Porneia. Matthew 19 And Spiritual Adultery, phone sex, watching porn, web cams... Options

[tall73]

Spiritual Adultery is the term that was applied in the 3ABN saga to justify Danny’s remarriage. And it has raised an interesting question. Need there be physical adultery to apply Jesus’ ‘exception clause?’

Here is the text in question:

Mat 19:8 He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
Mat 19:9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."

Jesus’ statement suggests he was clarifying the law found in Deut. 24 in which they were permitted to divorce if “indecency” (uncleanness in KJV) was found in her.

Deu 24:1 "When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house

(Strong's)
ערוה
‛ervâh
er-vaw'
From H6168; nudity, literally (especially the pudenda) or figuratively (disgrace, blemish): - nakedness, shame, unclean (-ness).

Now the question is, what was entailed by this “indecency” (Deut) or sexual immorality/adultery/fornication (Matthew). The term used in the exception clause is the oft-debated term Porneia. You can look up all of its uses using Strongs etc. Here are some of the more interesting ones:

Mat 15:19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander.

Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality

These texts use both Porneia and the more specific word, Moixeia which always means adultery. In fact, in Jesus’ statement in Matthew 19 He uses both as well. The grounds for divorce and remarriage were “porneia” and the resulting sin if this was not present was causing them to commit adultery, “moichatai.”

This indicates that either porneia was distinct from adultery or was a broader word that also included adultery.
(Strong's)
porneia
por-ni'-ah
from G4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively idolatry: - fornication.

μοιχεία
moicheia
moy-khi'-ah
From G3431; adultery: - adultery.

The next text of interest is I Corinthians 7.

1Co 7:1 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman."
1Co 7:2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.

Here is it is clear that marriage was intended partly as a means to help resist sexual immorality (porneia) by unmarried people. In other words, if you are lusting, get married. Here fornication is used of the unmarried probably in the sense of sex outside of marriage.

Act 15:20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.

In the Acts council they enforced upon the gentiles the same requirements already made of “strangers” (ie. Gentiles) living among the Israelites in the law. The sexual immorality mentioned in Acts is spelled out in its various forms in Leviticus. The list includes acts done while married (wife’s sister) which would be problematic both as adultery and as having sex with close relations.

Requirements of strangers
Eating blood:

LEV 17:10 " `Any Israelite or any alien living among them who eats any blood--I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people. 11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life. 12 Therefore I say to the Israelites, "None of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood."


Sexual immorality:

LEV 18:6 " `No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD.
LEV 18:7 " `Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.
LEV 18:8 " `Do not have sexual relations with your father's wife; that would dishonor your father.
LEV 18:9 " `Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.
LEV 18:10 " `Do not have sexual relations with your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter; that would dishonor you.
LEV 18:11 " `Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father's wife, born to your father; she is your sister.
LEV 18:12 " `Do not have sexual relations with your father's sister; she is your father's close relative.
LEV 18:13 " `Do not have sexual relations with your mother's sister, because she is your mother's close relative.
LEV 18:14 " `Do not dishonor your father's brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.
LEV 18:15 " `Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son's wife; do not have relations with her.
LEV 18:16 " `Do not have sexual relations with your brother's wife; that would dishonor your brother.
LEV 18:17 " `Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.
LEV 18:18 " `Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.
LEV 18:19 " `Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.
LEV 18:20 " `Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor's wife and defile yourself with her.
LEV 18:21 " `Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.
LEV 18:22 " `Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
LEV 18:23 " `Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.
LEV 18:24 " `Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the aliens living among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.


Idols

Lev 17:3 If any one of the house of Israel kills an ox or a lamb or a goat in the camp, or kills it outside the camp,
Lev 17:4 and does not bring it to the entrance of the tent of meeting to offer it as a gift to the LORD in front of the tabernacle of the LORD, bloodguilt shall be imputed to that man. He has shed blood, and that man shall be cut off from among his people.
Lev 17:5 This is to the end that the people of Israel may bring their sacrifices that they sacrifice in the open field, that they may bring them to the LORD, to the priest at the entrance of the tent of meeting, and sacrifice them as sacrifices of peace offerings to the LORD.
Lev 17:6 And the priest shall throw the blood on the altar of the LORD at the entrance of the tent of meeting and burn the fat for a pleasing aroma to the LORD.
Lev 17:7 So they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices to goat demons, after whom they whore. This shall be a statute forever for them throughout their generations.
Lev 17:8 "And you shall say to them, Any one of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who sojourn among them, who offers a burnt offering or sacrifice
Lev 17:9 and does not bring it to the entrance of the tent of meeting to offer it to the LORD, that man shall be cut off from his people.

It appears that porneia could carry a number of connotations. Adultery, incest, pre-marital sex, etc.


So with this information in mind the question comes up, what did Jesus mean by his exception clause? There are a few views.

a. Only literal, physical adultery would release someone from the marriage and allow for remarriage.
b. Fornication previous to the marriage that was later discovered would allow for divorce and subsequent remarriage. (Some would say that adultery would not allow for this but fornication before marriage would… (See Keith Burton’s Ministry Magazine article http://www.lifeheritage.org/Divorce%20and%20Remarriage.pdf).
c. Any sexual uncleanness, not necessarily physical adultery (pornography, cyber sex, etc., emotional affairs, phone sex, etc.) would come under porneia and therefore qualify since porneia is much broader than the more limited term moicheia
d. There are no grounds for divorce except for an non-sacramental marriage in the first place, which would indicate pre-marital fornication, or a marriage based on incest (this would be the Catholic version, see this article for one exposition of it:
http://members.aol.com/johnprh/marriage.html ).


It seems that any type of inappropriate sexual activity could qualify as porneia. For that matter, Jesus spoke of lust as adultery. But the question seems to be more about what Jesus had in mind by the word porneia, and therefore what would qualify as an exception, than whether phone sex (if that is what Danny meant by these conversations that were taped) would count as porneia. Note, we haven’t heard these conversations, so who knows what they really have on them.

To me phone sex would be porneia. It is “sexual immorality” or porneia in the broad sense. The only question though is whether Jesus really intended porneia in the broad sense, or whether he meant it as a synonym for adultery in this context, or whether he meant it specifically as pre-marital fornication as in Burton’s view.


The Catholic view has some internal problems as porneia seems to be used for more than just pre-marital infidelity at times, and in the list in Leviticus it includes what would be adulterous relationships.

The physical adultery only view would be understandable due to the feelings of betrayal it causes. However, one must ask why it is that the word for adultery is not used when Jesus clearly uses it later in the text? If He wanted to make it specific He knew how. Others would say that perhaps Jesus was simply using variety of expression, and certainly we do see that at times in all languages.

Burton’s view is somewhat compelling. Jesus stresses the one-ness that should not be put assunder and says that Mose’s decree was in fact only for the hardness of their hearts. It was Moses’ decree that permitted divorce at all. Moreover, as Burton notes if adultery were to free one from marriage, and Jesus had defined it as lust, then it would be very easy to be released!

On the other hand Paul does note that if a non-believer wants to leave, let them, you are not bound (which Burton also acknowledges) so the oneness is not without scriptural exception. Moreover Burton’s view does not seem to account for the flexibility of the term porneia beyond pre-marital relations.

The any sexual uncleanness view would apply the term porneia broadly. Christians were told to avoid every hint of sexual immorality, so the standards were high.


However, taking it too broadly seems to mean that it would be quite easy to qualify. For instance does fantasy again qualify? Moreover, how many non-physical means did they have back then? There were no phones. There were letters I suppose and pornography existed at the time.

It is a difficult problem. And it is not completely clear that we have understood the exception clause to begin with, and even less clear that phone sex, if indeed such happened (so far it sounds more like accusations of emotional intimacy over the phone) would qualify.


For me personally I tend to lean toward the any sexual uncleanness view.

One thing that is quite clear though, no matter how you take porneia it does not include "spiritual adultery”. That would seem to be a stretch even beyond porneia.





This post has been edited by tall73: Jul 31 2006, 01:17 AM

[watchbird]

Spiritual Adultery is the term that was applied in the 3ABN saga to justify Danny’s remarriage. And it has raised an interesting question. Need there be physical adultery to apply Jesus’ ‘exception clause?’ . . .
[much deleted]

One thing that is quite clear though, no matter how you take porneia it does not include "spiritual adultery”. That would seem to be a stretch even beyond porneia.

This is an interesting Bible study, however, IMO you are putting too much emphasis on this at this time, especially in view of the fact that this accusation was dropped very early on in the "saga".

As you conclude, and Clay keeps mentioning, this was indeed too much of a "stretch" for people to buy into, and thus early on was one of the clues that alerted thinking folk to the shallowness of Danny's claims against Linda. In fact, so many came to that conclusion that Danny himself dropped the term and moved to just "adultery", with his primary "proof" ending up being the unused pregancy test that has been cussed and discussed at some length here, and then moved on to the charge of "desertion", as you will see if you get into the accounts of the charges made against Linda in the letter that was sent to her at the time the 3ABN church was trying to put an official church "censure" on her.

As you continue to read more, you will doubtless realize that the big issue is not what Linda did or why she did it, but what Danny did and why he did it--and that the "what" extends far beyond merely his treatment of Linda -- though that is the thing that grabs everyone's attention and seems to be the topic which creates the most discussion. This is partly due to the fact that we are all concerned about Linda, whom we see as the victim of abuse. But it is even more due to the fact that this is the topic toward which the ongoing "information letters" from the Chairman of the Board directs us, in his ever more explicit and embroidered accounts of his view of "what has happened".

If you will read "The Televangelist" carefully, along with the other accounts of wrong-doing in the 3ABN camp that range from immoralities of almost every kind to persecution to ex-employees that rivals that which has been given to Linda (only with less publicity), to financial irregularities, to doctrinal deviations (especially as taught to the employees) -- even including both allowing and claiming to hear and speak "the voice of God" which approaches a "spirit guide" type of belief system. And don't forget their attitude to the tithe--which in other cases have been enough all by itself to call the condemnation of "the church" on the organization which both accepts tithe and encourages its "converts" to send their tithe to them instead of the church into which they are baptised.

Thus there are lots of questions much more discomforting than merely the question as to whether there is something called "spiritual adultery" which can free the other spouse to remarry with "biblical grounds".

[Clay]

thanks for posting Tall... it was a bit long, and to me if it takes all that to try to support a term i.e. spiritual adultery, then that position is tenous.... as I said before, there is no such thing.... and if it does exist it doesn't apply in this case....

[no_cults]

thanks for posting Tall... it was a bit long, and to me if it takes all that to try to support a term i.e. spiritual adultery, then that position is tenous.... as I said before, there is no such thing.... and if it does exist it doesn't apply in this case....

"spiritual adultery"... divorce & remarriage. Leave it to man in general and
to the jews in particular to be cunning and devious enough to seek their
own will instead of God's will.

It says in the Bible (can't remember where) that it is wrong to divorce and
to remarry one's wife. Do you know why?

Because the jews of old figured it would be just fine to bed the sweet 'tang
just as long as they got their divorce on Friday nite and got married on
Sunday nite. Cleaver manipulators. Always have and to this day also.

[awesumtenor]

"spiritual adultery"... divorce & remarriage. Leave it to man in general and
to the jews in particular to be cunning and devious enough to seek their
own will instead of God's will.

It says in the Bible (can't remember where) that it is wrong to divorce and
to remarry one's wife. Do you know why?

Because the jews of old figured it would be just fine to bed the sweet 'tang
just as long as they got their divorce on Friday nite and got married on
Sunday nite. Cleaver manipulators. Always have and to this day also.

*sigh* Why do we, even after over 2000 years, find it so difficult to not incorporate anti-semitic stereotypes into our Christianity?

Manipulation is not a "jewish thing"; it's a "people thing". No ethnic group or nationality is the source or sole purveyors of this particular brand of inhumanity; we are all equal opportunity manipulators... for example when we use stereotypes...

In His service,
Mr. J

[tall73]

*sigh* Why do we, even after over 2000 years, find it so difficult to not incorporate anti-semitic stereotypes into our Christianity?

Manipulation is not a "jewish thing"; it's a "people thing". No ethnic group or nationality is the source or sole purveyors of this particular brand of inhumanity; we are all equal opportunity manipulators... for example when we use stereotypes...

In His service,
Mr. J

Quite agreed.

thanks for posting Tall... it was a bit long, and to me if it takes all that to try to support a term i.e. spiritual adultery, then that position is tenous.... as I said before, there is no such thing.... and if it does exist it doesn't apply in this case....

Actually it doesn't support spiritual adultery. But the issue itself does get to the question of what exactly is needed to qualify for the exception indicated in Matthew 19.

And yes, it is long, not every issue is simple. And as you said, even the more traditional opinions on this question could be deemed as tenuous.


This post has been edited by tall73: Jul 31 2006, 01:07 PM

[Clay]

Quite agreed.
Actually it doesn't support spiritual adultery. But the issue itself does get to the question of what exactly is needed to qualify for the exception indicated in Matthew 19.

And yes, it is long, not every issue is simple. And as you said, even the more traditional opinions on this question could be deemed as tenuous.

true.....

[PrincessDrRe]

Sorry...but I had to address this....

Sexual immorality:

LEV 18:6 " `No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD.
LEV 18:7 " `Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.
LEV 18:8 " `Do not have sexual relations with your father's wife; that would dishonor your father.
LEV 18:9 " `Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.
LEV 18:10 " `Do not have sexual relations with your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter; that would dishonor you.
LEV 18:11 " `Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father's wife, born to your father; she is your sister.
LEV 18:12 " `Do not have sexual relations with your father's sister; she is your father's close relative.
LEV 18:13 " `Do not have sexual relations with your mother's sister, because she is your mother's close relative.
LEV 18:14 " `Do not dishonor your father's brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.
LEV 18:15 " `Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son's wife; do not have relations with her.
LEV 18:16 " `Do not have sexual relations with your brother's wife; that would dishonor your brother.
LEV 18:17 " `Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.
LEV 18:18 " `Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.
LEV 18:19 " `Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.
LEV 18:20 " `Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor's wife and defile yourself with her.
LEV 18:21 " `Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.
LEV 18:22 " `Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
LEV 18:23 " `Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.
LEV 18:24 " `Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the aliens living among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.

What's scary in that above mentioned chapter/verses is that the connection w/ Father to Daughter is not actually stated. Yes...YES - it does discuss "close relatives" however it doesn't mention Father to Daughter per se - as it mentions all others.

Read above again and see for yourself....

BOT!

[missthg]

if you to write a thesis on something.....

[simplysaved]

I like the direction your posts have gone in so far..and have found in more than one views in which I agree....

From what you have posted then, the emotional affair is spiritual adultery....which would then not only include lust (which Christ stated is committing adultery in one's own heart), but would also then include phone sex, pronography/masturbation, etc.?

Spiritual Adultery is the term that was applied in the 3ABN saga to justify Danny’s remarriage. And it has raised an interesting question. Need there be physical adultery to apply Jesus’ ‘exception clause?’

Here is the text in question:
Jesus’ statement suggests he was clarifying the law found in Deut. 24 in which they were permitted to divorce if “indecency” (uncleanness in KJV) was found in her.
(Strong's)
ערוה
‛ervâh
er-vaw'
From H6168; nudity, literally (especially the pudenda) or figuratively (disgrace, blemish): - nakedness, shame, unclean (-ness).

Now the question is, what was entailed by this “indecency” (Deut) or sexual immorality/adultery/fornication (Matthew). The term used in the exception clause is the oft-debated term Porneia. You can look up all of its uses using Strongs etc. Here are some of the more interesting ones:
These texts use both Porneia and the more specific word, Moixeia which always means adultery. In fact, in Jesus’ statement in Matthew 19 He uses both as well. The grounds for divorce and remarriage were “porneia” and the resulting sin if this was not present was causing them to commit adultery, “moichatai.”

This indicates that either porneia was distinct from adultery or was a broader word that also included adultery.
(Strong's)
porneia
por-ni'-ah
from G4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively idolatry: - fornication.

μοιχεία
moicheia
moy-khi'-ah
From G3431; adultery: - adultery.

The next text of interest is I Corinthians 7.
Here is it is clear that marriage was intended partly as a means to help resist sexual immorality (porneia) by unmarried people. In other words, if you are lusting, get married. Here fornication is used of the unmarried probably in the sense of sex outside of marriage.
In the Acts council they enforced upon the gentiles the same requirements already made of “strangers” (ie. Gentiles) living among the Israelites in the law. The sexual immorality mentioned in Acts is spelled out in its various forms in Leviticus. The list includes acts done while married (wife’s sister) which would be problematic both as adultery and as having sex with close relations.
It appears that porneia could carry a number of connotations. Adultery, incest, pre-marital sex, etc.
So with this information in mind the question comes up, what did Jesus mean by his exception clause? There are a few views.

a. Only literal, physical adultery would release someone from the marriage and allow for remarriage.
b. Fornication previous to the marriage that was later discovered would allow for divorce and subsequent remarriage. (Some would say that adultery would not allow for this but fornication before marriage would… (See Keith Burton’s Ministry Magazine article http://www.lifeheritage.org/Divorce%20and%20Remarriage.pdf).
c. Any sexual uncleanness, not necessarily physical adultery (pornography, cyber sex, etc., emotional affairs, phone sex, etc.) would come under porneia and therefore qualify since porneia is much broader than the more limited term moicheia
d. There are no grounds for divorce except for an non-sacramental marriage in the first place, which would indicate pre-marital fornication, or a marriage based on incest (this would be the Catholic version, see this article for one exposition of it:
http://members.aol.com/johnprh/marriage.html ).
It seems that any type of inappropriate sexual activity could qualify as porneia. For that matter, Jesus spoke of lust as adultery. But the question seems to be more about what Jesus had in mind by the word porneia, and therefore what would qualify as an exception, than whether phone sex (if that is what Danny meant by these conversations that were taped) would count as porneia. Note, we haven’t heard these conversations, so who knows what they really have on them.

To me phone sex would be porneia. It is “sexual immorality” or porneia in the broad sense. The only question though is whether Jesus really intended porneia in the broad sense, or whether he meant it as a synonym for adultery in this context, or whether he meant it specifically as pre-marital fornication as in Burton’s view.
The Catholic view has some internal problems as porneia seems to be used for more than just pre-marital infidelity at times, and in the list in Leviticus it includes what would be adulterous relationships.

The physical adultery only view would be understandable due to the feelings of betrayal it causes. However, one must ask why it is that the word for adultery is not used when Jesus clearly uses it later in the text? If He wanted to make it specific He knew how. Others would say that perhaps Jesus was simply using variety of expression, and certainly we do see that at times in all languages.

Burton’s view is somewhat compelling. Jesus stresses the one-ness that should not be put assunder and says that Mose’s decree was in fact only for the hardness of their hearts. It was Moses’ decree that permitted divorce at all. Moreover, as Burton notes if adultery were to free one from marriage, and Jesus had defined it as lust, then it would be very easy to be released!

On the other hand Paul does note that if a non-believer wants to leave, let them, you are not bound (which Burton also acknowledges) so the oneness is not without scriptural exception. Moreover Burton’s view does not seem to account for the flexibility of the term porneia beyond pre-marital relations.

The any sexual uncleanness view would apply the term porneia broadly. Christians were told to avoid every hint of sexual immorality, so the standards were high.
However, taking it too broadly seems to mean that it would be quite easy to qualify. For instance does fantasy again qualify? Moreover, how many non-physical means did they have back then? There were no phones. There were letters I suppose and pornography existed at the time.

It is a difficult problem. And it is not completely clear that we have understood the exception clause to begin with, and even less clear that phone sex, if indeed such happened (so far it sounds more like accusations of emotional intimacy over the phone) would qualify.
For me personally I tend to lean toward the any sexual uncleanness view.

One thing that is quite clear though, no matter how you take porneia it does not include "spiritual adultery”. That would seem to be a stretch even beyond porneia.

[watchbird]

Sorry...but I had to address this....
What's scary in that above mentioned chapter/verses is that the connection w/ Father to Daughter is not actually stated. Yes...YES - it does discuss "close relatives" however it doesn't mention Father to Daughter per se - as it mentions all others.

Read above again and see for yourself....

BOT!

Hmmm..... nor does it seem to mention father to his wife's daugther..... interesting. But..... question time. If this is to be taken in the context of other threads in this forum ... are you suggesting that it is OK for a father to have "sexual relations" with his daughter? If so, did we just take a huge amount of sexual abuse out of the "sin" class? (I don't really think this is what you are saying......but if not, then what is it that you mean for us to take from what you have said?)
And another thought (question) that just arose....how do we "define" "sexual relations" in this context? Do we completely equate this form of "sexual abuse" with "sexual relations"? If not. what distinction do we make, and how do we define "sexual abuse" as it applies to father with daughter?

[simplysaved]

I think Bible history shows us what became of Lot's daughters getting him drunk and having sex with him "so the family name would not die"....

The following scripture would then seem to address this issue:

LEV 18:17 " `Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.

If a man is married to a woman she should not have sex with her daughter....and the converse would be true regarding having sex with one's son (also not included). It is reasonable and would appear that God was addressing some of the most common sins of the surrounding countries that were more, ahem, "appealing" or "tempting"---and also setting some boundaries in general as prior to this the call to be "fruitful and multiply" called for marriage with close relations.

Hmmm..... nor does it seem to mention father to his wife's daugther..... interesting. But..... question time. If this is to be taken in the context of other threads in this forum ... are you suggesting that it is OK for a father to have "sexual relations" with his daughter? If so, did we just take a huge amount of sexual abuse out of the "sin" class? (I don't really think this is what you are saying......but if not, then what is it that you mean for us to take from what you have said?)
And another thought (question) that just arose....how do we "define" "sexual relations" in this context? Do we completely equate this form of "sexual abuse" with "sexual relations"? If not. what distinction do we make, and how do we define "sexual abuse" as it applies to father with daughter?

[PrincessDrRe]

Hmmm..... nor does it seem to mention father to his wife's daugther..... interesting. But..... question time. If this is to be taken in the context of other threads in this forum ... are you suggesting that it is OK for a father to have "sexual relations" with his daughter? If so, did we just take a huge amount of sexual abuse out of the "sin" class? (I don't really think this is what you are saying......but if not, then what is it that you mean for us to take from what you have said?)
And another thought (question) that just arose....how do we "define" "sexual relations" in this context? Do we completely equate this form of "sexual abuse" with "sexual relations"? If not. what distinction do we make, and how do we define "sexual abuse" as it applies to father with daughter?

We have to go with the premise that "close relatives" covers the Father/Daughter - Father to the Wife's Daughter (Step-Father) relationship. I mention this because - sometimes things are not mentioned - yet we have to read deeply and gain an understanding....

Yall know I don't agree with incest period....but I had to point this out as this scripture is used as an excuse by many biblical "scholars" as a means and motive to sexually assault their own daughters.

I think Bible history shows us what became of Lot's daughters getting him drunk and having sex with him "so the family name would not die"....

The following scripture would then seem to address this issue:

LEV 18:17 " `Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.

If a man is married to a woman she should not have sex with her daughter....and the converse would be true regarding having sex with one's son (also not included). It is reasonable and would appear that God was addressing some of the most common sins of the surrounding countries that were more, ahem, "appealing" or "tempting"---and also setting some boundaries in general as prior to this the call to be "fruitful and multiply" called for marriage with close relations.

.....however still - regardless of what is posted - it does not mention the direct link of Father/Daughter or Father and Women's Daughter (Step-Father) directly. That cannot be denied if the scripture is read. Yes. "Close relatives" - but not the intricate breakdown that was done with "Aunts" and "Brother-in-laws"....

That being said - punishments have taken place throughout the Bible that can be used as a basis for law today - however the exact same scriptures are vastly ignored when they point internally to self. EX: Using all of the scriptures we are discussing; we are pointed toward the reasoning behind "spiritual adultery" and leaving one's spouse subsequently.

What of the scripture that says "husbands love your wives as yourself?" - Using the same hermeneutics one could interpret that a husband that doesn't show his wife affection, or better yet - blatently shows the same type of affection to another woman other than his wife - is also doing "spiritual adultery"..... correct?


Also note: many try to use the exact same story as one against "drinking wine"...now it is being used against "incest"...

Now one is wrong and we do know that - but the other.... GOD never commanded that you cannot drink wine.

Hermeneutics..... assumptions....... If it works/covers one - it has to work/cover all....and it cannot be selective.

[watchbird]

The following scripture would then seem to address this issue:

LEV 18:17 " `Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.

We have to go with the premise that "close relatives" covers the Father/Daughter - Father to the Wife's Daughter (Step-Father) relationship. I mention this because - sometimes things are not mentioned - yet we have to read deeply and gain an understanding....

Yall know I don't agree with incest period....but I had to point this out as this scripture is used as an excuse by many biblical "scholars" as a means and motive to sexually assault their own daughters.
.....however still - regardless of what is posted - it does not mention the direct link of Father/Daughter or Father and Women's Daughter (Step-Father) directly. That cannot be denied if the scripture is read. Yes. "Close relatives" - but not the intricate breakdown that was done with "Aunts" and "Brother-in-laws"....

You make some other good points also, but let's just focus on this one for a bit more. Might the reason this was not more explicit have to do with issues of paternity?

I don't think that a man at that time who married a woman who already had children would have been considered their "father", since blood lines were considered so important and blood lines went through the male. Thus I doubt that there was any designation such as we use today which would equal our "step-father" label. If I am correct in this, then this text does indeed speak explicitly of not only the children, but the grandchildren of any woman whom the man "has sexual relations with" and would thus be at the same time more explicit and more broad in its application than as if it had merely said "step-father" or even had said a man's wife's children and grandchildren. Stated as it is, this text covers every woman with whom he has had sexual relation -- including not only his legal wife (or wives) but any other woman with whom he had had sex, whether in the permitted categories or in any and all of these forbidden categories.

So, yes, I agree that using this text.... or rather the absence of the specific wording you note..... as being an "excuse" for sexually "assaulting" or even "sexually fondling" their own "daughters" is completely unexcusable and a gross twisting of scripture. Any scholar worth his "salt" should see more, not fewer, implications in a text than a mere "straight read through" seems to indicate.

[tall73]

You make some other good points also, but let's just focus on this one for a bit more. Might the reason this was not more explicit have to do with issues of paternity?

I don't think that a man at that time who married a woman who already had children would have been considered their "father", since blood lines were considered so important and blood lines went through the male. Thus I doubt that there was any designation such as we use today which would equal our "step-father" label. If I am correct in this, then this text does indeed speak explicitly of not only the children, but the grandchildren of any woman whom the man "has sexual relations with" and would thus be at the same time more explicit and more broad in its application than as if it had merely said "step-father" or even had said a man's wife's children and grandchildren. Stated as it is, this text covers every woman with whom he has had sexual relation -- including not only his legal wife (or wives) but any other woman with whom he had had sex, whether in the permitted categories or in any and all of these forbidden categories.

So, yes, I agree that using this text.... or rather the absence of the specific wording you note..... as being an "excuse" for sexually "assaulting" or even "sexually fondling" their own "daughters" is completely unexcusable and a gross twisting of scripture. Any scholar worth his "salt" should see more, not fewer, implications in a text than a mere "straight read through" seems to indicate.

Makes sense to me. It covers more bases not less.

I like the direction your posts have gone in so far..and have found in more than one views in which I agree....

From what you have posted then, the emotional affair is spiritual adultery....which would then not only include lust (which Christ stated is committing adultery in one's own heart), but would also then include phone sex, pronography/masturbation, etc.?

Thanks for the compliment. Essentially I am saying porneia seems to be referring to sexual immorality in a broad sense. And yes, I think pornography addiction, phone sex, etc would figure in there.

Emotional affairs, I am not sure that would technically come under porneia. But it could lead to things that would. It is essentially a denial of the one flesh experience of marriage as the marriage partner is exchanged emotionally for someone else. And it is a serious sin in a marriage. I am not sure as it would come under porneia.

In any case, the story is best understood by saying that Jesus was saying what would NOT qualify rather than what would .In other words, you could not get divorce for any and every reason. It had to be something that was a serious issue of breach of trust apparently in a sexual way. Which is what leads many to the conclusion "physical adultery."

And likely that is chiefly what Jesus had in mind. My point is that in a modern age when there are adult bookstores and play boy channel and sex chat and porn sites, etc. The term could likely be applied there too.