Porneia, sexual immorality and romantic love, committed love in marriage.

[lismore]

Good point/question - this was common in both Greek and Roman society. Church Father Clement of Alexandria (+/- 190-200 AD) states a slave woman who is ordered by her master to prostitute herself commits no sin if she obeys, because she has no power to refuse. The guilt belongs entirely to the owner.

Historical accounts show efforts by Christians to buy these female slaves free to relieve them from this horrible situation.

Thank you for your reply. Yes that would make sense. God Bless

 

[jonojim1337]

Good point/question - this was common in both Greek and Roman society. Church Father Clement of Alexandria (+/- 190-200 AD) states a slave woman who is ordered by her master to prostitute herself commits no sin if she obeys, because she has no power to refuse. The guilt belongs entirely to the owner.

Historical accounts show efforts by Christians to buy these female slaves free to relieve them from this horrible situation.

Says here he didn’t specifically adress sexual abuse of slaves:

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

Says here he didn’t specifically adress sexual abuse of slaves:

View attachment 373835

I will look up a more detailed quote .. thanks for asking for detail

 

[jonojim1337]

You mean to tell me, the Roman citizenry had an interest in sharing their inheritance with plebians? No sir, that is called a bastard, and that is generally looked down upon.

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

I will look up a more detailed quote .. thanks for asking for detail

More detailed quote:

The same holds true for the maidservant who is under the yoke of slavery; she too is in another's power, that is, her master's. But if she is a believer, let her regard herself as belonging to God, not to her master, and let her keep her body pure for the Lord who bought her with his own blood. [...] But if her master is an unbeliever, let the believing maidservant bear up, knowing that she is serving the Lord Christ. Let her not maltreat her flesh but rather adorn it chastely, keeping it pure and undefiled for the Lord. For it is not permitted her to fornicate or to surrender her body to anyone but her own husband. But if she is forced by her master, let her pray to be given strength to endure and not to sin against the Lord. For the body is a temple of the Holy Spirit and must be kept in holiness.

Upon reading better I agree it's more likely he was referring with 'endure' to persist in refusal than to let her master have his way with a sinful plan. Under Torah law though the master could have married her still himself but any believing master would never be allowed to force his slaves to commit sin - including prostitution.

PS: later theologians do seem to provide this exoneration in case of force/coercion - e.g Augustine (The city of God - +/- 420 AD):

But since purity is a virtue of the soul, and has for its companion virtue, the fortitude which will rather endure all ills than consent to evil; and since no one, however magnanimous and pure, has always the disposal of his own body, but can control only the consent and refusal of his will, what sane man can suppose that, if his body be seized and forcibly made use of to satisfy the lust of another, he thereby loses his purity?

And this seems a rhetorical question.

 

[jonojim1337]

More detailed quote:

The same holds true for the maidservant who is under the yoke of slavery; she too is in another's power, that is, her master's. But if she is a believer, let her regard herself as belonging to God, not to her master, and let her keep her body pure for the Lord who bought her with his own blood. [...] But if her master is an unbeliever, let the believing maidservant bear up, knowing that she is serving the Lord Christ. Let her not maltreat her flesh but rather adorn it chastely, keeping it pure and undefiled for the Lord. For it is not permitted her to fornicate or to surrender her body to anyone but her own husband. But if she is forced by her master, let her pray to be given strength to endure and not to sin against the Lord. For the body is a temple of the Holy Spirit and must be kept in holiness.

Upon reading better I agree it's more likely he was referring with 'endure' to persist in refusal than to let her master have his way with a sinful plan. Under Torah law though the master could have married her still himself but any believing master would never be allowed to force his slaves to commit sin - including prostitution.

PS: later theologians do seem to provide this exoneration in case of force/coercion - e.g Augustine (The city of God - +/- 420 AD):

And this seems a rhetorical question.

While slaves did not enjoy the rights of a trial, it doesn’t stop anyone from viewing this as a shameful act.

 

[All Becomes New]

View attachment 373831

Yeah it would be very shameful for a citizen of Rome to behave in this manner.

That's not true. In the Greek language, it is almost impossible to say "male virgin" because it was just assumed that if you were male, you would be having sex. This included prostitution and the ability to have sex with anyone who was below you in the social hierarchy.

 

[jonojim1337]

That's not true. In the Greek language, it is almost impossible to say "male virgin" because it was just assumed that if you were male, you would be having sex. This included prostitution and the ability to have sex with anyone who was below you in the social hierarchy.

Uhm ok, so explain Spartans then. Also being able to is not the same as it not being shameful.

 

[jonojim1337]

Also

 

[com7fy8]

Porneia, sexual immorality and romantic love, committed love in marriage

First, about porneia > I think this is listed in Colossians 3:5 as a thing to put to death >

"Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry." (Colossians 3:5)

Here, "fornication" is porneia. And we are to put it "to death". So, I see this does not only mean to stop the outward and physical immoral actions, but put to death the spiritual depth of it including feelings and emotions and desires that are spiritual but immoral. So, it is stuff that is keeping a person away from relating right with Jesus as our Groom, and with brothers and sisters in Jesus the right way. It means stuff that keeps us from living in God's love. It gets our attention away.

So it is, then, an anti-love thing which needs to be put to death . . . getting rid of what in my heart would have me being immoral. Kill it so I can be alive in God's way of loving, instead. My experience is that interest in immoral activity has different things operating, and which keep me from loving the way I should >

*Interest in the pleasure*, even if I don't act on it, can keep my attention away from personally submitting to God in His peace . . . all the time > as we are "called in one body" to do >

"And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful." (Colossians 3:15)

God's peace is so better than the feelings of pleasure of sexual stuff. To be intimate with nice feelings is not as great as being intimate with God and one another in His peace ruling us. I have found how I can use a woman for pleasure, but my intimacy is not really with her, but with the feelings I like. So . . . it is anti-love . . . using someone, instead of really loving her. And what contributes to this? >

*beauty discrimination* > I can favor a nicer looking woman, instead of loving every woman the way God wants. And immoral attraction can be brought on by how nice a woman acts and looks; so it is not really getting to know her and share deeply. And look what happened when Jacob discriminated against Leah because she was not beautiful like Rachel >

"When the LORD saw that Leah was unloved, He opened her womb; but Rachel was barren" (Genesis 29:31)

Jacob did not want Leah to be his wife; he got tricked into getting her. And he favored Rachel more than Leah, because of what they looked like. And I see how the LORD expected him to love her dearly and completely; and so the LORD enforced this, by not allowing Rachel to have children. And yes I have seen how my way of loving women can be connected with what they look like and how nicely they talk and move.

And a couple of women I have fallen for "the hardest" have turned out to have major personal and character and emotional problems. But they were "extravagant" looking and acting.

But Jesus says >

"if you love those who love you, what reward have you?" (in Matthew 5:46)

So, it is anti-love if I favor someone only because of how I can use her for pleasure . . . physically, or just to look at her, and/or because of how she can charm me. Yes, God "gives us richly all things to enjoy," we have in 1 Timothy 6:17; however, this does not mean for me to discriminate in how I love each person.

Just be careful with the English word 'lust' - the Greek does not have a dedicated word for that; the underlying word usually translated to 'lust' in English just means strong desire, and is also used in a positive sense (use your concordance to look it up).

Paul says how to relate >

"not in passion of lust" > in 1 Thessalonians 4:5.

I think this goes even for in Christian marriage. There can be a difference between lust, versus desiring one another in intimate and tender caring for one another . . . in God's love. God's love is so better than just lust for the pleasure and what the companion looks like and the charming voice.

"Let all that you do be done with love." (1 Corinthians 16:14)

"All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any." > in 1 Corinthians 6:12.

So, even in holy matrimony . . . it seems to me that God wants us to be first about sharing with Him in His love, all the time, and in this intimacy with God we discover how He has us sharing with one another in marriage and our other close relating as brothers and sisters in Jesus.

So, if I am just thinking about using someone, and only using someone to look at . . . this is getting me away from loving her . . . including how instead I need to be blessing and praying for her. And it has me away from staying submissive to God in His peace ruling us in our hearts > Colossians 3:15.

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

First, about porneia > I think this is listed in Colossians 3:5 as a thing to put to death >

"Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry." (Colossians 3:5)

Here, "fornication" is porneia. And we are to put it "to death". So, I see this does not only mean to stop the outward and physical immoral actions, but put to death the spiritual depth of it including feelings and emotions and desires that are spiritual but immoral. So, it is stuff that is keeping a person away from relating right with Jesus as our Groom, and with brothers and sisters in Jesus the right way. It means stuff that keeps us from living in God's love. It gets our attention away.

So it is, then, an anti-love thing which needs to be put to death . . . getting rid of what in my heart would have me being immoral. Kill it so I can be alive in God's way of loving, instead. My experience is that interest in immoral activity has different things operating, and which keep me from loving the way I should >

*Interest in the pleasure*, even if I don't act on it, can keep my attention away from personally submitting to God in His peace . . . all the time > as we are "called in one body" to do >

"And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful." (Colossians 3:15)

God's peace is so better than the feelings of pleasure of sexual stuff. To be intimate with nice feelings is not as great as being intimate with God and one another in His peace ruling us. I have found how I can use a woman for pleasure, but my intimacy is not really with her, but with the feelings I like. So . . . it is anti-love . . . using someone, instead of really loving her. And what contributes to this? >

*beauty discrimination* > I can favor a nicer looking woman, instead of loving every woman the way God wants. And immoral attraction can be brought on by how nice a woman acts and looks; so it is not really getting to know her and share deeply. And look what happened when Jacob discriminated against Leah because she was not beautiful like Rachel >

"When the LORD saw that Leah was unloved, He opened her womb; but Rachel was barren" (Genesis 29:31)

Jacob did not want Leah to be his wife; he got tricked into getting her. And he favored Rachel more than Leah, because of what they looked like. And I see how the LORD expected him to love her dearly and completely; and so the LORD enforced this, by not allowing Rachel to have children. And yes I have seen how my way of loving women can be connected with what they look like and how nicely they talk and move.

And a couple of women I have fallen for "the hardest" have turned out to have major personal and character and emotional problems. But they were "extravagant" looking and acting.

But Jesus says >

"if you love those who love you, what reward have you?" (in Matthew 5:46)

So, it is anti-love if I favor someone only because of how I can use her for pleasure . . . physically, or just to look at her, and/or because of how she can charm me. Yes, God "gives us richly all things to enjoy," we have in 1 Timothy 6:17; however, this does not mean for me to discriminate in how I love each person.


Paul says how to relate >

"not in passion of lust" > in 1 Thessalonians 4:5.

I think this goes even for in Christian marriage. There can be a difference between lust, versus desiring one another in intimate and tender caring for one another . . . in God's love. God's love is so better than just lust for the pleasure and what the companion looks like and the charming voice.

"Let all that you do be done with love." (1 Corinthians 16:14)

"All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any." > in 1 Corinthians 6:12.

So, even in holy matrimony . . . it seems to me that God wants us to be first about sharing with Him in His love, all the time, and in this intimacy with God we discover how He has us sharing with one another in marriage and our other close relating as brothers and sisters in Jesus.

So, if I am just thinking about using someone, and only using someone to look at . . . this is getting me away from loving her . . . including how instead I need to be blessing and praying for her. And it has me away from staying submissive to God in His peace ruling us in our hearts > Colossians 3:15.

That is all true yet it remains essential to understand there is no Greek word 'lust' in the NT. In the English the word 'lust' is inherently immoral/bad, but the same cannot be said for the underlying Greek word for 'strong desire'. And even strong (physical) desire within marriage should be considered good with the morally 'right' attitude. The LXX even uses the word 'agape' in Song of Songs in an erotic context. Strong physical desire in marriage without the proper holistic love is selfish and probably ends up hurting the other party. But there is a Christian tendency to Asceticism (growing very strong already in the 2nd century AD) that seems to depart from the Jewish perspective, and that views physical desire by definition as sinful, or at best just tolerated for the sake or pro-creation.