THE WORD PORNEIA (ILLICIT SEXUAL INTERCOURSE) WAS APPLIED INSIDE MARRIAGE

1974: PORNEIA-INSIDE-MARRIAGE WAS INSTITUTED

In 1974, a revolution in the view of the meaning of porneia occurred: Married persons could be guilty of porneia by their sexual relations with their mates inside their marriages. In the Christian Greek Scriptures porneia has one meaning, namely “illicit sexual intercourse.” It has three references, 1) Sexual intercourse between a married person and one to whom he or she is not married, 2) Sexual intercourse between unmarried persons, and 3) Sexual intercourse between homosexuals.

In spite of these definitions, the members of the Governing Body claimed that different ways married persons performed their sexual relationships also were porneia. The Watchtower of November 15, 1974, page 703, says:

There are times when lewd practices within the marriage arrangement would provide a basis for a Scriptural divorce. . .

Thus “fornication” is set forth as the only ground for divorce. In the common Greek in which Jesus’ words are recorded, the term “fornication” is por·nei’a, which designates all forms of immoral sexual relations, perversions and lewd practices such as might be carried on in a house of prostitution, including oral and anal copulation.

As to Jesus’ statements about divorce, they do not specify with whom the “fornication” or por·nei’a is practiced. They leave the matter open. That por·nei’a can rightly be considered as including perversions within the marriage arrangement is seen in that the man who forces his wife to have unnatural sexual relations with him in effect “prostitutes” or “debauches” her. This makes him guilty of por·nei’a, for the related Greek verb porneu’o means “to prostitute, debauch.”

Hence, circumstances could arise that would make lewd practices of a married person toward that one’s marriage mate a Scriptural basis for divorce.

Specifying different ways of performing sexual relations inside marriage is impossible because sexual relations are not specified in the Christian Greek Scriptures. Saying that porneia includes “perversions and lewd practices such as might be carried on in a house of prostitution” have no linguistic or biblical basis whatsoever. However, this defining qualifier, referring to a house of prostitution, has been repeated over and over again to this day. To say that porneia refers to anal and oral copulation and other lewd practices inside a marriage is to trespass into the private sphere of each married couple.

During the three and a half years the view of porneia-inside-marriage existed, there were huge problems. For example, what was a “lewd practice”? If a wife accused her husband of lewd practices and wanted to divorce him, but the husband did not view their sexual relations as lewd, what then?[1] Who should decide the matter? The elders? Husbands were disfellowshipped because of their sexual relations with their wives inside their marriages. A great number of marriages were dissolved on unbiblical  grounds, and husbands, wives, and children were suffering. Many elders also created problems because they behaved like police officers (see the last clause in the quotation from The Watchtower of 1978 below), and, in fact, interrogated married couples about their sexual lives.

[1]. I have firsthand knowledge of one such example. It dragged on for several months with numerous conversations between the wife and the husband and the elders. Both became depressed, and at last, they were divorced.

1978: PORNEIA-INSIDE-MARRIAGE WAS ABANDONED

Then came the reversal. The Watchtower of 15 February 1978, page 31, showed that porneia could not be applied to married couples and that oral and anal sex inside marriage, which had been viewed as porneia, could not be included in the word porneia.

In the past some comments have appeared in this magazine in connection with certain unusual sex practices, such as oral sex, within marriage and these were equated with gross sexual immorality. On this basis, the conclusion was reached that those engaging in such sex practices were subject to disfellowshipping if unrepentant. The view was taken that it was within the authority of the congregational elders to investigate and act in a judicial capacity regarding such practices in the conjugal relationship.

A careful further weighing of this matter, however, convinces us that, in view of the absence of clear Scriptural instruction, these are matters for which the married couple themselves must bear the responsibility before God and that these marital intimacies do not come within the province of the congregational elders to attempt to control nor to take disfellowshipping action with such matters as the sole basis. [A footnote shows that Romans 1:24–27 relates only to homosexuals and cannot be used in connection with married couples.] Of course, if any person chooses to approach an elder for counsel he or she may do so and the elder can consider Scriptural principles with such a one, acting as shepherd, but not attempting to, in effect, “police” the marital life of the one inquiring. (My italics and emphasis.)

It is important to note that the reason for the reversal was “in view of the absence of clear Scriptural instruction.” This means that the Governing Body admitted that their definitions of porneia-inside-marriage were human commandments without any biblical basis. Did the Governing Body do anything with all the problems that their human commandments had caused for hundreds or thousands of Witnesses? No! What could have been done? It would be difficult to restore a marriage that was dissolved for an unbiblical reason. But persons who had been disfellowshipped because of human commandments could be reinstated. But no attempt to do so was made!

1983: PORNEIA-INSIDE-MARRIAGE — THE REVERSAL OF THE REVERSAL 

Despite all indications that the matter of porneia-inside-marriage had been put to rest, in 1983, a part of the balanced view that was expressed in 1978 was reversed. Now marital intimacies again became the focus of the Governing Body and the elders.

THE NEW DEFINITIONS OF SEXUAL RELATIONS INSIDE MARRIAGE 

The Watchtower of 15 March 1983, pages 30, 31, says:

Defining “Fornication”

What do we understand here by “fornication”? The Greek word in this text is porneia. In discussing the matter, The Watchtower of December 15, 1972, pages 766-768, showed that porneia “comes from a root word meaning ‘to sell.’” Thus it is tied in with prostitution, such as that practiced in many pagan temples in the first century and in ‘houses of ill fame’ today.

True, porneia is sometimes used in a limited sense, as applying to sex relations between unmarried (single) persons. An instance of such a limited usage is 1 Corinthians 6:9, where “fornicators” are mentioned separately and in addition to those who engage in such other sexual vices as adultery and homosexuality. But just before this, at 1 Corinthians 5:9-11, Paul used the same word when counseling Christians not to mix with “fornicators.” Is it reasonable to think that here he referred only to immoral unmarried persons? That could not be so, for chapter 6 sets out a broad range of illicit sexual practices that must be shunned, including adultery and homosexuality. Likewise, Jude 7 and Revelation 21:8, which show that God judges unrepentant “fornicators” as worthy of eternal destruction, could hardly be limited only to unmarried persons that have sex relations. And the Jerusalem governing body’s edict at Acts 15:29, “to keep abstaining . . . from fornication,” must be understood to have the wide field of application. (the author’s italics)

So, then, “fornication” in the broad sense, and as used at Matthew 5:32 and Mt 19:9, evidently refers to a broad range of unlawful or illicit sex relations outside marriage. Porneia involves the grossly immoral use of the genital organ(s) of at least one human (whether in a natural or a perverted way); also, there must have been another party to the immorality​—a human of either sex, or a beast. Thus, self-abuse (unwise and spiritually dangerous as this may be) is not porneia. But to this day, the term porneia embraces the various kinds of sexual activity that might take place in a house of prostitution, where sexual favors are bought and sold. A person who goes to a male or a female prostitute to buy any kind of sexual favors would be guilty of porneia.​—Compare 1 Corinthians 6:18.

Married Christians

How about sexual activity between married couples within the marriage bond? It is not for the elders to pry into the intimate lives of married Christians. However, the Bible certainly enters into their lives. Those who would “keep walking by spirit” should not ignore the Scriptural indications of God’s thinking. And they will do well to cultivate a hatred for everything that is unclean before Jehovah, including what are clearly perverted sexual practices. Married couples should act in a way that will leave them with a clean conscience, as they give unimpeded attention to developing “the fruitage of the spirit.”—Galatians 5:16, 22, 23; Ephesians 5:3-5.

What, though, if one mate wants or even demands to share with his or her partner what is clearly a perverted sex practice? The above-presented facts show that porneia involves unlawful sexual conduct outside the marital arrangement. Thus, a mate’s enforcing perverted acts, such as oral or anal sex, within the marriage would not constitute a Scriptural basis for a divorce that would free either for remarriage. Even though a believing mate is distressed by the situation, yet that one’s endeavor to hold to Scriptural principles will result in a blessing from Jehovah. In such cases it may be helpful for the couple to discuss the problem frankly, bearing in mind especially that sexual relations should be honorable, wholesome, an expression of tender love. This certainly should exclude anything that might distress or harm one’s mate.—Ephesians 5:28-30; 1 Peter 3:1, 7. As already stated, it is not for elders to “police” the private marital matters of couples in the congregation. However, if it becomes known that a member of the congregation is practicing or openly advocating perverted sex relations within the marriage bond, that one certainly would not be irreprehensible, and so would not be acceptable for special privileges, such as serving as an elder, a ministerial servant or a pioneer. Such practice and advocacy could even lead to expulsion from the congregation.

Why? Galatians 5:19-21 lists many vices that are not classed as porneia, and which could lead to one’s being disqualified from God’s Kingdom. Among them are “uncleanness” (Greek, akatharsia, signifying filthiness, depravity, lewdness) and “loose conduct” (Greek, aselgeia, signifying licentiousness, wantonness, shameless conduct). Like porneia, these vices, when they become gross, can be grounds for disfellowshipping from the Christian congregation, but not for obtaining a Scriptural divorce. A person who brazenly advocates shocking and repulsive sexual activities would be guilty of loose conduct. Of course, a person with that attitude might even sink to committing porneia; then there would be a basis for a Scriptural divorce. How concerned all devoted Christians should be to avoid and war against all such How concerned all devoted Christians should be to avoid and war against all such “works of the flesh”! —Galatians 5:24, 25.

A footnote says:

This is an amplification and adjustment in understanding of what appears in The Watchtower of November 15, 1974, pages 703-704, and of February 15, 1978, pages 30-32. Those who acted on the basis of the knowledge they had at the time are not to be criticized. Nor would this affect the standing of a person who in the past believed that a mate’s perverted sexual conduct within marriage amounted to porneia and, hence, obtained a divorce and is now remarried.

THE REVERSAL OF THE REVERSAL OF THE 1978-DECISION 

The adjustment is rather sweeping. In 1974, oral and anal copulation and other lewd practices inside marriage were defined as porneia. The consequence of this was that the mentioned actions could dissolve the marriage and lead to disfellowshipping. In 1978, it was admitted that this definition was wrong, and oral and anal copulation and other “lewd practices” could not be defined as porneia.

The following reason was given in The Watchtower of 15 February 1978, page 31:

A careful further weighing of this matter, however, convinces us that, in view of the absence of clear Scriptural instruction, these are matters for which the married couple themselves must bear the responsibility before God and that these marital intimacies do not come within the province of the congregational elders to attempt to control nor to take disfellowshipping action with such matters as the sole basis.

This was an excellent conclusion and an “anti-policing” statement. The Scriptures do not say anything about the nature of the sexual relationship between married couples. Therefore, neither the Governing Body nor the elders have any right to say anything about marital intimacies!

Now, this view was reversed, and the Governing Body insinuated that they had the right to define marital intimacies. The Watchtower of 15 March 1983, page 31, says:

How about sexual activity between married couples within the marriage bond? It is not for the elders to pry into the intimate lives of married Christians. However, the Bible certainly enters into their lives. Those who would “keep walking by spirit” should not ignore the Scriptural indications of God’s thinking.

Please compare the two quotations. The first quotation says correctly that there is an “absence of clear scriptural instruction” regarding marital intimacies, i.e., how the sexual relations between a married couple should occur. But the second quotation speaks about “the Scriptural indication of God’s thinking” in connection with “marital intimacies.” But because the Scriptures are silent on marital intimacies, “the Scriptural indication of God’s thinking” is, in reality, “the Governing Body’s thinking regarding marital intimacies.”

The thinking (= decision) of the Governing Body is that oral and anal copulation are “perverted acts.” Because the Scriptures are silent on this, and  the Scriptures are my sole authority, I must be silent on this issue as well.

The Cambridge Dictionary defines anal sex as “Sexual activity involving penetration of the anus.” And this Dictionary defines oral sex as “the activity of using the tongue and lips to touch someone’s sexual organs in order to give pleasure.”[1] At least oral sex can have different meanings to different people both as to its nature and performance.

In 1974, oral and anal sex was defined as porneia and could lead to the termination of the marriage and to disfellowshipping. In 1978, oral and anal sex were no longer defined as porneia, and it could neither lead to the termination of the marriage nor to disfellowshipping. In 1983, oral and anal sex were still not defined as porneia, and it could not lead to the termination of the marriage. But it could  lead to disfellowshipping.

The Governing Body had now defined oral and anal sex as perversions, and as such, these and other “lewd actions” that are not defined could be defined as “loose conduct.” In turn, “loose conduct” is a disfellowshipping offense according to the Governing Body. Therefore, “oral and anal sex” inside of marriage was once again on the disfellowshipping-offense list. Of course, this entire convoluted line of reasoning is moot since “loose conduct” is not a scripturally sanctioned disfellowshipping offense.

1974	Oral and anal sex are porneia and can lead to the termination of the marriage and to disfellowshipping.
1978	Oral and anal sex are not porneia and can neither lead to the termination of marriage nor to disfellowshipping.
1983	Oral and anal sex are not porneia, and these actions cannot lead to the termination of marriage, but they are perversions and can lead to disfellowshipping.

POLICING BY THE GOVERNING BODY AND THE ELDERS 

In 1974 and 1975, I was the instructor of the 30 two-week courses for all elders in Norway. Because of this, I had close contact with the elders. My experience is that the new view of porneia-inside-marriage that was introduced in 1974, in many cases, led the elders to have a critical eye on the sexual relations of the married couples in the congregations, and some elders functioned almost as police officers.

This same behavior evidently also occurred in other countries. Evidence of this is seen in the last part of the article in The Watchtower of 15 February 1978, page 31, cautioning the elders not to do this, we read:

Of course, if any person chooses to approach an elder for counsel he or she may do so and the elder can consider Scriptural principles with such a one, acting as shepherd, but not attempting to, in effect, “police” the marital life of the one inquiring.

Because of the balanced article of 1978, there was no more intervention by the elders in the marital life of couples in the congregations. But after the reversal of the reversal in 1983, the surveillance and policing of married couples started up again in some congregations. That 1983 article introduced its new view with the disclaimer: “It is not for the elders to pry into the intimate lives of married Christians.” This may be a reference to what happened after the porneia-inside-marriage was introduced in 1974. And it may be a warning that this must not happen again.

However, the new instructions in the article from 1983 lay the very foundation for prying on married couples. We read:

As already stated, it is not for elders to “police” the private marital matters of couples in the congregation. However, if it becomes known that a member of the congregation is practicing or openly advocating perverted sex relations within the marriage bond, that one certainly would not be irreprehensible, and so would not be acceptable for special privileges, such as serving as an elder, a ministerial servant or a pioneer. Such practice and advocacy could even lead to expulsion from the congregation.

We note the words “if it [perverted sex] becomes known.” There are only two persons who make up a Christian marriage, and “perverted sex” on the part of a husband can only be known if one of them—the wife—reports it to the elders.

And here we have the foundation for the same problems that occurred after the introduction of porneia-inside-marriage in 1974. The new focus of 1983 on “shocking and repulsive sexual activities,” including oral and anal sex, would lead some wives in one of two directions, as also was the case in 1974.

In some instances, the conscience of the wife has been stirred up by the Governing Body to the point where she has become hypersensitive about the sexual relations with her husband, and the good relations they had were destroyed. In other instances, the wife used the definitions of “perverted sex” against the husband as a pretext for getting rid of him. This happened in many instances after 1974.

In any case, when the Governing Body introduced the concept “perverted sex” and then added the stipulation “if it becomes known,” this, in effect, was the signal for some elders to “pry into the intimate lives of married Christians,” in order to get to know if such “perverted sex” was being practiced in the lives of married couples in their congregations.

In the 21st century, biblical Greek words, as treated by the Governing Body, have continued to evolve into more convoluted meanings, despite the absence of any new linguistic or biblical basis for these changes. So, actions that in 1983 were classified as “loose conduct” have now been redefined as “brazen conduct” and “gross uncleanness,” and policing actions on the part of the elders are widespread, particularly in connection with young single members of the congregation.

If a Christian asks the elders for help, he or she will be given help. (James 5:15, 16) But no passage in the Christian Greek Scriptures authorizes the elders to interrogate members of the congregation about their personal lives. Yet that happens on a grand scale in connection with “gross uncleanness,” which is a disfellowshipping offense that is made up and invented by the Governing Body without any basis in the Bible. In the congregation where I was a member, in 2020, three different young ones were interrogated over a period of two months.

THE ETYMOLOGICAL FALLACY  AS THE BASIS FOR THE DEFINITION OF PORNEIA

Regarding the etymological fallacy, Wikipedia says:

An argument constitutes an etymological fallacy if it makes a claim about the present meaning of a word based exclusively on its etymology.[2]

An example of the etymological fallacy is found in The Watchtower of 15 March 1983, page 30:

What do we understand here by “fornication”? The Greek word in this text is porneia. In discussing the matter, The Watchtower of December 15, 1972, pages 766-768, showed that porneia “comes from a root word meaning ‘to sell.’” Thus it is tied in with prostitution, such as that practiced in many pagan temples in the first century and in ‘houses of ill fame’ today… But to this day, the term porneia embraces the various kinds of sexual activity that might take place in a house of prostitution, where sexual favors are bought and sold.

The word “thus” shows the argument for connecting porneia with prostitution is that the etymology of the word is “to sell,” and prostitutes sell sex. This is the etymological fallacy, and it is, of course, complete nonsense. The new and broad definition of porneia by the Governing Body is a fallacy and has no biblical or linguistic basis whatsoever.

[1]. https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/anal_sex. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/oral-sex.

[2]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy.

1986-2026: NEW UNBIBLICAL DEFINITIONS OF PORNEIA

The changing views of porneia on the part of Governing Body  is an excellent example of the bad effects of the present organization structure, where the Governing Body is a government for Jehovah’s Witnesses. Absolute obedience was demanded during the three and a half years when the Governing Body said that porneia could be performed inside marriage, and absolute obedience was demanded when the Governing Body abandoned this view. This situation fits very well the words of Paul in Ephesians 4:14 (NWT13).

So we should no longer be babes, tossed about as by waves and carried hither and thither by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery (panourgia) of men, by means of cunning (kybeia) in contriving error.

Paul’s words refer to false teachers who were planning (contriving) error by means of “cunning” (kybeia). This Greek word refers to dice playing and gambling, and methaphorically, the word refers to “cunning.” The word “trickery” includes “craftiness” or “treachery.” The false teachers that Paul referred to did not have good motives, and they tried to persuade everyone to follow their teachings.

The members of the Governing Body always have had good motives. But the organizational system they have created has put them in the same arena as the false teachers. This system is based on two different principles, 1) the members of the Governing Body believe that they have the right to make commandments and regulations that are not found in the Bible, and 2) They require absolute obedience to these commandments and regulations. The complete reversal of the view of porneia-inside-marriage proves that they had been contriving error—though with a good motive. And their demand that all Witnesses had to accept their view of porneia-inside-marriage and then had to accept the very opposite shows that the Witnesses have been “tossed about as by waves and carried hither and thither by every wind of teaching.”

Did the Governing Body learn anything from their mistakes in connection with porneia-inside-marriage? The answer seems to be No because during the intervening years since the 1974-78 debacle, they went on to make new definitions of porneia not found in the Christian Greek Scriptures. In 1986, sex with an animal was included in porneia. In 1999, the meaning was extended to include the deliberate fondling of another person’s sexual organs. And in 2019, the most extreme definition was presented. If a person is intimate with another person other than his or her spouse, this can constitute porneia even when both persons are fully clothed and there is no skin-to-skin contact.

CONCLUSION

Because the members of the Governing Body believe that they are appointed by God to be a government for Jehovah’s Witnesses, they also believe that they can make laws and regulations without a clear scriptural basis for doing so. And they demand absolute obedience in connection with these laws and regulations. Those who are not obedient are disfellowshipped under the pretext that they are causing divisions inside the organization.

The law of porneia-inside-marriage existed for three and a half years, and it caused irreparable damage. Husbands were disfellowshipped because of their sexual relations with their wives, marriages were dissolved, and men, women, and children suffered. The members of the Governing Body realized that they had gone too far, and so that manmade law was annulled. However, the members of the Governing Body have continued to express their personal extreme view of sexual relations. The most extreme law that they have made is that porneia can be performed even if both persons are fully clothed, and there is no skin-to-skin contact. And based on this human law, their marriage partner may demand a divorce.