Tag Archives: 1 Corinthians 5:1

Paul’s Religious Mind Revisited, Part 3

Posted on by

The movie Spotlight is named after a team of investigative journalists at the Boston Globe.  They pierce a smokescreen of secrecy—fueled by police, prosecutors, defense attorneys, businessmen, civil servants, their own bosses and colleagues, even their own subconscious desires to protect the reputation of the Catholic Church—to shine a spotlight on priests’ abuse of children, both sexual and spiritual, in articles published in 2002.  There are spoilers here.  Though the film is based on actual events and people, I’m writing about characters in a movie, including the Catholic Church.

The scope of investigative journalist Mike Rezendes’ (Mark Ruffalo) research is broadened by phone conversations with Richard Sipe (Richard Jenkins – voice only), a psychiatrist and former priest, who treated pedophile priests during the last half of the 1960’s.  I quote one of their conversations, more personal than professional.

“Richard, do you still go to mass?” Mike asks.

“No.  No, I haven’t been to church for some time now.  But I still consider myself a Catholic.”

“How does that work?”

“Well, the church is an institution, Mike, made of men.  It’s passing.  My faith is in the eternal.  I try to separate the two.”

“Sounds tricky.”

“It is,” Richard agrees.

Cardinal Law (Len Cariou) presides over a shell game in the Boston Archdiocese, moving pedophile priests from parish to parish.  A super at the end of Spotlight reads, “In December 2002, Cardinal Law resigned from the Boston Archdiocese.  He was reassigned to the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome, one of the highest ranking Roman Catholic churches in the world.”

The producers expect us to feel a certain way about that fact.  I want to use it to distinguish church—a not-for-profit business—from what I’ll call ἐκκλησία, those called by God through Jesus Christ to be led by his Holy Spirit.  Cardinal Law was promoted by the church.  He was a company man defending it from scandal.  Richard says: “the secretary-canonist for the papal nuncio…co-authored a report warning pedophile priests were a billion-dollar liability” sixteen years earlier than the present in the film.  But this faithfulness to the church doesn’t work out so well for the ἐκκλησία, especially the little ones Jesus mentioned (Matthew 18:6, Mark 9:42, Luke 17:1, 2).

Spotlight editor Walter “Robby” Robinson (Michael Keaton) threatens attorney Eric Macleish (Billy Crudup)—who profited settling child abuse cases against the Church privately—for information and confirmation: “We’ve got two stories here.  We’ve got a story about degenerate clergy, and we’ve got a story about a bunch of lawyers turning child abuse into a cottage industry.  Now, which story do you want us to write?”  Later however Robby admits regretfully:

“We had all the pieces.  Why didn’t we get it sooner?…Macleish sent us a letter on 20 priests, years ago…We buried the story in Metro.  No folo.”

“That was you,” Robby’s boss Ben Bradlee, Jr. (John Slattery) says.  “You were Metro.”

“Yeah.  That was me.  I’d just taken over.  I don’t remember it at all.  But yeah…”

Paul was concerned with both, the church and the ἐκκλησία, without distinguishing between the two.

church

ἐκκλησία
When any of you has a legal dispute with another, does he dare go to court before the unrighteous rather than before the saints?….So if you have ordinary lawsuits, do you appoint as judges those who have no standing in the church?  I say this to your shame!  Is there no one among you wise enough to settle disputes between fellow Christians?  Instead, does a Christian sue a Christian, and do this before unbelievers?

1 Corinthians 6:1, 4-6 (NET)

 The fact that you have lawsuits among yourselves demonstrates that you have already been defeated.  Why not rather be wronged?  Why not rather be cheated?  But you yourselves wrong and cheat, and you do this to your brothers and sisters!

1 Corinthians 6:7, 8 (NET)

His most beautiful words to the ἐκκλησία and to the church are his words on love.  In his letter to the Corinthians love was presented as one way, albeit, a way that is beyond comparison,[1] a more excellent way (KJV), a still more excellent way (ESV), a way of life that is best of all (NLV), the most excellent way (NIV), the same way Jesus preached in the sermon on the mount (Matthew 5:13-48 NET).  In his letter to the Romans Paul presented love as the only way (Romans 13:8-10 NET):

Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.  For the commandments, “Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not covet,” (and if there is any other commandment) are summed up in this, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”  Love does no wrong to a neighbor.  Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

Cleary, the love of natural humans will not fulfill the law.  We must all be born from above[2] through faith in Jesus Christ, dependent instead on the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe,[3] the love that is an aspect of the fruit of his Holy Spirit.  I’ll continue contrasting Paul’s regime in 1 Corinthians 5 to Jesus’ regime in Revelation 2:18-29.

Paul’s Regime

Jesus’ Regime
Your boasting is not good.  Don’t you know that a little yeast (ζύμη) affects the whole batch of dough?

1 Corinthians 5:6 (NET)

 But to the rest of you in Thyatira, all who do not hold to this teaching (who have not learned the so-called “deep secrets of Satan”), to you I say: I do not put any additional burden on you.  However, hold on to what you have until I come.

Revelation 2:24, 25 (NET)
Clean out the old yeast (ζύμην, another form of ζύμη) so that you may be a new batch of dough – you are, in fact, without yeast (ἄζυμοι, a form of ἄζυμος).  For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.  So then, let us celebrate the festival, not with the old yeast (ζύμῃ, another form of ζύμη), the yeast (ζύμῃ, another form of ζύμη) of vice and evil, but with the bread without yeast (ἀζύμοις, another form of ἄζυμος), the bread of sincerity and truth.

1 Corinthians 5:7, 8 (NET)

Not good your boasting (or, glorying, KJV, NKJV), Paul wrote.  The Greek word translated good is καλὸν (a form of καλός).  This is the beautiful good of Jesus’ works.  What follows is a quote from an article by George Long in William Smith’s “A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities,” defining incestum in Roman law:

If a man married a woman whom it was forbidden for him to marry by positive morality (moribus), he was said to commit incestum (Dig. 23 tit. 2 s39). Such a marriage was in fact no marriage, for the necessary connubium between the parties was wanting. Accordingly, incestum is the sexual connection of a male and a female, whether under the form of marriage or not, if such persons cannot marry by reason of consanguinity.

There was no connubium between persons related by blood in the direct line, as parents and children. If such persons contracted a marriage it was Nefariae et Incestae nuptiae. There was no connubium between persons who stood in the relation of parent and child by adoption, not even after the adopted child was emancipated.

With this in mind I would say it was the most likely meaning of the kind of immorality that is not permitted even among the Gentiles.[4]  A man cohabiting with his father’s wife, was against the law, Roman law as well as yehôvâh’s law.  In other words, it was a circumstance not unlike those in the movie Spotlight.  Would anyone consider the conspiratorial cover-up revealed in Spotlight a beautiful good?

Of course, now I need to consider whether turn this man over to Satan (σατανᾷ, a form of Σατανᾶς; adversary) was simply an instruction to turn him over to Roman authorities in the city of Corinth.  But I reject that notion just as quickly.  Roman authorities had no interest in the blasphemy of Hymenaeus and Alexander.  I find no guilt in him,[5] Pilate said of Jesus, while the Jewish authorities had Him dead to rights for blasphemy (Matthew 26:25, Mark 14:63, Luke 22:71 NET) if He is not yehôvâh, the Son of God the Father.

Don’t you know that a little yeast (ζύμη) affects the whole batch of dough?[6]  Paul continued.  Yes, that is exactly how Jesus expected his teaching to work in and through those who are called according to his purpose:[7]  He told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like yeast (ζύμῃ) that a woman took and mixed with three measures of flour until all the dough had risen.”[8]  To be fair Paul wasn’t writing about Jesus’ teaching.  He wrote about the yeast (ζύμῃ, another form of ζύμη) of vice and evil.  He’d already been-there-done-that as far as Jesus’ teaching was concerned.  In 1 Corinthians he was scrambling to put the toothpaste[9] back in the tube.

I need to pause to spell out what I’m actually thinking.  That is the main purpose of these essays, after all, to remind me what I was thinking as I did a particular word study.  As I worked on this one I stumbled across a website by Sherry Shriner.  She uses many of the Scriptures I use to assert that “The Apostle Paul Was A Deceiver!  He was Satan In The Flesh!  An Antichrist!”[10]  I’m not asserting that at all, only that Paul is a human being, born from above, led by the Holy Spirit, struggling at times with the sinfulness of his own flesh or with overcoming his own religion, which he characterized as my own righteousness derived from the law.[11]

More to the point here in 1 Corinthians 5 I think he struggled with 1) the repercussions of changing[12] his manner of teaching—When I came to you, brothers and sisters, I did not come with superior eloquence or wisdom as I proclaimed the testimony of God.  For I decided to be concerned about nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified[13]—and, 2) his allegiance to James’ abbreviated version of the law (Acts 15:19, 20 NET) from the Jerusalem Council—As [Paul, Silas and Timothy] went through the towns, they passed on the decrees that had been decided on by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the Gentile believers to obey.[14]  I think what the NET translators called a Corinthian slogan—All things are lawful for me[15]—was the logical consequence of this teaching.  I also think the Corinthians may have been the most sinful people (1 Corinthians 6:9-11 NET) to be called to that time—but called they were (Acts 18:9-11 NET):

The Lord said to Paul by a vision in the night, “Do not be afraid, but speak and do not be silent, because I am with you, and no one will assault you to harm you, because I have many people in this city” [Table].  So he stayed there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.

According to Kyle Harper: “Prostitution [πορνεία; sex with “slaves, prostitutes, and concubines”] was considered a social necessity, an alternative to the violation of respectable women [μοιχεία], in the Roman Empire no less than in classical Greece.”  But “πορνεία was not a common term before Judaism and Christianity infused it with new meaning.”[16]  “Πορνεία in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs functions,” Mr. Harper continued, “as a catchall vice for any sexual transgression….Reuben was guilty of πορνεία for sleeping with Bilhah, Rachel’s maid, because his father had been in the same bed….”[17]  The thought that Paul derived his understanding of πορνεία from a book of fiction sent me to bed for a time.

When I got back to work I realized that the language of popular fiction[18] might well reflect the common word usage of a people and a time.  I realized we are not told whether the man who had his father’s wife was a Jew or proselyte who might be familiar with a usage of πορνεία that would include incestum, or a pagan more familiar with πορνεία as sex with slaves, prostitutes or concubines.  I don’t know whether Paul assumed his hearers understood the breadth of πορνεία that may have been common in Second Temple Judaism or taught it explicitly in Corinth.  I know Paul wrote a sin list in his letter to the Galatians (5:19-21a NET):

NET

Parallel Greek
Now the works of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity, depravity, idolatry, sorcery, hostilities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish rivalries, dissensions, factions, envying, murder, drunkenness, carousing, and similar things. φανερὰ δέ ἐστιν τὰ ἔργα τῆς σαρκός, ἅτινα ἐστιν πορνεία, ἀκαθαρσία, ἀσέλγεια, εἰδωλολατρία, φαρμακεία, ἔχθραι, ἔρις, ζῆλος, θυμοί, ἐριθεῖαι, διχοστασίαι, αἱρέσεις, φθόνοι, |φόνοι,| μέθαι, κῶμοι καὶ τὰ ὅμοια τούτοις

In the Textus Receptus this list begins with μοιχεία (adultery).  But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, Jesus said, and these things defile a person.  For out of the heart come evil ideas, murder, adultery, sexual immorality (πορνεῖαι, another form of πορνεία), theft, false testimony, slander.[19]  And, For from within, out of the human heart, come evil ideas, sexual immorality (πορνεῖαι, another form of πορνεία), theft, murder, adultery, greed, evil, deceit, debauchery, envy, slander, pride, and folly.[20]

Jesus’ Sin Lists in Greek
Matthew 5:19

Mark 7:21, 22
διαλογισμοὶ πονηροί, φόνοι, μοιχεῖαι, πορνεῖαι, κλοπαί, ψευδομαρτυρίαι, βλασφημίαι διαλογισμοὶ οἱ κακοὶ ἐκπορεύονται, πορνεῖαι, κλοπαί, φόνοι, μοιχεῖαι, πλεονεξίαι, πονηρίαι, δόλος, ἀσέλγεια, ὀφθαλμὸς πονηρός, βλασφημία, ὑπερηφανία, ἀφροσύνη

These sin lists alter the landscape considerably.  It is not possible for the words πορνείας[21] (another form of πορνεία) or πορνείαν[22] (another form of πορνεία) from James’ abbreviated version of the law to stand for every defilement that comes from the human heart, every work of the flesh.  Frankly, I think all of this happened in space and time to push Paul, the human author of so much of the New Testament commentary on the Gospel, to abandon his allegiance to this decision of the Jerusalem Council and to hear better words and gain a better understanding.  And I think these events are recorded in Scripture so that we would see how much better these words and this understanding actually are (Romans 7:7, 12; 3:19-24, 31 NET):

What shall we say then?  Is the law sin?  Absolutely not!  Certainly, I would not have known sin except through the law.  For indeed I would not have known what it means to desire something belonging to someone else if the law had not said, “Do not covet.”

So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous, and good.

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world may be held accountable to God.  For no one is declared righteous before him by the works of the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin.  But now apart from the law the righteousness of God (which is attested by the law and the prophets) has been disclosed – namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe.  For there is no distinction, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.  But they are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.

Do we then nullify the law through faith?  Absolutely not!  Instead we uphold the law.

Confronted with a Corinthian man who had his father’s wife, Paul turned to Satan for help.  Confronted with pedophile priests, the Catholic Church turned to psychologists and psychiatrists.[23]  Spotlight, perhaps it is unnecessary to say, is not a movie about the amazing power of psychologists and psychiatrists to take away the sin of pedophile priests.

On the next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God who takes away (αἴρων, a form of αἴρω) the sin of the world!”[24]

For far too long I believed that meant forgiveness only.  I didn’t believe that, Everyone who has been fathered by God does not practice sin, because God’s seed resides in him, and thus he is not able to sin, because he has been fathered by God.[25]  I didn’t believe that all who are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God.[26]  I thought it was all up to me: my faith, my obedience, my love, my joy, my peace, my patience, my kindness, my goodness, my faithfulness, my gentleness, and my self-control.

[1] 1 Corinthians 12:31b (NET)

[2] John 3:7b (NET)

[3] Romans 3:22 (NET)

[4] 1 Corinthians 5:1b (NET) Table

[5] John 19:6b (ESV)

[6] 1 Corinthians 5:6b (NET)

[7] Romans 8:28b (NET)

[8] Matthew 13:33 (NET)

[9] Romans, Part 66; Romans, Part 68

[10] http://www.justgivemethetruth.com/paul_was_a_deceiver.htm

[11] Philippians 3:9 (NET)

[12] Paul in Corinth; Romans, Part 2; Paul in Athens

[13] 1 Corinthians 2:1, 2 (NET) Table

[14] Acts 16:4 (NET) Table

[15] 1 Corinthians 6:12a (NET)

[16] Kyle Harper: “Porneia—The Making of a Christian Sexual Norm;” Journal of Biblical Literature 131, no. 2 (2012); p. 369; “For all the importance of prostitution in Greek and Roman societies, πορνεία was not a common word.  Πορνεία occurs in only four classical authors (by contrast, the word occurs nearly four hundred times in Jewish and Christian literature before 200 c.e., and over eighteen hundred times between 200 and 600 c.e.).”  (I cannot link to this article directly, but was able to download it at academia.edu.)

[17] ibid, p. 372

[18] What lover of the Old Testament Scriptures wouldn’t want to hear the patriarchs confess their sexual sins according to the law yehôvâh delivered at Sinai so many years after the patriarchs themselves died?

[19] Matthew 15:18, 19 (NET)

[20] Mark 7:21, 22 (NET)

[21] Acts 15:20, 29 (NET)

[22] Acts 21:25 (NET)

[23] http://www.themediareport.com/2015/11/30/cardinal-law-spotlight-movie/  (I am not the “Dan” who commented on this article, by the way.  I just discovered this site researching the current essay.)

[24] John 1:29 (NET)

[25] 1 John 3:9 (NET)

[26] Romans 8:14 (NET)

Paul’s Religious Mind Revisited, Part 1

Posted on by

I want to compare and contrast Paul’s teaching in his letter to the Corinthians to Jesus’ letter To the angel of the church in Thyatira[1] under the rubrics: “Paul’s Regime” and “Jesus’ Regime.”

Paul’s Regime

Jesus’ Regime
It is actually reported that sexual immorality (πορνεία) exists among you (ὑμῖν; plural), the kind of immorality (πορνεία) that is not permitted even among the Gentiles, so that someone is cohabiting with (ἔχειν, a form of ἔχω) his father’s wife.

1 Corinthians 5:1 (NET)

 But I have (ἔχω) this against you (σοῦ, a form of σύ; singular): You tolerate (ἀφεῖς, a form of ἀφίημι) that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and by her teaching deceives my servants to commit sexual immorality (πορνεῦσαι, a form of πορνεύω) and to eat food sacrificed to idols (εἰδωλόθυτα, a form of εἰδωλόθυτον).

Revelation 2:20 (NET)
I have given her time to repent, but she is not willing to repent of her sexual immorality (πορνείας, a form of πορνεία).

Revelation 2:21 (NET)

Experiencing these as two distinct regimes is new for me.  As long as I assumed that Jesus’ spoke to the second person plural the two passages seemed virtually identical.  And without doubt I love and respect Paul.  He led me to Jesus, helped me to see Him in a different light.  Apart from Paul’s writing in the New Testament I may never have learned to trust Jesus.  I’ve tried to imagine that the man Paul wrote about had kidnapped his father’s wife, kept her against her will, raped her repeatedly and refused to release her.  But that’s as much, or more, to ask of ἔχειν than the idea that he was pimping her for cultic purposes.

The man who had his father’s wife compares to Jezebel, who by her teaching deceives [Jesus’] servants to commit sexual immorality, as a man who walks into a congregation with a loaded gun compares to an active shooter.  Jesus gave Jezebel time to repent.  Paul didn’t say anything about time to repent, though I’m hard-pressed to determine what form the man’s repentance might have taken.

When I believed that πορνεία meant pre-marital sex[2] repentance seemed fairly straightforward: The man should dump the woman, go to college, get a high-paying job, return home, settle down and marry a nice girl—one who wouldn’t cohabit with her husband’s son.  That changed as I began to take the law (Exodus 22:16, 17, Deuteronomy 22:28-30) more seriously,[3] as a way to know the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom [He] sent.[4]  Of course, the woman in this case was or had been married to the man’s father.  By law both should have been condemned to death (Leviticus 20:10, 11).

Paul’s Regime

Jesus’ Regime
And you (ὑμεῖς, a form of ὑμείς) are proud (πεφυσιωμένοι, a form of φυσιόω)!  Shouldn’t you have been deeply sorrowful instead and removed (ἀρθῇ, a form of αἴρω) the one who did this from among you (ὑμῶν)?

1 Corinthians 5:2 (NET) Table

 Look!  I am throwing her onto a bed of violent illness, and those who commit adultery (μοιχεύοντας, a form of μοιχεύω) with her into terrible suffering, unless they repent of her deeds.

Revelation 2:22 (NET)

Paul addressed everyone (ὑμεῖς is second person plural) in the church at Corinth except the man who had his father’s wife, accusing them of being proud.  Of the seven occurrences of forms of φυσιόω in the New Testament, six are found in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians.  (It is at least his second letter.)  Pride or arrogance was a consistent theme in his mind as he wrote.

Paul claimed I became your father (ἐγέννησα, a form of γεννάω) in Christ Jesus through the gospel.[5]  Actually he wrote, For though you may have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers (πατέρας, a form of πατήρ) ἐν γὰρ Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ἐγὼ ὑμᾶς ἐγέννησα (literally, “for in Christ Jesus through the Gospel I gave birth to [KJV: have begotten] you”).  The NET translators shaded the arrogance of that statement a bit.  But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher and you are all brothers, Jesus taught his disciples.  And call no one your ‘father’ (πατέρα, another form of πατήρ) on earth, for you have one Father (πατὴρ, another form of πατήρ), who is in heaven.  Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one teacher, the Christ.[6]

The grandiose claim that the Corinthian believers were born of Paul (John 1:13 NIV ἐγεννήθησαν is another form of γεννάω) was out of character with Paul’s own teaching earlier in the same letter (1 Corinthians 3:6, 7 NET):

I planted, Apollos watered, but God caused it to grow.  So neither the one who plants counts for anything, nor the one who waters, but God who causes the growth.

I have applied these things to myself and Apollos, Paul wrote, because of you, brothers and sisters, so that through us you may learn “not to go beyond what is written,” so that none of you will be puffed up (φυσιοῦσθε, another form of φυσιόω) in favor of the one against the other.  For who concedes you any superiority?  What do you have that you did not receive?  And if you received it, why do you boast (καυχᾶσαι, a form of καυχάομαι) as though you did not?[7]  Of course, then he wrote (1 Corinthians 4:18-20 NET):

Some have become arrogant (ἐφυσιώθησαν, another form of φυσιόω), as if I were not coming to you.  But I will come to you soon, if the Lord is willing, and I will find out not only the talk of these arrogant (πεφυσιωμένων, another form of φυσιόω) people, but also their power.  For the kingdom of God is demonstrated not in idle talk but with power.

Though God’s power (δυνάμει, a form of δύναμις) would clearly be the truth of his final declaration, in context it doesn’t seem to be the power Paul had in mind.  What do you want? he continued as if the following choice would be made by the Corinthians rather than by Paul himself.  Shall I come to you with a rod of discipline (ράβδῳ, a form of ῥάβδος) or with love (ἀγάπῃ) and a spirit of gentleness (πραΰτητος, a form of πραΰτης)?[8]  (While I assume that Paul’s threat to return to Corinth to beat the arrogant with a stick was bluster, it is heartwarming to find such punishment distinguished from love in the New Testament.)  In the very same letter Paul wrote (1 Corinthians 8:1b-3 NET):

Knowledge puffs up (φυσιοῖ, another form of φυσιόω), but love (ἀγάπη) builds up.  If someone thinks he knows something, he does not yet know to the degree that he needs to know.  But if someone loves (ἀγαπᾷ, a form of ἀγαπάω) God, he is known (ἔγνωσται, a form of γινώσκω) by God.

And (1 Corinthians 13:4-13 NET):

Love is patient, love is kind, it is not envious.  Love does not brag, it is not puffed up (φυσιοῦται, another form of φυσιόω).  It is not rude, it is not self-serving, it is not easily angered or resentful.  It is not glad about injustice, but rejoices in the truth.  It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Love never ends.  But if there are prophecies, they will be set aside; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be set aside.  For we know in part, and we prophesy in part, but when what is perfect comes, the partial will be set aside.  When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child.  But when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways.  For now we see in a mirror indirectly, but then we will see face to face.  Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, just as I have been fully known.  And now these three remain: faith, hope, and love.  But the greatest of these is love.

Paul formed his conclusion that the Corinthians were proud (πεφυσιωμένοι, a form of φυσιόω), not by direct observation and interaction with them but, by hearsay[9] and by the fact that they had not removed the one who did this from among [them].  Paul had asked rhetorically, Shouldn’t you have been deeply sorrowful instead and removed the one who did this from among you?  The Greek word translated deeply sorrowful is ἐπενθήσατε (a form of πενθέω).

I am afraid, Paul wrote, that when I come again, my God may humiliate me before you, and I will grieve (πενθήσω, another form of πενθέω) for many of those who previously sinned and have not repented of the impurity, sexual immorality (πορνείᾳ), and licentiousness that they have practiced.[10]  Truly, love is not glad about injustice;[11] it does not rejoice in iniquity.[12]  Grieve, mourn (πενθήσατε, another form of πενθέω), and weep, James wrote.  Turn your laughter into mourning (πένθος) and your joy into despair.  Humble yourselves before the Lord and he will exalt you.[13]  But I can’t help wondering if this mourning wasn’t more cultural than divinely inspired.

Granted, Jesus said: Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn (πενθήσετε, another form of πενθέω) and weep;[14] and, The wedding guests cannot mourn (πενθεῖν, another form of πενθέω) while the bridegroom is with them, can they?[15]  He also said, Blessed are those who mourn (πενθοῦντες, another form of πενθέω), for they will be comforted.[16]  But I still remember the contrast between Ezra and Malachi:

Ezra

Malachi
While Ezra was praying and confessing, weeping and throwing himself to the ground before the temple of God, a very large crowd of Israelites – men, women, and children alike – gathered around him.  The people wept loudly [Table].  Then Shecaniah son of Jehiel, from the descendants of Elam, addressed Ezra: “We have been unfaithful to our God by marrying foreign women from the local peoples.  Nonetheless, there is still hope for Israel in this regard [Table].  Therefore let us enact a covenant with our God to send away all these women and their offspring, in keeping with your counsel, my lord, and that of those who respect the commandments of our God.  And let it be done according to the law [Table].”

Ezra 10:1-3 (NET)

 You also do this: You cover the altar of the Lord with tears as you weep and groan, because he no longer pays any attention to the offering nor accepts it favorably from you [Table].  Yet you ask, “Why?”  The Lord is testifying against you on behalf of the wife you married when you were young, to whom you have become unfaithful even though she is your companion and wife by law [Table].  No one who has even a small portion of the Spirit in him does this.  What did our ancestor do when seeking a child from God?  Be attentive, then, to your own spirit, for one should not be disloyal to the wife he took in his youth [Table].  “I hate divorce,” says the Lord God of Israel, “and the one who is guilty of violence,” says the Lord who rules over all.  “Pay attention to your conscience, and do not be unfaithful” [Table].

Malachi 2:13-16 (NET)

As Jesus’ disciples mourned his death (or perhaps their own loss) they didn’t believe his comfort when it came to them in the form of a woman: Early on the first day of the week, after he arose, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had driven out seven demons.  She went out and told those who were with him, while they were mourning (πενθοῦσι, another form of πενθέω) and weeping.  And when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they did not believe.[17]  So to the first part of Paul’s rhetorical question I can only give a qualified yes.

The Greek word translated removed in the second part of Paul’s rhetorical question was ἀρθῇ (a form of αἴρω).  “Take this man away (αἶρε, another form of αἴρω)!  Release Barabbas for us!”[18] an angry mob before Pilate rejected Jesus.  “Away (αἶρε, another form of αἴρω) with him!”[19] a mob in Jerusalem rejected Paul.  A crowd listening patiently to Paul’s defense turned ugly when he said that the Lord said to him, Go, because I will send you far away to the Gentiles.[20]  Then they raised their voices and shouted, “Away (αἶρε, another form of αἴρω) with this man from the earth!  For he should not be allowed to live!”[21]

Here again I can’t help wondering if Paul’s reaction wasn’t more cultural than divinely inspired.  But calling it cultural isn’t entirely accurate.  Paul’s reaction was precisely correct for a time under law when yehôvâh was present among his people in a way unknown since the garden of Eden, before He gave his life as an atonement for sin.  Consider Achan (Joshua 7) as a case in point.

Exile for the man who had his father’s wife (and the woman along with him, presumably) would be considered more merciful than death, but Jesus’ parable persuades me to reject the second part of Paul’s rhetorical question—Shouldn’t you have…removed the one who did this from among you?  When Jesus’ slaves asked if they should uproot the weeds planted by the enemy He said, No, since in gathering the weeds you may uproot the wheat with them.  Let both grow together until the harvest.[22]  This is not to say that I know whether the man who had his father’s wife was a weed planted by the enemy or a sinning saint.  It is to say, if this is Jesus’ attitude toward uprooting weeds planted by the enemy I dare not risk uprooting a sinning saint.

Let’s say for the sake of argument that I’m reading too much into Jesus’ parable.  Let’s say that I’m wrong about the angel of the church in Thyatira, that he was a human being rather than a higher order being.  Let’s grant, for the sake of argument, that Paul as an apostle had the authority and God-given wisdom to recognize a weed and uproot it.  Did he have the authority to turn the church of Jesus Christ in Corinth (and any who hear him today) from the love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control of the Holy Spirit, and transform them into a paranoid police force?  Rather than knowing no law against loving our neighbor as well as our enemies, does every infraction of any law call us to dam up the fruit of the Holy Spirit?  Must we judge one another constantly lest we be proud for loving one another excessively?  I admit I sat silently through a sermon declaring that, Do not judge so that you will not be judged,[23] meant that we should judge and be judged.[24]

Hear Jesus’ regime by contrast: Look!  I am throwing her onto a bed of violent illness.  That is Jezebel, the one who by her teaching deceives my servants to commit sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols.[25]  Secondly, He is throwing those who commit adultery with her into terrible suffering, unless they repent of her deeds.  But there is not one word to the rest of the church in Thyatira about being proud because they had not removed Jezebel and her followers from their midst.  The criticism—But I have this against you—was laid directly on the angel of the church in Thyatira, whether human or a higher order being. Yes, the letter to the angel of the church in Thyatira was to be read by all the churches, but its content was directed with surgical precision.

To be fair the only reason I have the audacity to make this kind of critique of Paul’s writing in 1 Corinthians 5 is Paul’s extended treatise on love in his later writing to believers in Rome.  Therefore we must not pass judgment (κρίνωμεν, a form of κρίνω) on one another, but rather determine (κρίνατε, another form of κρίνω) never to place an obstacle or a trap before a brother or sister.[26]  Actually, Paul described love this way: Μηκέτι οὖν ἀλλήλους κρίνωμεν[27] (literally, “no longer then one another judge”).

[1] Revelation 2:18a (NET)

[2] An article by Bromleigh McCleneghan, “Sex and the single Christian: Why celibacy isn’t the only option,” was interesting bait for an unsuspecting moralist.  Obviously single people can have sex.  That’s how they become married people in God’s sight.  The rest is ceremony, celebration and government paperwork.  If anyone actually believed that religious leaders knew magical rites that could transmogrify illicit sex into holy matrimony those religious leaders would be compelled by law to perform those rites equally for all in a pluralistic society.  The only thing single people cannot do is fool God into thinking they are not guilty of adultery if they have sex with somebody different tomorrow night, simply because they have not signed government paperwork or had a ceremony or celebrated.

[3] Condemnation or Judgment? – Part 12, Ezra and Divorce

[4] John 17:3b (NET)

[5] 1 Corinthians 4:15b (NET)

[6] Matthew 23:8-10 (NET)

[7] 1 Corinthians 4:6, 7 (NET)

[8] 1 Corinthians 4:21 (NET)

[9] My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. (1 Corinthians 1:11 NIV)

[10] 2 Corinthians 12:21 (NET)

[11] 1 Corinthians 13:6a (NET)

[12] 1 Corinthians 13:6a (NKJV)

[13] James 4:9, 10 (NET)

[14] Luke 6:25b (NET)

[15] Mathew 9:15a (NET)

[16] Matthew 5:4 (NET)

[17] Mark 16:9-11 (NET)

[18] Luke 23:18b (NET)

[19] Acts 21:36b (NET)

[20] Acts 22:21b (NET)

[21] Acts 22:22b (NET)

[22] Matthew 13:29, 30a (NET)

[23] Matthew 7:1 (NET)

[24] This point of view is surprisingly common.   I found the following paraphrase online: “If you don’t want your life to be scrutinized, then don’t judge others.  If you can stand the scrutiny then go ahead.”  I will freely admit to needing as much grace as possible.  There are other voices online.

[25] Revelation 2:20b (NET)

[26] Romans 14:13 (NET)

[27] Romans 14:13a

My Reasons and My Reason, Part 7

Posted on by

I am persuaded that the primary meaning of πορνεία in the New Testament refers to ancient idolatrous worship practices.  It can be stretched to mean adultery in general (1 Thessalonians 4:3-7 NET Table):

For this is God’s will: that you become holy, that you keep away from πορνείας (a form of πορνεία), that each of you know how to possess his own body in holiness and honor, not in lustful passion like the Gentiles who do not know God.  In this matter no one should violate the rights of his brother or take advantage of him, because the Lord is the avenger in all these cases, as we also told you earlier and warned you solemnly.  For God did not call us to impurity (ἀκαθαρσία) but in holiness.

At least I hope Paul meant that one should not violate the rights of his brother by committing adultery with his wife, rather than that he should simply pass by her at a cultic festival (though I admit that ἀκαθαρσία sounds a lot like demonic worship here).  Paul may have used πορνεία to mean the list of sins found in Leviticus 18:6-23 (1 Corinthians 5:1 NET):

It is actually reported that πορνεία exists among you, the kind of πορνεία that is not permitted even among the Gentiles, so that someone is cohabiting with (ἔχειν, a form of ἔχω) his father’s wife.

If the man’s father was alive this is simply another instance where Paul used πορνεία for adultery.  (Remember πορνεία was almost the only word Paul had for sin as long as he accepted the gutting of the law at the Jerusalem Council.)  If the man’s father was dead πορνεία meant: You must not have sexual intercourse with your father’s wife; she is your father’s nakedness[1] or, A man may not marry his father’s former wife and in this way dishonor his father.[2]

In contemporary Greek πορνεία translates as prostitution in the headline Παιδική πορνεία.  If I select “Translate this Page” Παιδική πορνεία is rendered “Child prostitution.”

The one thing I am persuaded now that πορνεία does not mean in the New Testament is what two teenagers might do in the backseat of a Chevy on a Friday night.  They are not committing πορνεία but marriage by performing the only wedding ceremony yehôvâh ʼĕlôhı̂ym ever created, authorized or honored: If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged and has sexual relations with her, he must surely endow her to be his wife.  If her father refuses to give her to him, he must pay money for the bride price of virgins.[3]

When I was young it angered me that God gave such undue authority to an autocratic father.  Now that I know Him better and have lived with, and loved, a daughter, though the autocratic father may always be a possible type, I think the point was to give that authority to the one most attuned to his daughter’s heart on the matter in an uncomfortable social situation.  One reason for rejecting this law is the embarrassment a contemporary person feels over its companion legislation (Deuteronomy 22:28, 29 NET):

Suppose a man comes across a virgin who is not engaged and overpowers and rapes her and they are discovered [Table].  The man who has raped her must pay her father fifty shekels of silver and she must become his wife because he has violated her; he may never divorce her as long as he lives [Table].

A scene in the movie “Fury” cast this legislation in a different light.  In April 1945, days from the end of the war in Europe, First Sergeant Collier—Wardaddy—an American tank commander, spies a woman peeking down at them from an upstairs window in the German town they have just conquered.  Wardaddy calls to Norman, Private Ellison, and the two men, armed with machine guns, head inside and up the stairs.  I have every reason to assume that Wardaddy is continuing Norman’s indoctrination into the ways of war.

Norman, a clerk trained to type 60 words per minute, was assigned to Wardaddy’s tank crew as a replacement assistant driver.  His failure and refusal to pull the trigger endangers the rest of his crew and everyone around him.  Wardaddy has already forced him to kill a German prisoner in a macabre hand-over-hand imitation of a mother teaching a child to form letters with a crayon.  I can only imagine what new lesson Wardaddy has in store for him, though the two German women have no illusions that they are anything to their armed invaders but spoils of war.

Wardaddy puts down his weapon, and tells Norman to do likewise, once he has determined that the two women are the only occupants of the apartment.  It’s a clear sign to the women, beautiful young Emma and her older cousin, that they may survive their ordeal if they comply with Wardaddy’s wishes.

Wardaddy wishes to wash with hot water, shave and eat a fried egg.  Norman plays a piece of sheet music at the piano.  Emma, delighted, sings the song and turns the page for him.  She stops when she notices the scars on Wardaddy’s back.

“She’s a good clean girl,” Wardaddy says to Norman.  “If you don’t take her in that bedroom, I will.”

Emma doesn’t need a translator to know what’s expected of her.  Given the opportunity to choose her rapist, she leads her young accompanist into the bedroom.  Norman retrieves his machine gun on the way.  Emma’s older cousin attempts to follow them, whether to intervene or to serve as a substitute is unclear.  Wardaddy stops her with a gesture and a word in German:

“No.  They’re young and they’re alive.”

As a rapist Norman is patient and gentle as a lover.  He and Emma, representing the human beings least degraded by war, exit that bedroom as husband and wife.  They know it.  Wardaddy knows it.  And so does Emma’s older cousin.  As they sit down to a wedding feast of fried eggs the rest of his tank crew—Coon-Ass, Gordo and Bible—knock at the door, calling for Norman.

Coon-Ass and Gordo have cajoled or coerced a “whore” to “entertain” them, and others, one at a time in the tank downstairs.  They have come to share her with Norman.  I get the impression that if Norman were not already married to Emma, Coon-Ass and Gordo would make it very difficult for him to refuse his share.  But seeing Emma, Coon-Ass in particular, representing the man most degraded by war, wants his share of her.  Now, however, even Coon-Ass isn’t likely to take her without Norman’s acquiescence.

“Don’t touch her!” Norman says with the all the force of a petulant child.

“Anyone touches the girl,” Wardaddy says, putting not only his rank but his personal power and authority on the line, “they get their teeth kicked in.”

Coon-Ass and Gordo are deeply hurt.  Even Bible, though apparently powerful enough in the pecking order to abstain from the women without suffering personal repercussions, is hurt to have been excluded from the wedding feast.  They remind Wardaddy that they have been together, brothers in arms, since the Normandy invasion.  Norman has not.

I suspect that Wardaddy would not have denied his brothers, Coon-Ass and Gordo, if they had gotten to Emma first.  He, as degraded by war as any of them, could not risk his rank, personal power or authority except for Norman’s or, if necessary, his own new bride.

And for those who think it might have been a better film, or Emma might have been a better woman, if she had fought to the death to defend her honor, a stray shell kills her in the next scene.  Norman grieves like a widower, though duty calls and limits his opportunity to do her justice.

If one or both of the teenagers in the Chevy come back Saturday night to perform the same ceremony with different partners, they would be guilty of adultery as long as the other lives.  The point was never to make adultery—or divorce, for that matter—the unpardonable sin.  The point was to get religious people to acknowledge that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.  But they are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.[4]

Other reasons for rejecting the view of marriage described in the law are 1) that a daughter who acted so precipitously may have robbed her father of a better bride price.  Or, 2) in more contemporary terms she may rob herself of a more lucrative match.  And 3) governing bodies, both secular and religious, want to regulate marriage.

Do they have that right (Matthew 16:19; 18:18 NKJV)?

And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

This certainly sounds like Peter and James had the authority to gut the law.  Were they the only ones?  In the United States of America a woman is free to couple or uncouple as she pleases because she is “endowed by [her] Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…”[5]  I often wonder why the lawyers, legal historians, philosophers and ministers who signed the Declaration of Independence didn’t forsee that the pursuit of personal happiness would come to dominate and define both life and liberty.

I’ve been taught to think like John Miller in his March 7, 2015 response to comments and an essay on happiness on blog.dictionary.com:

Everyone here really doesn’t understand the colonial meaning of the phrase.  Pursuit of happiness referred to the pursuit of holiness or godliness.  It had nothing to do with personal pleasures.  Our founders understood that morality and religion were required for a republic to succeed and in those times when someone pursued happiness it was a pursuit of that which is godly.  Sadly, that’s something very few Americans do these days and will be the source of our nation’s demise.

But the Declaration of Independence did not say “that all men are…endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are” the pursuit of Christ and his righteousness.  It said, “pursuit of Happiness.”  And I think I can say on the authority of Scripture and a bare knowledge of American history that “the pursuit of Christ and his righteousness” would never have gained consensus.

That, I think, is what I witness in both the Jerusalem Council and the Declaration of Independence.  They are prime examples of the achievements of committee work and consensus building.  They happened.  They are there for all to see.  I don’t believe these particular results of either exercise.  They are not my faith.  I think what Jesus meant was that those who trust Him would be led by his Holy Spirit (Matthew 16:19; 18:18 NET):

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.  Whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you release on earth will have been released in heaven.

I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you release on earth will have been released in heaven.

One of the ways to know what has been bound and released in heaven is to know God’s law, not because one is declared righteous before him by the works of the law but because the law discloses what displeases Him: through the law comes the knowledge of sin.[6]

I should clarify my thoughts on happiness: I had my ticket home.  I was ready to go.  I would have been happy to sit and watch my daughter’s graduation ceremony from college.  But my twenty-three-year-old daughter had a stroke before I arrived.  Then I was happy to sit and watch as she chewed food and swallowed without choking on it.

I am grateful for happiness.  I think it is essential to the ongoing occupation of living here and now.  But I don’t have a clue how to pursue it.  When I’ve tried, the people, achievements, occupations and possessions I thought would make me happy, did not, not any more or any less than the normal ebb and flow of when I had not pursued happiness.  I will pursue Christ and his righteousness instead.

And to the wag who may say I only do that because it makes me happy, I can honestly answer, not always, my friend, at times it is a sad or a painful thing to do.  Still, it has its moments.

[1] Leviticus 18:8 (NET) Table

[2] Deuteronomy 22:30 (NET)

[3] Exodus 22:16, 17 (NET)

[4] Romans 3:23, 24 (NET)

[5] Declaration of Independence

[6] Romans 3:20 (NET)

Is Sin Less Than Sin? Part 4

Posted on by

To approach the issue of whether such πορνεία as is not so much as named among the Gentiles1 is of greater consequence than the παραπτώματι (a form of παράπτωμα) addressed in Galatians 6:1 I want to consider Romans 7.  But first I want to remind myself of that most forgotten part of the Gospel, the active ingredient, if you will, of the Gospel as a remedy for sin (Romans 6:3-8 NET).

Or do you not know that as many as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?  Therefore we have been buried with him through baptism into death, in order that just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too may live a new life.   For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we will certainly also be united in the likeness of his resurrection.  We know that our old man was crucified with him so that the body of sin (ἁμαρτίας, a form of ἁμαρτία) would no longer dominate (καταργηθῇ, a form of καταργέω) us, so that we would no longer be enslaved (δουλεύειν, a form of δουλεύω) to sin (ἁμαρτίᾳ).  (For someone who has died has been freed [δεδικαίωται, a form of δικαιόω] from sin [ἁμαρτίας, another form of ἁμαρτία].)  Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him.

Bearing in mind then that this death is one of the gifts of righteousness contained in the Gospel, I want to turn to chapter 7 where Paul contrasted those who through faith in Jesus Christ have become united with him in the likeness of his death to the person whose lord is the law (Romans 7:1 NET):

Or do you not know, brothers and sisters (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law is lord over a person as long as he lives?

The word translated lord above is κυριεύει (a form of κυριεύω), to rule in Greek.  “The kings of the Gentiles lord (κυριεύουσιν, another form of κυριεύω) it over them,” Jesus told his disciples (Luke 22:25 NET).  In his letter to the Romans Paul continued with the following metaphor (Romans 7:2-4 NET):

For a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of the marriage.  So then, if she is joined to another man while her husband is alive, she will be called an adulteress.  But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she is joined to another man, she is not an adulteress.  So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you could be joined to another, to the one who was raised from the dead, to bear fruit to God.

This can seem like a complex mixed metaphor, but I think it’s actually simpler than it first appears.  If I start again with verse 1: the law is lord over a person as long as he lives.  The Greek word translated person is ἀνθρώπου (a form of ἄνθρωπος), humankind.  The metaphor involves ἄνθρωπος as God created us, male and female, ἀνήρ and γυνὴ.  The meaning of the metaphor is that the husband (ἀνήρ) represents the law and the wife (γυνή) represents all humanity (ἄνθρωπος).  In verse 2 then the married woman (ὕπανδρος γυνὴ) is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives like the law is lord over a person (ἀνθρώπου, a form of ἄνθρωπος) as long as he lives.  The word translated married (ὕπανδρος) is a compound of two words: ὑπό meaning under and ἀνδρός (a form of ἀνήρ), man, husband.  So I can see the metaphorical relationship between the wife under a man, ὕπανδρος γυνὴ,and the original state of all humankind (ἄνθρωπος), under law (ὑπό νόμος).2

The sexual overtones are real here and shouldn’t be ignored.  For instance, the word translated joined in Romans 7:3 is a euphemistic usage of γενέσθαι (a form of γίνομαι): If she be taken (made, done) by another man while her husband is still alive…  The same One who inspired Paul to write this metaphor created the hormonal and neuronal responses that make me feel this husband-wife relationship.  He made marriage to communicate something to me about my relationship to Him.  I don’t want to miss this understanding just because it makes me feel a little gay.  I want to know Him, for this is eternal life.3

The second part of verse 2 is where the metaphor seems to become confused: but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of the marriage (literally: τοῦ νόμου τοῦ ἀνδρός, the law of her man).  In verse 1 the law is lord over a person as long as he lives, and in verse 4a it was the believer who died not the husband/law.  The solution I think is that in everyday life a woman who dies is obviously released from the law of the marriage but she is not free to be taken (made, done) by another.  That only happens in everyday life if her husband dies.  And to be made free to be taken (made, done) by another was the point of the metaphor.

Since those who believe in Jesus Christ have become united with him in the likeness of his death and in the likeness of his resurrection4 they can both die to the law through the body of Christ and are made free to be taken (made, done) by another, to the one who was raised from the dead, to bear fruit to God.5  They are no longer under law, ὑπό νόμος, but under Christ, ὑπό Χριστός.

The ladies have the advantage when it comes to understanding what it means to be ὑπό Χριστός without feeling gay.  But I—who have known the joy and wonder of a wife who even briefly was willingly, happily, contentedly, eagerly and excitedly ὕπανδρος—have the advantage of understanding how discouraging and distressing it must be to the Lord Jesus when I come to Him with rules and regulations rather than willingly, happily, contentedly, eagerly and excitedly.  As I began to grasp the meaning of the metaphor in Romans 7 all my searching the Scripture for rules to obey seemed like a young wife, eager to start her family, studying a sex manual.  Her husband calls out amorously.  “Not now,” she says, “I have to figure out how to bear fruit!”

As I began to add Paul’s understanding in Galatians to this metaphor in Romans 7 I began to see any turning back to the law on my part, any attempt to justify myself by law, or make myself righteous by my efforts to keep laws, like this:  A young wife is eager to start her family.  Her husband calls out amorously, but all he hears is the slamming of the door behind her as she hurries off to hook-up with her ex.  Paul called it fallen away from grace (Galatians 5:4 NET Table).

You who are trying to be declared righteous by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace!

Here I find the meaning of adultery, even of πορνεία, why it is unlawful, why we were made to experience it the way we do.  I can grasp now why it would be as distasteful to God for me to simply walk away from the law—apart from the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ shared as my own—as it would be for a wife to simply walk away from her husband to be taken (made, done) by another.  And it was in the face of this super πορνεία, if you will, against the Lord Jesus Himself that Paul wrote: if a person is discovered in some sin, you who are spiritual restore such a person in a spirit of gentleness.6  In my mind that trumps such πορνεία as is not so much as named among the Gentiles7 and makes Paul’s earlier response to one man’s sin seem disproportionate by comparison.

Is Sin Less Than Sin? Part 3

Posted on by

To understand the relationship of sin (παράπτωμα) to sin (ἁμαρτία) I’ll spend some time considering Paul’s usage of the words in other writings.  Both words were used in Romans 5:12-15 (NET).

So then, just as sin (ἁμαρτία) entered the world through one man and death through sin (ἁμαρτίας, a form of ἁμαρτία), and so death spread to all people because all sinned (ἥμαρτον, a form of ἁμαρτάνω) – for before the law was given, sin (ἁμαρτία) was in the world, but there is no accounting (ἐλλογεῖται, a form of ἐλλογέω) for sin (ἁμαρτία) when there is no law.  Yet death reigned from Adam until Moses1 even over those who did not sin (ἁμαρτήσαντας, a form of ἁμαρτάνω) in the same way that Adam (who is a type of the coming one) transgressed (παραβάσεως, a form παράβασις).  But the gracious gift (χάρισμα) is not like the transgression (παράπτωμα).  For if the many died through the transgression (παραπτώματι, a form of παράπτωμα) of the one man, how much more did the grace (χάρις) of God and the gift (δωρεά) by the grace (χάριτι, a form of χάρις) of the one man Jesus Christ multiply to the many!

Paul made a very specific differentiation between ἁμαρτία and παράπτωμα in this passage, but it is not one of greater or lesser degree.  Sin (ἁμαρτία) entered the world through one man’s παράβασις, that was Adam’s transgression of a specific command not to eat of a particular fruit.  Death entered the world through sin (ἁμαρτία).  Death spread to all people because all sinned (ἁμαρτάνω) despite the fact that not all sinned by breaking a specific commandment like Adam had.  The clause, For if the many died through the transgression (παράπτωμα) of the one man, links παράπτωμα to Adam’s παράβασις.  So sin (παράπτωμα) is the breaking of specific commandments after the law was given and an accounting (ἐλλογέω) must be rendered, as distinct from sin (ἁμαρτία) before the law was given.

I am not prepared to say that Paul maintained this technical differentiation every time he used the words.  But it is a strong indication that παράπτωμα was not less than ἁμαρτία in Paul’s mind.  He continued (Romans 5:16-21 NET):

And the gift is not like the one who sinned (ἁμαρτήσαντος, another form of ἁμαρτάνω).  For judgment (κρίμα), resulting from the one transgression, led to condemnation (κατάκριμα), but the gracious gift (χάρισμα) from the many failures (παραπτωμάτων, another form of παράπτωμα) led to justification (δικαίωμα).  For if, by the transgression (παραπτώματι, a form of παράπτωμα) of the one man, death reigned through the one, how much more will those who receive the abundance of grace (χάριτος, a form of χάρις) and of the gift (δωρεᾶς, a form of δωρεά) of righteousness (δικαιοσύνης, a form of δικαιοσύνη) reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ!

Consequently, just as condemnation (κατάκριμα) for all people came through one transgression (παραπτώματος, another form of παράπτωμα), so too through the one righteous act (δικαιώματος, a form of δικαίωμα) came righteousness (δικαίωσιν, a form of δικαίωσις) leading to life for all people.  For just as through the disobedience (παρακοῆς, a form of παρακοή) of the one man many were made sinners (ἁμαρτωλοὶ, a form of ἁμαρτωλός), so also through the obedience (ὑπακοῆς, a form of ὑπακοή) of one man many will be made righteous (δίκαιοι, a form of δίκαιος).  Now the law came in so that the transgression (παράπτωμα) may increase, but where sin (ἁμαρτία) increased, grace (χάρις) multiplied all the more, so that just as sin (ἁμαρτία) reigned in death, so also grace (χάρις) will reign through righteousness (δικαιοσύνης, a form of δικαιοσύνη) to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The law came in so that παράπτωμα may increase, but where ἁμαρτία increased, grace (χάρις) multiplied all the more, seems more like synonymous usage of παράπτωμα and ἁμαρτία rather than any kind of differentiation at all.  Similarly in 1 Corinthians 15:3 (NET) and Romans 4:25 (NET):

For I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received – that Christ died for our sins (ἁμαρτιῶν, a form of ἁμαρτία) according to the scriptures…

He was given over because of our transgressions (παραπτώματα, a form of παράπτωμα) and was raised for the sake of our justification (δικαίωσιν, a form of δικαίωσις).

It may seem at first glance that Paul meant two things in Ephesians 2:1 (NET):

And although you were dead in your2 transgressions (παραπτώμασιν, a form of παράπτωμα) and sins (ἁμαρτίαις, a form of ἁμαρτία)…

But if I consider the other occurrences of παράπτωμα in Ephesians and the fact that Paul only mentioned ἁμαρτία in 2:1, it seems to me that this was a matter of completeness rather than differentiation.  In [Christ] we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness (ἄφεσιν, a form of ἄφεσις) of our trespasses (παραπτωμάτων, a form of παράπτωμα), according to the riches3 of his grace (χάριτος, a form of χάρις).4  But God, being rich in mercy, because of his great love (ἀγάπην, a form of ἀγάπη) with which he loved (ἠγάπησεν, a form of ἀγαπάω) us, even though we were dead in transgressions (παραπτώμασιν, a form of παράπτωμα), made us alive together with Christ – by grace (χάριτι, a form of χάρις) you are saved!5

I am fairly confident that Paul did not intend sin (παράπτωμα) in Galatians 6:1 to mean something less than sin (ἁμαρτία).  But what if my argument is a straw man?  What if the real issue is between sin, whether παράπτωμα or ἁμαρτία, and such πορνεία as is not so much as named among the Gentiles?6  What if the former is to be dealt with in a spirit of gentleness, and the latter is to be judged, condemned and shunned?  Do not even eat with such a person.7

 

 

Addendum: July 29, 2019
Tables  comparing Romans 5:14; Ephesians 2:1and 1:7 in the NET and KJV follow.

Romans 5:14 (NET)

Romans 5:14 (KJV)
Yet death reigned from Adam until Moses even over those who did not sin in the same way that Adam (who is a type of the coming one) transgressed. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

NET Parallel Greek

 Stephanus Textus Receptus

Byzantine Majority Text
ἀλλὰ ἐβασίλευσεν ὁ θάνατος ἀπὸ Ἀδὰμ μέχρι Μωϋσέως καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς μὴ ἁμαρτήσαντας ἐπὶ τῷ ὁμοιώματι τῆς παραβάσεως Ἀδὰμ (ὅς ἐστιν τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος) αλλ εβασιλευσεν ο θανατος απο αδαμ μεχρι μωσεως και επι τους μη αμαρτησαντας επι τω ομοιωματι της παραβασεως αδαμ ος εστιν τυπος του μελλοντος αλλ εβασιλευσεν ο θανατος απο αδαμ μεχρι μωσεως και επι τους μη αμαρτησαντας επι τω ομοιωματι της παραβασεως αδαμ ος εστιν τυπος του μελλοντος

Ephesians 2:1 (NET)

Ephesians 2:1 (KJV)
And although you were dead in your offenses and sins, And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins:

NET Parallel Greek

 Stephanus Textus Receptus

Byzantine Majority Text
Καὶ ὑμᾶς ὄντας νεκροὺς τοῖς παραπτώμασιν καὶ ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ὑμῶν και υμας οντας νεκρους τοις παραπτωμασιν και ταις αμαρτιαις και υμας οντας νεκρους τοις παραπτωμασιν και ταις αμαρτιαις

Ephesians 1:7 (NET)

Ephesians 1:7 (KJV)
In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our offenses, according to the riches of his grace In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

NET Parallel Greek

 Stephanus Textus Receptus

Byzantine Majority Text
Ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν διὰ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ, τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν παραπτωμάτων, κατὰ τὸ πλοῦτος τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ εν ω εχομεν την απολυτρωσιν δια του αιματος αυτου την αφεσιν των παραπτωματων κατα τον πλουτον της χαριτος αυτου εν ω εχομεν την απολυτρωσιν δια του αιματος αυτου την αφεσιν των παραπτωματων κατα τον πλουτον της χαριτος αυτου

4 Ephesians 1:7 (NET)

5 Ephesians 2:4, 5 (NET)

6 1 Corinthians 5:1 (KJV) Table

7 1 Corinthians 5:11b (NET) Table

What is Sexual Immorality?

Posted on by

For a long time I thought I understood exactly what sexual immorality (πορνεία) in 1 Corinthians 5:1 (NET) [Table] meant.

It is actually reported that sexual immorality (πορνεία) exists among you, the kind of immorality (πορνεία) that is not permitted even among the Gentiles, so that someone is cohabiting (ἔχειν, a form of ἔχω) with his father’s wife.

I assumed that father’s wife meant not the son’s mother.  So I assumed this wife was at least the father’s second, probably younger than he, maybe even closer to the son’s age.  The son and the father’s new young wife became attracted to one another.  Either she divorced the father and married the son or simply ran off with the son.  The Greek word translated cohabiting is ἔχειν (ἔχω, to hold) and might mean either (along with a host of other forms of possession or ownership usually translated to have).

For all I know this is exactly what it means, but some confusion and uncertainty set in as I began to wonder what πορνεία itself meant, especially when I began to suspect that it had something to do with “idolatrous worship (including its drunken sexual practices).”  My religious mind says, “Look, I’ve got the rule: ‘Don’t mess around with your father’s wife.’  I’m satisfied with that.  Don’t confuse me.”  I’ve obviously become suspicious of my religious mind.  So in the spirit of expanding the context a bit and knowing the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom [He] sent1 I’m going to explore some of my confusion.

The sin scenario I described above is adultery (μοιχεία) plain and simple.  Why call it πορνεία?  But I had assumed that the father was still alive.  What if the father was already deceased?

You must not have sexual intercourse with your father’s wife; she is your father’s nakedness.

Leviticus 18:8 (NET)

 If a man has sexual intercourse with his father’s wife, he has exposed his father’s nakedness.  Both of them must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves.

Leviticus 20:11 (NET)

This is the strongest indication I know that πορνεία meant a violation of Leviticus 18 and 20 to Jesus, Paul and the New Testament writers.  But why would there be such an arbitrary limit?  Why didn’t πορνεία mean immorality in general, any and every violation of God’s law?  That led me inexorably to the conclusion that though πορνεία may have connoted violations of Leviticus 18 and 20 in Jewish minds (strictly speaking Paul was descended from Benjamin not Judah), its underlying denotation in Greek was the sexuality of ancient (and not so ancient) religious worship.

This form of religious worship was still practiced openly in Corinth.  In Corinth the πόρνη, the female devotee of this manner of worship, still lived in all her honor and glory.  And I think it is safe to say that though this form of worship wasn’t mandatory, it was still a good way to advance one’s business and political ambitions (not to mention satisfying a thirst for wine, women and song).  With that in mind I want to look at the next chapter of 1 Corinthians.  I’m quoting 1 Corinthians 6:12-20 (NET), except that I’m not translating words from the πόρνος word group.

“All things are lawful for me” – but not everything is beneficial.  “All things are lawful for me” – but I will not be controlled by anything.  “Food is for the stomach and the stomach is for food, but God will do away with both.”  The body is not for [πορνείᾳ], but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.  Now God indeed raised the Lord and he will raise us by his power.  Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ?  Should I take the members of Christ and make them members of a [πόρνης, a form of πόρνη]?  Never!  Or do you not know that anyone who is united with a [πόρνῃ] is one body with her?  For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”  But the one united with the Lord is one spirit with him.  Flee [πορνείαν, a form of πορνείᾳ]!  “Every sin a person commits is outside of the body” – but [πορνεύων, a form of πορνεύω] sins against his own body.  Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?  For you were bought at a price.  Therefore glorify God with your body.2

While it is probably true that the body is not for an everyday-run-of-the-mill prostitute, I think the thrust of Paul’s message above (I should say “no pun intended,” but I can’t say for sure) was the cultic variety.  Members of Christ should not also become members of other gods (or goddesses).

The phrases in quotes above are thought to be Corinthian slogans (notes 10, 11) by the translators of the NET.  That may be true, but I still believe that, All things are lawful for me but not everything is beneficial is Paul’s take home message from the Jerusalem Council.  I seriously doubt that James took home the same message.  And I believe that Paul was beginning to struggle with it a bit here.

At the time of the Jerusalem Council God had apparently only called Gentiles who were Jewish converts, God fearers or people who had attached themselves to Jewish synagogues in some fashion.  In Corinth He also called, The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, thieves, the greedy, drunkards,3 the verbally abusive, and swindlers.4  And He had given them his Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 1:4-9 NET).

I always thank my God for you because of the grace of God that was given to you in Christ Jesus.  For you were made rich in every way in him, in all your speech and in every kind of knowledge – just as the testimony about Christ has been confirmed among you – so that you do not lack any spiritual gift as you wait for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ.  He will also strengthen you to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.  God is faithful, by whom you were called into fellowship with his son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Apparently some of them were having difficulty shedding their former sins.  What’s a former Pharisee to do?  Paul singled out one man who had his father’s wife, and made an example of him.  I’ve considered that perhaps this man had (ἔχειν, a form of ἔχω) his father’s wife in a more commercial sense, that he was pimping her somehow as a temple prostitute.  But it feels like I’m reaching.  Paul was quite careful in 1 Corinthians 7:2 (NET) to clarify the vagaries of ἐχέτω (another form of ἔχω).

But because of immoralities (πορνείας, a form of πορνεία), each man should have relations with (ἐχέτω, another form of ἔχω) his own wife and each woman with (ἐχέτω, another form of ἔχω) her own husband.

The translators added the words relations with for clarity.  In Greek it reads more like, each man should have his own wife and each woman should have her own husband.  Out of context like this it is a clear command that all in Corinth should marry.  But Paul introduced this statement with 1 Corinthians 7:1 (NET).

It is good (καλὸν, a form of καλός) for a man not to have sexual relations (ἅπτεσθαι, a form of ἅπτω) with a woman.

So he clarified the meaning of ἔχω (ἐχέτω) in this case and kept its use from becoming an unintended prohibition against celibacy.  Surely some clarification or elaboration on ἔχω (ἔχειν) was in order if Paul meant to communicate that a man was pimping his father’s wife as a temple prostitute, unless the meaning of πορνεία so clearly and exclusively referenced such activity that no other meaning would have been considered.  And I am still a long way from accepting that idea.  I consider 1 Thessalonians 4:1-5 (NET):

Finally5 then, brothers and sisters, we ask you and urge you in the Lord Jesus, that6 as you received instruction from us about how you must live and please God (as you are in fact living)7 that you do so more and more.  For you know what commands we gave you through the Lord Jesus.  For this is God’s will: that you become holy, that you keep away from [πορνείας], that each of you know how to possess his own body in holiness and honor, not in lustful passion like the Gentiles who do not know God.

So far so good.  I’m willing to accept that Paul was writing about abstaining from idolatrous worship (including its drunken sexual practices).  But wait, Paul continued (1 Thessalonians 4:6-8 NET):

In this matter no one should violate the rights of his brother or take advantage of him, because the8 Lord is the avenger in all these cases, as we also told you earlier9 and warned you solemnly.  For God did not call us to impurity but in holiness.  Consequently the one who rejects this is not rejecting human authority but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you.10

I don’t know if believing women in the first century could be compelled against their wills11 to serve in Thessalonica as cult prostitutes or not.  I would hope if that were the case that Paul’s words would have had more fight in them.  He probably wouldn’t have said, “Lock and load, brothers!”  I doubt that Paul would consider having the brothers go all Simeon and Levi12 on the town of Thessalonica was the best way to present the Gospel.  But he might have suggested that a brother should get to her first, buy her and take her home to her husband, rather than the comparatively wimpy admonition not to violate the rights of his brother or take advantage of the situation!

So, though Paul used the word πορνείας (a form of πορνεία) in 1 Thessalonians 4:3, I sincerely hope he meant simple adultery, (μοιχεία).  And its usage here persuades me that πορνεία could mean μοιχεία.

 

Addendum: April 6, 2019

Tables comparing Leviticus 18:8; 20:11 and Genesis 2:24 in the Tanakh and NET, and the tables comparing Leviticus 18:8; 20:11 and Genesis 2:24 in the Septuagint (BLB and Elpenor) follow.  Following those are tables comparing 1 Corinthians 6:20; 6:10; 7:1; 1 Thessalonians 4:1; 4:6 and 4:8 in the NET and KJV.

Leviticus 18:8 (Tanakh) Leviticus 18:8 (NET)
The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s nakedness. You must not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; she is your father’s nakedness.
Leviticus 18:8 (Septuagint BLB) Leviticus 18:8 (Septuagint Elpenor)
ἀσχημοσύνην γυναικὸς πατρός σου οὐκ ἀποκαλύψεις ἀσχημοσύνη πατρός σού ἐστιν ἀσχημοσύνην γυναικὸς πατρός σου οὐκ ἀποκαλύψεις, ἀσχημοσύνη πατρὸς σού ἐστιν.
Leviticus 18:8 (NETS) Leviticus 18:8 (English Elpenor)
You shall not uncover the shame of your father’s wife; it is the shame of your father. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s wife; it is thy father’s nakedness.
Leviticus 20:11 (Tanakh) Leviticus 20:11 (NET)
And the man that lieth with his father’s wife–he hath uncovered his father’s nakedness–both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. If a man goes to bed with his father’s wife, he has exposed his father’s nakedness.  Both of them must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves.
Leviticus 20:11 (Septuagint BLB) Leviticus 20:11 (Septuagint Elpenor)
ἐάν τις κοιμηθῇ μετὰ γυναικὸς τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ ἀσχημοσύνην τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ ἀπεκάλυψεν θανάτῳ θανατούσθωσαν ἀμφότεροι ἔνοχοί εἰσιν καὶ ἐάν τις κοιμηθῇ μετὰ γυναικὸς τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ, ἀσχημοσύνην τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ ἀπεκάλυψε, θανάτῳ θανατούσθωσαν, ἀμφότεροι ἔνοχοί εἰσι.
Leviticus 20:11 (NETS) Leviticus 20:11 (English Elpenor)
And if anyone lies with his father’s wife, he has uncovered his father’s shame; let both of them by death be put to death; they are liable. And if any one should lie with his father’s wife, he has uncovered his father’s nakedness: let them both die the death, they are guilty.
Genesis 2:24 (Tanakh) Genesis 2:24 (KJV)
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh. 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 (Septuagint BLB) Genesis 2:24 (Septuagint Elpenor)
ἕνεκεν τούτου καταλείψει ἄνθρωπος τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν μητέρα αὐτοῦ καὶ προσκολληθήσεται πρὸς τὴν γυναῗκα αὐτοῦ καὶ ἔσονται οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν ἕνεκεν τούτου καταλείψει ἄνθρωπος τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν μητέρα καὶ προσκολληθήσεται πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἔσονται οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν.
Genesis 2:24 (NETS) Genesis 2:24 (English Elpenor)
Therefore a man will leave his father and mother and will be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
1 Corinthians 6:20 (NET) 1 Corinthians 6:20 (KJV)
For you were bought at a price.  Therefore glorify God with your body. For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.
NET Parallel Greek Stephanus Textus Receptus Byzantine Majority Text
ἠγοράσθητε γὰρ τιμῆς· δοξάσατε δὴ τὸν θεὸν ἐν τῷ σώματι ὑμῶν ηγορασθητε γαρ τιμης δοξασατε δη τον θεον εν τω σωματι υμων και εν τω πνευματι υμων ατινα εστιν του θεου ηγορασθητε γαρ τιμης δοξασατε δη τον θεον εν τω σωματι υμων και εν τω πνευματι υμων ατινα εστιν του θεου
1 Corinthians 6:10 (NET) 1 Corinthians 6:10 (KJV)
thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God. Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
NET Parallel Greek Stephanus Textus Receptus Byzantine Majority Text
οὔτε κλέπται οὔτε πλεονέκται, οὐ μέθυσοι, οὐ λοίδοροι, οὐχ ἅρπαγες βασιλείαν θεοῦ κληρονομήσουσιν ουτε κλεπται ουτε πλεονεκται ουτε μεθυσοι ου λοιδοροι ουχ αρπαγες βασιλειαν θεου ου κληρονομησουσιν ουτε πλεονεκται ουτε κλεπται ουτε μεθυσοι ου λοιδοροι ουχ αρπαγες βασιλειαν θεου ου κληρονομησουσιν
1 Corinthians 7:1 (NET) 1 Corinthians 7:1 (KJV)
Now with regard to the issues you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
NET Parallel Greek Stephanus Textus Receptus Byzantine Majority Text
Περὶ δὲ ὧν ἐγράψατε, καλὸν ἀνθρώπῳ γυναικὸς μὴ ἅπτεσθαι περι δε ων εγραψατε μοι καλον ανθρωπω γυναικος μη απτεσθαι περι δε ων εγραψατε μοι καλον ανθρωπω γυναικος μη απτεσθαι
1 Thessalonians 4:1 (NET) 1 Thessalonians 4:1 (KJV)
Finally then, brothers and sisters, we ask you and urge you in the Lord Jesus, that as you received instruction from us about how you must live and please God (as you are in fact living) that you do so more and more. Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more.
NET Parallel Greek Stephanus Textus Receptus Byzantine Majority Text
Λοιπὸν |οὖν|, ἀδελφοί, ἐρωτῶμεν ὑμᾶς καὶ παρακαλοῦμεν ἐν κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ, |ἵνα| καθὼς παρελάβετε παρ᾿ ἡμῶν τὸ πῶς δεῖ ὑμᾶς περιπατεῖν καὶ ἀρέσκειν θεῷ (καθὼς καὶ περιπατεῖτε) ἵνα περισσεύητε μᾶλλον το λοιπον ουν αδελφοι ερωτωμεν υμας και παρακαλουμεν εν κυριω ιησου καθως παρελαβετε παρ ημων το πως δει υμας περιπατειν και αρεσκειν θεω ινα περισσευητε μαλλον το λοιπον ουν αδελφοι ερωτωμεν υμας και παρακαλουμεν εν κυριω ιησου καθως παρελαβετε παρ ημων το πως δει υμας περιπατειν και αρεσκειν θεω ινα περισσευητε μαλλον
1 Thessalonians 4:6 (NET) 1 Thessalonians 4:6 (KJV)
In this matter no one should violate the rights of his brother or take advantage of him, because the Lord is the avenger in all these cases, as we also told you earlier and warned you solemnly. That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified.
NET Parallel Greek Stephanus Textus Receptus Byzantine Majority Text
τὸ μὴ ὑπερβαίνειν καὶ πλεονεκτεῖν ἐν τῷ πράγματι τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ, διότι ἔκδικος κύριος περὶ πάντων τούτων, καθὼς καὶ προείπαμεν ὑμῖν καὶ διεμαρτυράμεθα το μη υπερβαινειν και πλεονεκτειν εν τω πραγματι τον αδελφον αυτου διοτι εκδικος ο κυριος περι παντων τουτων καθως και προειπαμεν υμιν και διεμαρτυραμεθα ο μη υπερβαινειν και πλεονεκτειν εν τω πραγματι τον αδελφον αυτου διοτι εκδικος ο κυριος περι παντων τουτων καθως και προειπομεν υμιν και διεμαρτυραμεθα
1 Thessalonians 4:8 (NET) 1 Thessalonians 4:8 (KJV)
Consequently the one who rejects this is not rejecting human authority but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you. He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his holy Spirit.
NET Parallel Greek Stephanus Textus Receptus Byzantine Majority Text
τοιγαροῦν ὁ ἀθετῶν οὐκ ἄνθρωπον ἀθετεῖ ἀλλὰ τὸν θεὸν τὸν [καὶ] διδόντα τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ τὸ ἅγιον εἰς ὑμᾶς τοιγαρουν ο αθετων ουκ ανθρωπον αθετει αλλα τον θεον τον και δοντα το πνευμα αυτου το αγιον εις ημας τοιγαρουν ο αθετων ουκ ανθρωπον αθετει αλλα τον θεον τον και δοντα το πνευμα αυτου το αγιον εις υμας

1 John 17:3 (NET)

2 The Stephanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text had και εν τω πνευματι υμων ατινα εστιν του θεου (KJV: and in your spirit, which are God’s) here.  The NET parallel Greek text and NA28 did not.

3 The NET parallel Greek text and NA28 had οὐ preceding drunkards, where the Stephanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text had ουτε.

4 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10a (NET)

5 The Stephanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text had the article το preceding Finally (KJV: Furthermore).  The NET parallel Greek text and NA28 did not.

7 The phrase καθὼς καὶ περιπατεῖτε (as you are in fact living) in the NET parallel Greek text and NA28 was not in the Stephanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text.

8 The Stephanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text had the article ο here.  The NET parallel Greek text and NA28 did not.

10 The NET parallel Greek text, NA28 and Byzantine Majority Text had ὑμᾶς here, where the Stephanus Textus Receptus had ημας (KJV: unto us).

11 And I must assume against their wills, otherwise this should be addressed to the women rather than the men.

12 Cf. Genesis 34:25.  When Jacob complained to his sons, Simeon and Levi replied, “Should he treat our sister like a common prostitute?” (Genesis 34:31 NET).  Common prostitute was πόρνῃ in the Septuagint.  Their sister Dinah was either raped, or seduced before proper wedding arrangements had been made (Genesis 34:2).

Adultery in the Law, Part 3

Posted on by

The translators of the New American Bible1 chose the marriage is unlawful for πορνεία in Matthew 5:32 [Table].  So I will substitute that translation in the NET:

But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the marriage is unlawful, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

The footnote in the New American Bible references Leviticus 18:6-18 rather than Leviticus 20:11-21.  A comparison of the two passages follows.

Leviticus 18:6-18 (NET)

Leviticus 20:11-21 (NET)
No man is to approach any close relative to have sexual intercourse with her.  I am the Lord.  You must not expose your father’s nakedness by having sexual intercourse with your mother.  She is your mother; you must not have intercourse with her.  You must not have sexual intercourse with your father’s wife; she is your father’s nakedness [Table].

Leviticus 18:6-8 (NET)

 If a man has sexual intercourse with his father’s wife, he has exposed his father’s nakedness.  Both of them must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves.

Leviticus 20:11 (NET) Table
You must not have sexual intercourse with your sister, whether she is your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she is born in the same household or born outside it; you must not have sexual intercourse with either of them.

Leviticus 18:9 (NET) Table

 If a man has sexual intercourse with his sister, whether the daughter of his father or his mother,   so that he sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace.   They must be cut off in the sight of the children of their people.  He has exposed his sister’s nakedness; he will bear his punishment for iniquity.

Leviticus 20:17 (NET) Table
You must not expose the nakedness of your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter by having sexual intercourse with them, because they are your own nakedness.

Leviticus 18:10 (NET)
You must not have sexual intercourse with the daughter of your father’s wife born of your father; she is your sister.  You must not have intercourse with her.

Leviticus 18:11 (NET)
You must not have sexual intercourse with your father’s sister; she is your father’s flesh.  You must not have sexual intercourse with your mother’s sister, because she is your mother’s   flesh.  You must not expose the nakedness of your father’s brother; you must not approach his wife to have sexual intercourse with her.  She is your aunt.

Leviticus 18:12-14 (NET)

 You must not expose the nakedness of your mother’s sister and your father’s sister, for such a person has laid bare his own close relative.  They must bear their punishment for iniquity [Table].  If a man has sexual intercourse with his aunt, he has exposed his uncle’s nakedness; they must bear responsibility for their sin, they will die childless [Table].

Leviticus 20:19, 20 (NET)
You must not have sexual intercourse with your daughter-in-law; she is your son’s wife. You must not have intercourse with her.

Leviticus 18:15 (NET)

 If a man has sexual intercourse with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death.  They   have committed perversion; their blood guilt is on themselves.

Leviticus 20:12 (NET) Table
You must not have sexual intercourse with your brother’s wife; she is your brother’s nakedness.

Leviticus 18:16 (NET)

 If a man has sexual intercourse with his brother’s wife, it is indecency.  He has exposed his brother’s nakedness; they will be childless.

Leviticus 20:21 (NET) Table
You must not have sexual intercourse with both a woman and her daughter; you must not take as wife either her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter to have intercourse with them.  They are closely related to her – it is lewdness.

Leviticus 18:17 (NET)

 If a man has sexual intercourse with both a woman and her mother, it is lewdness.  Both he and they must be burned to death, so there is no lewdness in your midst.

Leviticus 20:14 (NET) Table
You must not take a woman in marriage and then marry her sister as a rival wife while she is still   alive, to have sexual intercourse with her.

Leviticus 18:18 (NET)

There are offenses listed in Leviticus 18:6-18 that don’t have a corresponding punishment in Leviticus 20:11-21.  Also there are punishments for offenses in Leviticus 20:11-21 that are not mentioned in Leviticus 18:6-18.  They do appear just outside that arbitrary limit:

You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act.

Leviticus 18:22 (NET)

 If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination.  They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves.

Leviticus 20:13 (NET) Table
You must not have sexual intercourse with any animal to become defiled with it, and a woman must not stand before an animal to have sexual intercourse with it; it is a perversion.

Leviticus 18:23 (NET)

 If a man has sexual intercourse with any animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal [Table].  If a woman approaches any animal to have sexual intercourse with it, you must kill the woman, and the animal must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves [Table].

Leviticus 20:15, 16 (NET)
You must not approach a woman in her menstrual impurity to have sexual intercourse with her.

Leviticus 18:19 (NET)

 If a man has sexual intercourse with a menstruating woman and uncovers her nakedness, he has laid bare her fountain of blood and she has exposed the fountain of her blood, so both of them must be cut off from the midst of their people.

Leviticus 20:18 (NET) Table

Both lists combined still comprise a finite set of twelve dimensions.  That addresses my primary discomfort relative to the open-ended translation of πορνεία as immorality in the NET.  One would think I would be happier than I feel about it.  I want to revisit Matthew 5:32 (NET) and 19:9 (NET) with X = porneia (πορνεία).

Matthew 5:32 (NET)

Matthew 19:9 (NET)
I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for X, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Now I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for X, and marries another commits adultery.

The structure seems to imply that 1) divorce is forbidden, 2) remarriage is adultery, 3) except for πορνεία.  I took Matthew 5:32 to be saying that if the husband who divorced his wife was guilty of πορνεία, Jesus would not consider the divorced wife an adulteress when she remarried, nor hold her new husband guilty of committing adultery.  In Matthew 19:9 I assumed that the divorced wife was guilty of πορνεία and that Jesus would not hold the divorced husband liable for adultery if he remarried.

Is there an implicit permission to divorce a wife guilty of πορνεία in Matthew 19:9?  It may appear so out of context.   But if I bear in mind that Jesus’ original answer to the Pharisees’ question—Is it lawful (ἔξεστιν, a form of ἔξεστι) to divorce a wife for any cause?—was an emphatic no, that apparent permissiveness recedes into the background.  But here’s what happens if I substitute the marriage is unlawful (where the marriage is unlawful = the sets Leviticus 20:11-21 and Leviticus 18:6-18, 19, 22, 23) for X = porneia (πορνεία).

Matthew 5:32 (NET)

Matthew 19:9 (NET)
I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the marriage is unlawful, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Now I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for the marriage is unlawful, and marries another commits adultery.

Now both the divorced husband and his wife are guilty of πορνεία [e.g., their marriage was unlawful], and both are free of the charge of adultery if remarried.  And divorce in these cases, rather than being forbidden, is obligatory?  And I was entertaining the idea that this was a better translation of πορνεία than immorality?

Though the New American Bible translators were consistent in their translation of Matthew 5:32, 19:9; Acts 15:20, 29, and 21:25, they reverted to immorality in 1 Corinthians 5:1 as opposed to unlawful marriage for πορνεία.  This is the one place where Paul may actually have referred to the law in Leviticus 18:8 and 20:11, and called it πορνεία.

It is widely reported that there is immorality (πορνεία) among you, and immorality (πορνεία) of a kind not found2 even among pagans – a man living with his father’s wife.

Still, there is an incident in the Old Testament (Ezra 9, 10) where divorce was utilized as the remedy for another kind of unlawful marriage (Ezra 9:1, 2 NET):

The people of Israel, the priests, and the Levites have not separated themselves from the local residents who practice detestable things similar to those of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites.  Indeed, they have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and for their sons, so that the holy race has become intermingled with the local residents.  Worse still, the leaders and the officials have been at the forefront of all of this!

 

Addendum: January 16, 2019
A table comparing 1 Corinthians 5:1 in the NET and KJV follows.

1 Corinthians 5:1 (NET)

1 Corinthians 5:1 (KJV)
It is actually reported that sexual immorality exists among you, the kind of immorality that is not permitted even among the Gentiles, so that someone is cohabiting with his father’s wife. It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.

NET Parallel Greek

 Stephanus Textus Receptus

Byzantine Majority Text
Ὅλως ἀκούεται ἐν ὑμῖν πορνεία, καὶ τοιαύτη πορνεία ἥτις οὐδὲ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, ὥστε γυναῖκα τινα τοῦ πατρὸς ἔχειν ολως ακουεται εν υμιν πορνεια και τοιαυτη πορνεια ητις ουδε εν τοις εθνεσιν ονομαζεται ωστε γυναικα τινα του πατρος εχειν ολως ακουεται εν υμιν πορνεια και τοιαυτη πορνεια ητις ουδε εν τοις εθνεσιν ονομαζεται ωστε γυναικα τινα του πατρος εχειν

 

Addendum: October 5, 2021
Tables comparing Leviticus 18:6; 18:7; 18:10; 18:11; 18:12, 18:13; 18:14; 18:15; 18:16; 18:17; 18:18; 18:22; 18:23; 18:19; Ezra 9:1 and 9:2 in the Tanakh, KJV and NET, and tables comparing the Greek of Leviticus 18:6; 18:7; 18:10; 18:11; 18:12; 18:13; 18:14; 18:15; 18:16; 18:17; 18:18; 18:22; 18:23; 18:19; Ezra (2 Esdras) 9:1 and 9:2 in the Septuagint (BLB and Elpenor) follow.

Leviticus 18:6 (Tanakh)

 Leviticus 18:6 (KJV)

Leviticus 18:6 (NET)
None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness.  I am HaShem. None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD. “‘No man is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations with her.  I am the Lord.

Leviticus 18:6 (Septuagint BLB)

Leviticus 18:6 (Septuagint Elpenor)
ἄνθρωπος ἄνθρωπος πρὸς πάντα οἰκεῗα σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ οὐ προσελεύσεται ἀποκαλύψαι ἀσχημοσύνην ἐγὼ κύριος Ανθρωπος ἄνθρωπος πρὸς πάντα οἰκεῖα σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ οὐ προσελεύσεται ἀποκαλύψαι ἀσχημοσύνην· ἐγὼ Κύριος

Leviticus 18:6 (NETS)

Leviticus 18:6 (English Elpenor)
Person by person shall not approach any of the household of his flesh to uncover shame; I am the Lord. No man shall draw nigh to any of his near kindred to uncover their nakedness; I [am] the Lord.

Leviticus 18:7 (Tanakh)

 Leviticus 18:7 (KJV)

Leviticus 18:7 (NET)
The nakedness of thy father, and the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. You must not expose your father’s nakedness by having sexual relations with your mother.  She is your mother; you must not have sexual relations with her.

Leviticus 18:7 (Septuagint BLB)

Leviticus 18:7 (Septuagint Elpenor)
ἀσχημοσύνην πατρός σου καὶ ἀσχημοσύνην μητρός σου οὐκ ἀποκαλύψεις μήτηρ γάρ σού ἐστιν καὶ οὐκ ἀποκαλύψεις τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην αὐτῆς ἀσχημοσύνην πατρός σου καὶ ἀσχημοσύνην μητρός σου οὐκ ἀποκαλύψεις, μήτηρ γάρ σού ἐστιν, οὐκ ἀποκαλύψεις τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην αὐτῆς

Leviticus 18:7 (NETS)

Leviticus 18:7 (English Elpenor)
You shall not uncover the shame of your father and the shame of your mother, for she is your mother; you shall not uncover her shame. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, for she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

Leviticus 18:10 (Tanakh)

 Leviticus 18:10 (KJV)

Leviticus 18:10 (NET)
The nakedness of thy son’s daughter, or of thy daughter’s daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover; for theirs is thine own nakedness. The nakedness of thy son’s daughter, or of thy daughter’s daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness. You must not expose the nakedness of your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter by having sexual relations with them, because they are your own nakedness.

Leviticus 18:10 (Septuagint BLB)

Leviticus 18:10 (Septuagint Elpenor)
ἀσχημοσύνην θυγατρὸς υἱοῦ σου ἢ θυγατρὸς θυγατρός σου οὐκ ἀποκαλύψεις τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην αὐτῶν ὅτι σὴ ἀσχημοσύνη ἐστίν ἀσχημοσύνην θυγατρὸς υἱοῦ σου ἢ θυγατρὸς θυγατρός σου οὐκ ἀποκαλύψεις τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην αὐτῶν, ὅτι σὴ ἀσχημοσύνη ἐστίν

Leviticus 18:10 (NETS)

Leviticus 18:10 (English Elpenor)
You shall not uncover their shame—the shame of your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter, for it is your own shame. The nakedness of thy son’s daughter, or thy daughter’s daughter, their nakedness thou shalt not uncover; because it is thy nakedness.

Leviticus 18:11 (Tanakh)

 Leviticus 18:11 (KJV)

Leviticus 18:11 (NET)
The nakedness of thy father’s wife’s daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. The nakedness of thy father’s wife’s daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. You must not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father’s wife born of your father; she is your sister.  You must not have sexual relations with her.

Leviticus 18:11 (Septuagint BLB)

Leviticus 18:11 (Septuagint Elpenor)
ἀσχημοσύνην θυγατρὸς γυναικὸς πατρός σου οὐκ ἀποκαλύψεις ὁμοπατρία ἀδελφή σού ἐστιν οὐκ ἀποκαλύψεις τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην αὐτῆς ἀσχημοσύνην θυγατρὸς γυναικὸς πατρός σου οὐκ ἀποκαλύψεις, ὁμοπατρία ἀδελφή σού ἐστιν, οὐκ ἀποκαλύψεις τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην αὐτῆς

Leviticus 18:11 (NETS)

Leviticus 18:11 (English Elpenor)
You shall not uncover the shame of your father’s wife’s daughter; she is your sister by the same father.  You shall not uncover her shame. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of the daughter of thy father’s wife; she is thy sister by the same father: thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

Leviticus 18:12 (Tanakh)

 Leviticus 18:12 (KJV)

Leviticus 18:12 (NET)
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s sister: she is thy father’s near kinswoman. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s sister: she is thy father’s near kinswoman. You must not have sexual relations with your father’s sister; she is your father’s flesh.

Leviticus 18:12 (Septuagint BLB)

Leviticus 18:12 (Septuagint Elpenor)
ἀσχημοσύνην ἀδελφῆς πατρός σου οὐκ ἀποκαλύψεις οἰκεία γὰρ πατρός σού ἐστιν ἀσχημοσύνην ἀδελφῆς πατρός σου οὐκ ἀποκαλύψεις, οἰκεία γὰρ πατρός σού ἐστιν

Leviticus 18:12 (NETS)

Leviticus 18:12 (English Elpenor)
You shall not uncover the shame of your father’s sister, for she is your father’s own household. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s sister, for she is near akin to thy father.

Leviticus 18:13 (Tanakh)

 Leviticus 18:13 (KJV)

Leviticus 18:13 (NET)
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother’s sister; for she is thy mother’s near kinswoman. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother’s sister: for she is thy mother’s near kinswoman. You must not have sexual relations with your mother’s sister, because she is your mother’s flesh.

Leviticus 18:13 (Septuagint BLB)

Leviticus 18:13 (Septuagint Elpenor)
ἀσχημοσύνην ἀδελφῆς μητρός σου οὐκ ἀποκαλύψεις οἰκεία γὰρ μητρός σού ἐστιν ἀσχημοσύνην ἀδελφῆς μητρός σου οὐκ ἀποκαλύψεις, οἰκεία γὰρ μητρός σού ἐστιν

Leviticus 18:13 (NETS)

Leviticus 18:13 (English Elpenor)
You shall not uncover the shame of your mother’s sister, for she is of your mother’s own household. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother’s sister, for she is near akin to thy mother.

Leviticus 18:14 (Tanakh)

 Leviticus 18:14 (KJV)

Leviticus 18:14 (NET)
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy fathers brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt. You must not expose the nakedness of your father’s brother; you must not approach his wife to have marital relations with her.  She is your aunt.

Leviticus 18:14 (Septuagint BLB)

Leviticus 18:14 (Septuagint Elpenor)
ἀσχημοσύνην ἀδελφοῦ τοῦ πατρός σου οὐκ ἀποκαλύψεις καὶ πρὸς τὴν γυναῗκα αὐτοῦ οὐκ εἰσελεύσῃ συγγενὴς γάρ σού ἐστιν ἀσχημοσύνην ἀδελφοῦ τοῦ πατρός σου οὐκ ἀποκαλύψεις καὶ πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ οὐκ εἰσελεύσῃ, συγγενής γάρ σού ἐστιν

Leviticus 18:14 (NETS)

Leviticus 18:14 (English Elpenor)
You shall not uncover the shame of your father’s brother, and you shall not approach his wife, for she is your relative. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s brother, and thou shalt not go in to his wife; for she is thy relation.

Leviticus 18:15 (Tanakh)

 Leviticus 18:15 (KJV)

Leviticus 18:15 (NET)
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter-in-law: she is thy son'[s] wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy son’s wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. You must not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law; she is your son’s wife.  You must not have sexual relations with her.

Leviticus 18:15 (Septuagint BLB)

Leviticus 18:15 (Septuagint Elpenor)
ἀσχημοσύνην νύμφης σου οὐκ ἀποκαλύψεις γυνὴ γὰρ υἱοῦ σού ἐστιν οὐκ ἀποκαλύψεις τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην αὐτῆς ἀσχημοσύνην νύμφης σου οὐκ ἀποκαλύψεις, γυνὴ γὰρ υἱοῦ σού ἐστιν, οὐκ ἀποκαλύψεις τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην αὐτῆς

Leviticus 18:15 (NETS)

Leviticus 18:15 (English Elpenor)
You shall not uncover the shame of your daughter-in-law, for she is your son’s wife; you shall not uncover her shame. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter-in-law, for she is thy son’s wife, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

Leviticus 18:16 (Tanakh)

 Leviticus 18:16 (KJV)

Leviticus 18:16 (NET)
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother’s wife: it is thy brother’s nakedness. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother’s wife: it is thy brother’s nakedness. You must not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife; she is your brother’s nakedness.

Leviticus 18:16 (Septuagint BLB)

Leviticus 18:16 (Septuagint Elpenor)
ἀσχημοσύνην γυναικὸς ἀδελφοῦ σου οὐκ ἀποκαλύψεις ἀσχημοσύνη ἀδελφοῦ σού ἐστιν ἀσχημοσύνην γυναικὸς ἀδελφοῦ σου οὐκ ἀποκαλύψεις, ἀσχημοσύνη ἀδελφοῦ σού ἐστιν.

Leviticus 18:16 (NETS)

Leviticus 18:16 (English Elpenor)
You shall not uncover the shame of your brother’s wife; it is your brother’s shame. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother’s wife: it is thy brother’s nakedness.

Leviticus 18:17 (Tanakh)

 Leviticus 18:17 (KJV)

Leviticus 18:17 (NET)
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter; thou shalt not take her son’s daughter, or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness: they are near kinswomen; it is lewdness. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son’s daughter, or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness. You must not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter; you must not take as wife either her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter to have sexual relations with them.  They are closely related to her—it is lewdness.

Leviticus 18:17 (Septuagint BLB)

Leviticus 18:17 (Septuagint Elpenor)
ἀσχημοσύνην γυναικὸς καὶ θυγατρὸς αὐτῆς οὐκ ἀποκαλύψεις τὴν θυγατέρα τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτῆς καὶ τὴν θυγατέρα τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτῆς οὐ λήμψῃ ἀποκαλύψαι τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην αὐτῶν οἰκεῗαι γάρ σού εἰσιν ἀσέβημά ἐστιν ἀσχημοσύνην γυναικὸς καὶ θυγατρὸς αὐτῆς οὐκ ἀποκαλύψεις· τὴν θυγατέρα τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτῆς καὶ τὴν θυγατέρα τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτῆς οὐ λήψῃ ἀποκαλύψαι τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην αὐτῶν, οἰκεῖαι γὰρ σού εἰσιν· ἀσέβημά ἐστι

Leviticus 18:17 (NETS)

Leviticus 18:17 (English Elpenor)
You shall not uncover the shame of a woman and her daughter.  You shall not take her son’s daughter and her daughter’s daughter to uncover their shame, for they are your own household; it is a profane act. The nakedness of a woman and her daughter shalt thou not uncover; her son’s daughter, and her daughter’s daughter, shalt thou not take, to uncover their nakedness, for they are thy kinswomen: it is impiety.

Leviticus 18:18 (Tanakh)

 Leviticus 18:18 (KJV)

Leviticus 18:18 (NET)
And thou shalt not take a woman to her sister, to be a rival to her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her lifetime. Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time. You must not take a woman in marriage and then marry her sister as a rival wife while she is still alive, to have sexual relations with her.

Leviticus 18:18 (Septuagint BLB)

Leviticus 18:18 (Septuagint Elpenor)
γυναῗκα ἐπὶ ἀδελφῇ αὐτῆς οὐ λήμψῃ ἀντίζηλον ἀποκαλύψαι τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην αὐτῆς ἐπ᾽ αὐτῇ ἔτι ζώσης αὐτῆς γυναῖκα ἐπ᾿ ἀδελφῇ αὐτῆς οὐ λήψῃ ἀντίζηλον ἀποκαλύψαι τήν ἀσχημοσύνην αὐτῆς ἐπ᾿ αὐτῇ, ἔτι ζώσης αὐτῆς

Leviticus 18:18 (NETS)

Leviticus 18:18 (English Elpenor)
You shall not take a woman as a rival in addition to her sister, to uncover her shame in addition to her while she is still alive. Thou shalt not take a wife in addition to her sister, as a rival, to uncover her nakedness in opposition to her, while she is yet living.

Leviticus 18:22 (Tanakh)

 Leviticus 18:22 (KJV)

Leviticus 18:22 (NET)
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination. Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. You must not have sexual relations with a male as one has sexual relations with a woman; it is a detestable act.

Leviticus 18:22 (Septuagint BLB)

Leviticus 18:22 (Septuagint Elpenor)
καὶ μετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικός βδέλυγμα γάρ ἐστιν καὶ μετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικείαν, βδέλυγμα γάρ ἐστι

Leviticus 18:22 (NETS)

Leviticus 18:22 (English Elpenor)
And you shall not sleep with a male as in a bed of a woman, for it is an abomination. And thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman, for it is an abomination.

Leviticus 18:23 (Tanakh)

 Leviticus 18:23 (KJV)

Leviticus 18:23 (NET)
And thou shalt not lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith; neither shall any woman stand before a beast, to lie down thereto; it is perversion. Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. You must not have sexual relations with any animal to become defiled with it, and a woman must not stand before an animal to have sexual relations with it; it is a perversion.

Leviticus 18:23 (Septuagint BLB)

Leviticus 18:23 (Septuagint Elpenor)
καὶ πρὸς πᾶν τετράπουν οὐ δώσεις τὴν κοίτην σου εἰς σπερματισμὸν ἐκμιανθῆναι πρὸς αὐτό καὶ γυνὴ οὐ στήσεται πρὸς πᾶν τετράπουν βιβασθῆναι μυσερὸν γάρ ἐστιν καὶ πρὸς πᾶν τετράπουν οὐ δώσεις τὴν κοίτην σου εἰς σπερματισμόν, ἐκμιανθῆναι πρὸς αὐτό. καὶ γυνὴ οὐ στήσεται πρὸς πᾶν τετράπουν βιβασθῆναι, μυσαρὸν γάρ ἐστι

Leviticus 18:23 (NETS)

Leviticus 18:23 (English Elpenor)
And you shall not give your bed to any quadruped for sowing to bring defilement on it, nor shall any woman stand before any quadruped so as to be mounted, for it is loathsome. Neither shalt thou lie with any quadruped for copulation, to be polluted with it: neither shall a woman present herself before any quadruped to have connexion with it; for it is an abomination.

Leviticus 18:19 (Tanakh)

 Leviticus 18:19 (KJV)

Leviticus 18:19 (NET)
And thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is impure by her uncleanness. Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness. “‘You must not approach a woman in her menstrual impurity to have sexual relations with her.

Leviticus 18:19 (Septuagint BLB)

Leviticus 18:19 (Septuagint Elpenor)
καὶ πρὸς γυναῗκα ἐν χωρισμῷ ἀκαθαρσίας αὐτῆς οὐ προσελεύσῃ ἀποκαλύψαι τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην αὐτῆς Καὶ πρὸς γυναῖκα ἐν χωρισμῷ ἀκαθαρσίας αὐτῆς οὐκ εἰσελεύσῃ ἀποκαλύψαι τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην αὐτῆς

Leviticus 18:19 (NETS)

Leviticus 18:19 (English Elpenor)
And you shall not approach a woman to uncover her shame in the separation of her uncleanness. And thou shalt not go in to a woman under separation for her uncleanness, to uncover her nakedness.

Ezra 9:1 (Tanakh)

 Ezra 9:1 (KJV)

Ezra 9:1 (NET)
Now when these things were done, the princes drew near unto me, saying: ‘The people of Israel, and the priests and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands, doing according to their abominations, even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites. Now when these things were done, the princes came to me, saying, The people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, doing according to their abominations, even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites. Now when these things had been completed, the leaders approached me and said, “The people of Israel, the priests, and the Levites have not separated themselves from the local residents who practice detestable things similar to those of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites.

Ezra 9:1 (Septuagint BLB)

2 Esdras 9:1 (Septuagint Elpenor)
καὶ ὡς ἐτελέσθη ταῦτα ἤγγισαν πρός με οἱ ἄρχοντες λέγοντες οὐκ ἐχωρίσθη ὁ λαὸς Ισραηλ καὶ οἱ ἱερεῗς καὶ οἱ Λευῗται ἀπὸ λαῶν τῶν γαιῶν ἐν μακρύμμασιν αὐτῶν τῷ Χανανι ὁ Εθι ὁ Φερεζι ὁ Ιεβουσι ὁ Αμμωνι ὁ Μωαβι ὁ Μοσερι καὶ ὁ Αμορι ΚΑΙ ὡς ἐτελέσθη ταῦτα, ἤγγισαν πρός με οἱ ἄρχοντες λέγοντες· οὐκ ἐχωρίσθη ὁ λαὸς ᾿Ισραὴλ καὶ οἱ ἱερεῖς καὶ οἱ Λευῖται ἀπὸ λαῶν τῶν γαιῶν ἐν μακρύμμασιν αὐτῶν, τῷ Χανανί, ὁ ᾿Εθί, ὁ Φερεζί, ὁ ᾿Ιεβουσί, ὁ ᾿Αμμωνί, ὁ Μωαβὶ καὶ ὁ Μοσερὶ καὶ ὁ ᾿Αμορί,

2 Esdras 9:1 (NETS)

2 Esdras 9:1 (English Elpenor)
And after these things had been done, the rulers approached me, saying, “The people of Israel and the priests and Leuites were not separated from the peoples of the lands with their things put far away, in reference to the Chanani—the Heththi, the Pherezi, the Iebousi, the Ammoni, the Moab, the Mosri and the Amori— And when these things were finished, the princes drew near to me, saying, The people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the people of the lands in their abominations, [even] the Chananite, the Ethite, the Pherezite, the Jebusite, the Ammonite, the Moabite, and the Moserite and the Amorite.

Ezra 9:2 (Tanakh)

 Ezra 9:2 (KJV)

Ezra 9:2 (NET)
For they have taken of their daughters for themselves and for their sons; so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the peoples of the lands; yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been first in this faithlessness.’ For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass. Indeed, they have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and for their sons, so that the holy race has become intermingled with the local residents.  Worse still, the leaders and the officials have been at the forefront of all this unfaithfulness!”

Ezra 9:2 (Septuagint BLB)

2 Esdras 9:2 (Septuagint Elpenor)
ὅτι ἐλάβοσαν ἀπὸ θυγατέρων αὐτῶν ἑαυτοῗς καὶ τοῗς υἱοῗς αὐτῶν καὶ παρήχθη σπέρμα τὸ ἅγιον ἐν λαοῗς τῶν γαιῶν καὶ χεὶρ τῶν ἀρχόντων ἐν τῇ ἀσυνθεσίᾳ ταύτῃ ἐν ἀρχῇ ὅτι ἐλάβοσαν ἀπὸ θυγατέρων αὐτῶν ἑαυτοῖς καὶ τοῖς υἱοῖς αὐτῶν, καὶ παρήχθη σπέρμα τὸ ἅγιον ἐν λαοῖς τῶν γαιῶν, καὶ χεὶρ τῶν ἀρχόντων ἐν τῇ ἀσυνθεσίᾳ ταύτῃ ἐν ἀρχῇ

2 Esdras 9:2 (NETS)

2 Esdras 9:2 (English Elpenor)
because they have taken from their daughters for themselves and for their sons, and the holy seed was influenced by the peoples of the lands, and the hand of the rulers was in this faithlessness in the beginning.” For they have taken of their daughters for themselves and their sons; and the holy seed has passed among the nations of the lands, and the hand of the rulers [has been] first in this transgression.

1 Revised New Testament of the New American Bible © 1986 by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine (CCD), published by Catholic Book Publishing Corp., New York, N.Y.

2 The Stephanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text had ονομαζεται (KJV: so much as named) here. The NET parallel Greek text and NA28 did not (NET: permitted).