Fornication definition

[The Gregorian]

Preface: Firstly, I understand that topics are open to everyone, and people with worldly points of view understand sex to be healthy. Especially if you believe there's no such thing as "sin," any sex would not be a sin as long as it's consensual. But the question for this thread is asking if fornication is "sinful" (assuming there is sin as defined by the bible (the BIBLE, not necissarily, a certain denomination)). So please respect the conversation and keep on topic as to whether or not it's "Sinful"... we all know the physically healthy effects of sex, along with the physical risks.
-----------

Many churches spend a lot of time discussing fornication and it's effects, like any other doctrine of their religion.... however, the topic of fornication is itself often considered "dirty" ... so people tend not to discuss it all too much. But I like to dissect and examine every aspect of the bible, so let's have a discussion about this.

So, first off, fornication as a term can be used in very different ways. Cheating on your spouse is definitely fornication, but how far down does it go? The more orthodox interpretation of fornication includes ALL sexual activity outside of marriage, not just the procreative act, but so much as looking at another person's body if you're not a doctor.

So, I did a little searching for instances of the word "fornication" in the bible... because it doesn't matter what the direct definition of the english word is... the applicable definition is that of the word translated INTO the english word fornication.

in some searching I found: "1 Cor 6:9 badly mistranslate "porneia" as fornication. Corinth was a wide-open port city. People there could get sex any way they wanted it. Where our English translations read 'fornication', Paul's original Greek word was 'porneia' which means to sell and refers to slaves bought and sold for cultic prostitution. What was happening in the Temples of Corinth was farmers were visiting the temple priestesses who represented the fertility Gods. By having sex with these prostitutes they believed their fields would be more furtile. It didn't even have to do with going to prostitutes, but pagan cultic worship."

In Acts 15:20 and again in 29, it mentions things to abstain from... one of those being fornication... but again... the greek word used is "porneia," "prostitution." Beyond the spiritual implication of sleeping with a pegan priestess in worship of her gods.... even mundane prostitutes are dangerous due to disease, you could be robbed, and you leave yourself vulnerable to being harmed otherwise... it seems prostitutes are something you were to abstain from, like idols, and things that have been strangled, and from blood. Plus, even if you weren't married, I'm sure the prostitutes of those times had the same potential for the problems modern prostitutes face... by hiring a prostitute you encourage them into a profession that is very dangerous for them.

In acts 21:25... again... porneia... "prostitution"... not "any sexual contact without marriage to that person.

Matthew 5:32, speaking of the grounds for divorce... again... porneia... "prostitution."

Romans 1:29 lists fornication as one of the things bad people were filled with... but the greek has no word describing it.

In fact... in my preliminary search, I'm not finding any greek word to mean something so restrictive as "any and all sexual contact outside of marriage."

So... what does the bible teach in context? Obviously it's wrong to take what isn't yours. And CERTAINLY, it cheapens relationships when the partner's been with a number of people. "purity" is valuable, don't get me wrong... but my question is: Is it in fact absolutely sinful? A bad idea, most of the time if not all! But a lot of bad ideas aren't "sin" themselves.

For example... if you've had a disagreement with your wife, it's best to communicate, respect her opinion and compromise. And after the problem is settled, to do something nice for her to illustrate that you're not angry... make her dinner, give her a back rub, even a small gesture is a great idea. Contrastingly, as soon as the argument has ended, going right back to watching the game, in many situations, is a BAD idea because the conflict is still fresh. Even though a decision's been made, if there hasn't been closure and forgiveness via proper communication, a new problem is going to be easy to stir up. A lack of communication is a bad idea... but it's not in itself a sin.

Likewise, sex (including "non-intercourse sexual activity") outside marriage can be a form of poor communication or an uncaring act... but is it a "sin?"

So... what else does the bible say?
Remember Abraham was married and was not producing an offspring. His wife asked him to give her a son through her servant... although he was married to her, all three involved consented to the situation, and along came ishmael... without whom, we wouldn't have of the lessons learned via isaac and ishmael.

It's not entirely unheard of for exemplary bible characters to ASK their spouse to produce a child with someone other than themselves. Also, remember in the O.T. there was a very real commandment... if your brother is married and doesn't produce an offspring before he dies, it's your duty to produce an offspring for him... even though you may be married to someone else. Remember, Onan was killed for not obeying this, in spite of being directly commanded to do so. He was not killed for masturbating, regardless of what some say. He was not killed for having sex with his brother's widow... he was killed for having sex with her and purposefully avoiding the production of a child so that he could continue having sex with her.

Solomon was the wisest human to live... and how many wives did he have? And how many concubines beyond that? And have you ever READ the song of solomon? Yet, he was always considered a faithful man.

So... if a couple are dating... they plan to marry, and engage in "non-intercourse sexual activity" ... are they committing a sin?


Feel free to agree/disagree... I'm not saying these observations are all accurate... but this should make for a good discussion.

But again... please keep this clean, please respect other people's opinions and don't make it personal... and please keep this to discussing the extent to which fornication is "sinful" ... we all know it's "healthy" and "natural"... we're talking morals here.

 

[The Gregorian]

... I made that ENTIRELY too long... sorry.

 

[MarkSB]

There is one passage which comes to my mind always when thinking about this. I believe it is in 1 Corinthians where Paul says "but so there be no sexual immorality among you, let each man have his own wife". Perhaps sexual immorality in this verse is translated from 'porneia' as well, but the phrase 'his own wife' would seem to indicate one wife who was faithful only to him, and him to her.

Also, the law written upon our hearts speaks for itself. I think most people, even if they won't admit it, deep down want to have one person to whom they are faithful to and who is faithful to them.

And your right, purity is a prize possesion. I think it is one of the greatest things we can have as a christian, and it enables us to have a healthier relationship with God and with others.

 

[HuntingMan]

The more orthodox interpretation of fornication includes ALL sexual activity outside of marriage,

Thats the definition I accept and believe is true.

Sex belongs where God created it to be, in a lawful marriage, fornication being 'illicit sexual intercourse'...ie sex that isnt within that lawful union of a man and a woman.

Of course, not everyone agrees.

 

[Stinker]

I was taught that all those teens and adults out there in the world are sinning when they fulfill the biological urge they were born with. The reason so many in the Bible were not having unmarried sex was because they married at such an early age.

I do not believe the scriptures teach that the grounds for Christian divorce would include the husband reading porn magazines or his watching porn movies. This is what happens when we open up the word fornication to mean whatever any society deems it to be.

 

[dead2self]

I also hold that fornication includes all sexual activity outside marriage.

I generally see attmepts to soften the meaning to be more permissive as "people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions" as Paul puts it in 2 Timothy 4:3.

I would venture to say that deep down, all our consciences regard any sexual activity outside of marriage as sinful wether we like it(or even admit it) or not. Teachings that try to soften this to allow various pre-marital or extra-marital sexual activities are, I believe, derived from our sinful passions. We want to do it so we make attmepts to justify it.

Here is a quote from the October 28, 1986 sermon by John Piper that gives one compelling example of porneia used to indicate premarital sex and not prostitution:

Third, in John 8:41 Jesus is in a heated discussion with the Jewish leaders. Jesus pushes them so hard to recognize their own inconsistencies that they resort to an ad hominem argument and say, "We were not born of fornication!" The word is porneia and the point is: WE weren't born that way; YOU were. In other words they are calling Jesus a bastard, because everybody knew that Mary and Joseph were not married when Mary became pregnant. And so since they did not believe in the miracle of the virgin birth, the popular rumor was that Jesus was an illegitimate child of Mary by who knows whom. The only point I want to make from this is that the word for "fornication" in John 8:41 is the same as the one in Matthew 15:19 and 1 Corinthians 7:2, and in all these texts the meaning is premarital sexual relations.

The full sermon can be viewed here: http://www.desiringgod.org/resourcelibrary/sermons/bydate/1986/564_The_Enthronement_of_Desire/

Now I would say it is unreasonable to assume they were trying to make the claim that Mary was a cult prostitue. I would say that the claim being made is that Jesus was born of pre-marital sex.

 

[HuntingMan]

Third, in John 8:41 Jesus is in a heated discussion with the Jewish leaders. Jesus pushes them so hard to recognize their own inconsistencies that they resort to an ad hominem argument and say, "We were not born of fornication!" The word is porneia and the point is: WE weren't born that way; YOU were. In other words they are calling Jesus a bastard, because everybody knew that Mary and Joseph were not married when Mary became pregnant. And so since they did not believe in the miracle of the virgin birth, the popular rumor was that Jesus was an illegitimate child of Mary by who knows whom. The only point I want to make from this is that the word for "fornication" in John 8:41 is the same as the one in Matthew 15:19 and 1 Corinthians 7:2, and in all these texts the meaning is premarital sexual relations.

One problem I see with Pipers interpretation is that the text doesnt actually include the 'you were' part.

Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
Joh 8:37-42
​

All I see when I read that passage is Jesus telling them that their father is basically the devil and their defending themselves against His words.
If anyone is on the offense in that particular passage it was Jesus.
Ive looked that text over a couple hundred times by now and still I cannot find any hint that the Jews were saying Jesus was born of fornication.

Jesus was not accused of being born of fornication

Id be VERY interested to see any actual evidence that Christ was being accused of being born of whoredom.

There are a few reasons NOT to buy this conclusion, one being that its VERY odd that the Jews only just happen to mention this what....ONE time ? *IF* Jesus had been born out of wedlock the Jews would have had a field day with Jesus AND Mary about it...yet silence from Gods word.

I would say that the claim being made is that Jesus was born of pre-marital sex.

Based on what the text ACTUALLY says, I see no reason to believe that is the case.

Joh 8:37-42 KJVR I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. (38) I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.

(39) They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father.

Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. (40) But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. (41) Ye do the deeds of your father.

Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. (42)

Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
​

Our Lord was born into a lawful marriage.
Mary was betrothed (under a covenant of marriage) and hometaking had occurred when our Lord was born.
Betrothal is/was a custom...it doesnt nullify the marriage covenant.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=995&letter=B&search=betrothal
To those outside looking in, she was a married woman having her husbands child.

What I would find sad is, and I dont know much about this Piper chap, if he had to resort to teaching this error about our Lords birth just to make his doctrinal view work.

 

[The Gregorian]

I believe it is in 1 Corinthians where Paul says "but so there be no sexual immorality among you, let each man have his own wife".

True, and personally I would only really want one. But polygamy was common in bible times, and quite a few people are still happy with it. Do you believe it to be a sin? Solomon, Abraham, and Jacob were all very famous for it.

Also, remember that in the bible one of the authors DOES say (I can't think of where, but if you don't believe me I'm sure I can find it), that he believed it would be better for men to remain single if they had the strength to... of course he followed up with a declaration that it was NOT a divine mandate, only his opinion... and God specifically said it "is not good for man to go on alone."

We have some showing polygamy, one claiming that we should be single if we can, some claiming we should have 1 (no more, no less), and God simply saying we "shouldn't be alone" ... not really giving a number, but providing one as an example for us... then again in that same example, it wouldn't surprise me if Adam had children by his daughters too at some point... and ALL his kids were incestuous.... so Adam and Eve certainly aren't the perfect example for a functional family.

Also, the law written upon our hearts speaks for itself.

very true. And, like I said, I personally agree with the "1 man-1 woman" idea... but on a LOT of hearts, people think it's OK to have premarital "relations"... to one extent or another. Some people refuse to have their first kiss until their wedding day... but I don't see how you can really get close enough to someone to marry them without at least kissing them. ... other people feel the same way about "other" activities.

So, is it "fornication" to kiss before marriage? If it is not, is it fornication to kiss in more imaginative places before marriage?

And your right, purity is a prize possesion. I think it is one of the greatest things we can have as a christian, and it enables us to have a healthier relationship with God and with others.

But, at what point do you lose your purity? SHOULD people wait to have their first kiss the day they're married?

 

[The Gregorian]

fornication being 'illicit sexual intercourse'...ie sex that isnt within that lawful union of a man and a woman.

So, it's only fornication if it's "illicit sexual intercourse" ala acts that could lead to reproduction? Or is it fornication any time the genitals are touched? Or does it include ANY attempts to pleasure another person? In which case, is it fornication to give someone a massage?

The reason so many in the Bible were not having unmarried sex was because they married at such an early age.

But one of the sections in the first post cited a few people who specifically had unmarried sex. Solomon had a LOT of concubines (700 "official" wives and 300 concubines beyond that from one source I read). The reason it's not mentioned very much in the bible is because it was VERY common in that time period. It was, however, SPECIFICALLY mentioned that many people had x sons by their wife, and also x sons...

Now I would say it is unreasonable to assume they were trying to make the claim that Mary was a cult prostitue. I would say that the claim being made is that Jesus was born of pre-marital sex.

Think about talking to someone you REALLY want to insult, and then try to translate the word porneia in that sentence. I get "WE are not born from a harlot!" ... "porneia" doesn't specifically mean a cult prostitute... just any sort... priestesses were just very accessible because it was not only accepted, but looked up to as a form of worship to their gods!

... now honestly... if you were trying to get someone's goat... to REALLY hurt them... would you say "At least we weren't born from premarital sex!" or "We weren't born from a harlot!" IMO, the second one is much more effective, and I believe that's what they were saying.

 

[HuntingMan]

So, it's only fornication if it's "illicit sexual intercourse" ala acts that could lead to reproduction? Or is it fornication any time the genitals are touched? Or does it include ANY attempts to pleasure another person? In which case, is it fornication to give someone a massage?

I would think, personally, that contact with the genitalia would probably be at least borderline.
Im not willing to commit to 'touching' being what scripture calls fornication without seeing some evidence for the case tho.
"improper" ? Probably. Sin ? My view is yes, it is sin.
My guess is that any penetration is absolutely a case of fornication if the two arent married

 

[MarkSB]

True, and personally I would only really want one. But polygamy was common in bible times, and quite a few people are still happy with it. Do you believe it to be a sin? Solomon, Abraham, and Jacob were all very famous for it.

Personally, I would believe it to be a sin. As someone stated in another thread, Abraham was justified by faith, so even though he had a child by his servent and denied his wife while in Egypt, the covenant was held from God's side and he was justified by faith.

Maybe this is not a correct line of thinking either, but I tend to think that the way God dealt with his people before Christ is slightly different than after Christ. Now we have the Holy Spirit to guide us and give us strength. Again I could be dead wrong on this so don't take this too literally. I know God's character hasn't changed.

Also, in most western societies it is considered the social norm. And since that social norm doesn't violate the word of God (rather to me, it seems to enforce it), that is what would be expected of a christian is to have one wife.

Also, remember that in the bible one of the authors DOES say (I can't think of where, but if you don't believe me I'm sure I can find it), that he believed it would be better for men to remain single if they had the strength to... of course he followed up with a declaration that it was NOT a divine mandate, only his opinion... and God specifically said it "is not good for man to go on alone."

We have some showing polygamy, one claiming that we should be single if we can, some claiming we should have 1 (no more, no less), and God simply saying we "shouldn't be alone" ... not really giving a number, but providing one as an example for us... then again in that same example, it wouldn't surprise me if Adam had children by his daughters too at some point... and ALL his kids were incestuous.... so Adam and Eve certainly aren't the perfect example for a functional family.

I believe the verse about a man remaining in chastity is also in 1 Corinthians. Paul states that a man who remains unmarried can do more for God, as he has more time to serve Him and can be more focused on God instead of his wife. Interestingly enough, Paul himself must have been married at some point (which I did not know), because he was a member of the Sanhedrin and marriage was a requirement.

As for the first inhabitants commiting incest, yeah I don't know if that was considered sin or not. It certainly must not have been up to some point (I would think).

very true. And, like I said, I personally agree with the "1 man-1 woman" idea... but on a LOT of hearts, people think it's OK to have premarital "relations"... to one extent or another. Some people refuse to have their first kiss until their wedding day... but I don't see how you can really get close enough to someone to marry them without at least kissing them. ... other people feel the same way about "other" activities.

So, is it "fornication" to kiss before marriage? If it is not, is it fornication to kiss in more imaginative places before marriage?

In the hearts of those who think it's O.K. to have sex outside of marriage - I'm sure there's still some of them that on some level don't think it's OK. And there are others whose conscience is completely dead.

I used to know one couple who waited until thier wedding day to kiss. They were the most faithful couple I ever knew. As for it being fornication to kiss before marriage, I definitely don't think so. But I would say that making out results in some loss of purity, especially if it is done with no particular interest in that person. Purity is a thing of the body and the heart.

But, at what point do you lose your purity? SHOULD people wait to have their first kiss the day they're married?

I don't know exactly, and I've wondered about this lately. Also, can purity be gained back? I'm pretty sure it can be to some extent at least, if one is healed by God. As for people waiting to kiss until they get married, I think it is commendable and a surefire way to avoid sexual immorality; but personally don't believe it is completely neccessary.

 

[The Gregorian]

Personally, I would believe it to be a sin. As someone stated in another thread, Abraham was justified by faith, so even though he had a child by his servent and denied his wife while in Egypt, the covenant was held from God's side and he was justified by faith.

Maybe this is not a correct line of thinking either, but I tend to think that the way God dealt with his people before Christ is slightly different than after Christ. Now we have the Holy Spirit to guide us and give us strength. Again I could be dead wrong on this so don't take this too literally. I know God's character hasn't changed.

Quite possibly... but if it wasn't wrong in the O.T, what changed to make it wrong now?

Also, in most western societies it is considered the social norm. And since that social norm doesn't violate the word of God (rather to me, it seems to enforce it), that is what would be expected of a christian is to have one wife.

Social norms are dependent on the society. Within america, most social groups consider monogamy to be the norm. For some mormons (even within america) polygamy is social acceptable... Does that make it OK?

In the hearts of those who think it's O.K. to have sex outside of marriage - I'm sure there's still some of them that on some level don't think it's OK. And there are others whose conscience is completely dead.

How do you know it's completely dead, though? Say a couple have been married for some time, and they decide to "reinvigorate" their love life by consensually bringing in a third person for a new experience. That's outside of marriage, but what if someone just wants a little assistance. Is it inherently sinful because the third party isn't in the marriage?

Of course, this certainly isn't always GOOD because it's likely that one married partner may be offended, may feel insecure about it or left out... there are a lot of things I'd imagine that could go wrong. If nothing else, one might feel they'll be compared to this other person, or "not enough." But, is it inherently sinful if all parties involved were honestly for the idea?

I used to know one couple who waited until thier wedding day to kiss. They were the most faithful couple I ever knew. As for it being fornication to kiss before marriage, I definitely don't think so.

Exactly! If you can, good. There's nothing wrong with waiting for everything. It CAN be a good thing, as a demonstration of self-control. But if you wait until your wedding to kiss a person, there are a lot of things about that person you don't know... that you may need to know before you promise to spend the rest of your life with them. What if one person turns out to have "more adventurous tenancies" than the other... that can cause serious relationship problems.

But I would say that making out results in some loss of purity, especially if it is done with no particular interest in that person. Purity is a thing of the body and the heart.

Of course... but that's the point of this thread... to discuss what exactly constitutes "fornication." If you're engaged to be married, is it a sin to engage in "non-intercourse sexual activity."

I don't know exactly, and I've wondered about this lately. Also, can purity be gained back? I'm pretty sure it can be to some extent at least, if one is healed by God. As for people waiting to kiss until they get married, I think it is commendable and a surefire way to avoid sexual immorality; but personally don't believe it is completely neccessary.

I don't know about sure-fire. A couple years ago I met a girl in college, she was a virgin, had only kissed a couple people... married her... and the day we were married is the last time -I- got a kiss from her because she was too busy sleeping with everyone else. Guys, girls, everything (but me, of course). Luckily since she didn't sleep with me after the marriage, it wasn't consummated and is incomplete... I'm still trying to figure out the legal way to have the marriage terminated properly since it's incomplete. ... put it this way... some people who are innocent to the ways of the world... once exposed to the world go overboard and cheat on you repeatedly without a shred of remorse.... That's one of the things I wish I would've found out before signing those papers... along with her declaration (only after marriage) that she was infirtile, and even if "the worst" did happen and she God pregnant she would hope for a miscarriage, but would sooner kill herself along with the baby than have it.

... again... something I wish I would've been told before signing that paper... eherm.

 

[dayhiker]

I have a couple of problems with Piper's quote.

1. I agree with Huntingman. Thanks for that idea because I too had read into this passage that they were giving a backhand insult to Jesus.

2. Mary wouldn't be considered fornication in NT times because it was adultery for an engaged woman to have sex with someone man that whom she was betrothed to.

3. This leads us to understand that God impregnating Mary was committing adultery. But since we believe God can do what He wants then we are OK with it. I personally would have liked God going to Joseph and getting premission there also. Then God would have both Joseph's and Mary's permission to bring Jesus into the world thru them.

4. This brings us back to porneia. If the Pharisees were dissing Jesus as a bastard, then porneia includes adultery here just as Jesus uses porneia in Mat.19.

My thoughts
dayhiker

 

[dead2self]

One problem I see with Pipers interpretation is that the text doesnt actually include the 'you were' part.

Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
Joh 8:37-42
​

All I see when I read that passage is Jesus telling them that their father is basically the devil and their defending themselves against His words.
If anyone is on the offense in that particular passage it was Jesus.
Ive looked that text over a couple hundred times by now and still I cannot find any hint that the Jews were saying Jesus was born of fornication.

Jesus was not accused of being born of fornication

Id be VERY interested to see any actual evidence that Christ was being accused of being born of whoredom.

There are a few reasons NOT to buy this conclusion, one being that its VERY odd that the Jews only just happen to mention this what....ONE time ? *IF* Jesus had been born out of wedlock the Jews would have had a field day with Jesus AND Mary about it...yet silence from Gods word.

Based on what the text ACTUALLY says, I see no reason to believe that is the case.

Joh 8:37-42 KJVR I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. (38) I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.

(39) They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father.

Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. (40) But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. (41) Ye do the deeds of your father.

Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. (42)

Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
​

Our Lord was born into a lawful marriage.
Mary was betrothed (under a covenant of marriage) and hometaking had occurred when our Lord was born.
Betrothal is/was a custom...it doesnt nullify the marriage covenant.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=995&letter=B&search=betrothal
To those outside looking in, she was a married woman having her husbands child.

What I would find sad is, and I dont know much about this Piper chap, if he had to resort to teaching this error about our Lords birth just to make his doctrinal view work.

While that is a well reasoned argument, I still hold to the same view a Piper on this one. I do not see it as an error at all. And I do happen to know a lot about him and his credentials and trust him a great deal. Of course if it can be shown biblically he is wrong I accept that, but I do not see that you have do so here.

You point out that You were is not it the text. No it is not. But the implication is absolutely clear.

Now about the jews only mentioning it just this once, I am not even going to go down those lines of conjecture as nothing either of us says in this regard can be proven. There are too many possible reasons they did not accuse him beforehand or if they did that it was not recorded in scripture.

Now about the interpretation you put forth. It is indeed a possibility, but I see it as the less likely. If they were defending their Father as God, then why would they have used the word porneia in the argument? Using any definition of the word, it simply does not fit. If someone said I was a child of the devil, my response would not be that I was not conceived of porneia. Doesn't make sense.

Now I see that Jesus in fact insulted them greatly by saying this. Their response looks to be one of anger expressed in insulting His birth. They say they were not born of porneia, insulting Jesus by implying that He was. Then they defend themselves in regard to what Jesus said. I cannot see any other reason to specify this other than to make the implication about Jesus birth.

Additionally, I never said or implied that Jesus was born out of wedlock. I know full well Jospeh and Mary were betrothed when Jesus was conceived. And I know what betrothal is. But I have never heard anyone argue that sexual relations were allowed during betrothal. In fact I have heard the opposite. The point is that Joseph and Mary were married when Jesus was born, but only betrothed when He was conceived.

 

[dead2self]

Think about talking to someone you REALLY want to insult, and then try to translate the word porneia in that sentence. I get "WE are not born from a harlot!" ... "porneia" doesn't specifically mean a cult prostitute... just any sort... priestesses were just very accessible because it was not only accepted, but looked up to as a form of worship to their gods!

... now honestly... if you were trying to get someone's goat... to REALLY hurt them... would you say "At least we weren't born from premarital sex!" or "We weren't born from a harlot!" IMO, the second one is much more effective, and I believe that's what they were saying.

Good argument, if this happened in the past 40 years. Unfortunately, it happened when being conceived out of wedlock was shameful. In a time when sex before marriage was an absolute wrong. Today you actually have to call someone's mother a harlot to insult them. Saying they are a bastard just does not do the trick anymore. But in first century Israel? I think that implying that someone is a bastard was definately a grave insult. Morals have gone very much downhil since then and it thus takes a lot more to be an insult.

 

[HuntingMan]

While that is a well reasoned argument, I still hold to the same view a Piper on this one.

Thats fine
We're all entitled to our opinions.
I just dont find the view that Piper is presenting as logically consistent with what we know about the Pharisees.

I do not see it as an error at all.

When we understand what betrothal was then, its pretty much impossible to see as anything BUT error.

And I do happen to know a lot about him and his credentials and trust him a great deal.

Piper is just one more voice in the crowd.
I hope he doesnt base any doctrine on this conclusion.

Of course if it can be shown biblically he is wrong I accept that, but I do not see that you have do so here.

And again, it is your choice to make as to what you wish to believe.
Ive read enough of Gods word for enough years to have a pretty good feel for the attitudes of the pharisees and sadducees. I assure you that if our Lord was born out of wedlock they would have had Jesus and Mary for lunch over it. One brief mention would not have been all we would see in scripture.
The 'Messiah' being conceived in 'sin' ?

You point out that You were is not it the text. No it is not. But the implication is absolutely clear.

The implication is hardly 'clear', friend. *IF* it were 'clear' then far more of the old scholars surely werent so ignorant or blind as to have missed this 'clear' implication...yet most of them say nothing about Jesus being born of fornication that Ive seen, nor do they seem to present the interpretation that Jesus accused of being born of fornication.
Reading the text as it is the only thing their is Christ on the offensive telling them that their father is the devil and questioning that God is their father.
The ONLY thing they do is claim that they ARE His children.
We should not base doctrine on phantom implications...not doctrine that is THIS critical.

Now about the jews only mentioning it just this once, I am not even going to go down those lines of conjecture as nothing either of us says in this regard can be proven.

I think that they didnt even actually SAY what Piper says to begin with.
I find it ironic that you and Piper will ADD what ISNT actually in the text, then expect us to accept that the Jews also said much more on this issue outside of scripture.
Sorry, but Im just not buying it....its inserting FAR too much INto the texts and intents for my liking...not to mention that it would make Mary appear to be a harlot . Is that what Piper thinks the Jews thought of Mary ? Does he actually believe Mary was a harlot and our Lord was born of harlotry ?

Please understand if I cannot allow myself the luxury of believing such an absurdity, especially (and again) since the text DOESNT say what Piper claims it says, nor does it even allude to it.

Now about the interpretation you put forth. It is indeed a possibility, but I see it as the less likely.

As is your choice.

If they were defending their Father as God, then why would they have used the word porneia in the argument?

Did you read the WHOLE passage? Twice they defend their being blood descendants of Abraham.

Joh 8:33 They answered Him, "We are Abraham's descendants

and even AGAIN....

Joh 8:39 They answered and said to Him, "Abraham is our father. ​

They claim they are ABRAHAMS descendants...BLOOD descendants..which makes them Gods 'children' by being descendants of Abraham...ie 'Gods children'. These guys are on the defense from Christs onslaught against them that seems to be bringing their being descendants of Abraham into question. The WHOLE conversation MUST be taken as a whole here to get the full understanding of what is going on.

We be not born of fornication -
We are not a mixed, spurious breed - our tribes and families have been kept distinct - we are descended from Abraham by his legal wife Sarah; and we are no idolaters.
Adam Clarkes Commentary on the Bible


We be not born of fornication -
The people still professed not to understand him; and since Jesus had denied that they were the children of Abraham, they affected to suppose that he meant they were a mixed, spurious race; that they had no right to the covenant privileges of the Jews; that they were not worshippers of the true God. Hence, they said, We are not thus descended. We have the evidence of our genealogy. We are worshippers of the true God, descended from those who acknowledged him, and we acknowledge no other God and Father than him. To be children of fornication is an expression denoting in the Scriptures idolatry, or the worship of other gods than the true God, Isa_1:21; Isa_57:3; Heb_1:2; Heb_2:4. This they denied. They affirmed that they acknowledged no God for their Father but the true God.
Albert Barnes Notes on the Bible

​

They are mistaking Christs presenting to them that their father is the devil and that Gods isnt as meaning they arent Abrahams descendants. THAT is where the fornication remark comes in. They are DEFENDING their blood lineage because they are not grasping what Jesus is actually saying to them.

I urge you to read the whole chapter there as the complete conversation that it is.

Using any definition of the word, it simply does not fit.

Sure it does.
You apparently just didnt read the WHOLE passage or understand it entirely

Now I see that Jesus in fact insulted them greatly by saying this. Their response looks to be one of anger expressed in insulting His birth. They say they were not born of porneia, insulting Jesus by implying that He was. Then they defend themselves in regard to what Jesus said. I cannot see any other reason to specify this other than to make the implication about Jesus birth.

Then just keep reading the passage as a whole. Itll come together
They take His words as claiming that they arent Abrahams descendants. They say they arent born of whoredom. Very simple, no underlying intent there.

Additionally, I never said or implied that Jesus was born out of wedlock. I know full well Jospeh and Mary were betrothed when Jesus was conceived. And I know what betrothal is. But I have never heard anyone argue that sexual relations were allowed during betrothal.

The year the woman was given was custom...it didnt make her a harlot if they did come together sooner.
As far as I understand widows who married would only take a month or so instead of a year. Apparently it was not absolute.

In fact I have heard the opposite. The point is that Joseph and Mary were married when Jesus was born, but only betrothed when He was conceived.

Ok, then HOW does this even remotely make Jesus born of 'fornication' ?
"betrothed' is 'married' lacking in hometaking and consummation....it isnt a PREmarital state in any way.
When she was betrothed she was under a covenant of marriage.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=995&letter=B&search=betrothal

 

[HuntingMan]

Dead2self, I wanted to show you another problem with Pipers viewpoint versus your last post compared to the actual words of the Jews there

Heres Pipers words from your post

Third, in John 8:41 Jesus is in a heated discussion with the Jewish leaders. Jesus pushes them so hard to recognize their own inconsistencies that they resort to an ad hominem argument and say, "We were not born of fornication!" The word is porneia and the point is: WE weren't born that way; YOU were. In other words they are calling Jesus a bastard, because everybody knew that Mary and Joseph were not married when Mary became pregnant.
And so since they did not believe in the miracle of the virgin birth, the popular rumor was that Jesus was an illegitimate child of Mary by who knows whom. The only point I want to make from this is that the word for "fornication" in John 8:41 is the same as the one in Matthew 15:19 and 1 Corinthians 7:2, and in all these texts the meaning is premarital sexual relations.

Firstly, Piper says something about they didnt believe in the virgin birth...but Gods word shows that it was assumed that Jesus was Josephs son...
WHY would they even be talking about a virgin birth *IF* they believed Jesus was Joes son ?

And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
(Joh 6:42 KJV)

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
(Luk 3:23 KJV)

And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph's son?
(Luk 4:22 KJV)


​

Does Piper ever provide EVIDENCE for this 'popular rumor" ?
Ive been studying this stuff for years and except for a few 'modern' types, Ive never even heard of this supposed rumor before.
And again, his conclusion is wrong because he seems to conclude that betrothed is a PREmarital state. It isnt.

Secondly, you said this in your previous post.

Additionally, I never said or implied that Jesus was born out of wedlock. I know full well Jospeh and Mary were betrothed when Jesus was conceived. And I know what betrothal is. But I have never heard anyone argue that sexual relations were allowed during betrothal.

Now, you and Piper may be talking only about timing of conception, but the Jews are saying they are not born of fornication....their intent being that they were WERE actual descendants of Abraham, not fatherless bastards with no real lineage.

Even *IF* Joseph and Mary had had sex prior to hometaking, they WERE under a covenant of marriage, so there would be NO reason to compare Christ whose father WOULD be known to what the Jews were arguing which was that they seemed to think Christ was questioning their lineage altogether.
Its apples and oranges and isnt comparable at all.

And look at those verses above...does that SOUND like Jesus was born of whoredom or His lineage was in question as they surely are taking HIS words to mean against them in Matthew 8 ?
The very most that could be the case was that a man and woman who WERE under a covenant of marriage (betrothed) came together before the customary year long betrothal period....that would not cast doubt on Christs lineage as they were feeling that He was questioning about them in Matthew 8...it would not make Him appear to be a bastard at all.

Piper simply has not logically harmonized all the data...thats all.

 

[Armistead]

The word fornication stems from the location where the prostitutes hung out. Where the angles met, they made a fornix, thus Paul used fornication.
In Corinth, married men visiting the pagan temple were condemned for fornication, it had nothing to do with premarital sex in this case.

Premarital sex was barely an issue then, it was more adultery and pagan worship. As with polygamy, it was only condemned when pagan worship became apart of it.

 

[HuntingMan]

The word fornication stems from the location where the prostitutes hung out.

too bad its used in areas of scripture where prostitution cannot possibly be the only intent

 

[HuntingMan]

Good argument, if this happened in the past 40 years. Unfortunately, it happened when being conceived out of wedlock was shameful. In a time when sex before marriage was an absolute wrong. Today you actually have to call someone's mother a harlot to insult them. Saying they are a bastard just does not do the trick anymore. But in first century Israel? I think that implying that someone is a bastard was definately a grave insult. Morals have gone very much downhil since then and it thus takes a lot more to be an insult.

Actually THIS is the insult they levy at Christ;

Then the Jews answered and said to Him, "Do we not say well that You are a Samaritan, and You have a demon?"
(Joh 8:48 EMTV)


Joh 8:48 -
Thou art a Samaritan -
This was the same, among them, as heretic, or schismatic, among us. This is the only time in which the Jews gave our Lord this title of reproach; and they probably grounded it on his having preached among them, and lodged in their villages. See the account in Joh_4:39, Joh_4:40; but Samaritan, among them, meant a person unworthy of any credit.
Hast a devil? -
Art possessed by an evil spirit; and art, in consequence, deranged.
Adam Clarkes Commentary on the Bible

Thou art a Samaritan -
This was a term of contempt and reproach. See the notes at Joh_4:9. It had the force of charging him with being a heretic or a schismatic, because the Samaritans were regarded as such.
Albert Barnes Notes on the Bible
​

When we know what the Jews felt about Samaritans then we see that they insult Him here quite clearly by calling Him a Samaritan and demonized and we dont have to read into the text things that arent actually there.


.