Joseph John I appreciate your thoughtful response here! There is a lot of nuance to a topic like this and I always feel like there is more to learn. Feel free to connect further if you want to chat or share resources.
When you abstain from fleshly lusts, you feel yourself getting stronger mentally and physically, even just in a few days. That's evidence enough alone that there's truth to it.
So you become proud of what you do, instead to rely on what Jesus did for you. Always test if you are in the faith and that everything you do is in faith. Faith in what? The Bllodatonement of Christ.
Well I guess you're not taking into consideration 1st Corinthians chapter 7:1-5, this is one of the reasons for marriage, v2 "but since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband".
Yeah, that was a letter to the Corinthians, because they were exceptionally sinful. Remember, Corinth was like a modern day Las Vegas, a lot of prostitution and debauchery, gambling, partying, sexual immorality. For the Greeks in Thessalonica, he writes, "Keep at it, because what you're doing is greate already, but keep at it." But yeah, for most people marriage is a healthy way to go, because chastity is unattainable for most people, unfortunately.@@DS-md7jn
This may come as a bit of a shock to most Christians, but the term “fornication” has nothing to do with consensual sex between two persons and has been mistranslated by bible scholars. The root word for fornication is “fornix” which is a Mid-Eastern, French and Latin term for brothel or place of prostitution. Don't believe me? Look it up for yourself.
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 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/
hello!! I've been doing a lot of research since my boyfriend and I are considering having intercourse and I don't want to do anything that displeases God. I haven't completed the video yet but is your conclusion that sex before marriage isn't wrong? I'm struggling a lot with this issue since I don't want to do anything that displeases the lord. I've also seen some claims that porneia also says that its wrong to have intercourse merely for pleasure and that contraception is also wrong...to me this makes no sense but is that true? and what is your stance on sex before marriage?
I'm glad that you are looking deeply into this question! Your intention to please God in every part of life will guide you well! The reason I wrote my book is because I had a similar struggle to the one you describe here. This video introduces my view that porneia means to be dominated by desire instead of being led by the Holy Spirit. What does this mean for the question of premarital sex? If you really want to dive into some answers (and some additional questions that I think you will find helpful), you can find a copy of my book at www.sacrednotsinful.com If you're on Facebook, I also just did a teaching on the question of where/if the Bible says premarital sex is a sin. I may post it on RUclips, but for now you can access it at facebook.com/groups/lifewideopen
So… Porneia could be understood to imply a lack of integrity. It represents being overwhelmed by strong desire not just sexual desire, but maybe for wealth, possessions, power, or prestige…right? Could this then be linked to envy and covetousness? Unbridled ambition? Whether it be a momentary lapse of judgment, or character flaw of indulgent weakness, refusing to admit that it is wrongful, and that such behavior and circumstance should be repented from, is defiant of moral integrity known as righteousness, and the authority of God’s Word to claim it as such .
Porneia would apply specifically to a person expressing their sexuality in a way that called their integrity into question. It is a helpful concept because it allows us to derive a sexual ethic that is not limited to one particular cultural context. For example, the Greeks would not have judged a person for visiting prostitutes, Americans probably would. Porneia is therefore a call to consider the broader implications of our sexual choices. Epithumeia (or lust) is the word you are looking for to represent being overwhelmed by strong desire for something. You can see some of my exploration on that topic here: sacrednotsinful.wordpress.com/2023/07/19/lust-is-not-a-sin/
@@drkevinjenson I would be inclined to agree with you, if not for Hebrews 12. Paul says that we should not be a fornicator and profane, such as Esau, who gave his birthright for a morsel of food. The Greek word pornos is used in this context, and does not describe any sexual immorality. He would have inherited God’s blessing, but by his hunger chose to satiate his carnal flesh in exchange for it.
@@dystopic6245 Are you suggesting a broader application of the word porneia to be any use of the body that violates the spiritual identity of the person?
Thank you so very much for this video. This is a topic that’s very sore for me at the moment. I really appreciate the scholarly integrity you appear to have in your research. This video is invaluable to me in my quest for knowledge. Unfortunately I believe my current relationship may be doomed. I was raised in the Mormon church with an INCREDIBLY sex negative worldview, and had suffered numerous sexual traumas as a young child. Sex to me was something to fear and extremely dirty. I am now in my mid 20s, spiritual and religiously unaffiliated, with a tendency towards christianity. I have made massive strides in my life to undo the trauma and harm, and recently, have made a beautiful connection with a woman i love deeply. I finally felt I was in a place where I could comfortably explore my sexuality, I was a virgin when I met her. We were having sex once or twice a week for months and I can honestly say I have never felt a more rich bond with another person. Nearly the entire time with her I even felt a spiritual deepening of the relationship with her AND my relationship with god. However, just a few months ago, she told me she was taking sex off of the table until marriage as it does not glorify god. I cannot relay just how crushed I was to hear that. I realize if that is her relationship with her spirituality there is next to nothing I can do to change that. I just wish christianity wasn’t so sexually repressive, at times it feels as though i’ve had my first and so far only healthy relationship torn away from my hands.
You're welcome! I am glad you found something valuable in my research. It sounds like you've been on quite a journey of discovery 😀 Your approach to honoring your own religious practice as well as the beliefs of your partner are beautiful! However, I know it can be hard when you were on the same page and suddenly something changes. Sexual intimacy can be a deeply vulnerable experience and it takes work to reach the place where a person can be open with themself and God about it. Thanks for sharing your story with me 🙏 If there is anything I can do to support you, please send me a DM.
I've been looking for this summary for ages . Brilliant analysis and makes complete logical sense vs the traditional interpretations, whilst still encompassing / explaining part of the traditional. Bless you brother .
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!
Wow this makes a lot more senses to me honestly. I always was confused about fornication considering the Bible implies that sex creates marriage. “And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother's death.” Genesis 24:67 “What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.” Corinthians 6:16 “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” Genesis 2:24 Connecting these verses I never understood how fornication makes sense in the context. Especially marriage was not how it is now.
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 question, isn't it! All this video can conclude is that porneia has a much different definition (lack of sexual integrity) than English speakers have given it (premarital sex). An important point to remember here is that doing anything without a clear conscience can lead to a violation of integrity. I think the New Testament actually puts a lot of the burden of living with integrity back on the individual rather than defining which activities cross the line (i.e. is premarital kissing a sin? What about eye gazing? Mary loving Jesus' body with her hair?). Or, on a positive note, the clear call to love is also not limited to any one form of expression!
@@drkevinjenson I'm really curious what your personal standing point on premarital sex would be, especially in combination with 1. Cor. 7, where Paul says to the unmarried that they shall marry if they cannot withstand the passion. Imo you can discredit all of the verses that are used to condemn premarital sex except this one (at least I do not see how). Bc if they wouldn't need to marry to have sex why do they need to marry to not burn in passion?
@LordVoldemortYT That is a good question and one that I will explore in more detail in my upcoming book "Christian and Sex Positive." My approach in this video is one that seeks to understand what the Bible says within the context of history, culture, and especially rhetoric (how language is used to express meaning). The outcome, I believe, honors the intention of the authors even as it challenges some traditional ways of thinking. If you're curious to explore further, I'm happy to connect: drkevinjenson.com
@@LordVoldemortYT In the cultural setting of 1 Corinthians 7, there were few holy and safe options for the unmarried to have sex with. Why? Women were under the authority of their male overlord (often their father). Most women were not allowed to have sex unless a dowry was paid and consent was given by the male authority, otherwise it was moicheia (translated as adultery, a form of porneia). Thus, women were typically not free to have sex, and even though men were free most women were off limits. Who then was available? The pornay (a low form of prostitution often connected to enslaved women or idolatry, and other vices). Thus, this too is immoral and not something a Christian should do. In this cultural setting, unmarried people would often (yet not always) be left burning with passion unless married. There were some other options available but they too involved various issues. I address this more comprehensively and with evidence in my book "40 Christian Myths about Sex" on Amazon.
@@LordVoldemortYT what is the context of Paul's admonishment in 1 cor. 7? He is talking to the corinthian church, whose members were both: a) having sex with their father's wives, and/or b) going to pagan temples and engaging in cult sex worship. Paul is telling these people that it is better to marry than to carry on these disgraceful sexual habits. It literally has nothing to do with premarital sex, which was never made illegal in the old testament law. You need to visit leviticus 18 and see what is considered illicit sexual intercourse according to God's law.
This is such a great topic. I am a christian woman, and a man that I dated earlier this year dumped me because i told him i wasnt having sex til marriage. I had always been told in church that it was a sin to have sex before marriage. I never questioned it. But it broke my heart for my boyfriend to just give up on me like that and i felt the need to do my own biblical research on premarital sex. I did and i was very surprised to see that nowhere does it state that premarital sex is a sin. It is just strongly insinuated that it is best to wait til marriage to have sex. However i dont feel like its safe to just assume its okay and run with it. There are things in the bible that are not mentioned to be sins, but they are. The bible cannot list every single sin or else it would be endless. One thing i personally very strongly believe is a sin that the bible doesnt talk about is masturbation. I am a very spiritual type of christian and i am very sensitive to the spiritual realm. I am able to sense when a certain sin opens up the door to demonic consequences. And i will tell you that every time i give into masturbation i get attacked by demons. Sin opens the door to demons. Period. It says that in the bible. So even though the bible doesnt say anything about masturbation, i know its a sin because of the attacks i get after doing so. Its a good thing i dont just assume that its not a sin just because the bible doesn't say anything about it. And if maturbation is a sin, then why wouldnt premarital sex be? Id rather be safe than sorry and er on the side of caution when it comes to sexual things. Unless God speaks to me plainly/audibly and tells me that premariral sex and/or masturbation are not sins, i will continue refraining from them.
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?
Thank you for this clear analysis. The problem with teaching as most Christian assemblies do that the body’s desires are evil is in my personal experience it actually leads to more difficulties with the flesh. When God created this world and man and woman he said it is good. I speak to many young men who feel like they have to accomplish the impossible, which is denying the sexual aspects of their nature entirely. This idea that the very thing that God created to ensure the population of the Earth “sexual desire” is a bad thing, is Gnostic at its core. To try to completely deny any sexual aspect to our being is rebellion and perversion. Like the alcoholic who hides bottles anywhere so they can to sneak a drink. People who believe this inevitably develop various and sundry perversions. Of course this leads to hypocrisy if they are professing believers, this I share from bitter experience. Over many years, the Lord has taught me a healthy respect for my body and how to navigate these things with a sound moderation, after much failure I must admit. Above all whether I indulge or abstain is maintaining a clear conscience. Somethings will bring condemnation (self or from others) and should be avoided.
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!
You're welcome! I do believe I am the first scholar to apply this particular method of rhetorical analysis to find the meaning of porneia. However, I just came across an excellent summary of the research preceding mine that you may find interesting. mikeinsac.com/2023/03/17/nonmaritalsex/ It relates to my contention that porneia does not mean premarital sex, adultery, or homosexuality (as most often presented in churches and "Christian" Greek lexicons), but rather "illicit sexual activity." The focus of my work has been to understand what this word "illicit" or immoral refers to. You can find the whole story and the rest of my findings in the book "Sacred not Sinful: A New Christian Sexual Ethic" (just published on Amazon) a.co/d/evwcjQz
Correct me if I'm wrong - 'Porneia' is 'illicit sexual intercourse' - and all illicit sexual intercourse is present in Leviticus 18. If it's not in the Leviticus 18 list, it is legal.
Thanks for your reply, Austin! You have described one of the most common ways of thinking about Porneia. However, there are a couple of issues with it. First, the word comes from Greek origins and is not necessarily a direct reference to the list in Leviticus 18. The relationship with Old Testament law is also different for a Christian than it is for a Jew. For example, baptism has replaced circumcision as a symbol of identification with the Christian community (thankfully). Second, the meaning of porneia has less to do with legality and more to do with integrity and respectability. This means that even if premarital sex, masturbation, pornography, multiple partners, prostitution, and other kinds of sexual activity are not prohibited for the Israelites in Leviticus 18, they still may fall under the critique of porneia.
@@adultsexeducation-qd3pq I see your point - however, if we look at the application of porneia by Paul and all it's contexts, it always mirrors levitical sexual law. The Corinthians had trouble with adultery and cultic temple prostitution, so Paul admonished them against it, having his basis in levitical sexual prohibitions. When Paul advises them to marry, it is as an antidote to this temple prostitution. If Paul really meant to advise against pre marital sex, wouldn't he of specifically addressed it, instead of using the term "porneia", which accurately references the legality of the levitical 18 list? Look at the other terms Paul uses in his list of the lusts of the flesh in Galatians 5 - adultery, idolatry, sodomy: all specifically addressed in Leviticus 18. Paul would not make up new sexual prohibitions beyond Leviticus 18 without being very clear and forward. And since when is having multiple partners considered low integrity? Paul only advises that leaders in the church avoid polygamy - that's how minor it was. This very clearly implies that Paul was ok with normal church members having multiple wives. (1 tim. 3). It plainly stated by Paul that avoiding marriage altogether is ideal (1 cor 7), but that having a wife is a slightly lesser but ok substitute. Beyond that is an even slightly lesser substitute, polygamy, but all these levels of conduct are considered respectable. This should effectively demonstrate how the common and vague interpretation of porneia is erroneous and needlessly stifling.
@Adult Sex Education I'm hesitant to put too much stock in it being "Greek Origin". The New Testament writers wrote the entire New Testament in Greek seemingly. The Hebrew word "Sheol" becomes "Hades" in the New Testament (and in the LXX) but we don't view Hades as the Greek Hades overseen by the Greek God Hades. In the same vein I would imagine "porneia" was simply the Greek equivalent to whatever the word for "sexual immorality" was in Hebrew, not that it came from the Greek concept of porneia. When Jesus refers to sexual immorality being what defiles a man to the Jews (which would have been in Aramaic originally) I don't know what else they could have had in mind but the levitical list of sexual immoralities... The Book of Acts again, in the context of what the Gentiles should follow from the law, has James including Levitical sexual immorality as still being required no no's.
Hello Austin, I was just thinking about what you said in your comment about Paul's use of the word porneia mirroring the rules we find in Leviticus. While I think this connection is important to consider, we have a maxim in research that says "correlation is not causation." A reflection between the two may be a result of the same underlying principle being applied in both circumstances, not necessarily a direct reference. Especially when it comes to Leviticus, I think we need to be careful about how we bring the Mosaic law into the Christian life. For me, it seems easier to look at Paul's own definition of the term, which more directly reflects Greek culture and the origins of the word, than it does the Mosaic law.
🙏 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?
Thanks for your video, you have a smooth voice and made some great points. I became a Christian last year and have struggled to find scripture outlining that premarital sex is a sin.
Thanks Cathryn :) It can be a difficult question to explore because the answers people come to are deeply meaningful to them. I'm grateful for the chance to share my perspective. Are you open to share what stood out for you here?
Not only is premarital sex a sin, but all masturbation is a sin. Jesus said, "But I am saying to you, everyone who looks at a woman so as to lust for her, immediately commits adultery with her in his heart." Matthew 5:28 So if even lusting after a woman is a sin, what is premarital sex then?
@@RantTherapist You need to look at the original greek - the word is to "covet" a man's wife - so literally, if you are making plans to covet a man's wife, you might as well of already done it. It has nothing to do with looking at and admiring the beauty of God's creation.
@@changstein Thanks for sharing this. The closest you get to a command about premarital sex is in Deuteronomy 22, but even this refers to adultery and the economic value of virginity.
Moses married Zipporah, a Midianite woman. Seems like that was going outside of his culture, race, and religion. So it seems strange that Moses would condemn this.
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?
We are bound to our covenant spouse until death (1 Cor. 7:39). NOTHING breaks the covenant but DEATH. Remarriage is adultery while our covenant spouse lives (Luke 16:18, Mark 10:11-12). The Matthew “clause” refers strictly to divorce, not remarriage. There is no such thing as remarriage for the “innocent party.” The “innocent party” view does not harmonize with 1 Cor. 7:39 Jesus did not permit divorce, because God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16) and because it was not so from the beginning (Matt. 19:8; Mark 10:6). We cannot separate what God has joined together (Matt. 19:6; Mark 10:9). The linchpin to understanding the “exception clause” is understanding the AUDIENCE of Matthew. It was Jewish.
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.
We cannot make our own translations the Bible says that my people perish for lack of knowledge please repent and read God's word, don't let your own desires getin the way
Thank you for your thoughts! You have described my reason for doing this research. Lack of knowledge in this area has led to much brokenness and suffering in our world. We need to find the truth in order to heal, and that often requires a process of continual repentance. I know it may not be easy to hear a teaching that challenges tradition, but seeking knowledge is worth a little bit of discomfort, right?
so does this mean in matt 5:32 the Exception for divorce is more then just sexual immorality. Let's say someone is abusive and is out of line with morality.
The verse you reference is referring to porneia, which is translated as"sexual immorality." I'm not sure you can extend the meaning of the term that far, but I suppose you could try!
I just finished a deep dive into 1 Corinthians 6:16 that may have some interesting perspective on this question...I mentioned your comment there as the study seemed to suggest a broader application of porneia than I have seen so far. Here is the link if you're interested. ruclips.net/user/livel5vpAalnwzU?feature=share
If I would share my experience. Before I got to know God I visited prostitues sometimes. Not because I wouldn't get any sex another way but because it was giving me a kick. But afterwards I always felt extremely dirty and bad! Even before being a christian! When I came to Christ I was in an honest relationship and we will marry in a few months. I never had this feeling with her. So it might be true. The law is written into our hearts. But I will keep praying to Jesus about that.
Thank you for sharing your experience! I love to see how you have been able to notice the way different experiences have affected you and make choices you feel good about! Curious to hear more about where you're growing now...feel free to send me a message!
Thank you for sharing ....my question is still on fornication and adultery .....this issue confusion for myself and also for next generation must be clear
It's a valuable question! Thanks for sharing it 🙂 I recently published a blog post about this at www.sacrednotsinful.com It includes a link to one of the most thoughtful authors on the question.
1Cor.7 [1] Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. [2] Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
Where does it say that a person who was divorced by their spouse for any reason can remarry? The man can, if he divorces her, but there is no provision for the wife. Can you read please Matthew 19:9? That is where the exception is. The exception is for "immorality." "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.” Matthew 19:9 NKJV Do you know what an exception is? Webster's Dictionary defines "Exception" as follows: "A case to which a rule does not apply."
If we apply similar logic (about men vs women) to Jesus' teaching on lust in Matthew 5:28, we would have to conclude that anyone who is not male has free license to indulge in lust. I don't think that's the case. We have to understand the context that Jesus was speaking to in each of these passages or we end up missing the point of their inclusion in the text and how the verses may apply today. In this respect, I appreciate your insight that a woman could not initiate divorce in that culture. Does that mean we cannot apply the same spiritual principle to both men and women? Perhaps we have more to discuss, however, I have not done an extensive teaching on Matthew 19 yet. Maybe I'll dive in tonight :) The exception clause in Matthew 19 is referring to "porneia," which is where this video is somewhat helpful. However, this video focuses on the use of that term post-resurrection of Christ. In Matthew, Jesus is likely using that term with it's Old Testament meanings and the specific context of the question. Here's a link to a great article providing more background context. Let me know if you want to chat further... margmowczko.com/jesus-divorce/
I know that all of the Marriage Permanence doctrine folks believe in exceptions that are clearly written in the Bible. How do I know this? READ THIS: John 3:3-7 KJV "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, EXCEPT A MAN BE BORN AGAIN, he cannot see the kingdom of God." AGAIN (TWICE NOW): Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, EXCEPT A MAN BE BORN OF WATER AND OF THE SPIRIT, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." So there are two more EXCEPTIONS SPOKEN BY JESUS! No man can enter the kingdom of God, EXCEPT HE IS BORN AGAIN !!! These folks do accept the exceptions written in John, now these folks should also accept the exceptions written in Matthew, all of these spoken by Jesus Christ Himself. Without these exceptions (that we must be born again), written in John, we cannot enter into the kingdom of God !!! We must accept the exceptions when Jesus gives the exceptions, in Matthew, in John, or wherever that they may be written in the Bible.
Thank you for your open minded approach. @@drkevinjenson I asked artificial intelligence for an unbiased interpretation of Matthew 19:9 at face value: Here was the result: "In Matthew 19:9, Jesus provides an exception to the prohibition of divorce and remarriage, stating that sexual immorality (often interpreted as adultery) is a valid reason for divorce. The verse states, "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery." This exception clause indicates that if a spouse engages in sexual immorality, the innocent party is allowed to divorce and potentially remarry without committing adultery. It is important to note that interpretations of this passage may vary among different Christian denominations." (an unbiased interpretation of a literal reading of Matthew 19:9, from artificial intelligence on January 9, 2024).
@AffectionateAcorn-xc9jf I asked artificial intelligence for an unbiased interpretation of Matthew 19:9 at face value: Here was the result: "In Matthew 19:9, Jesus provides an exception to the prohibition of divorce and remarriage, stating that sexual immorality (often interpreted as adultery) is a valid reason for divorce. The verse states, "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery." This exception clause indicates that if a spouse engages in sexual immorality, the innocent party is allowed to divorce and potentially remarry without committing adultery. It is important to note that interpretations of this passage may vary among different Christian denominations." (an unbiased interpretation of a literal reading of Matthew 19:9, from artificial intelligence on January 9, 2024).
Dear friends, Please refrain from ad-hominem attacks on this platform. They do not help your argument and create an unsafe space for dialogue. I have had to remove two of your comments. If you would like to dive deeper into your questions, please send me a message and/or try another comment spiced with curiosity and kindness.
too much, as sex, out of the marriage covenant has a term....adultery....and what about the issue, of Joseph and Mary.....what term would one use, to describe what he thought Mary had committed....
My ongoing study on this topic suggests that adultery has to do specifically with the marital status of the woman. It is an important distinction to make as it does not refer to sex outside of marriage generally. For a man, it refers to sex with a married woman (who belongs to another man). For a married woman, it may refer to sex with any man who is not her husband. Here is a link to my book where you can dive deeper into this topic if you are curious. a.co/d/iiRKNjs
Anything done in excess or out of control is sinful. I believe that is what fornication is. Everyone will not get married and everyone is not called to celibacy.
Hello Jenise, the definition you shared here is very much aligned with the Greek perspective on morality, or finding the middle way and avoiding excess in life. Self-control is also one of the fruits of the spirit and often used by Paul to describe the opposite of porneia. However, as I shared in the video, the word fornication has a very specific meaning (consensual sex between two unmarried people), which is not really connected to the definition you thared or to the use of porneia in the New Testament.
I'm going to add something else that has to do with incest, blood touching blood, a child gets it's blood from both the mother and father, a child born from one woman by two different men are related by blood, if one is male and the other is female, they cannot marry or breed children, they would be too closely related, by blood, you would have to figure out their relationship to each other by blood and not by law, in one case you could marry your step sister, in another case you couldn't, that's another reason a woman was bound by law but what kind of woman and what kind of man are they?
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
I think it is beautiful :) ...and in today's world, pretty much every race is so mixed that it's inevitable. I bring it up because there were clear Old Testament laws prohibiting marriage with certain non-Jewish people groups. Interracial marriage is one of the specific meanings of sexual immorality in the Old Testament and may even be what Jesus is referring to in the exception clause of Matthew 19 (because inter-racial marriage was not considered to be spiritually legitimate by the teachers of the law - see Ezra 10).
I wish I could find all the video's on this word fornication and get them to understand what it means, it's NOT just a single sexual sin, it's a summary of ALL the forbidden sexual laws in the old testament, you could say it's any act of sexual contact forbidden in the law and the prophets, I can list all of them for you so your not app to dream up something that's not written, many do, the bible says don't go beyond what is written, many do, anyway, sex before marriage is not a sin, that is not forbidden between two single adults not a child, Lev. 15:16-24 will show you this, the " any man " in the sentence that lies with her is not married nor is she, if she was married it would be adultery, if he was married it would be whoredom, whoredom is known by the prophets that describe the person doing it as having many lovers, which is actually more than he needs, this is a problem with today's society that law can do nothing about, people cheating on their girlfriend or boyfriend, which is what she should be to have permission to have sex, it MUST be of mutual consent, if not, it's rape and rape was against the law in the old testament, laws that pertained to children and married person's differ from the single man and woman, too many people confuse them and make them all want to mean the same thing, it's a lack of knowledge doing so, not to mention how ridiculous it is to be forbidden to have sex before you get married, back then, no one believed that, the betrothed were permitted sexual contact for this reason, knowledge, what's he or she going to be like when their in their right mind, not using marriage as a way to justify sex, knowing this feeling they have for the other person which is love but it's only sexual love, that's the worst of all reason's to get married, especially once you do it's almost impossible to get out of, it takes TIME to determine the right person for you and it takes knowledge, both parties will be putting on a act in the beginning, they show their best behavior, he's a king and she's a queen, it's when the love grows cold they will become who they really are, then and only then the temptation comes, not when what they feel is strong but when it's weak, it's at this time your in danger of sinning, either cheating or arguing to the point you need to divorce, if they haven't cheated on you, you will begin to look for excuses, it's in these excuses where many will deceive you, Jesus said there was NO EXCUSE other than sexual unfaithfulness, now you are trapped, you will be sinning if you remarry another, you never should have gotten married in the first place if your not going to be responsible for what you created in a marriage, this translation of sexual immorality is WRONG, it's wrong because of what everyone believes sexual immorality can mean, just looking at a woman having sex thoughts is immoral to some, let alone the length of the list would be trying to define all the things viewed as sexually immoral that men and women do, especially in the bedroom with each other that's no one's business but their own, God said, if you make a vow to Him and don't perform it, He will call it SIN in you, Jesus said don't make any vows to God because you don't know what tomorrow will bring, the marriage vows are for LIFE, not just until you change your mind, vows you shouldn't be making in the first place are the vows that will judge you, promise someone you will do something and don't do it, see if God lets you off IF your conscience is not dead, remarriage for Christians is NOT allowed unless it's the sin of fornication=breaking the forbidden sexual laws in the bible, no other excuse according to Jesus will work for divorce and remarriage, a man that got caught by his wife looking at porn will surely say that's sexually immoral, I can divorce him, her not judging herself and why he's looking at porn could be the reason he's looking at porn in the first place, she's not doing her job, he's hungry and she won't feed him, I hate going into the porn thing because so many use it as a excuse for divorce but I know without a doubt that what the eyes see is NOT a sin but what could cause you to sin, therefore if thy eye will cause you to sin then it's better to pluck it out, again, what is the sin? breaking any of the sexual laws forbidden in the old testament by Moses and the prophets, don't ADD to His word nor TAKE away from it, making excuses is adding to His word, which Moses did that Jesus forbid, taking away from His word will cause many to sin, you cannot justify divorce and remarriage by excuses, Jesus won't buy it, if he or she hasn't cheated on you sexually through adultery, incest, too close of a relative, mother and daughter or threesomes, animal sex, same sex, rape, maybe some others but NEVER the unmarried man and woman that are NOT children still under their fathers care, only in the prophets whoredom, having more than one lover was forbidden, which is what prostitutes and whoremongers do, there is no judgement on the faithful and shouldn't be
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
Galatians 5:16 NIV: "So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh." So this is also just a translation issue? I guess Apostle Paul was confused.
It is more likely that modern readers without a background of history, theology, culture, and linguistics have misinterpreted the intended meaning of a brilliant first century scholar. It is easier to read a meaning into the text that we already understand than it is to humbly seek for wisdom.
@@drkevinjenson Then why does Apostle Peter also say in 1 Peter 2:11 "Beloved, as pilgrims and travelers in this world, abstain from fleshly lusts, as they wage war against our souls"? Notice how he specifically says fleshly lusts, not general lusts or passions. Hmm, maybe you know better than the apostles, well-read beardman.
@@drkevinjenson Then why did Jesus say if you lust after a woman by looking at her you've already sinned in your heart? Is that also a translation issue? Enlighten us, wonderful bearded scholar.
I need to add to my comment this for clarification of 1 cor. 7, it might help, " It's good for a man not to touch a woman " what kind of man? what kind of woman? I know who the man is and it's NOT just any man and the woman is not just any woman, the man is one whom leads or teaches or has authority over someone else's wife and she's not just a wife but one with children, the Greek word is yuvalkoc, the same word used to describe Lot's wife only the children are not mentioned, the word itself implies children only their not mentioned, we all know Lot didn't just have a wife, I can tell you now that doesn't apply to a man and his wife nor his betrothed nor his girlfriend as long as it's MUTUAL, Paul NEVER teaches the married ANYTHING about sex or what they can or can not do, that was unlawful at their time to do, for good reason, the wife should LEARN from her OWN husband, not the husband of another, specifically on sexual matters, for another good reason, not all men are the same, there's not a single word in the bible that tells a man or a woman what they can do sexually together, it's a area of FAITH or belief, nothing is forbidden sexually between them except whatever the LAW says IS forbidden, now do what many on the internet are doing attempting to tell married people what's allowed and what is not, that in it's self creates DOUBT, NO ONE should be teaching ANYTHING beyond what is mutual between the two, these people want to create laws that don't exist which creates further DOUBT, who goes around saying to themselves, Lord is this or that okay to do when it's NOT in the LAW, many do and these people are under a CURSE for not knowing the LAW, God's law specifically if you follow the belief in God or Jesus, I go into these videos where people are teaching masturbation is a sin, using a scripture that is mistranslated in the KJ version concerning desiring a woman sexually is committing adultery in their heart, it's apparent to me they don't know what adultery is because they include the single man and single woman in their understanding, what I see is MANY, not a few either that are slaves to sin, but not sin that God would call sin but rather sin that men call sin, to those believing it's a sin, it's SO VERY HARD to quit and for some IMPOSSIBLE, the evidence is overwhelming in the comment sections, they are SLAVES to sin and what makes it worse is not a single one of these video's show any of them how to actually overcome it other than just resist it or SUFFER, masturbation is NOTHING NEW, it's only a modern word used for self love or loving yourself, that was NOT viewed as a sin but rather taught that loving yourself was loving God because God loved them, only in the LAW it was clear on whom NOT to covet=desire, another man's "wife" nor his servants nor anything that he possessed, that didn't include his daughter, if that was the case, no one would get married, for a single man masturbating focusing on a single woman while doing so is NOT a sin, I'm going to take this a step farther too because many don't understand this either, there is NOTHING the eye's can see that is a sin, there is only what the eye's can see that can CAUSE a man to sin, sin is breaking the LAW, if your eye's cause you to commit adultery, incest, rape, desire the same sex, cheat one your woman or man or any other forbidden sexual sin WRITTEN in the LAW and the prophets, PLUCK IT OUT, if it can't cause you to sin then your STRONG in the faith=belief=keeping the commandments, if your weak in the faith=belief=keeping the commandments, then by all means, DON'T go to the beach, don't watch TV, don't go shopping, don't go anywhere where there's beautiful women that's NOT SINGLE, what should be being taught in church's isn't being taught but condemned, having sex and not being married, that's turning more people AWAY from God than it is drawing them to God where God can teach them about faithfulness, there is NO JUDGEMENT on the faithful, only the unfaithful, what boyfriend and girlfriend and the betrothed and the single man and woman should be learning is faithfulness to the one their with sexually, that includes holding hands, hugging, kissing as well as sexual intercourse, what is happening rather now is SO MANY are turning away from God even giving up the belief in God and becoming atheist because that's NOT what God is telling them in their hearts, they only have two choices, either conform or go to hell, if they conform their lives are no better than going to hell, don't believe it? just see how many in the church are only married or the children of the married or the friends of the children of the married, this is a classic example of what the pharisee's did in Jesus time that He condemned by what they taught, they made it too hard on those that were seeking God or serving God to do so, Jesus said His commandments are NOT HARD, just go read the comments, the evidence is overwhelming what's being taught about masturbation is not only hard but impossible for many, to make matters worse, their told to PRAY about it and God is NOT going to answer a prayer for something He's NOT AGAINST, here's the real kicker, the very one's teaching what their teaching are ALL guilty of doing it only their hearts were not right, it's NOT a sin to love yourself especially when you have no one to love you, it's actually no different than being hungry, once the stomach has eaten the thought of needing something to eat STOPS, now you can focus on something other than food, sex is no different, get it out and then you can focus on something other than sex, you actually then have a clear mind that can think about something other than your desire, I would really like to go in to what causes the desire in the first place that the devil did NOT create but the short answer is testosterone and hormones, it begins at puberty and will last until they decline in your body, for most it's a lifelong battle, only for one man and one woman in the beginning was it told to be fruitful and multiply, the multiply is easy, being fruitful is not so easy when the love grows cold, but it means PLEASE EACH OTHER, be GOOD to EACH OTHER, LOVE EACH OTHER, we can apply it to any relationship whether it be husband and wife, man or woman, to tell the truth though it's not husband and wife in the beginning nor can it be, it had to be man and woman because there was no LAW at that time, the very words husband and wife apply to LAW, it didn't exist in Adams time so Adam couldn't have possibly said for this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, the ancient Hebrew word used when translated to Greek was yuvalkl, not yuvalka, in Matthews account not Marks, Matthew is correct, not Mark, the reason a man then left his father and mother was because he was searching for a woman for LOVE not marriage and in the process of TIME these two would become ONE, that oneness is NOT the same as being one in BODY which sexual intercourse does when two make love, for two shall become one is in a CHILD, the child is one of his flesh and one of her flesh, it's these two that Jesus said whomsoever God had joined together let no one separate, whom God had joined together by LOVE, God is LOVE and yes He's also sexual love but what He's NOT is adultery, incest, whoredom, man on man sex, woman on woman sex, what else other than fornication that is forbidden in the LAW and the prophets, there's another I didn't mentioned but at that time was believed, any Jew marrying a gentile was forbidden which Paul refers to in 1 cor. 7 and gives permission to leave the unbeliever, God forbid any Jew being a Jew that didn't believe in the true God that worshipped other gods, how many divorces have happened over excuses or one saying the other is not a believer because he or she don't think or believe like we do in our church, Jesus gave only ONE excuse and that excuse would have been any act of sexual unfaithfulness of the one they were married to, the very word unbeliever opens the door for ANY EXCUSE which is nothing more than what Moses taught that Jesus opposed, that's NOT all of what I need to say but all I should say, what I have said I know will NOT agree with what you read and how you read it, all I know is what I see and what I see scares me, iniquity=deception is on the rise, the love of many IS growing cold and for some has stopped altogether, it really makes me think Jesus will come back soon, not because the church is growing but rather falling away, why are so many leaving the church? why are so many becoming atheist? I know why, they really have no other choice, the workers of iniquity are on the rise and the internet is aiding them, they no longer have to sneak into a man's house to steal his wife, they can do it right here or on her phone, they have the ability to turn her against her husband IF he is not like them then justify her when she divorces him for an excuse and I'm talking about a LAW abiding man that works and takes care of his family BUT watches porn or something like it and got caught loving himself not realizing that if that woman just fed him like she should he wouldn't have that desire, I see it all the time, I hear it all the time, what should I do? my husband watches porn, that's sexual immorality, can I divorce him NOW? that word sexual immorality is too broad, what is good to one is evil to another and visa versa, it's a word that even worse than fornication because it can't be defined, it can mean anything related to sex that's immoral to another, I'm running out of space, will end here
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
So, your whole treatise is centered around the word fornication meaning "premarital sex." You accuse the writers of the KJV of "intermixing Biblical and cultural perspectives by the use of the word fornication, where readers of the N.T. may struggle to see the message it contains." So, what you are saying is that you are more enlightened to Greek culture, than Biblical N.T. authors and the writers of the KJV? And your source is from whom? However, you are the one doing what you accuse the Biblical authors and writers of KJV doing - "intermixing Biblical and cultural perspectives," by saying fornication means premarital sex, which, by all means, induces a struggle to "see the message contained." Biblically, "premarital sex" does not exist. Biblically, this concept is impossible. The dictionary definition of fornication, as being "premarital sex, is a secular definition regarding two people being sexually intimate before they acquire a secular marriage license. This concept never existed in the O.T. or the N.T. You are right, the authors writings "do not align with 'contemporary' understanding of porneia, as premarital sex." Your ignorance in describing fornication as one "certain" activity is the fallacy - the fallacy of modern Christianity. Prostitution (porneia) occurred in many forms in Greek culture, as it did in Hebrew culture. What existed was: 1. Adultery (being married (sexual intimacy) to two of the opposite sex or being married (sexual intimacy) to someone who has already married (sexual intimacy) another. 2. Homosexuality (two of the same gender being sexually intimate). 3. Bestiality (sexual intimacy with an animal) These all defile (fornicate) a Christian's regenerated body, making them incapable of ever having a legitimate marriage before God. You stated, the term "sexual immorality is ambiguous?" I don't know how you can say this? Are not adultery, homosexuality, and bestiality immoral sexual engagements? Where is the ambiguity? All these immoral sexual activities occurred in Greek times, as well as Biblical times, which when engaged in were considered immoral, even to the point of a death sentence. As the Hebrew writer wrote in 13:4 "Marriage is honorable and the bed undefiled, but whoremongers and adulterers shall be judged." What this is saying is that only a legitimate sexual joining between a male and female is an honorable marriage, and all other sexually deviant engagements are defiling and illegitimate and will face the judgment of God. Your accusation that "none of the N.T. "authors" directly say that "premarital or extramarital sex is sinful" is pure foolishness and ignorance. First, as I said, there is no "premarital sex," whereas "extramarital sex" would involve all that I listed above, which would be sexual engagements that defile a legitimate marriage and were considered sinful to the extreme. Also, what the N.T. "authors" wrote were not based upon "theological understandings," "traditions," or "culture," as you claim. They were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Fornication was very "contextual," and concerns of "personal integrity" had very little to do with it. Your perceptions are skewed. You stated, "the word prostitution acquired a more negative connotation when it was applied to individuals and was no longer positive?" How did you determine that it was ever viewed positively? "You used the phrase "formally sanctioned marriage." Formally sanctioned by whom? Men? Men did not design marriage. Secular prescriptions, conclusions, or rituals do not dictate marriage for anyone before God. Your description of "Esau" is also not accurate, which indicates, you don't know the word of God. Esau's behavior was not "governed by his physical appetites," whereby culminating into "abandoning the promise of God." The writers never "interpreted it this way." In fact, Scripture doesn't agree with you. It declares, "Esau despised his birthright." Yes, he had "no integrity." That lack of integrity is seen in him not having any respect for, but despising things that were holy and pure. It wasn't just the birth right, but even in his marriages, which grieved his parents and then trying to steal the birth right back again from Jacob, which God made sure Jacob got. I know seminarians don't teach this. No! 1Thes. 4:3 does not "imply the 'contemporary' definition of porneias" for the reason I state above. Of course, it doesn't align with your "contemporary" definitions. It never can and never will. Yes! 1Cor. 6:13 does "lose most of its significance as a moral framework, if the word porneia simply means fornication." At least according to your definition of fornication, but not the true Biblical definition of fornication, where it has real significance. Eph. 5 has nothing to do with fornication being hidden or of "secrecy." It is all about it never should happen, and if it does, a negative consequence will be the result. In Gal. 5, Paul is again describing actions included with fornication that result in a negative outcome. All these carnal behaviors, including Fornication (immoral sexual engagements) will result in a loss of spiritual blessings. Lastly, I noticed you didn't include 1Cor. 6:18 "Flee fornication. Every sin that a man does is without the body, but he that commits fornication sins against his own body." According to your definition of fornication, this verse speaks against your claim that "none of the N.T. authors directly said that premarital sex was sinful." And if you were to be correct, it would mean that one would have sinned against their body by committing it. However, he is not alluding to your definition, but those things that I have described, as being fornication. Sexual engagements that defile the flesh. It means, not only have you done wrong in doing such ungodly deeds, but you have done wrong to your body. You have made it unfit to every have a holy undefiled marriage with another before God. Celibacy is your only lot. Any sexual engagement with the opposite sex that you might think is alright will be defiled and fornicated.
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.
The important thing is the more partners the more difficult it is to bond to your current partner, the more jealousy (including that nasty bugger retroactive jealousy) can destroy relationships. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve or Adam and 5 wives.
This is a little off the topic of translating porneia, but I'm curious to look into this idea of a connection between jealousy and number of partners. Can you share a source for this information?
Well, this is a complicated subject, and I'm writing here in general. In terms of retroactive jealousy, it seems that some men reject women who have had more partners than themselves, because of an ego problem, since they are not virgins themselves, thus having a double standard. In the Old Testament it seems one had sex and that meant that one was married, or even during the engagement time - we would consider that premarital sex. Why is it that some men can be happily married to a former prostitute and others are disgusted and even divorce their wife when finding out she had more or different sexual activities in her past than he did. Maybe someone should write a paper on that. By the way, I believe God can erase our memory if we ask Him, not just sexual past, but other things we can't change and still bother us. Which fixes what your question was about, that the glue of sex will work again in marriage (after promiscuity). @@drkevinjenson
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?
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.
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.
@@RantTherapist Here is a video I made on how to overcome lust that you might find helpful: ruclips.net/video/g13FGa-6bxE/видео.html 3 Simple Steps to Overcome Lust...that you can use today!
Onanism is a failure to obey God's orders. It is not the spilling of the seed that was wrong, but the disobeying of God's order to procreate with his brother's wife. Therefore it is not a sin, and you can retain your hand.
@@RantTherapist Could also be stealing, killing someone, performed with the right hand, Im currently celebate as it feels purer for me, but wanted to be fair
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.
I really think we should consider this topic and have debates on it.
Thanks for sharing this.
Joseph John I appreciate your thoughtful response here! There is a lot of nuance to a topic like this and I always feel like there is more to learn. Feel free to connect further if you want to chat or share resources.
When you abstain from fleshly lusts, you feel yourself getting stronger mentally and physically, even just in a few days. That's evidence enough alone that there's truth to it.
you may also suffer from a self righteousness like what the Pharisees are charactized by.... common sense and moderation are good tools.
So you become proud of what you do, instead to rely on what Jesus did for you.
Always test if you are in the faith and that everything you do is in faith.
Faith in what? The Bllodatonement of Christ.
Well I guess you're not taking into consideration 1st Corinthians chapter 7:1-5, this is one of the reasons for marriage, v2 "but since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband".
Facts and truth 💯 🙌 👏
Yeah, that was a letter to the Corinthians, because they were exceptionally sinful. Remember, Corinth was like a modern day Las Vegas, a lot of prostitution and debauchery, gambling, partying, sexual immorality.
For the Greeks in Thessalonica, he writes, "Keep at it, because what you're doing is greate already, but keep at it." But yeah, for most people marriage is a healthy way to go, because chastity is unattainable for most people, unfortunately.@@DS-md7jn
This may come as a bit of a shock to most Christians, but the term “fornication” has nothing to do with consensual sex between two persons and has been mistranslated by bible scholars. The root word for fornication is “fornix” which is a Mid-Eastern, French and Latin term for brothel or place of prostitution. Don't believe me? Look it up for yourself.
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/
Thank you for your research, especially for using context, which so many fail to do.
Context is so important in reading the Bible! Grateful to see your value for it in this comment 🙏
What about the constant request in the Bible for virginity until marriage? Both in the old and the new testaments.
hello!! I've been doing a lot of research since my boyfriend and I are considering having intercourse and I don't want to do anything that displeases God. I haven't completed the video yet but is your conclusion that sex before marriage isn't wrong? I'm struggling a lot with this issue since I don't want to do anything that displeases the lord. I've also seen some claims that porneia also says that its wrong to have intercourse merely for pleasure and that contraception is also wrong...to me this makes no sense but is that true? and what is your stance on sex before marriage?
I'm glad that you are looking deeply into this question! Your intention to please God in every part of life will guide you well! The reason I wrote my book is because I had a similar struggle to the one you describe here.
This video introduces my view that porneia means to be dominated by desire instead of being led by the Holy Spirit. What does this mean for the question of premarital sex? If you really want to dive into some answers (and some additional questions that I think you will find helpful), you can find a copy of my book at www.sacrednotsinful.com
If you're on Facebook, I also just did a teaching on the question of where/if the Bible says premarital sex is a sin. I may post it on RUclips, but for now you can access it at facebook.com/groups/lifewideopen
Hebrews 13:4
So… Porneia could be understood to imply a lack of integrity.
It represents being overwhelmed by strong desire not just sexual desire, but maybe for wealth, possessions, power, or prestige…right?
Could this then be linked to envy and covetousness?
Unbridled ambition?
Whether it be a momentary lapse of judgment, or character flaw of indulgent weakness, refusing to admit that it is wrongful, and that such behavior and circumstance should be repented from, is defiant of moral integrity known as righteousness, and the authority of God’s
Word to claim it as such .
Porneia would apply specifically to a person expressing their sexuality in a way that called their integrity into question. It is a helpful concept because it allows us to derive a sexual ethic that is not limited to one particular cultural context. For example, the Greeks would not have judged a person for visiting prostitutes, Americans probably would. Porneia is therefore a call to consider the broader implications of our sexual choices.
Epithumeia (or lust) is the word you are looking for to represent being overwhelmed by strong desire for something. You can see some of my exploration on that topic here: sacrednotsinful.wordpress.com/2023/07/19/lust-is-not-a-sin/
@@drkevinjenson I would be inclined to agree with you, if not for Hebrews 12.
Paul says that we should not be a fornicator and profane, such as Esau, who gave his birthright for a morsel of food.
The Greek word pornos is used in this context, and does not describe any sexual immorality.
He would have inherited God’s blessing, but by his hunger chose to satiate his carnal flesh in exchange for it.
@@dystopic6245 Are you suggesting a broader application of the word porneia to be any use of the body that violates the spiritual identity of the person?
Thank you so very much for this video. This is a topic that’s very sore for me at the moment. I really appreciate the scholarly integrity you appear to have in your research. This video is invaluable to me in my quest for knowledge. Unfortunately I believe my current relationship may be doomed. I was raised in the Mormon church with an INCREDIBLY sex negative worldview, and had suffered numerous sexual traumas as a young child. Sex to me was something to fear and extremely dirty. I am now in my mid 20s, spiritual and religiously unaffiliated, with a tendency towards christianity. I have made massive strides in my life to undo the trauma and harm, and recently, have made a beautiful connection with a woman i love deeply. I finally felt I was in a place where I could comfortably explore my sexuality, I was a virgin when I met her. We were having sex once or twice a week for months and I can honestly say I have never felt a more rich bond with another person. Nearly the entire time with her I even felt a spiritual deepening of the relationship with her AND my relationship with god. However, just a few months ago, she told me she was taking sex off of the table until marriage as it does not glorify god. I cannot relay just how crushed I was to hear that. I realize if that is her relationship with her spirituality there is next to nothing I can do to change that. I just wish christianity wasn’t so sexually repressive, at times it feels as though i’ve had my first and so far only healthy relationship torn away from my hands.
You're welcome! I am glad you found something valuable in my research. It sounds like you've been on quite a journey of discovery 😀
Your approach to honoring your own religious practice as well as the beliefs of your partner are beautiful! However, I know it can be hard when you were on the same page and suddenly something changes. Sexual intimacy can be a deeply vulnerable experience and it takes work to reach the place where a person can be open with themself and God about it. Thanks for sharing your story with me 🙏 If there is anything I can do to support you, please send me a DM.
Well just marry her and promise you will love her and take care of her until death by this covenant before God and men.
@@MerveilleuxConseiller Unsolicited advice on the internet is not always the best reason to pop the question 😂
I've been looking for this summary for ages . Brilliant analysis and makes complete logical sense vs the traditional interpretations, whilst still encompassing / explaining part of the traditional. Bless you brother .
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!
Wow this makes a lot more senses to me honestly. I always was confused about fornication considering the Bible implies that sex creates marriage.
“And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother's death.”
Genesis 24:67
“What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.”
Corinthians 6:16
“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”
Genesis 2:24
Connecting these verses I never understood how fornication makes sense in the context. Especially marriage was not how it is now.
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.
So, do you conclude then that premarital sex is not a sin?
Could you define acts that would represent porneia?
Thank you for your video!
That is the question, isn't it! All this video can conclude is that porneia has a much different definition (lack of sexual integrity) than English speakers have given it (premarital sex). An important point to remember here is that doing anything without a clear conscience can lead to a violation of integrity. I think the New Testament actually puts a lot of the burden of living with integrity back on the individual rather than defining which activities cross the line (i.e. is premarital kissing a sin? What about eye gazing? Mary loving Jesus' body with her hair?). Or, on a positive note, the clear call to love is also not limited to any one form of expression!
@@drkevinjenson I'm really curious what your personal standing point on premarital sex would be, especially in combination with 1. Cor. 7, where Paul says to the unmarried that they shall marry if they cannot withstand the passion.
Imo you can discredit all of the verses that are used to condemn premarital sex except this one (at least I do not see how). Bc if they wouldn't need to marry to have sex why do they need to marry to not burn in passion?
@LordVoldemortYT That is a good question and one that I will explore in more detail in my upcoming book "Christian and Sex Positive." My approach in this video is one that seeks to understand what the Bible says within the context of history, culture, and especially rhetoric (how language is used to express meaning). The outcome, I believe, honors the intention of the authors even as it challenges some traditional ways of thinking. If you're curious to explore further, I'm happy to connect: drkevinjenson.com
@@LordVoldemortYT In the cultural setting of 1 Corinthians 7, there were few holy and safe options for the unmarried to have sex with. Why? Women were under the authority of their male overlord (often their father). Most women were not allowed to have sex unless a dowry was paid and consent was given by the male authority, otherwise it was moicheia (translated as adultery, a form of porneia). Thus, women were typically not free to have sex, and even though men were free most women were off limits. Who then was available? The pornay (a low form of prostitution often connected to enslaved women or idolatry, and other vices). Thus, this too is immoral and not something a Christian should do. In this cultural setting, unmarried people would often (yet not always) be left burning with passion unless married. There were some other options available but they too involved various issues. I address this more comprehensively and with evidence in my book "40 Christian Myths about Sex" on Amazon.
@@LordVoldemortYT what is the context of Paul's admonishment in 1 cor. 7? He is talking to the corinthian church, whose members were both: a) having sex with their father's wives, and/or b) going to pagan temples and engaging in cult sex worship. Paul is telling these people that it is better to marry than to carry on these disgraceful sexual habits.
It literally has nothing to do with premarital sex, which was never made illegal in the old testament law. You need to visit leviticus 18 and see what is considered illicit sexual intercourse according to God's law.
This is such a great topic. I am a christian woman, and a man that I dated earlier this year dumped me because i told him i wasnt having sex til marriage. I had always been told in church that it was a sin to have sex before marriage. I never questioned it. But it broke my heart for my boyfriend to just give up on me like that and i felt the need to do my own biblical research on premarital sex.
I did and i was very surprised to see that nowhere does it state that premarital sex is a sin. It is just strongly insinuated that it is best to wait til marriage to have sex. However i dont feel like its safe to just assume its okay and run with it. There are things in the bible that are not mentioned to be sins, but they are. The bible cannot list every single sin or else it would be endless.
One thing i personally very strongly believe is a sin that the bible doesnt talk about is masturbation. I am a very spiritual type of christian and i am very sensitive to the spiritual realm. I am able to sense when a certain sin opens up the door to demonic consequences. And i will tell you that every time i give into masturbation i get attacked by demons. Sin opens the door to demons. Period. It says that in the bible. So even though the bible doesnt say anything about masturbation, i know its a sin because of the attacks i get after doing so. Its a good thing i dont just assume that its not a sin just because the bible doesn't say anything about it.
And if maturbation is a sin, then why wouldnt premarital sex be?
Id rather be safe than sorry and er on the side of caution when it comes to sexual things. Unless God speaks to me plainly/audibly and tells me that premariral sex and/or masturbation are not sins, i will continue refraining from them.
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?
Thank you for this clear analysis. The problem with teaching as most Christian assemblies do that the body’s desires are evil is in my personal experience it actually leads to more difficulties with the flesh. When God created this world and man and woman he said it is good. I speak to many young men who feel like they have to accomplish the impossible, which is denying the sexual aspects of their nature entirely. This idea that the very thing that God created to ensure the population of the Earth “sexual desire” is a bad thing, is Gnostic at its core. To try to completely deny any sexual aspect to our being is rebellion and perversion. Like the alcoholic who hides bottles anywhere so they can to sneak a drink. People who believe this inevitably develop various and sundry perversions. Of course this leads to hypocrisy if they are professing believers, this I share from bitter experience. Over many years, the Lord has taught me a healthy respect for my body and how to navigate these things with a sound moderation, after much failure I must admit. Above all whether I indulge or abstain is maintaining a clear conscience. Somethings will bring condemnation (self or from others) and should be avoided.
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!
Thank you for your research! Could you please drop some sources to justify this? Thank you
You're welcome! I do believe I am the first scholar to apply this particular method of rhetorical analysis to find the meaning of porneia.
However, I just came across an excellent summary of the research preceding mine that you may find interesting. mikeinsac.com/2023/03/17/nonmaritalsex/ It relates to my contention that porneia does not mean premarital sex, adultery, or homosexuality (as most often presented in churches and "Christian" Greek lexicons), but rather "illicit sexual activity." The focus of my work has been to understand what this word "illicit" or immoral refers to.
You can find the whole story and the rest of my findings in the book "Sacred not Sinful: A New Christian Sexual Ethic" (just published on Amazon) a.co/d/evwcjQz
@@drkevinjenson If you're speaking to the original definition, I found it on Wiki.
Correct me if I'm wrong - 'Porneia' is 'illicit sexual intercourse' - and all illicit sexual intercourse is present in Leviticus 18. If it's not in the Leviticus 18 list, it is legal.
Thanks for your reply, Austin! You have described one of the most common ways of thinking about Porneia. However, there are a couple of issues with it. First, the word comes from Greek origins and is not necessarily a direct reference to the list in Leviticus 18. The relationship with Old Testament law is also different for a Christian than it is for a Jew. For example, baptism has replaced circumcision as a symbol of identification with the Christian community (thankfully).
Second, the meaning of porneia has less to do with legality and more to do with integrity and respectability. This means that even if premarital sex, masturbation, pornography, multiple partners, prostitution, and other kinds of sexual activity are not prohibited for the Israelites in Leviticus 18, they still may fall under the critique of porneia.
@@adultsexeducation-qd3pq I see your point - however, if we look at the application of porneia by Paul and all it's contexts, it always mirrors levitical sexual law.
The Corinthians had trouble with adultery and cultic temple prostitution, so Paul admonished them against it, having his basis in levitical sexual prohibitions.
When Paul advises them to marry, it is as an antidote to this temple prostitution.
If Paul really meant to advise against pre marital sex, wouldn't he of specifically addressed it, instead of using the term "porneia", which accurately references the legality of the levitical 18 list?
Look at the other terms Paul uses in his list of the lusts of the flesh in Galatians 5 - adultery, idolatry, sodomy: all specifically addressed in Leviticus 18.
Paul would not make up new sexual prohibitions beyond Leviticus 18 without being very clear and forward.
And since when is having multiple partners considered low integrity? Paul only advises that leaders in the church avoid polygamy - that's how minor it was. This very clearly implies that Paul was ok with normal church members having multiple wives. (1 tim. 3).
It plainly stated by Paul that avoiding marriage altogether is ideal (1 cor 7), but that having a wife is a slightly lesser but ok substitute. Beyond that is an even slightly lesser substitute, polygamy, but all these levels of conduct are considered respectable.
This should effectively demonstrate how the common and vague interpretation of porneia is erroneous and needlessly stifling.
@Adult Sex Education I'm hesitant to put too much stock in it being "Greek Origin". The New Testament writers wrote the entire New Testament in Greek seemingly. The Hebrew word "Sheol" becomes "Hades" in the New Testament (and in the LXX) but we don't view Hades as the Greek Hades overseen by the Greek God Hades.
In the same vein I would imagine "porneia" was simply the Greek equivalent to whatever the word for "sexual immorality" was in Hebrew, not that it came from the Greek concept of porneia.
When Jesus refers to sexual immorality being what defiles a man to the Jews (which would have been in Aramaic originally) I don't know what else they could have had in mind but the levitical list of sexual immoralities...
The Book of Acts again, in the context of what the Gentiles should follow from the law, has James including Levitical sexual immorality as still being required no no's.
@@youngknowledgeseeker I agree
Hello Austin, I was just thinking about what you said in your comment about Paul's use of the word porneia mirroring the rules we find in Leviticus. While I think this connection is important to consider, we have a maxim in research that says "correlation is not causation." A reflection between the two may be a result of the same underlying principle being applied in both circumstances, not necessarily a direct reference. Especially when it comes to Leviticus, I think we need to be careful about how we bring the Mosaic law into the Christian life. For me, it seems easier to look at Paul's own definition of the term, which more directly reflects Greek culture and the origins of the word, than it does the Mosaic law.
Excelente uma pena que não tenha em língua portuguesa seus livros
🙏 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?
....but fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness let it not be named once among you as becometh saints. Ephesians 5:3.
Thanks for your video, you have a smooth voice and made some great points.
I became a Christian last year and have struggled to find scripture outlining that premarital sex is a sin.
Thanks Cathryn :) It can be a difficult question to explore because the answers people come to are deeply meaningful to them. I'm grateful for the chance to share my perspective. Are you open to share what stood out for you here?
Not only is premarital sex a sin, but all masturbation is a sin. Jesus said, "But I am saying to you, everyone who looks at a woman so as to lust for her, immediately commits adultery with her in his heart." Matthew 5:28
So if even lusting after a woman is a sin, what is premarital sex then?
@@RantTherapist You need to look at the original greek - the word is to "covet" a man's wife - so literally, if you are making plans to covet a man's wife, you might as well of already done it. It has nothing to do with looking at and admiring the beauty of God's creation.
You would be correct Cathryn - premartial sex was never outlawed in the Old Testament or New Testament.
@@changstein Thanks for sharing this. The closest you get to a command about premarital sex is in Deuteronomy 22, but even this refers to adultery and the economic value of virginity.
Moses married Zipporah, a Midianite woman. Seems like that was going outside of his culture, race, and religion. So it seems strange that Moses would condemn this.
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?
We are bound to our covenant spouse until death (1 Cor. 7:39).
NOTHING breaks the covenant but DEATH.
Remarriage is adultery while our covenant spouse lives (Luke 16:18, Mark 10:11-12).
The Matthew “clause” refers strictly to divorce, not remarriage.
There is no such thing as remarriage for the “innocent party.”
The “innocent party” view does not harmonize with 1 Cor. 7:39
Jesus did not permit divorce, because God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16) and because it was not so from the beginning (Matt. 19:8; Mark 10:6).
We cannot separate what God has joined together (Matt. 19:6; Mark 10:9).
The linchpin to understanding the “exception clause” is understanding the AUDIENCE of Matthew. It was Jewish.
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.
We cannot make our own translations the Bible says that my people perish for lack of knowledge please repent and read God's word, don't let your own desires getin the way
Thank you for your thoughts! You have described my reason for doing this research. Lack of knowledge in this area has led to much brokenness and suffering in our world. We need to find the truth in order to heal, and that often requires a process of continual repentance. I know it may not be easy to hear a teaching that challenges tradition, but seeking knowledge is worth a little bit of discomfort, right?
well what is the KJV or any other version but a group of people’s translation?
There are two types of clergy. One is blissfully ignorant. The other is complicit in a conspiracy of deceit.
so does this mean in matt 5:32 the Exception for divorce is more then just sexual immorality. Let's say someone is abusive and is out of line with morality.
The verse you reference is referring to porneia, which is translated as"sexual immorality." I'm not sure you can extend the meaning of the term that far, but I suppose you could try!
I just finished a deep dive into 1 Corinthians 6:16 that may have some interesting perspective on this question...I mentioned your comment there as the study seemed to suggest a broader application of porneia than I have seen so far. Here is the link if you're interested. ruclips.net/user/livel5vpAalnwzU?feature=share
If I would share my experience. Before I got to know God I visited prostitues sometimes. Not because I wouldn't get any sex another way but because it was giving me a kick. But afterwards I always felt extremely dirty and bad! Even before being a christian! When I came to Christ I was in an honest relationship and we will marry in a few months. I never had this feeling with her. So it might be true. The law is written into our hearts. But I will keep praying to Jesus about that.
Thank you for sharing your experience! I love to see how you have been able to notice the way different experiences have affected you and make choices you feel good about! Curious to hear more about where you're growing now...feel free to send me a message!
Thank you for sharing ....my question is still on fornication and adultery .....this issue confusion for myself and also for next generation must be clear
It's a valuable question! Thanks for sharing it 🙂 I recently published a blog post about this at www.sacrednotsinful.com It includes a link to one of the most thoughtful authors on the question.
1Cor.7
[1] Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
[2] Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
How would your reading of this passage change if you consider the meaning of porneia shared in the video?
Where does it say that a person who was divorced by their spouse for any reason can remarry? The man can, if he divorces her, but there is no provision for the wife. Can you read please Matthew 19:9? That is where the exception is. The exception is for "immorality." "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.” Matthew 19:9 NKJV Do you know what an exception is? Webster's Dictionary defines "Exception" as follows: "A case to which a rule does not apply."
If we apply similar logic (about men vs women) to Jesus' teaching on lust in Matthew 5:28, we would have to conclude that anyone who is not male has free license to indulge in lust. I don't think that's the case. We have to understand the context that Jesus was speaking to in each of these passages or we end up missing the point of their inclusion in the text and how the verses may apply today. In this respect, I appreciate your insight that a woman could not initiate divorce in that culture. Does that mean we cannot apply the same spiritual principle to both men and women?
Perhaps we have more to discuss, however, I have not done an extensive teaching on Matthew 19 yet. Maybe I'll dive in tonight :)
The exception clause in Matthew 19 is referring to "porneia," which is where this video is somewhat helpful. However, this video focuses on the use of that term post-resurrection of Christ. In Matthew, Jesus is likely using that term with it's Old Testament meanings and the specific context of the question. Here's a link to a great article providing more background context. Let me know if you want to chat further...
margmowczko.com/jesus-divorce/
I know that all of the Marriage Permanence doctrine folks believe in exceptions that are clearly written in the Bible. How do I know this? READ THIS: John 3:3-7 KJV "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, EXCEPT A MAN BE BORN AGAIN, he cannot see the kingdom of God." AGAIN (TWICE NOW): Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, EXCEPT A MAN BE BORN OF WATER AND OF THE SPIRIT, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." So there are two more EXCEPTIONS SPOKEN BY JESUS! No man can enter the kingdom of God, EXCEPT HE IS BORN AGAIN !!! These folks do accept the exceptions written in John, now these folks should also accept the exceptions written in Matthew, all of these spoken by Jesus Christ Himself. Without these exceptions (that we must be born again), written in John, we cannot enter into the kingdom of God !!! We must accept the exceptions when Jesus gives the exceptions, in Matthew, in John, or wherever that they may be written in the Bible.
Thank you for your open minded approach. @@drkevinjenson I asked artificial intelligence for an unbiased interpretation of Matthew 19:9 at face value: Here was the result: "In Matthew 19:9, Jesus provides an exception to the prohibition of divorce and remarriage, stating that sexual immorality (often interpreted as adultery) is a valid reason for divorce. The verse states, "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery." This exception clause indicates that if a spouse engages in sexual immorality, the innocent party is allowed to divorce and potentially remarry without committing adultery. It is important to note that interpretations of this passage may vary among different Christian denominations." (an unbiased interpretation of a literal reading of Matthew 19:9, from artificial intelligence on January 9, 2024).
@AffectionateAcorn-xc9jf I asked artificial intelligence for an unbiased interpretation of Matthew 19:9 at face value: Here was the result: "In Matthew 19:9, Jesus provides an exception to the prohibition of divorce and remarriage, stating that sexual immorality (often interpreted as adultery) is a valid reason for divorce. The verse states, "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery." This exception clause indicates that if a spouse engages in sexual immorality, the innocent party is allowed to divorce and potentially remarry without committing adultery. It is important to note that interpretations of this passage may vary among different Christian denominations." (an unbiased interpretation of a literal reading of Matthew 19:9, from artificial intelligence on January 9, 2024).
Dear friends, Please refrain from ad-hominem attacks on this platform. They do not help your argument and create an unsafe space for dialogue. I have had to remove two of your comments. If you would like to dive deeper into your questions, please send me a message and/or try another comment spiced with curiosity and kindness.
too much, as sex, out of the marriage covenant has a term....adultery....and what about the issue, of Joseph and Mary.....what term would one use, to describe what he thought Mary had committed....
My ongoing study on this topic suggests that adultery has to do specifically with the marital status of the woman. It is an important distinction to make as it does not refer to sex outside of marriage generally.
For a man, it refers to sex with a married woman (who belongs to another man). For a married woman, it may refer to sex with any man who is not her husband. Here is a link to my book where you can dive deeper into this topic if you are curious. a.co/d/iiRKNjs
Anything done in excess or out of control is sinful. I believe that is what fornication is. Everyone will not get married and everyone is not called to celibacy.
Hello Jenise, the definition you shared here is very much aligned with the Greek perspective on morality, or finding the middle way and avoiding excess in life. Self-control is also one of the fruits of the spirit and often used by Paul to describe the opposite of porneia. However, as I shared in the video, the word fornication has a very specific meaning (consensual sex between two unmarried people), which is not really connected to the definition you thared or to the use of porneia in the New Testament.
I'm going to add something else that has to do with incest, blood touching blood, a child gets it's blood from both the mother and father, a child born from one woman by two different men are related by blood, if one is male and the other is female, they cannot marry or breed children, they would be too closely related, by blood, you would have to figure out their relationship to each other by blood and not by law, in one case you could marry your step sister, in another case you couldn't, that's another reason a woman was bound by law but what kind of woman and what kind of man are they?
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
i am well aware of temple prostitution at that time
Amazing! Tell us more about how you see this fits with the idea I proposed here in the video...
Interesting Bible study
Thank you 😀 If you ever want to join in, I hold a live Bible study on RUclips each Sunday at 8pm EST.
Are you against interracial marriage?
I think it is beautiful :) ...and in today's world, pretty much every race is so mixed that it's inevitable. I bring it up because there were clear Old Testament laws prohibiting marriage with certain non-Jewish people groups. Interracial marriage is one of the specific meanings of sexual immorality in the Old Testament and may even be what Jesus is referring to in the exception clause of Matthew 19 (because inter-racial marriage was not considered to be spiritually legitimate by the teachers of the law - see Ezra 10).
@@drkevinjenson ok good. You made me nervous. Lol.
I wish I could find all the video's on this word fornication and get them to understand what it means, it's NOT just a single sexual sin, it's a summary of ALL the forbidden sexual laws in the old testament, you could say it's any act of sexual contact forbidden in the law and the prophets, I can list all of them for you so your not app to dream up something that's not written, many do, the bible says don't go beyond what is written, many do, anyway, sex before marriage is not a sin, that is not forbidden between two single adults not a child, Lev. 15:16-24 will show you this, the " any man " in the sentence that lies with her is not married nor is she, if she was married it would be adultery, if he was married it would be whoredom, whoredom is known by the prophets that describe the person doing it as having many lovers, which is actually more than he needs, this is a problem with today's society that law can do nothing about, people cheating on their girlfriend or boyfriend, which is what she should be to have permission to have sex, it MUST be of mutual consent, if not, it's rape and rape was against the law in the old testament, laws that pertained to children and married person's differ from the single man and woman, too many people confuse them and make them all want to mean the same thing, it's a lack of knowledge doing so, not to mention how ridiculous it is to be forbidden to have sex before you get married, back then, no one believed that, the betrothed were permitted sexual contact for this reason, knowledge, what's he or she going to be like when their in their right mind, not using marriage as a way to justify sex, knowing this feeling they have for the other person which is love but it's only sexual love, that's the worst of all reason's to get married, especially once you do it's almost impossible to get out of, it takes TIME to determine the right person for you and it takes knowledge, both parties will be putting on a act in the beginning, they show their best behavior, he's a king and she's a queen, it's when the love grows cold they will become who they really are, then and only then the temptation comes, not when what they feel is strong but when it's weak, it's at this time your in danger of sinning, either cheating or arguing to the point you need to divorce, if they haven't cheated on you, you will begin to look for excuses, it's in these excuses where many will deceive you, Jesus said there was NO EXCUSE other than sexual unfaithfulness, now you are trapped, you will be sinning if you remarry another, you never should have gotten married in the first place if your not going to be responsible for what you created in a marriage, this translation of sexual immorality is WRONG, it's wrong because of what everyone believes sexual immorality can mean, just looking at a woman having sex thoughts is immoral to some, let alone the length of the list would be trying to define all the things viewed as sexually immoral that men and women do, especially in the bedroom with each other that's no one's business but their own, God said, if you make a vow to Him and don't perform it, He will call it SIN in you, Jesus said don't make any vows to God because you don't know what tomorrow will bring, the marriage vows are for LIFE, not just until you change your mind, vows you shouldn't be making in the first place are the vows that will judge you, promise someone you will do something and don't do it, see if God lets you off IF your conscience is not dead, remarriage for Christians is NOT allowed unless it's the sin of fornication=breaking the forbidden sexual laws in the bible, no other excuse according to Jesus will work for divorce and remarriage, a man that got caught by his wife looking at porn will surely say that's sexually immoral, I can divorce him, her not judging herself and why he's looking at porn could be the reason he's looking at porn in the first place, she's not doing her job, he's hungry and she won't feed him, I hate going into the porn thing because so many use it as a excuse for divorce but I know without a doubt that what the eyes see is NOT a sin but what could cause you to sin, therefore if thy eye will cause you to sin then it's better to pluck it out, again, what is the sin? breaking any of the sexual laws forbidden in the old testament by Moses and the prophets, don't ADD to His word nor TAKE away from it, making excuses is adding to His word, which Moses did that Jesus forbid, taking away from His word will cause many to sin, you cannot justify divorce and remarriage by excuses, Jesus won't buy it, if he or she hasn't cheated on you sexually through adultery, incest, too close of a relative, mother and daughter or threesomes, animal sex, same sex, rape, maybe some others but NEVER the unmarried man and woman that are NOT children still under their fathers care, only in the prophets whoredom, having more than one lover was forbidden, which is what prostitutes and whoremongers do, there is no judgement on the faithful and shouldn't be
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
Galatians 5:16 NIV: "So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh."
So this is also just a translation issue? I guess Apostle Paul was confused.
It is more likely that modern readers without a background of history, theology, culture, and linguistics have misinterpreted the intended meaning of a brilliant first century scholar. It is easier to read a meaning into the text that we already understand than it is to humbly seek for wisdom.
@@drkevinjenson Then why does Apostle Peter also say in 1 Peter 2:11 "Beloved, as pilgrims and travelers in this world, abstain from fleshly lusts, as they wage war against our souls"?
Notice how he specifically says fleshly lusts, not general lusts or passions. Hmm, maybe you know better than the apostles, well-read beardman.
@@drkevinjenson Then why did Jesus say if you lust after a woman by looking at her you've already sinned in your heart? Is that also a translation issue?
Enlighten us, wonderful bearded scholar.
@@RantTherapist The word used in that passage is adultery ("moixeia") not "porneia."
I need to add to my comment this for clarification of 1 cor. 7, it might help, " It's good for a man not to touch a woman " what kind of man? what kind of woman? I know who the man is and it's NOT just any man and the woman is not just any woman, the man is one whom leads or teaches or has authority over someone else's wife and she's not just a wife but one with children, the Greek word is yuvalkoc, the same word used to describe Lot's wife only the children are not mentioned, the word itself implies children only their not mentioned, we all know Lot didn't just have a wife, I can tell you now that doesn't apply to a man and his wife nor his betrothed nor his girlfriend as long as it's MUTUAL, Paul NEVER teaches the married ANYTHING about sex or what they can or can not do, that was unlawful at their time to do, for good reason, the wife should LEARN from her OWN husband, not the husband of another, specifically on sexual matters, for another good reason, not all men are the same, there's not a single word in the bible that tells a man or a woman what they can do sexually together, it's a area of FAITH or belief, nothing is forbidden sexually between them except whatever the LAW says IS forbidden, now do what many on the internet are doing attempting to tell married people what's allowed and what is not, that in it's self creates DOUBT, NO ONE should be teaching ANYTHING beyond what is mutual between the two, these people want to create laws that don't exist which creates further DOUBT, who goes around saying to themselves, Lord is this or that okay to do when it's NOT in the LAW, many do and these people are under a CURSE for not knowing the LAW, God's law specifically if you follow the belief in God or Jesus, I go into these videos where people are teaching masturbation is a sin, using a scripture that is mistranslated in the KJ version concerning desiring a woman sexually is committing adultery in their heart, it's apparent to me they don't know what adultery is because they include the single man and single woman in their understanding, what I see is MANY, not a few either that are slaves to sin, but not sin that God would call sin but rather sin that men call sin, to those believing it's a sin, it's SO VERY HARD to quit and for some IMPOSSIBLE, the evidence is overwhelming in the comment sections, they are SLAVES to sin and what makes it worse is not a single one of these video's show any of them how to actually overcome it other than just resist it or SUFFER, masturbation is NOTHING NEW, it's only a modern word used for self love or loving yourself, that was NOT viewed as a sin but rather taught that loving yourself was loving God because God loved them, only in the LAW it was clear on whom NOT to covet=desire, another man's "wife" nor his servants nor anything that he possessed, that didn't include his daughter, if that was the case, no one would get married, for a single man masturbating focusing on a single woman while doing so is NOT a sin, I'm going to take this a step farther too because many don't understand this either, there is NOTHING the eye's can see that is a sin, there is only what the eye's can see that can CAUSE a man to sin, sin is breaking the LAW, if your eye's cause you to commit adultery, incest, rape, desire the same sex, cheat one your woman or man or any other forbidden sexual sin WRITTEN in the LAW and the prophets, PLUCK IT OUT, if it can't cause you to sin then your STRONG in the faith=belief=keeping the commandments, if your weak in the faith=belief=keeping the commandments, then by all means, DON'T go to the beach, don't watch TV, don't go shopping, don't go anywhere where there's beautiful women that's NOT SINGLE, what should be being taught in church's isn't being taught but condemned, having sex and not being married, that's turning more people AWAY from God than it is drawing them to God where God can teach them about faithfulness, there is NO JUDGEMENT on the faithful, only the unfaithful, what boyfriend and girlfriend and the betrothed and the single man and woman should be learning is faithfulness to the one their with sexually, that includes holding hands, hugging, kissing as well as sexual intercourse, what is happening rather now is SO MANY are turning away from God even giving up the belief in God and becoming atheist because that's NOT what God is telling them in their hearts, they only have two choices, either conform or go to hell, if they conform their lives are no better than going to hell, don't believe it? just see how many in the church are only married or the children of the married or the friends of the children of the married, this is a classic example of what the pharisee's did in Jesus time that He condemned by what they taught, they made it too hard on those that were seeking God or serving God to do so, Jesus said His commandments are NOT HARD, just go read the comments, the evidence is overwhelming what's being taught about masturbation is not only hard but impossible for many, to make matters worse, their told to PRAY about it and God is NOT going to answer a prayer for something He's NOT AGAINST, here's the real kicker, the very one's teaching what their teaching are ALL guilty of doing it only their hearts were not right, it's NOT a sin to love yourself especially when you have no one to love you, it's actually no different than being hungry, once the stomach has eaten the thought of needing something to eat STOPS, now you can focus on something other than food, sex is no different, get it out and then you can focus on something other than sex, you actually then have a clear mind that can think about something other than your desire, I would really like to go in to what causes the desire in the first place that the devil did NOT create but the short answer is testosterone and hormones, it begins at puberty and will last until they decline in your body, for most it's a lifelong battle, only for one man and one woman in the beginning was it told to be fruitful and multiply, the multiply is easy, being fruitful is not so easy when the love grows cold, but it means PLEASE EACH OTHER, be GOOD to EACH OTHER, LOVE EACH OTHER, we can apply it to any relationship whether it be husband and wife, man or woman, to tell the truth though it's not husband and wife in the beginning nor can it be, it had to be man and woman because there was no LAW at that time, the very words husband and wife apply to LAW, it didn't exist in Adams time so Adam couldn't have possibly said for this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, the ancient Hebrew word used when translated to Greek was yuvalkl, not yuvalka, in Matthews account not Marks, Matthew is correct, not Mark, the reason a man then left his father and mother was because he was searching for a woman for LOVE not marriage and in the process of TIME these two would become ONE, that oneness is NOT the same as being one in BODY which sexual intercourse does when two make love, for two shall become one is in a CHILD, the child is one of his flesh and one of her flesh, it's these two that Jesus said whomsoever God had joined together let no one separate, whom God had joined together by LOVE, God is LOVE and yes He's also sexual love but what He's NOT is adultery, incest, whoredom, man on man sex, woman on woman sex, what else other than fornication that is forbidden in the LAW and the prophets, there's another I didn't mentioned but at that time was believed, any Jew marrying a gentile was forbidden which Paul refers to in 1 cor. 7 and gives permission to leave the unbeliever, God forbid any Jew being a Jew that didn't believe in the true God that worshipped other gods, how many divorces have happened over excuses or one saying the other is not a believer because he or she don't think or believe like we do in our church, Jesus gave only ONE excuse and that excuse would have been any act of sexual unfaithfulness of the one they were married to, the very word unbeliever opens the door for ANY EXCUSE which is nothing more than what Moses taught that Jesus opposed, that's NOT all of what I need to say but all I should say, what I have said I know will NOT agree with what you read and how you read it, all I know is what I see and what I see scares me, iniquity=deception is on the rise, the love of many IS growing cold and for some has stopped altogether, it really makes me think Jesus will come back soon, not because the church is growing but rather falling away, why are so many leaving the church? why are so many becoming atheist? I know why, they really have no other choice, the workers of iniquity are on the rise and the internet is aiding them, they no longer have to sneak into a man's house to steal his wife, they can do it right here or on her phone, they have the ability to turn her against her husband IF he is not like them then justify her when she divorces him for an excuse and I'm talking about a LAW abiding man that works and takes care of his family BUT watches porn or something like it and got caught loving himself not realizing that if that woman just fed him like she should he wouldn't have that desire, I see it all the time, I hear it all the time, what should I do? my husband watches porn, that's sexual immorality, can I divorce him NOW? that word sexual immorality is too broad, what is good to one is evil to another and visa versa, it's a word that even worse than fornication because it can't be defined, it can mean anything related to sex that's immoral to another, I'm running out of space, will end here
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
Buddhist monks solved this by tacitly encouraging same sex relationships
Can you provide more information? That sounds like an interesting approach...
So, your whole treatise is centered around the word fornication meaning "premarital sex." You accuse the writers of the KJV of "intermixing Biblical and cultural perspectives by the use of the word fornication, where readers of the N.T. may struggle to see the message it contains."
So, what you are saying is that you are more enlightened to Greek culture, than Biblical N.T. authors and the writers of the KJV? And your source is from whom?
However, you are the one doing what you accuse the Biblical authors and writers of KJV doing - "intermixing Biblical and cultural perspectives," by saying fornication means premarital sex, which, by all means, induces a struggle to "see the message contained." Biblically, "premarital sex" does not exist.
Biblically, this concept is impossible. The dictionary definition of fornication, as being "premarital sex, is a secular definition regarding two people being sexually intimate before they acquire a secular marriage license. This concept never existed in the O.T. or the N.T. You are right, the authors writings "do not align with 'contemporary' understanding of porneia, as premarital sex."
Your ignorance in describing fornication as one "certain" activity is the fallacy - the fallacy of modern Christianity. Prostitution (porneia) occurred in many forms in Greek culture, as it did in Hebrew culture.
What existed was:
1. Adultery (being married (sexual intimacy) to two of the opposite sex or being married (sexual intimacy) to someone who has already married (sexual intimacy) another.
2. Homosexuality (two of the same gender being sexually intimate).
3. Bestiality (sexual intimacy with an animal)
These all defile (fornicate) a Christian's regenerated body, making them incapable of ever having a legitimate marriage before God.
You stated, the term "sexual immorality is ambiguous?" I don't know how you can say this? Are not adultery, homosexuality, and bestiality immoral sexual engagements? Where is the ambiguity?
All these immoral sexual activities occurred in Greek times, as well as Biblical times, which when engaged in were considered immoral, even to the point of a death sentence. As the Hebrew writer wrote in 13:4 "Marriage is honorable and the bed undefiled, but whoremongers and adulterers shall be judged." What this is saying is that only a legitimate sexual joining between a male and female is an honorable marriage, and all other sexually deviant engagements are defiling and illegitimate and will face the judgment of God.
Your accusation that "none of the N.T. "authors" directly say that "premarital or extramarital sex is sinful" is pure foolishness and ignorance. First, as I said, there is no "premarital sex," whereas "extramarital sex" would involve all that I listed above, which would be sexual engagements that defile a legitimate marriage and were considered sinful to the extreme. Also, what the N.T. "authors" wrote were not based upon "theological understandings," "traditions," or "culture," as you claim. They were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Fornication was very "contextual," and concerns of "personal integrity" had very little to do with it. Your perceptions are skewed.
You stated, "the word prostitution acquired a more negative connotation when it was applied to individuals and was no longer positive?" How did you determine that it was ever viewed positively?
"You used the phrase "formally sanctioned marriage." Formally sanctioned by whom? Men? Men did not design marriage. Secular prescriptions, conclusions, or rituals do not dictate marriage for anyone before God.
Your description of "Esau" is also not accurate, which indicates, you don't know the word of God. Esau's behavior was not "governed by his physical appetites," whereby culminating into "abandoning the promise of God." The writers never "interpreted it this way." In fact, Scripture doesn't agree with you. It declares, "Esau despised his birthright." Yes, he had "no integrity." That lack of integrity is seen in him not having any respect for, but despising things that were holy and pure. It wasn't just the birth right, but even in his marriages, which grieved his parents and then trying to steal the birth right back again from Jacob, which God made sure Jacob got. I know seminarians don't teach this.
No! 1Thes. 4:3 does not "imply the 'contemporary' definition of porneias" for the reason I state above. Of course, it doesn't align with your "contemporary" definitions. It never can and never will.
Yes! 1Cor. 6:13 does "lose most of its significance as a moral framework, if the word porneia simply means fornication." At least according to your definition of fornication, but not the true Biblical definition of fornication, where it has real significance.
Eph. 5 has nothing to do with fornication being hidden or of "secrecy." It is all about it never should happen, and if it does, a negative consequence will be the result.
In Gal. 5, Paul is again describing actions included with fornication that result in a negative outcome. All these carnal behaviors, including Fornication (immoral sexual engagements) will result in a loss of spiritual blessings.
Lastly, I noticed you didn't include 1Cor. 6:18 "Flee fornication. Every sin that a man does is without the body, but he that commits fornication sins against his own body." According to your definition of fornication, this verse speaks against your claim that "none of the N.T. authors directly said that premarital sex was sinful." And if you were to be correct, it would mean that one would have sinned against their body by committing it. However, he is not alluding to your definition, but those things that I have described, as being fornication. Sexual engagements that defile the flesh. It means, not only have you done wrong in doing such ungodly deeds, but you have done wrong to your body. You have made it unfit to every have a holy undefiled marriage with another before God. Celibacy is your only lot. Any sexual engagement with the opposite sex that you might think is alright will be defiled and fornicated.
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.
The important thing is the more partners the more difficult it is to bond to your current partner, the more jealousy (including that nasty bugger retroactive jealousy) can destroy relationships. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve or Adam and 5 wives.
This is a little off the topic of translating porneia, but I'm curious to look into this idea of a connection between jealousy and number of partners. Can you share a source for this information?
Well, this is a complicated subject, and I'm writing here in general. In terms of retroactive jealousy, it seems that some men reject women who have had more partners than themselves, because of an ego problem, since they are not virgins themselves, thus having a double standard. In the Old Testament it seems one had sex and that meant that one was married, or even during the engagement time - we would consider that premarital sex. Why is it that some men can be happily married to a former prostitute and others are disgusted and even divorce their wife when finding out she had more or different sexual activities in her past than he did. Maybe someone should write a paper on that. By the way, I believe God can erase our memory if we ask Him, not just sexual past, but other things we can't change and still bother us. Which fixes what your question was about, that the glue of sex will work again in marriage (after promiscuity). @@drkevinjenson
Write it in Greek, Πορνεία.
nice try with the beard and glasses but we all know it is you, Kirk Cameron.
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?
Hebrews 13:4!
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.
Jesus said if your right hand causes you to sin, you're better off to cut it off. That is a direct quote about masturbation.
That is an interesting claim! How did you come up with it?
@@drkevinjenson I've been trying to cut off my right hand. How else?
@@RantTherapist Here is a video I made on how to overcome lust that you might find helpful: ruclips.net/video/g13FGa-6bxE/видео.html
3 Simple Steps to Overcome Lust...that you can use today!
Onanism is a failure to obey God's orders. It is not the spilling of the seed that was wrong, but the disobeying of God's order to procreate with his brother's wife.
Therefore it is not a sin, and you can retain your hand.
@@RantTherapist Could also be stealing, killing someone, performed with the right hand, Im currently celebate as it feels purer for me, but wanted to be fair
Rubbish. The Anglican church had abandoned clerical celibacy and monasticism.
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.