OT-PROPHET.filter - rwp porneias:

rwp@1Corinthians:7:2 @{Because of fornications} (\dia tas porneias\). This is not the only reason for marriage, but it is a true one. The main purpose of marriage is children. Mutual love is another. The family is the basis of all civilization. Paul does not give a low view of marriage, but is merely answering questions put to him about life in Corinth.

rwp@1Thessalonians:4:3 @{Your sanctification} (\ho hagiasmos humn\). Found only in the Greek Bible and ecclesiastical writers from \hagiaz\ and both to take the place of the old words \hagiz, hagismos\ with their technical ideas of consecration to a god or goddess that did not include holiness in life. Songs:Paul makes a sharp and pointed stand here for the Christian idea of sanctification as being "the will of God" (apposition) and as further explained by the epexegetic infinitive {that ye abstain from fornication} (\apechesthai humas apo ts porneias\). Pagan religion did not demand sexual purity of its devotees, the gods and goddesses being grossly immoral. Priestesses were in the temples for the service of the men who came.

rwp@John:8:41 @{Ye do the works of your father} (\humeis poieite ta erga tou patros humn\). Who is not Abraham and not God as Jesus plainly indicates. {We were not born of fornication} (\hmeis ek porneias egennthmen\). First aorist passive indicative of \genna\. This they said as a proud boast. Jesus had admitted that they were physical (Deuteronomy:23:2|) descendants of Abraham (37|), but now denies that they are spiritual children of Abraham (like Paul in strkjv@Romans:9:7|). \Porneia\ is from \pornos\ (harlot) and that from \pernmi\, to sell, a woman who sells her body for sexual uses. It is vaguely possible that in this stern denial the Pharisees may have an indirect fling at Jesus as the bastard son of Mary (so Talmud). {We have one Father, even God} (\hena patera echomen ton theon\). No "even" in the Greek, "One Father we have, God." This in direct reply to the implication of Jesus (verse 38|) that God was not their spiritual Father.

rwp@Matthew:5:32 @{Saving for the cause of fornication} (\parektos logou porneias\). An unusual phrase that perhaps means "except for a matter of unchastity." "Except on the ground of unchastity" (Weymouth), "except unfaithfulness" (Goodspeed), and is equivalent to \m epi porneii\ in strkjv@Matthew:19:9|. McNeile denies that Jesus made this exception because Mark and Luke do not give it. He claims that the early Christians made the exception to meet a pressing need, but one fails to see the force of this charge against Matthew's report of the words of Jesus. It looks like criticism to meet modern needs.

rwp@Matthew:19:9 @{Except for fornication} (\parektos logou porneias\). This is the marginal reading in Westcott and Hort which also adds "maketh her an adulteress" (\poiei autn moicheuthnai\) and also these words: "and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery" (\kai ho apolelumenn gamsas moichatai\). There seems to be a certain amount of assimilation in various manuscripts between this verse and the words in strkjv@5:32|. But, whatever reading is accepted here, even the short one in Westcott and Hort (\m epi porneii\, not for fornication), it is plain that Matthew represents Jesus in both places as allowing divorce for fornication as a general term (\porneia\) which is technically adultery (\moicheia\ from \moicha or moicheu\). Here, as in strkjv@5:31f.|, a group of scholars deny the genuineness of the exception given by Matthew alone. McNeile holds that "the addition of the saving clause is, in fact, opposed to the spirit of the whole context, and must have been made at a time when the practice of divorce for adultery had already grown up." That in my opinion is gratuitous criticism which is unwilling to accept Matthew's report because it disagrees with one's views on the subject of divorce. He adds: "It cannot be supposed that Matthew wished to represent Jesus as siding with the school of Shammai." Why not, if Shammai on this point agreed with Jesus? Those who deny Matthew's report are those who are opposed to remarriage at all. Jesus by implication, as in strkjv@5:31|, does allow remarriage of the innocent party, but not of the guilty one. Certainly Jesus has lifted the whole subject of marriage and divorce to a new level, far beyond the petty contentions of the schools of Hillel and Shammai.

rwp@Revelation:9:21 @{Of their murders} (\ek tn phonn autn\). Heads the list, but "sorceries" (\ek tn pharmakn\) comes next. \Pharmakon\ was originally enchantment, as also in strkjv@Revelation:21:8|, then drug. For \pharmakia\ see strkjv@Revelation:18:34; strkjv@Galatians:5:20|. The two other items are fornication (\porneias\) and thefts (\klemmatn\, old word from \klept\, here alone in N.T.), all four characteristic of demonic worship and idolatry. See other lists of vices in strkjv@Mark:7:21; strkjv@Galatians:5:20; strkjv@Revelation:21:8; strkjv@22:15|. Our word "pharmacy" as applied to drugs and medicine has certainly come a long way out of a bad environment, but there is still a bad odour about "patent medicines."

rwp@Revelation:17:4 @{Was arrayed} (\n peribeblmen\). Periphrastic past perfect indicative of \periball\, to fling round one. {In purple and scarlet} (\porphuroun kai kokkinon\). Accusative retained after this passive verb of clothing, as so often. \Porphurous\ is old adjective for purple (from \porphura\), in N.T. only here and strkjv@John:19:2,5|. See preceding verse for \kokkinos\. {Decked} (\kechrusmen\). Perfect passive participle of \chruso\, old verb, to gild, to adorn with gold, here alone in N.T. {With gold and precious stone and pearls} (\chrusii kai lithi timii kai margaritais\). Instrumental case. \Chrusii\ is cognate with the participle. \Lithi timii\ is collective (18:12,16; strkjv@21:19|). There is a \zeugma\ also with \margaritais\ (18:12,16; strkjv@21:21|), for which word see strkjv@Matthew:7:6|. Probably John is thinking of the finery of the temple prostitutes in Asia Minor. {Full of abominations} (\gemon bdelugmatn\). Agreeing with \potrion\, "cup" (neuter singular accusative). Some MSS. read \gemn\ (nominative masculine like \echn\ in verse 3|, quite irregular). For \bdelugmatn\ (genitive after \gemon\) see strkjv@Matthew:24:15|; (Mark:13:14|), common in the LXX for idol worship and its defilements (from \bdeluss\, to render foul), both ceremonial and moral. See strkjv@Jeremiah:15:7|. {Even the unclean things of her fornication} (\kai ta akatharta ts porneias auts\). Either the accusative after \gemon\ as in verse 3| (and full of the unclean things of her fornication) or the object of \echousa\, like \potrion\.