Something on "Porneia"

Of course, the question about the meaning of “porneia” arises because Jesus says that it (“porneia”) is the only reason for an actual (scriptural) “disjoining” of a marriage by “divorce” (cf. Mat. 5:32; 19:9). So, what should we read “porneia” to refer to?

First, it is worth throwing this out immediately: many of the modern translations are doing quite poorly on “porneia.” For instance, on Matthew 5:32, several of the versions render “porneia” as “sexual immorality” (NKJV; NIV; ESV; CSB; NASB20), “immorality” (NASB95; NET) or “unchastity” (RSV). BUT, interestingly, on Matthew 5:32, the NKJV has a footnote: “fornication.” Set all of this over against the older translations that plainly render “porneia” as “fornication” (KJV; ASV).

Then, on Matthew 19:9, the modern versions are rendering “porneia” as “sexual immorality” (NKJV; NIV; ESV; CSB; NASB20) “immorality” (NASB95; NET) and “unchastity” (RSV), whereas the older translations, again, plainly render “porneia” as “fornication” (KJV; ASV). AND, interestingly, again, the NASB95 has a footnote that says, “Literally, fornication.”

So, a few observations are in order. First, the contrast is clear enough: “fornication” is narrow, whereas “sexual immorality” (or especially, “immorality” alone) is quite broad. And, this rightly raises the question, “Which translation should be preferred?” Second, it is interesting that an occasional (foot)note (as in the NKJV or NASB95) calls specific attention to “fornication” as the literal rendering. Now, for the life of me, I can't figure out why the most “literal” translation – in this case – would not be provided by the translators – it is not as though a “literal” translation renders the phraseology “senseless” in this case (as it might be in other cases of word-for-word, literal translation). BUT, it is also the case that “sexual immorality” or “unchastity” (or “immorality”) are probably understood, in these contexts, of carrying/implying the “unfaithfulness” of the spouse. (Isn't that implied in the texts, themselves?) But, still, because of the ambiguity in the English about the extent, these more modern translations are certainly “watering down” and not conveying a precise sense to the average/common English reader and therefore the translations are quite poor (to put it nicely).

But, is the claim that these modern translations have gotten it wrong able to be proven? Absolutely.

I'm hanging around the “Theological Dictionary of the New Testament” (TDNT), which is the most comprehensive documentation of the Greek of the New Testament. Those volumes aren't interested in theological bias but simply in documenting how the Greek words are used. What do they have for us? (Of course, if you don't have access, shoot me an email; I'll send you a scan.)

First, they document how “porneuo” (and the related words) are used in the Old Testament. The Hebrew equivalent is “zanah.” So, when the Greek translators (the Septuagint, LXX) started their translation (circa 280 B.C. or later?), they used “porneia” (and the related words) for the Hebrew “zanah.” Now, the interesting thing, as TDNT documents, is that INTERCOURSE is a consistent element in the texts. Let me say it again . . . CONSISTENTLY, INTERCOURSE IS PRESENT IN THE TEXTS TRANSLATING “PORNEIA.” Let me say it another way; there is NEVER a case where “porneia” conveys a weakened sense, a sense that is void of “intercourse.”

Second, this is true in the New Testament, as it is in the Old. After all, the Septuagint (Greek OT) appears, in many ways, to be preferred by the New Testament writers. So, it is no shock that they're using “porneia” in the same way that the Greek Old Testament did/does. In the case of the New Testament use, it, too, NEVER provides a case of “porneia” where “intercourse” is lacking.

So, let's see if we can't draw some major conclusions . . .

First, whatever “porneia” involves, it must be “intercourse.” This is a simple fact. A consistent analysis shows that “intercourse” is consistently present in the sense conveyed by the word.

Second, conversely, “porneia” never is void of “intercourse.” In other words, to try to weaken “porneia” to something without the act of “intercourse” is a farce. The evidence is completely against this, since there is no evidence for such and unanimous evidence to suggest that “intercourse” is involved.

Now, what constitutes “intercourse” is another question; it appears that the idea is SOMEWHAT of an umbrella term, including acts of sodomy, incest, homosexuality and adultery. But, what specific act constitutes it? Well, it seems clear that there is AN ACT – a physical act – with an additional party. (How do you typically understand one to mean “intercourse”?!) It is more than lust or masturbation; THE DATA WILL NOT ALLOW MERE “LUST” AND/OR MASTURBATION to fit the idea of “porneia.” Again, that sort of idea is NEVER conveyed in a single instance in all of the data. That is significant. If one is to argue for a lust/masturbation definition of the word, there is going to have to be some evidence produced for it, but this is simply not how the data reflects the matter.

I'm not interested in trying to lay out all of the specifics on “intercourse.” I think that the matter is clear enough, especially in light of what we've already noted.

Finally, why is this an issue? Well, it is becoming a more modern problem that spouses are watching pornography . . . Ugh . . . And this is becoming a case where some attempt to “put away” the spouse over such. That's just not to be done. Whatever Jesus means in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9, the data WILL NOT ALLOW an understanding of the texts to weaken “porneia” to something like lust/masturbation. The evidence is just not there.

This final little remark is NOT an argument as much as an observation – if “porneia” were to be reduced to mere “lust” (an immorality of a sexual nature), we'd have Jesus saying that the only reason for one to “disjoin” a marriage by a scriptural “putting away” would be over even the slightest notion of “lust.” Now, IF THAT'S WHAT HE SAID, THEN THAT'S WHAT HE SAID. But, I'm persuaded that that doesn't reflect the data. I think that this would really make Jesus' teaching on MDR “useless” and loose. In other words, spouses could “put away” spouses simply because the husband “looked” at another woman – fully clothed, that is! Now, what if the husband denies any “lust”?! He says, “I wasn't lusting at all! You're out of your head!” With Matthew 19:9 being read this loosely, couldn't the wife still (in her mind) be justified to “put away” the spouse on such a notion?! This kind of reading is just simply not the point that Jesus is making contextually or linguistically.

So, what should we do with all of this?

I think that we should realize that the people who are struggling in their marriages with or without pornography need a different cure than a divorce.

If the husband/wife is struggling with lust/pornography, he/she needs to self-reflect first and start – if he/she hasn't already – fighting against such an urge. The sexual satisfaction needs to come only in the arranged way that God has designed in marriage. (This is not to oppress us; God has actually designed this for our good; it is best . . . though it may be difficult, at times, to see. But, the covenantal loyalty that we want from our spouses should also be shown by us! And, that's how “faithful” God is, too.)

On the other hand, maybe “needs” are not being met and the spouse is not even trying to give the sexual satisfaction that SHOULD exist in marriage (cf. 1 Cor. 7:1-5 esp.). Maybe, the spouse that has been “wronged” by the other's lust/pornography/masturbation is not actually doing his/her part to aid the spouse in this environment? I'd remind that “the word of the cross” is formative here . . . If we recover the theology of Christ's act on the cross, we find a human, Jesus, who embodied perfect selfless, sacrificial, forgiving love. If we “take up the cross,” die to self and follow Him (cf. Mk. 8:34), we will APPLY “the cross” to our marriages, be selfless, be sin-bearing, be grief-bearing, be caring, be sacrificial, be loving . . . Maybe, there is a spouse or two “out there” that needs to employ the word of the cross, dig deep and live out its implications IN THE ENVIRONMENT OF MARRIAGE.

There are some good books (in addition to the biblical teachings) on the matter. “His Needs, Her Needs” is from Willard Harley, a clinical psychologist, who demonstrates well how marriage actually works best when both spouses commit to being selfless, sacrificial and loving. It's amazing how a genuine selfless act of bringing the wife flowers can result in a night in the bedroom, and it's amazing how a night in the bedroom can result in the husband's taking the wife shopping. It's almost as if committing to being genuinely selfless, sacrificial and loving can result in exactly what we always wanted and needed as spouses. BUT, this takes two. And, the pattern is best seen in Jesus, who was a perfect spouse, calls on us (the NT church) to be one, and this means a complete self-emptying and submission.

I might add, as a final note, that a fake act of selflessness or sacrifice will never do. People are smart, and our spouses know when we do acts only in hopes of a return for our own selfish pleasure. That won't go. We, males and females, need to “take up the cross,” love more deeply, like Jesus did, and perhaps, then, when we've committed ourselves to being the loving, loyal spouse, our marriages will head off in the direction that we both have always wanted them to go.