Видео

It's called fornication. It's in the Bible, no? What do you think of Hebrews 13.4? And what about Proverbs 5.20 where God explicitly asks why someone would enjoy a stranger? I do believe those passages express the sentiment that if it's not yours, don't touch it, no? About masturbation, I believe the verse about cutting your right hand might apply, what do you think?

Would you be open to explain the connection you make between Anglican church policies and this video? Please keep in mind this is a space for learning and exploration...not for trashing ideas we dislike or don't understand.

@@drkevinjenson Because you started by talking about the translators of the KJB in 1604.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts! In future comments, please take care to speak with kindness, curiosity, and compassion toward perspectives you disagree with or I will have to moderate. Sadly, I think most of the claims in your comment would still be true if we substituted clothes, food, or even electronics for the word porn. The real theological issue (which this video raises) is the question of whether all erotic material is innately sinful or if sexual immorality is a matter of HOW we use something and the role it plays in our lives. I will argue for the latter and elaborate on why in an upcoming video.

@@drkevinjenson I apologize if it came off as aggressive. From my perspective, the importance of getting this issue correct and at the same time correcting what I believe to be very dangerous teachings on the topic, necessitate a strong response. I have had my fair share of struggles in this area so I am not coming at it as “better than though”. I believe the premise of your argument is that since our sexual urges and drive is a natural, God created instinct in us, then using any means to satisfy that drive makes it either not sinful or on the same status as over eating or the like. Clothes, food and electronics are still categorically different than porn. Porn is exploitative and has no other purpose, but to gratify an unhealthy view of sex. You can see in God’s design that sex was intended to be enjoyed between a husband and a wife in order to propagate the family. God’s word and historical instances give evidence that un-natural sexual promiscuity tend toward destruction in a civilization. We clearly see that with the mental health struggles of men these days. The easy access to porn is ruining our minds. It conditions our brains to need it more and more to the point where it is no longer satisfying yet stay addicted. You absolutely can say the same thing about general electronic use. Two things can be true at once: electronics and social media can be overused and become sinful and pornography use is sinful in general and just as if not more destructive than your above stated vices.

It is very interesting to notice! The Old Testament law also prohibits the kind of marriages that Abraham and Jacob both had. And I think it's also an important thing to question further. Was this kind of sexual relationship always a problem, or is it only a problem once the law had been written?

🙏 Obrigado Você conhece algum tradutor que gostaria de disponibilizar alguma parte deste trabalho em português? Thank you🙏 Do you know a translator who would want to make some part of this work available in Portuguese?

I have heard that avoiding incest was one of the great arguments for ancient sexual regulations, but it is intriguing to see you make the case here for biology rather than sociology as the determining moral factor.

@@drkevinjenson The relationship of two people too closely related by blood was forbidden, the purpose had to do with children being born with defects, anything abnormal to the Jew was seen as a sign from God to them for them something had gone wrong, medically speaking we can't deny sexual relationships too closely related by blood can produce offspring with defects, not in all cases but enough cases it meant taking measures to making it unlawful, remember the Jews believed nature determined God's will, if it rained down fire from the heavens such as a volcano erupting, it was God punishing whoever the rain fell on, if you died in the rain, it was God's will, if you lived, it was God's will, there was no such thing as luck, you were either blessed or cursed, no one can deny that God made nature if you believe God created it, the bible says that knowledge can save one's life, if your going to build a house in tornado alley, you need to build a underground shelter, if your going to drive a car, you need to learn first, just principles we all teach, you can't put all the marbles in one jar, it's the same with everything we do, not everyone dies from driving a car but people do, how many have to die before it's made illegal to drive a car? this is a principle law is based on, incest or sexual relations with someone too closely related by blood would have produced offspring with defects, not in every case but enough to warrant making it unlawful, the same scenario that existed in why the Jew was forbidden to eat pork as pork or the fat was attributed to people dying before their time, the Jews had a thing about blood, touching it, eating it, why? because it was known to them that diseases were in the blood, not being able to have sexual relations with someone related too closely by blood has to have some medical purpose or reason as to why it was forbidden, however marriages were viewed as being relationships symbolic of blood relationships which is why viewing someone naked related to you by marriage was forbidden, aunts, uncles, mother of your wife, many others but all forbidden, have you never questioned why in law it was only the wife that was forbidden to remarry and not the man too, the man always got the child in a divorce, they were his property, a child born to another man by the same woman from a different man in law makes his child through her and her child through another man related, not just by law but by blood also, inheritances were determined by blood and marriage relationships, steal a man's wife, make a child with her and you have created by law a doorway for that other man to get possession of not only his wife but his property and assets as well IF the man has no will or next of kin, why? because the siblings are related by blood and marriage, that sibling of the other man would be entitled by law if the father and child of the other were to die leaving no will, kill that father and child and that man that has no living relatives close enough to him to give his property to and by the law or through the law the other man not only took his wife but could also take his property and assets too, if a man took another wife, it wouldn't matter if she had children by him, the child would be his, he would have no problem leaving his property to his own child or children, it's the child of the other man that stole his wife he would have problems with, the law is suppose to be made for man right? not so if what the man has worked for all his life to leave his children can be given to someone else's child, writing a will that states only your child can inherit your property means nothing if your child never marries and has children, their closes blood relative would be their half brother or sister, if that child doesn't make a will, who will inherit his property? not to mention the bond between children born of different parents, that child would probably leave his property to their half brother or sister, the reason she couldn't remarry was to avoid this situation, only after the former husband died would it not matter any longer, does that make sense? there's no other reason other than this scenario, someone else inheriting your property or their property that God had given them that was not related to him by blood or next of kin, it happened and was happening in ancient times, murder and stealing and using the law to aid them, property God had given one man where another man got possession of it through deceit, want to get possession of another man's property, steal his wife, make a child, kill that man and his child and next of kin, the property by law would be yours through your child made by the mother, it's using the law for an evil purpose but it was happening

There are a lot of thoughts in here and I will respond to two! Thanks for thinking extensively about this topic 😊 First, I think your distinction between sins that God calls sin vs sins that man calls sin deserves further exploration. I agree the consequences for violating either are real in psychological, social, and possibly spiritual terms. It is similar to the gap between moral laws and man-made laws. It would be nice if the two aligned more often. Second, I have made a few teachings to help people differentiate between lust and sexual desire. ruclips.net/video/uWQM5W6zuvI/видео.htmlsi=ahzsQdwq0Qfx4R5f I believe there is something real that happens when you think about another person...and would not encourage any kind of thoughts toward someone else that do not meet the standards of Philippians 4:8. Sexual thoughts regarding another person are not always beautiful, especially when there is no consent.

@drkevinjenson we might understand the word lust differently, to me lust is a evil desire, an evil desire is what will hurt you, covet has to do with desire, all desires are not evil, for a single man desiring a single woman is not an evil desire, desiring a woman that belongs to another man is an evil desire, the devil did not create sexual desire, sexual desire was created by God for the purpose of procreation, it's that desire that makes a man and a woman want each other, if you teach that desire is evil, your causing confusion to the one who is feeling it, if they think it's evil, they will run away from each other as opposed to being drawn to each other, this is against God's nature and purpose of why He created it, it's to bring a man and woman together for the purpose of procreation, lust is what comes AFTER the two find each other, what they felt for that person they fell in love with, what they both perceive as love is correct at that TIME, you would have had to fall in love to understand it, if you have never fallen in love you can't comprehend it, the problem comes not when the love is strong, it comes when the love grows cold, the other person their having the same feelings for that's not their first love, lust is what's going to cause that person to sin, it could be a man's wife he has those feelings for or a man's woman, it doesn't matter, he or she becomes the thief if he acts on his desire and the feelings are mutual with whom they desire, attraction is sexual in nature, men love a beautiful woman and women love a handsome man, when these thoughts and feelings begin is at the onset of puberty, money and power don't play a role in youthful love, that happens as we age, thoughts are not reality, reality is what's seen, which is why we are not going to be judged by our thoughts but only by what we act upon that we think, now don't get me wrong about thoughts, thoughts can be either good or evil, just depends on the thought, if the thought will cause you to sin then by all means you should resist it, sin is breaking God's Law, law is what reveals sin, if you didn't know the law, to you there is no sin, knowing the law is important, God's law to be more specific, sometimes my comment won't post if it's too long so going to try this first so I'm not wasting my time, I really want to explain evil desires that war against your soul in more detail

@drkevinjenson This is not my first reply, read my first reply before this one, anyway we're talking about lust and pure thoughts, the opposite of pure thoughts are impure thoughts, thoughts related to sexual matters is what I'll talk about, no one alive that's attracted to another has NO thoughts towards that one their attracted to, the only thing you can do is either act on them or resist them or entertain them, no single person that desires a relationship with another single person has no sexual thoughts towards that person they desire, it's God's way or the power behind what brings them together, in that thought process he or she imagines many things especially wondering what that person looks like under those clothes, it can't be helped, they also think about touching each other, that can't be helped, hugging and kissing too, it's how they feel and think towards each other desiring to OWN each other so no one else can have them, that's how two people feel towards each other that have fallen in love, there's nothing impure in this, it's the beginning of what takes place when two people fall in love, how they think, how they feel, to them it's love and it's GOOD and it's God, it was meant by God for one woman and one man, what comes later is NOT God's responsibility, God is not responsible when that love He gave them and they let it grow cold, what that love creates that God let them experience is also not God's responsibility, God is only responsible for what He created, not what we create, lust is a desire that comes from us, it's a evil desire and the evil desire is manifested in breaking His law, I wouldn't have known lust was evil if the law didn't say Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife, so whom can I desire=covet, is desiring my neighbors daughter evil? Not so, desire produces thoughts, there's no way to avoid it, if I desire my neighbors daughter, am I sinning? You could be if your desire causes you to rape her, well what if my desire and my neighbors daughter is mutual, are we sinning, no to that either but in their time whom could touch a man's daughter was up to the father, not the law, well what if that daughter isn't under her fathers rule, she's not a child, is or was she never a child that became free of her father's rule, she could only marry the man her father chooses, were sons this way too, if so then we are doing wrong having created love marriages and not held their tradition of arranged marriages, now take that to the church and ask them if their fathers arranged who they married or did the fathers let them choose whom they married, I can assure you the love marriage will win, going to continue in another reply

@drkevinjenson More on lust and it's destructive effect. A man and a woman fall in love, it's sexual, falling in love is sexual, it's the reason a man and a woman get married IF they cannot have sex before they get married, I'm telling you now, that's the most ridiculous belief I've ever heard and the reason it's so ridiculous is because if you believe that way your going to get married to justify having sex, some do but not many, most men and women will do the opposite, why? Because marriage is a lifelong commitment, once entered there's no way out unless the one you married cheats on you according to Jesus, the only excuse for divorce or sending away or going away was for sexual unfaithfulness, what man is going to marry a woman he's never seen naked, only a foolishness man, the same for a woman, I am willing to bet you if you ask the married people in your church how many had sex with the woman he married before they got married, if they don't lie it will be closer to 100 percent with the only ones not raising their hands having done so because they believed they couldn't, then ask every divorced person why they divorced and most will tell you they made a mistake, the person they married changed, that's not the person they married when they fell in love, yes the changed and so did her or him, they quit the act and became who they really are after their sexual desire was met and the love grew cold, no longer is he the king and her the queen, now they begin to see each other's faults, now they want out but there's no way out unless one cheats on the other, why is this so? Because God said if you vow a vow to Him and don't perform it, He will call it SIN in you. What they never should have done in the first place, voting to God to love that person in sickness or health. Rich times or poor times, good times or bad times, well welcome to the real world man and woman, you just done what Jesus said not to do because you know not what the future holds and it's your sexual desire that caused it, what you should have done is put the obstacle out of the way first that keeps you from thinking with a clear mind, a hungry man or woman will do anything to get food in their stomachs, when the stomach needs food you fill it, then your not going around all day thinking about food, if you can't eat until you get married then what choice are you giving them, they will get married to eat, the very thing that's compelling them to get married is to justify having sex, that's the one's believing they can't have sex before they get married, that was not the purpose for betrothing a man and woman together, the very reason they betrothed so young had to do with sexual desire and not let it be the cause for getting married because once married it was for life, to be continued if your still with me

@drkevinjenson IF your still with me I want you to think about this too, Jesus had His own interpretation of what adultery is beyond what they were taught by Moses, so different that even one disciple said to Him if that is the case of a man with his wife, it's better not to marry, Jesus replied, not everyone can receive this but to whom can, let him receive it, some are born eunuchs, some are made eunuchs by man and some make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of God's sake, in this statement your going to find the Catholic priest and his mind, they won't marry because they are doing it for the kingdom of God's sake, I laugh in myself every time I read this knowing it's a Catholic belief their priest do, Jesus was never talking about being celibate, he was talking about reproducing, a eunuch can have sex, he just can't reproduce, my point, the two that God had joined together, not man but God, God IS love, God is NOT adultery, incest, rape, whoredom, the two shall become one flesh is NOT the same as being one in body with a woman or harlot, the two that become one flesh is in the CHILD, it's one of him and one of her, his flesh and blood and her flesh and blood, what Jesus believed effects the whole world and not just those following Jewish customs, no man will be able to say on that day when he got the woman pregnant that he wasn't married to her, the child's not my responsibility, everyone is only focused on the sex and not what the sex produces and whose responsible for it, the married ARE these two that love and not adultery, rape, going to a prostitute or whoredom spoken by the prophets which doesn't apply to the married but the unmarried, it's having more than one lover or cheating on your lover, the law and the prophets combined together sum up God's WILL, those not married know it in their hearts because God has written on their hearts, those married know it by the written law, those married are an example for the unmarried, not that they can't have sex but they can only have one woman and one man, those that teach sex is forbidden unless married don't know the law, they actually oppose the law, God's law and man's law, lev.15:16-24 is the law for the unmarried and it deals with mastubation too except those that hate their bodies won't masturbate, there's just a right way to do it and a wrong way, thinking about doing it with another man's wife or another man's woman or visa versa with the woman would be committing adultery in his heart or whoredom in his heart, that would be impure thoughts, a single man doing it thinking about a single woman is not impure thoughts especially when the single woman is doing all she can to get someone to desire her, a single man I mean, then there's the married man and he's hungry and his wife won't feed him, what's he to do? Possibly the wife too when she desires it, what's she to do, think about him or her. You can't commit adultery in your heart with your own wife, then there's the guy or girl that will, is God going to judge them for their thoughts or their actions? If God is going to judge man for his thoughts, no one would make it in, I see just the opposite happening on judgement day when God reveals the innermost thoughts of men's hearts, no one will be able to stand, however there will be praise for those that never let their thoughts cause them to sin, if our thoughts determine who we are then no man should be watching TV or going to the beach or even anywhere a beautiful woman is or goes, a man strong in the faith knows none of that will cause him to sin, a man weak in the faith is who needs to stay home, close his door and run from any beauty he sees, or he needs to only hang around or work or shop or go anywhere where there's only UGLY women. Committing adultery in your heart is NOT the sin, it's where the sin originates from, everyone commits sins in their heart, but not everyone will sin, sin originates in the heart, the thought is sin knocking at the door, the thought is trying to get you to sin, seeing the car coming before it hits you will save your life, when have you ever heard a surmon preached where the preacher told his congregation to repent of having sex with his wife before he got married, he would be laughed at by most, nevertheless lust is an evil desire and it can cause you to sin but for many it won't, strong sexual desire is not a sin especially when that desire is for your wife or your woman and not someone's else, if it's for someone's else's, sin is knocking at the door

Thank you! This is one of my goals: to challenge bad interpretation without dismissing the role of the Christian tradition that brought it to us. I appreciate you noticing this!

Dependency is one of the real issues here...but I am curious about how people make a distinction between inherent dependency (aka. food, water) and an unhealthy dependency (aka. sugar, coffee). PS. Legality is not always the best indicator of morality.

@@drkevinjenson when you watch porn you encourage all the porn industry to produce more using illegal ways make money and use people (extortion).

Hypnosis is an interesting angle to bring to this conversation! I wonder to what extent we could say the same thing about other forms of media?

@@drkevinjenson I think it's 100% hypnosis, because it tricks the brain into thinking it's having real sex, and then there's a physical response. It alters reality.

Yes! What do you think makes this such a difficult topic to discuss?

@@drkevinjenson I've given that quite a bit of thought. I think it's identification with one's own conditioned understanding that makes the conversation so difficult. Changing an opinion on an issue as controversial as pornography requires a completely different perspective of how God divides righteousness from sin. Such a shift inevitably stirs up quite a bit of dissonance within the unconscious mind. It's difficult to maintain consistent rapport in such circumstances. Paradoxically, humans have a tendency to make their afflictions and struggles an indispensable part of their identities, even if the struggle is completely unnecessary. It simply gets programmed into our nervous systems.

I learned recently that becoming a eunuch had more to do with reproductive capacity, not with the ability to have sex. It's been changing how I read some of these passages....especially since sexual exclusivity in the ancient world was a matter of wealth and paternity, not of pleasure or romance. But I also think there is much more to learn about the sacred and spiritual dimensions of sex. I'd be curious to explore the idea of playing with the sacred a little more...

Oooh, I'm intrigued! I know there's a lot more going on with the word naked in that passage, but this adds a whole new dimension! Thank you for sharing! Do you have any scholarly resources you'd recommend or further insights to add? Feel free to message on IG or discover.courageousintimacy.org

Thanks for sharing your question...and seeking deeper understanding 🙏 I believe God created sex and that sexual desire can be beautiful when we know how to respond to it in healthy ways! When you see the word lust in the Bible, it is referring to passionate overwhelming desires, not necessarily to sexual desire...and it is not a sin (because even Jesus does it!). Sexual thoughts (what we call lust today) and sinful thoughts (how lust was sometimes used in the Bible) are not the same thing! If you really want to understand the difference, you may find it helpful to look at this video I made about epithumeia, the Greek NT word for lust. ruclips.net/video/uWQM5W6zuvI/видео.html Feel free to send me a message if you have more questions at [discover.courageousintimacy.org](discover.courageousintimacy.org/)

That is an interesting connection to explore! Our word pornography today does grow out of the Greek word and I am curious about the similarities and differences between the ancient meaning, the Biblical meaning, and how it evolved into the modern word we use in English. Any more thoughts on this connection? Feel free to comment here or send me a message at discover.courageousintimacy.org

@@drkevinjenson Porn as a cultural institution is essentially prostitution. Or at least the closest legal thing to it. Paying for sex is illegal, but not if you're filming for public consumption. Not applied reasoning's crown achievement 😂

Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I suspect our divergence here could be seen in two readings of Jesus saying "if you love me, you will keep my commandments". One way of reading this would be that following the commandments is the way that we prove our love. Another way would be that love leads to a life that aligns with Christ...fulfilling the law without following the law. This second reading may be controversial because it supercedes external standards of measurement - making it difficult to judge how well someone else is doing at loving God!

@@drkevinjenson I take an entirely different stance. According to James 2:24 & 26, obedience is what keeps our faith alive. It's not a product of our identity, but a perpetuation and energization of our identity. James 2:26 was drawing his analogy from Genesis 2:7; first body then spirit, and only then the soul considered alive. So I'm not arguing for an ascetic life or any form of "purity culture" as modern Christians understand it; but I do believe we absolutely must repent of all sin, but on Christ, and make the daily choice to remain within that identity.

Thanks for explaining why you disagree! I wonder if we have a slightly different understanding of the word repentance. I see it as a continuous renewal of the mind and transformation of identity rather than a confession and rejection of certain behaviors as sin. The connection you made here between James and Genesis is also really interesting and I would love to hear more if you're open to share! Feel free to comment here or send a message at discover.couragnousintimacy.org

Nope.

The Greeks would have been all about moderation. I think Paul carries the argument beyond this with a call to intentionality in every part of life!

@@drkevinjenson Paul also adapt to greek philosophy to be understood by greeks. The intention is not harming others and have respect for others and your self.

Ha ha, thanks for seeing me...and for the dip back into my teenage years. I spent a lot of time learning evangelism techniques with Ray Comfort, Todd Freal, and Kirk Cameron. Anyone else?

Asceticism and gnosticism may be some of the oldest challenges for Christianity, and I am always encouraged when someone is able to recognize them...and discern the difference! Thank you for sharing your story...and your insight on the conscience! Have you gotten to read my book yet? I also end up finding a similar framework in the writings of Paul. Let me know if there is anything I can do to support your work helping these young men develop a healthy view of the body and relationship to this gift of sexuality!

Can you provide more information? That sounds like an interesting approach...

I think I understand what you're trying to say here...and I agree that instinct itself is not a bad thing (though I wasn't very clear about this in clip...check out the full version of you want a more accurate picture). You're right that instinct is how we know to eat, sleep, make love, etc. But when we cannot choose how to respond to the natural instinct we can easily become trapped by it in ways that do not lead to life.

Glad this helped create some kind of clarity for you! I'm not sure that the Bible implies that sex creates marriage, though I do hear this taught in some circles. One of the things I am researching right now is Genesis 2:24 because it is often mis-interpreted to suit the interests of whoever is teaching. In its rhetorical context, the phrase "joined to" may imply a kind of covenantal commitment like marriage, but it can happen without sex (see the verse after 1 Corinthians 6:16 along with most other examples)...and the phrase "one flesh" as it is used in the Old Testament implies a family relationship, not a sexual relationship. I wonder if these observations complicate things for you at all...I hope they do! Learning and puzzling over Scripture is a valuable activity. I'd love to know any thoughts that come up.

@@drkevinjensonIt does complicate stuff for me honestly. I feel that marriage was always brought up as spiritual in the Bible and that sex is essential with marriage. Now people can get married on paper just for money and business reasons. Does God see those people as married? But not people who are fully committed just having financial trouble? I’m now starting to unlearn purity culture. I thought sexual desire is a sin when it’s completely natural. The fact that I was taught that desiring my boyfriend who I see as my husband (in the process of getting married soon) is wrong. I also projected all those hurt on him. We believed it and now it’s done damage to our relationship. Thank you for all that you do Dr. Christians need to talk about sex more and have open communication about it and really study what the Bible says in context and original language. Thank you for taking me on this journey.

That is the popular understanding, yes! However, in Biblical times, this definition of adultery only applied to a married woman and its significance had everything to do with paternity tests and property transfer. We have to dig a little deeper if we really want to find a Christian sexual ethic.

The old English use of the term fornication has a similar meaning to the root of the word porneia: prostitution. Today, however, the term means extra-marital sex more broadly. So when people read a translation from the 1600's they miss the meaning of porneia. However, the use of porneia in the New Testament (and the surrounding Greek culture) has the unique connotation described in this video. Funny thing, though, your comment reminded me of a pastor I once heard who rationalized that all sex was prostitution unless it was with your married monogamous partner. It is interesting the kinds of ideas people will come up with!

@@drkevinjenson could it be said that even this claim is also part of people making up things?

​@@drkevinjenson its very hard for me to understand that if you have a good sex drive you are described as healthy and alive(depression leads to low or no sex drive), but then the christian life is about supressing sex drive. Did Jesus have a sex drive when He was in human form. How do you feel about occasional masturbation for single christians. Maybe Jesus will take away sexual desire and replace it with His presence as a form of higher pleasure if we seek it.

@AGR091 Touché 🙃 This is why it is important for teachers to be transparent about "how" and "why" they came up with the perspective...and also to stay open to more learning.

@hannavanderberg1673 The idea that Jesus will take away sexual desire or replace it with something "higher" assumes that sexual desire is somehow problematic rather than a part of the human experience that God designed. However, until we know how to respond to our sexual desire in a way that aligns with our Christian identity, it can definitely feel like a challenge to our faith. Think about it this way. If we only ever learned how to eat junk food, we might assume that the natural desire of hunger is an invitation to obesity, heart problems, and diabetes. One way to deal with the problem is by asking God take away the desire for food. The other way is to learn how to eat in ways that bring life instead of death. PS. I am working on a short guide to mindful masturbation that might help answer your other question. If you follow this link to download a sampler of my book, I will add you to the list for whenever it's ready! sacrednotsinful.com/book-sampler/

Anyone want to help out PhilipBuckley with a summary? I can share that my intention with this video is to draw our attention beyond the question and recognize that we need a better ethical framework for this conversation. Perhaps one like I offer in my book. If you'd like to have a copy, you can find it at www.sacrednotsinful.com

I think you're touching on Paul's whole point in Romans when he teaches that the law only made things more difficult. It gave power to sin rather than liberating the people it was given to! In the case of pornography (or any other unhelpful habit), shame is one of the most powerful forces keeping people stuck in the unhealthy pattern. Identifying a problem (or labeling someone's behavior as a problem) does not help the person who is trying to change; it only amplifies their experience of shame and desire to hide it. For me the journey of liberation began when I finally stopped worrying about doing the wrong thing and started trying to build a life that reflected the freedom I knew I had in Christ! What do you think would make things easier for people?

@@drkevinjenson I think Christianity needs a "factory reset". Reading through the apostolic epistles, it's become clear to me that the first thing Christians are supposed to do is overcome the flesh, stop sinning, and obey Jesus' commandments. Only then can we be ready to start overcoming the world. The problem is that post-apostolic Christianity has been mortifying natural human desires since days of the church fathers. This can be seen in the Shepherd of Hermas. They've made the standard of righteousness so high that it's a burden to keep. The path is indeed narrow, but the burden is light. We can't walk a narrow path while also carrying a heavy burden. So, I suppose the solution would be to challenge what post-apostolic Christianity calls sin. If an attitude, thought, or action doesn't undermine faith in Christ or love for one another, then the burden of proof is on those insisting that something is sinful. What do you think?

That is an interesting framework to explore: shifting the burden of proof toward an assumption of innocence rather than guilt. One of the benefits of this perspective might be that we can no longer judge the sins of another person. Perhaps our job is only to forgive each other when we realize something has violated our conscience or lies outside the realm of our faith (aka. whatever is not of faith is sin). I think this is partly the Christian message. Identifying sin with the Mosaic law didn't help people live with righteousness. Jesus brings the gift of the Spirit, so that we are transformed from the inside out, rather than conforming from the outside in. The burden of staying in relationship with the Father is certainly one that is easy and light - so much different than the burden of getting rid of our sins!

@@drkevinjenson If we look at 1Corinthians 5:11-13, we are to judge righteously and disassociate from unrepentant sinners, but if you look at the list Paul provided, those sins were overt and unambiguous actions. Viewing pornography, on the other hand is somewhat of a grey area issue, so I guess it's best to suspend judgement over the grey areas. I do believe clear boundaries are necessary regarding what kind of behavior is unacceptable. But we should also understand that bad habits aren't automatically sins. As I understand it, something must violate a relationship with God and/or neighbor to qualify as sin.

Thanks for this comment! I don't necessarily take an antinomian position on the Old Testament law as I see an evolution through the scriptures that indicates Jesus fulfilled rather than abolished the law. However, the Jewish context of the discussion is interesting. If I come across it again, there is a Bible scholar who has a detailed exposition of the two warring factions of lawyers that brought this question to Jesus - who challenged both of them with a call to honor "what God has joined together." I am curious, though, to know where you go with your line of reasoning. Are there any biblical guidelines for a healthy sexual expression? Was the old law replaced by a new law?

@@drkevinjenson as far as the old law being replaced, here are some passages. The Old Law was made obsolete: Colossians 2:14- old law nailed to the cross Hebrews 9:16-28 blood/death is necessary for the new covenant to be put in force. Hebrews 8:6-8; 13- Jewish/Mosaic law made obsolete. Hebrews 10:3-10- repeated sacrifices of bulls and goats, but now we have THE perfect sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Jeremiah 31:31-34 Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand delete them out of the land of Egypt. My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days says the Lord. Matthew 5:17-20 Christ fulfilled the law and the prophets. “For assuredly I say to you till heaven and earth pass away one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till it is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these Commandments and teaches men, so, Shelby called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

ruclips.net/video/N2pC6ZikbYo/видео.html

I am working on a video to respond to the opening sentence that you shared! I hear quite often that porneia is a word used to summarize all of the sexual sins from the Old Testament. However, there is no foundation for this popular claim. Your comment actually inspired me to dive into the Septuagint last week and see where it used the Greek word porneia. It is only ever used to refer to prostitution, something that is regulated, but not condemned by Moses. None of the other sexual prohibitions are connected to that term. That said, if porneia has the meaning that is apparent in the Greek and the New Testament rhetorical context, it could apply to anything (including sex within marriage) that involves being dominated by one's sexual appetite. So I agree and disagree with what you're saying here all at the same time.

@@drkevinjenson Well I just came across your reply, sorry for missing it, the reason I say fornication is unlawful sexual contact is because of what Jesus said was the only cause for divorce or putting one away, to NOT make it mean ALL forbidden sexual relations is justifying all but one, how ridiculous would Jesus statement would have been if any of these situations occur but you could only divorce over one, you come home from work and find your wife in bed with your son or she comes home and finds you in bed with your daughter ( incest ) or a animal or one of the same sex, who in their right mind wouldn't snatch up that child and take them away, I'm sorry but fornication means ANY unlawful sexual contact, even touching a woman that's not YOUR woman, like Paul explains in 1 Cor. 7 and what to do to avoid it, our laws today are no different, if you go up and grab a woman to grope her, it's against the law, if you rape a woman it's against the law, if you have sex with a married woman, it's adultery, the whole world knows this pertains to married people, what is not against the law and never has been except in the prophets is whoredom, I've explained what whoredom is before ( maybe not in here though ) but it's the sin of the unmarried, not the married, it's NOT having ONE LOVER, it's having more than ONE LOVER, that doesn't apply to the married now or then, the reason I say there is no law against it is because it's something the law has no power over, the married they have power over and can punish, the unmarried person that cheats, there's no law against it except God's judgement on it, that's the spreading of STD's, NO ONE will ever get one from their lover being faithful to them, why? because there's no judgement on it, the way the married man got around the law was by making his other woman ( not his wife ) a concubine wife, she was perfectly legal by the law, David himself knew the law, he only had ONE wife, she bore the child that would be heir to the throne, ancient history is more informative on this subject but nevertheless having more than one wife was looked down upon, David also knew he couldn't have her as long as her husband was alive, you know the results of that story, what I'm telling you is IF you rely on the wisdom of this world for a understanding of words found in the bible you don't understand, your going to be condemned, the dictionary is the wisdom of this world, it's great for a understanding of the things of this world but NOT for a understanding of the things of God or that pertain to God, IF having sex and not being married is fornication, then how is it that except for the cause or reason of fornication a man cannot divorce his wife, WIFE!!!, in that case fornication would be adultery, unlawful sexual contact, it's got to be sexual, and right on the money too, if she had sex with another man and got pregnant, who owns the child? if she was not found out, the man would think the child is his, think about it, he raises a child that's not even his own, working all his life to leave what he has to the seed of another man, the bloodline to the Jew was important, consider this too, if she bore her husband a child and married another man and bore him a child, what just happened? why is it that only the woman was bound by law and not the man too, blood touching blood, half brothers or sisters, both entitled to the man's property of the first husband by LAW through BLOOD, kill the first husband and child and by law who gets the property? IF there's no next of kin or a WILL, happens all the time today however no problem if the man remarried, why? because any children born to him would be his and leaving his property or assets to his OWN children was never a problem, MANY of our own laws today reflect laws in the bible but as you know, not all, today there is still NO LAW against cheating on your lover, in our country nor any other country, it's also not against the law for single men and women to have sex, in our country nor any other, OTHER than religious law, also in recorded history of any nation it's never been against the law for a single man and woman to have sex, prostitution and whoredom is NOT the same, prostitutes have sex for money, whores have sex for the pleasure, a married person that cheats on their spouse is called an adulterer, not a whore, an unmarried person that cheats on their lover is called a whore, a married man doesn't call his wife his " woman " an unmarried man doesn't call his " woman" his wife, each will not feel or think right doing so, God has written His law on man's hearts, married people KNOW it and unmarried people KNOW it, please be aware I'm NOT talking about the law that pertained to children or those still under their fathers RULE, in their time the right way of choosing someone to marry was up to the fathers of the children, NOT the WOMAN of AGE, the choice was hers, that same principle exist today but only now in a different way, IF your a father of a daughter and you allow her to DATE a young man, your giving HER the choice to choose whom she wants to marry, IF she wants to marry whom she chooses, it's going to be because of LOVE and NOT money or power IF she's YOUNG, the choice of a father would be money and power, too much explaining to do here about 1 cor. 7 but if you study the Greek and don't rely on others to tell you the meaning of ALL the different variations in it for these two words that was ALL they could come up with, woman or wife, man or husband, you will see how simple their minds are, first the man that shouldn't touch the woman, what KIND of man? what kind of woman, and why should she be yours and you hers and what determines that?, NONE of these women are the " yuvalka" but rather a yuvalkl and a yuvn, these two are UNMARRIED, and the avspa is the one whom's father promised him or her, in that scenario which was viewed as being betrothed, it was permitted them to have sexual contact, Paul begins his letter teaching their own custom which was the beginning of a relationship and what was allowed and how to conduct one's self, touching had to be MUTUAL, that included holding hands, hugging, kissing or touching each other in any way other than sexual intercourse, the one's he's talking about at the beginning of 1 cor. 7 IS THE UNMARRIED, he only includes the widows in his train of thought, you also need to understand at the time two people were betrothed, they were VIEWED as husband and wife only by LAW they were not married, they had ALL the same benefits the married woman and man had except they were NOT living together nor did they have any children, Paul concludes his advise to the unmarried that didn't have self control, he didn't forbid them to marry which by the way means having sexual intercourse, the reason I say that is because that's the equivalent of the old testament word used for " knowing " a woman only a more modern version of it, the scripture reference has to do with Onan and what he was to do with his brothers wife, go in to her and marry her and raise up seed in your brothers name, do what to her?, Onan was not going to make her his wife, if that was the case, the child would be his, also Jesus said, " The children of this world marry and are given in marriage, what do the children of this world do? they have sex and they have sex in marriage but only ONE is UNDER LAW, I'm just saying, what you read, I don't care what version it is, they ALL began or originated from the MIND of ONE PERSON, he was a Catholic Priest, he translated the ancient Greek text to Latin, he was a CATHOLIC PRIEST wit the MIND of a Catholic PRIEST, he translated this word yuvalka which meant a betrothed woman or wife into a word that implies ALL WOMEN, whosoever looks at a " woman " with sexual desire is committing adultery in his heart, adultery can only be committed by a " married woman " period, the whole world knows that, even the married woman knows that, NO ONE calls a unmarried woman an adulterer that cheats, she's called a WHORE, prostitutes are NOT called whores, their called prostitutes, in most countries prostitution is against the law, it can be controlled but whoring CAN'T, the prophets spoke out against whoring only they called it whoredom, if you need a scripture defining adultery so you don't assume what it means I can give it to you, if you need one describing whoredom by the prophets, I can give that too, if you go to the wisdom of this world=the dictionary, your going to get confused unless you want to know what a hammer is or a microwave oven, the biggest problem we have today with lazy men is their laziness in studying the word, they all go to the dictionary or someone before them that went to the dictionary to define God's Word's, that's why every translation is getting worse, no one knows what fornication means and it's really one of the easiest words to define from the bible as long as you understand the LAW, listen, you know the woman at the well Jesus talked to was NOT married, right?, she is the first one Paul addresses in his letter AFTER he says let every yuvalka have their own avspa, these are the betrothed, now to the yuvalkl and the avnp=man or husband in the translators mind, it's man because their NOT married, " his duty=responsibility let fulfill or DO what is right, ALSO this one, the yuvn=woman to the avspl,=the one whom he promise love, find the true meaning of these words they couldn't translate, when you find what's common in ALL of them where there used in the sentence, you'll have the right word

I think your comment is more connected to this video (ruclips.net/video/IBoZ25M7t6Q/видео.html), but there are some interesting ideas here! I am especially curious about that last line to know what exactly has been joined together. It is part of my ongoing exploration into 1 Corinthians 6-7 and Genesis 2. In my view, Jesus seems to indicate that a bill of divorce did have the power to separate whatever God had joined together, but He also enjoined His listeners not to do it by making the separation the equivalent of adultery. I think his rationale can be found in the Malachi passage you cited that outlines the deeper issue as "failure to love with the heart." Do you think it is possible for humans to separate what God has joined together? Or do you think it is just something that shouldn't be done?

@@drkevinjenson I believe Paul supported Jesus statement1 Corinthians 7:39 and Romans 7:2-3 when he said that death breaks the bond of marriage. Try as man might, they can divorce, separate, etc., but God still sees them married in His eyes. Only death breaks that bond. In Matthew 19:4-6 Jesus clearly stated how things were from the beginning and how things should be from that point forward. Moses permitted divorce due to the hardness of their hearts, but Jesus was calling them to a higher standard of marriage. Under the old law, the betrothal system allowed “putting away” same Greek word apolyo as divorce, and Jesus excused the putting away during betrothal because it did not break the marriage covenant bond as they had not entered into one yet. See Matthew 1:19. God intended marriages to be for life, and nothing breaks that bond, but death, 1 Corinthians 7:39.

That's a lot of ideas in one paragraph! But thanks for digging in and refusing to give up on the quest for understanding! It took me about two years of looking for the Bible verse "though shalt not have premarital sex" before I could finally believe it wasn't there. Although marriage is not the ticket to moral sex, there is a Biblical standard of sexual ethics embedded within the word porneia. If you decide to keep looking further, I will be curious to know what you find!

Thank you for this eloquent comment! I recently shared a post on Facebook (below) that helped me to understand why open discussions about sexual ethics are so difficult. The root of the challenge is trauma. If we don't have a way to experience our sexuality that feels whole, healthy, and aligned with our Christian identity, everything to do with sex can feel traumatizing. In response, many people turn to dogmatism as a coping mechanism and open discussion threatens the sense of security that this can bring. It took me awhile to develop compassion and understanding for those who find it easiest to just believe everything except married monogamous heterosexual reproductive sex is a sin. As I hinted in this video, porneia has a very individualized meaning that is connected to self control instead of being dominated by desire. Dogmatism can make the mistake of repressing desire instead of learning how to respond in healthy ways. In other words, a craving for donuts is probably best resolved by developing an appetite and access to healthy and delicious foods rather than suppressing the biological urge to eat (and feeling shame over any failure). Does this mean everyone who has a donut is sinning? Probably not, but porneia implies the significance of choice and intention that drives the behavior rather than being governed by the natural craving. It applies regardless of marital status. facebook.com/drkevinjenson/posts/pfbid02AM2AGu4xWXXySutKf9LjkQ9VV3XfzKB9DNuFBXFJ4QRngnwRmtqSZbVknND91ZAJl

That is such an interesting connection you highlighted! As far as I understand, adultery was something external and covetousness was something internal. This shift in focus from external to internal seems to be the thrust of that whole section in Matthew 5. Do you have any more detail about the rabbinical distortions Jesus was addressing here?

@@drkevinjenson Yes, there is definitely a shift to the internal state, but I believe this was because the scribes and Pharisees were teaching hypocrisy; hence the whitewashed tombs full of bones - nice outside, dead inside. I believe for this reason, Jesus was emphasizing the unitary ('nondual') nature of the Mosaic Law: above all, love YHWH your God with all heart, soul, and strength, and neighbor as self. One simply cannot commit overt adultery in their strength without first hating their neighbor in their hearts, and devising the plan in their soul. It proves to be a sin against God and neighbor. David learned that the hard way. Mike Winger's video on divorce touches upon a big rabbinical debate that existed in Jesus' time, over the legal grounds for divorce. I don't remember the exact arguments. Regardless, on divorce, Jesus seems to have been referring to the Law; "on word of porneia". You have to compare the Greek text of Jesus' statement to the LXX Greek. It's the "word of" part that gets lost in translation. Jesus said porneia, but the LXX says something that means "nakedness". The two ideas are probably related or synonymous. The greater point is that Jesus never dismantled or altered the Law. It's still here today to condemn the flesh, and it will play an eschatological role in the future, until the heavens and earth pass. We are free from the Law because Jesus was released from it in his righteousness through a death. We participate in that death through his baptism, which binds us to him in the Spirit (our new Law). Romans 7:1-6 explains that. So I really don't think Jesus was in any way changing the Law or raising a standard above the Law. The Law was a burden. Jesus' commandments are not burdensome. We can't walk the narrow path and carry a burden at the same time. I think a lot of us have been conditioned to make things more difficult than they need to be; hence all the shame around sexuality.

@@drkevinjenson The rabbinical debate over marriage was between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel. Mike Wiger gets into it here around 10:07. ruclips.net/video/N2pC6ZikbYo/видео.htmlsi=pG8UQM2smLMKahFo

Thanks for this resource! It was a fascinating look at this highly debated passage...and I have already shared it in other conversations 😀

Yeah, sorry about that! It's an old video. Let me see if I can raise the audio level on RUclips.

It might be awhile yet before I feel equipped to comment on that with my own perspective! I haven't actually examined this text in the didache. But here are some of the thoughts that come up for me...would be curious to hear yours! At face value, I think that the cultural context of same-sex activity in the New Testament era was primarily one of men with boys so the connection between the two terms you shared is interesting. Is Paul implying that "arsenokoitai" was problematic because of the power dynamic, because of the age difference, or because the bodies were of the same gender? I would be curious to know more about the relationship between culture and language of certain New Testament books and the Didache. As far as I have heard, the word arsenokoitai contained more of a reference to an abuse of power, rather than to a moral (sexual?) corruption of someone else...and does not necessarily exclude the possibility of healthy same-sex relationships. This article provides an interesting observation that there were other Greek words to describe homosexual partners that may not have included this unhealthy dynamic...and Paul chose to use arsenokoitai. Why? reformationproject.org/case/1-corinthians-and-1-timothy/

1 Corinthians 7:32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: 7:33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. 7:34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 7:35 And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.

Levitcus 18th and 20th chapters!

You've shared some stellar passages here and I am curious how you see them connect with the ideas in this video... I don't think I actually covered any of these verses in this presentation, but there are other teachings where I have the time to go more in depth. Let me know if you want a link. I hope to dive into 1 Corinthians 7 soon as it has come up over and over again in my Bible study, and it has some fascinating implications when we drop the assumption that biblical marriage is about sex and start to see it for the social role it played at the time these passages were written.

Amazing! Tell us more about how you see this fits with the idea I proposed here in the video...

Thanks for your question! When you have a moment, check out sacrednotsinful.com for details about the book. I think you're actually pretty close with your definition here. In my view (and in this book), the choice of a Christian is one of whether lust or love will drive our sexual expression.

Thank your for sharing your thoughts! I hope that these resources are an encouragement to continue a journey of repentance and maturity in how we understand and live out our sexual ethics. I don't expect us to reach the same conclusions about everything, but I do think we take a similar journey of humility as we enter a deeper relationship with God!

I really highly doubt the Apostles were trying to add on some new random commandment we have to follow about waiting until Marriage. Deuteronomy 4:2 is very clear not to add or take away any commandments from the lord on his law. And nor was Jesus because he followed this law perfectly. The Apostle Paul preached complete celibacy for time to focus on the lord. Well you may say, they concluded prostitution is immoral, that’s not mentioned in the old law! Well, there’s no direct commandment against it, you’re right, but it’s very obvious throughout Leviticus 19 and 20 that it isn’t something he likes. Yes, Sex was most likely created for marriage and a family. But biblically there was nothing wrong with 2 Betrothed people(modern day boyfriend/girlfriend) having sex because they were going to get married anyways. Yes, Paul was lead by the Holy Spirit, but denying his influences from Greek philosophy which was not divinely inspired and was based on hedonophobia, is purely foolish considering all the time he spent as a Greco Roman Pharisee. If Jesus didn’t warn against it, who are we to call it sinful?

Hello @mbgodwebsite5272, Thank you for sharing your thoughts in detail. I appreciate someone who takes the time to be this thorough about their disagreements and perspectives on biblical interpretation! If you would agree to refrain from making more personal attacks, I would be open to a respectful dialogue about some of these passages where you can share your perspective and I can share mine. In many ways, your writing here supports the premise of my video: porneia does not mean premarital sex. I disagree with your conclusion, however, that it means bestiality, adultery, and homosexuality. That could be an interesting point of debate, which I would rather do in a live video than a comment thread. My book "Sacred not Sinful" goes more in-depth on this topic, unpacking the rhetorical meaning of porneia as it is used in the New Testament. I am the first person to take this investigative approach. However, my conclusions align with the limited amount of other scholarly research on the topic. This video is a presentation of the early stages of my work. Here is a link if you would like to catch up on the rest of the story: sacrednotsinful.com

@chrissheffer Thank you for this thoughtful examination of how we interpret scripture to uncover sexual ethics! I agree with your insight that Paul was not trying to add a new commandment or take away from the significance of the Torah in any of his work! I also appreciate your value for understanding language and the role that it plays in how the authors of the Bible communicated their message! Paul was an incredibly skillful writer who understood his audience as well as the historical roots of his theological arguments. That makes interpreting his writing quite a delightful and at times frustrating challenge :) I would be curious to hear more about how you came to the conclusion that it was acceptable for Old Testament betrothed couples to have sex (but not for those who were unattached?). And perhaps to explore this idea further in light of the choices described in 1 Corinthians 7, which seems to differentiate the status of betrothed and married (though I'm not sure the difference was one of sexual activity). PS. If you want to go further into the question of prostitution and morality, you might be intrigued by this video...ruclips.net/user/liveJCS-SruDnEM?si=jKASjGNiDO5OpYLS

Hi, yes, I would be happy to discuss this topic with you, above what I have already posted in my responses to you. Let me know, where you want to start. I don't mean to run you down, I just don't have much respect for many scholars and seminaries. An intelligentsia, who think they have it all figured out, when in fact, I know they don't. Their attitude is if you aren't in their circles, which I am not, you can know nothing. To believe this is to deceive themselves and not fully know God. So, I give you credit, that you are not being close minded, as many are, and desire to discuss this. We are at polar ends on our theologies. Yes, I realized that your "conclusions align with the limited amount of other scholarly research on the topic." I do agree with you that porneia (fornication, sexual immorality) does not describe "premarital sex," and gave my reason why in my last posting. I for the life of me can't conceive how you would determine that whenever porneia is used in Scripture, it is merely rhetorical and not pointing to actual actions/behaviors. Go to a porn site and see if what you view is just rhetorical. Porneia in N.T Greek does not define a specific act or sin. As I delineated in my last post, it defines all Biblically unapproved sexual acts as defiling the Christian's body (exclusively) - "sinning against your own body." These acts defile the body from its pure and holy state, once regenerated, when born again. These acts "defile" the body of Christ. "Know ye not...And such were some of you..." (1Corinthians 6:9-11). Guaranteed, judgment, by God, for such lifestyles won't be rhetorical.@@drkevinjenson

@@mbgodwebsite5272 Please send an email to drkevinjenson@gmail.com and let's find a time to schedule a video call (possibly RUclips Live) where we can go into more detail on our divergent perspectives! I'm especially intrigued because we both have some unique similarities and differences in our teaching on sexual ethics that I think would be valuable to explore together.

Thanks for sharing your appreciation of the videos I have put together 🙏 The Bible is such a beautiful book! It is worth spending time with the text to unpack the treasures it carries. But beyond this, I believe it is a gateway to intimacy with God, which is ultimately what drives all of my work with sex and spirituality :) I was back in 1 Corinthians 6 this week exploring the rabbit hole of the Greek words for body (soma and sarx). Usually Paul chooses the word soma to indicate the broader body of Christ and sarx to talk about biological impulses and "flesh and blood." However, it's not always clear cut. I think sometimes the ancient theologians liked to leave things a mystery so that we would have to wrestle with them and come to a deeper understanding that we could if they made it simple. Thus the interplay between the physical body and the corporate body that you describe here. Would love to hear more of your thoughts on this as you continue your exploration!

@angloaust1575. We know nothing of this woman’s history. She may have been widowed four times. Those were violent times and it is very possible. It is unlikely the people of Jericho would have listened to her had she been a chronic sinner. So, we don’t know…so why assume she was worthy of rebuke. It is not there, it is just bias.

There is some fascinating scholarship on this conversation between Jesus and the woman at the well...because there is imagery in the story that western readers tend to miss. Wells often represent female sexuality in scriptural imagery...thus it was the place where all the patriarchs (and Moses) met their wives. What does this symbolism tell us about the conversation that took place? Samaritans were rejected from worship at the Jewish temple because of intermarriage with the surrounding peoples....were they also like the woman who had no husband? Anyhow, yes...there is no rebuke and most likely none was needed. If you want a link to a great exposition on this passage (different from the thoughts I shared), let me know.

@@mchevalier-seawell4438 It is interesting how easy it is to read our assumptions into the text. What did it mean that she was not married to the man she was living with? We have a similar example to this in the book of Hosea when he buys the prostitute and makes a deal where the two of them would "dwell together many days" but without the accompanying fanfare of marriage (see Hosea 3:3). But most people assume that living together without being married is bad, so the woman at the well was definitely a sinner. Thanks for challenging us to read beyond this assumption!