. However, the provision of divorce was not a divine injunction but a concession due to “obstinacy” or “hardness of heart” (Matt. 19:8; Mark 10:5). The certificate of divorce served to protect women from unscrupulous husbands and the precarious charge of adultery, but it went far beyond God’s intended purpose (cf. Gen. 2:24; Mal. 2:16). Centuries later the rabbis debated the meaning of the expressions “no favor” and “some indecency” in Deut. 24:1; the school of Shammai insisted that sexual impurity was the necessary prerequisite for divorce, while the school of Hillel maintained that any trivial offense was sufficient grounds. Jewish opinion was heavily divided in the days of Jesus, prompting the question in Matt. 19:3. Nevertheless, they were focusing on and debating what Jewish men of the past were doing rather than the stated will of God.

3. Malachi 2:11-17. Between the first return from Babylonian exile (538 BC) and the second return (458 BC), Israelite men (including priests) had married local pagan women and were then compelled to put them away with what appears to have been divine approval (Ezra 9–10; cf. Neh. 13:23-30). But the background is that they had divorced their lawful wives to marry these pagan women (Mal. 2:10-17). From Malachi 2 we learn that God “hates divorce”² (v. 16) because it (a) is contrary to his original plan (v. 15); (b) results from profane desires and weakens a nation (v. 11); (c) breaks covenant vows (v. 14); (d) involves betraying the innocent spouse (v. 14); (e) causes separation from God (vv. 12, 13); and (f) accompanies spiritual self-deception (v. 17). 

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:
     ¹ Although pornography is not “fornication,” it is still sinful, not only because of its addictiveness and the other immoral thoughts and behavior it inevitably leads to (Rom. 6:19; Jas. 1:14-15; 2 Pet. 2:18-19), but its inherently selfish, lustful, lewd, objectifying nature is utterly contrary to the mental and moral purity that God expects of his children (Matt. 5:28; Gal. 5:16-17; Eph. 4:17-20; 1 Thess. 5:22; 2 Tim. 2:19-22; 1 John 2:15-17).
     ² This reading is based on the Masoretic Hebrew Text (cf. ISV, N/ASV, N/KJV, N/RSV), whereas the LXX, Targum, Arabic versions, and Latin Vulgate read, “but if he should hate [and] send her away” (cf. ESV, HCSB, NIV). 

Related Posts: Divorce & Remarriage Part 2, Part 3, Premarital Decisions, Jesus on Divorce and Remarriage, Delusion of Gay Marriage, If God hates divorce, what about Ezra 9-10?

Related articles: Wes McAdams' Moving in Together

Image credit: http://i.guim.co.uk/static/w-460/h--/q-95/sys-images/Money/Pix/pictures/2008/07/10/divorce460.jpg