It’s strange that this article is necessary. The plain text of scripture is pretty clear on this point and how people miss this is beyond me. (Unless they’re missing it intentionally.) So, let’s go to scripture and put this issue to bed once and for all… until the next wolf in sheep’s clothing arrives teaching that it’s acceptable.
But we’ll go farther.
We’ll see that married Christians have the best sex, and that sex outside of marriage leads to horrible outcomes for all involved. And this can be proved by science, completely apart from the Bible. Though, it shouldn’t be a surprise that following God’s plan leads to better outcomes.
Old Testament Passages
We’ll look at the Old Testament first.
The Penalty for Seducing a Virgin
Exodus 22:16-17 (ESV)
16 “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife.
17 If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins.
We’ll start with the weakest place in the Old Testament first. And this is pretty strong for a “weak” argument. Notice, there are two penalties proscribed for having sex outside of marriage.
- He must marry the woman (unless her father refuses)
- He must pay the bride price (regardless of if he marries her)
Paying the bride-price regardless of whether you marry her is a clear penalty for the action. It’s not a reward (because he’s paying) and it’s not neutral because again, he must pay. That makes it a penalty.
To be clear:
You don’t proscribe penalties for righteous actions.
You just don’t.
You don’t tell your child they’ll get in trouble for being honest. Cops don’t write tickets for obeying traffic laws, only breaking them. Likewise, you don’t prescribe two penalties (must marry, must pay) when they’ve done a righteous things.
Now, some might say that’s only because of the culture. We’ll get to the argument later.
Pre-marital sex is Misconduct, Outrageous, and Evil (Yes, evil)
If there’s a clearer Old Testament passage than Deuteronomy 22:13-21, I’m unaware of it.
Deuteronomy 22:13-14
13 “If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then hates her
14 and accuses her of misconduct and brings a bad name upon her, saying, ‘I took this woman, and when I came near her, I did not find in her evidence of virginity,’
Notice, a woman who isn’t a virgin before marriage is guilty of “misconduct”. The Hebrew there is “עֲלִילָה” (alilah), and can be translated “wantonness”, “shameful”, and yes, even evil. Definition 2c in the Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon reads:
“usually practices = evil deeds“
Just in case you missed that, sex before marriage is called an “evil deed”.
Let’s read on.
Deuteronomy 22:15-21
15 then the father of the young woman and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of her virginity to the elders of the city in the gate.
16 And the father of the young woman shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man to marry, and he hates her;
17 and behold, he has accused her of misconduct, saying, “I did not find in your daughter evidence of virginity.” And yet this is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity.’ And they shall spread the cloak before the elders of the city.
(Note: the word “misconduct” above is the same word in verse 14, and equals “evil deed”)
18 Then the elders of that city shall take the man and whip him,
19 and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought a bad name upon a virgin of Israel. And she shall be his wife. He may not divorce her all his days.
20 But if the thing is true, that evidence of virginity was not found in the young woman,
21 then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done an outrageous thing in Israel by whoring in her father’s house. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.
Please notice, verse 21 isn’t recording what the man says. It’s direct commentary from the lawgiver – God – about the morality of the action. It seems clear the action was immoral from the plain text.
If the translation wasn’t clear enough, let’s make it ever more clear by looking at the Hebrew words used.
First “outrageous thing”
The Hebrew word here is “נְבָלָה” (nebalah). The Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon’s defines it as:
senselessness (as shewn in disregard of moral and religious claims), especially of disgraceful sins; also disgrace; — always absolute
1 disgraceful folly, especially of sins of un-chastity
Strong’s Exhaustive concordance defines it thusly:
Feminine of nabal; foolishness, i.e. (morally) wickedness; concretely, a crime; by extension, punishment — folly, vile, villany.
Clearly, a wicked sin is being discussed. Plus, the word contains the added sense of not only doing something wicked, but also something that is folly and senseless. It’s not just wicked; it’s wicked and stupid. And the “wicked and stupid” sin being discussed is sex before marriage.
Second “By whoring”
The word translated “whoring” in that verse is “זָנָה” (zanah). The Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon and Strong’s Concordance both define it identically, and that definition is:
commit fornication, be a harlot
What is “fornication”? Let’s look at a few different definitions:
- “consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other” (Merriam Webster)
- “the act of having sex with somebody that you are not married to” (Oxford Dictionary)
- “the action of having sex with someone who you are not married to” (Cambridge Dictionary)
- “voluntary sexual intercourse between two unmarried persons or two persons not married to each other.” (Dictionary.com)
Basically, fornication = sex outside of marriage.
Notice, the Hebrew word makes no distinction whatsoever between fornicating and being a whore. Linguistically, fornicating and whoring are the same thing.
This actually makes perfect sense if you think about it.
If it’s morally permissible to have sex outside of marriage, then why not charge for that “service”? We charge to do virtually all other moral services, why not that one? (if it was morally permissible.) If fornicating is morally acceptable, then why is charging for it different than say, getting paid to mow someone’s lawn? Cut their hair? Walk their dog?
If fornicating was morally permissible, what’s the difference if you get paid for it?
If you allow for fornicating (sex outside of marriage), then you must also allow for prostitution. Very few people would make that argument, but it follows logically.
Third: “the Evil”
Shocker, this Hebrew word means exactly that: evil.
It’s the word “רַע” (rah). The Garden, Adam and Eve ate from the “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Rah (Evil)”. It means evil. The woman committed an evil act by having sex before marriage.
To Recap
Fornication (sex outside of marriage) is called an “evil deed” in verses 14 and 17. Verse 21 turns up the heat by calling it a “shameful, stupid, wicked, sin/crime”, it’s equated with prostitution, and called “evil” yet again at the end of the verse.
Does any part of that – any part at all – sound like God is okay with fornication? (sex outside of marriage.)
Oh, but there’s even more in the New Testament.
Verses in the New Testament
As clear as the Old Testament is, the New Testament is even clearer (if that’s possible).
Jesus Offers A Choice: Marriage or Celibacy
In Matthew chapter 19, some Pharisees come to Jesus testing him by asking about marriage. Jesus finishes the section with a pronouncement (and I have a whole article on the section here). This apparently shocks the disciples because this is how they respond:
Matthew 19:10-12
10 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”
11 But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given.
12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”
For those who aren’t familiar with eunuchs, we’ll go to the Definition of the Greek word for clarity. It’s the Greek word “εὐνοῦχος” (eunouchos) and it means:
2135 eunoúxos – properly, “alone in bed” (i.e. without a marriage partner) – literally, a castrated (emasculated) man; a eunuch; ” ‘a chamberlain, keeper of the bed-chamber’ of an Eastern potentate, ‘a eunuch’ ” (Souter); (figuratively) someone who abstains from marriage (sexual relations) to be solely devoted to God
The disciples are so shocked by Jesus words the verse before, that they say it’s better not to get married. Jesus replies they don’t have to get married. Instead, they can be a “eunuch for the kingdom” by voluntarily abstaining from sex.
Notice the options:
- Get married (and have sex)
- Be “alone in bed”
Those are the only two options that Jesus gives. He doesn’t allow for a third option of “don’t get married and have have sex anyway“. That’s not on the list. The options are married or “alone in bed”.
No third option is presented.
Fornicators won’t inherit the Kingdom
I recommend you read all of 1 Corinthians chapters 6 and 7 for the full context. However, we’ll talk about the relevant sections here.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
Fornicators are “unrighteous” and won’t inherit the Kingdom of God.
Could it be any clearer?
Paul even specifically warn us “Do not be deceived” about this. Presumably, he said this because he – through the Holy Spirit – knew some would try to deceive Christians about this.
Now, I know some people try to whip out the definition of the Greek words to change the plain meaning of the text. Sometimes that’s appropriate. Sometimes a fuller definition of a Greek word can lend clarity or even change the meaning of a passage.
That’s not the case here though.
This word is perfectly translated.
The Greek word translated “fornication” above is “πόρνος” (pornos), and it’s a masculine word, meaning referring specifically to males. Here’s what Strong’s concordance says it means:
Definition: a fornicator
Usage: a fornicator, man who prostitutes himself.
And HELPS Word Studies:
4205 pórnos (from pernaō, “to sell off”) – properly, a male prostitute. 4205(pórnos) is “properly, ‘a male prostitute’ (so Xen., etc.); in the NT, any fornicator” (Abbott-Smith); i.e. anyone engaging in sexual immorality. See 4202 (porneia).
And Thayer’s Greek lexicon: (Bold is original to Thayer’s)
πόρνος, πορνου, ὁ (for the etym. see πόρνη), a man who prostitutes his body to another’s lust for hire, a male prostitute, (Aristophanes), Xenophon, Demosthenes, Aeschines, Lucian); universally, a man who indulges in unlawful sexual intercourse, a fornicator
And Now Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance: (which has a fuller definitions that a “regular” Strong’s)
fornicator, whoremonger.
From pernemi (to sell; akin to the base of piprasko); a (male) prostitute (as venal), i.e. (by analogy) a debauchee (libertine) — fornicator, whoremonger.
There is universal agreement from the lexicons that pornos refers to either (male) prostitution or fornicating… because they’re the same thing.
Again – Biblically Speaking – Prostitution and Fornication are the Same Sin
Again, if sex outside of marriage is morally permissible, then why isn’t charging for it morally permissible?
We charge for every service under the sun, and no one has a problem with it… as long as the service is moral. Why would sex be any different? I know we’re hitting this point hard, but that’s because it’s important.
I’ve heard people make the argument that the Bible doesn’t prohibit sex before marriage, only prostitution. However, Biblically they’re the same thing. Getting money involved doesn’t change the morality of the action.
- Murder is wrong. Murdering for money is just as wrong, but isn’t more wrong.
- Vandalism is wrong. Vandalism for money is just as wrong, but isn’t more wrong.
- Perjury is wrong. Perjury for money is just as wrong, but isn’t more wrong.
- etc.
Seriously.
If sex outside of marriage isn’t wrong, then why couldn’t any single Christian man say to any single Christian woman: “I think you’re sexy, so I’ll give you $500 to have sex with me.“
Anyone?
Nobody would have a problem with the same man offering to pay her to walk his dog, to house-sit, or any other (moral) thing. Why is it different with sex outside of marriage… unless it’s wrong. Unless it’s very wrong, and that’s why we have this instinctual, gut-level revulsion for prostitution.
(It’s interesting, in America today we have this kind of double standard in the law. Any (over 18) woman can have sex with any man she likes and there’s no legal penalty. But the moment she wants to charge even $1 for it, then it’s prostitution and illegal.)
Biblically speaking, Prostitution and fornication are the exact same sin.
Both boil down to sex outside of marriage, aka fornication.
Anyway, moving on.
“Flee Fornication” (sex outside of marriage)
Picking up just a few verses later.
1 Corinthians 6:15-20
15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be!
16 Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, “THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH.”
17 But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him.
18 Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body.
19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?
20 For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.
In verse 18, the word translated “immorality” in the phrase “flee immorality”is the Greek word “πορνεία” (porneia). Here’s the definition according to Strong’s Concordance:
Definition: fornication
Usage: fornication, whoredom; met: idolatry.
As we’ve already covered, fornication is all sex outside of marriage. Therefore, Paul is saying “flee all sex outside of marriage (fornication)”.
The phrase “immoral man” is the Greek word “πορνεύω” (porneuó). It’s the verb form of πορνεία (porneia), which we just looked at. Being the verb form of porneia, I’ll bet you can guess what it means.
Strong’s Concordance:
Definition: to commit fornication
Usage: I fornicate; met: I practice idolatry.
HELPS Word Studies:
Cognate: 4203 porneúō – commit fornication (sexual immorality); (figuratively) to be unfaithful to Christ, while posing as His true follower. See 4202 (porneia).
NAS Exhaustive Concordance:
to commit fornication
Thayer’s Greek Lexicon:
1. to prostitute one’s body to the lust of another. In the Scriptures
2. to give oneself to unlawful sexual intercourse; to commit fornication (Vulg.fornicor): 1 Corinthians 6:18; 1 Corinthians 10:8; Revelation 2:14, 20; (Mark 10:19 WH (rejected) marginal reading).
Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance
commit fornication.
From porne; to act the harlot, i.e. (literally) indulge unlawful lust (of either sex), or (figuratively) practise idolatry — commit (fornication).
Is that clear enough?
In the New Testament, whenever you see the phrase “sexual imorallity” or even just “imorality” in a sexual context, it’s nearly always one of the forms of “πορνεία” (porneia), which means fornication; i.e. “all sex outside of marriage“.
But if that doesn’t convince you, there’s even more.
Better to Marry than Burn
1 Corinthians 7:1-2
1 Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2 But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.
The word translated “touch” in verse 1 is “ἅπτομαι” (haptomai). It means:
Definition: touch
Usage: prop: I fasten to; I lay hold of, touch, know carnally.
So they are defintely talking about “knowing carnally”, which any church-going Christian will know is polite Christianese for “have sex”. If you read further, you’ll see that Paul is talking about married couples abstaining from sex. He comes back to unmarried couples several verses later.
In verse 2, the word translated “immoralities” is the Greek word “πορνεία” (porneia), which we just looked at. It means “fornication”, which in turn means “all sex outside of marriage”.
Paul is quite clear that “because of fornication”, each man should have his wife and each woman should have a husband. He repeats the same theme several verses later.
1 Corinthians 7:8-9
8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I.
9 But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
Paul presents the same options that Jesus did:
- Marry and have sex
- Remain unmarried and be celibate
Biblically, those are your only moral/ethical options. And this is the will of God Himself.
The will of God = Abstain from Fornication
As Christians, we should want to obey/follow the will of God. Therefore, it behooves us to pay attention when He explicitly tells us what His will is.
1 Thessolonians 4:1-8
1 Finally then, brethren, we request and exhort you in the Lord Jesus, that as you received from us instruction as to how you ought to walk and please God (just as you actually do walk), that you excel still more.
2 For you know what commandments we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus.
3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality; (Greek = πορνεία (porneia) = fornication = sex outside of marriage)
4 that each of you know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor,
5 not in lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God;
6 and that no man transgress and defraud his brother in the matter because the Lord is the avenger in all these things, just as we also told you before and solemnly warned you.
7 For God has not called us for the purpose of impurity, but in sanctification.
8 So, he who rejects this is not rejecting man but the God who gives His Holy Spirit to you.
Three things stand out to me here:
- Verse 3 says it’s the will of God Himself that we all abstain from fornication. His will. Not man’s will, but God’s will. Let me be clear: it’s the will of God Himself that you abstain from sex outside of marriage. The all powerful, all knowing, all-wise God who created us and on whom we depend for the very air in our lungs; this is His will.
- Verse 8 makes it clear that if you reject this teaching you aren’t rejecting a man. Because the command comes from God Himself, rejecting the command is rejecting God Himself.
- Verse 6 makes it clear that – probably for these reasons – the Lord is “the avenger” in all these things. If it sounds like I’m threatening judgement for fornicating, I’m not; God Himself is. This isn’t the only place He does either. (more on that in a moment)
Fornicators will be judged…
Hebrews 13:4
Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.
And there’s no wiggle room in Greek either. The word translated “fornicators” is one of the forms of πορνεία (porneia), which we’ve already seen means “fornication”, which means “sex outside of marriage”. “Fornicators and adulterers” covers the whole range of sexual sins.
With those two statements taken together (adultery + fornication) the only legitimate sexual practice that God won’t judge is sex inside of marriage.
That’s it.
Period.
Full stop.
There’s no “what ifs” or “how about in the case of” statements elsewhere in the Bible. God has been 100% consistent throughout the Bible on this. Sex belongs inside of marriage. No one should dishonor marital sex, in fact, it should be “held in honor by all”. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:3-7 that married couples have to agree to stop having sex.
- Sex is expected inside of marriage.
- Sex is forbidden outside of Marriage.
Biblically, those are your options and judgement awaits those who pick “option #3”.
…So repent, that your sins may be forgiven
God’ judgements are just, and thankfully His mercy reigns when we repent and turn from our wicked ways. Let’s return to a verse we’ve previously covered, but focus on a different aspect of it:
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
If you have been fornicating, take courage because there is hope:
1 John 1:7-10
7 but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.
8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.
It’s that simple.
Confess to God that you have indeed sinned. Ask for His forgiveness and you will have it. Jesus’ blood took care of this on the cross, and through it we can have peace with God. But there is more to it, you need to actually stop doing it.
Jesus said to the (repentant) woman caught in adultery:
John 8:10-11
10 Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.
You need to actually stop fornicating.
I realize this may be hard, especially if you’re living with someone you’re not married to. (which is very popular these days) Because of temptation, it’s probably not a good idea to continue living with your “significant other” unless you’re married. (in which case you shouldn’t live apart, not for any significant length of time anyway.)
Some Say Premarital Sex = Wedding? What?
Some people believe that if two unmarried people have sex, that automatically makes them married. I hope you can see from all the verses that we’ve just covered that this isn’t the case.
Let’s pretend – for a moment – that two unmarried people having sex does make them married. If that were true, that would mean fornication = marriage. Given the warnings God gives about fornication, about how wicked it is and how He will judge those who practice it, that seems… Unlikely. (to say the least.)
Proverbs 18:22
He who finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains favor from the LORD.
Fornication does the opposite because it’s not good, and incurs judgement instead of favor. Therefore, I don’t see how fornication can create a marriage. Paul says to “flee fornication”, yet “marriage is to be held in honor among all”; you don’t flee something you hold in honor.
But let’s deal with the verse they use for this:
Exodus 22:16-17 (ESV)
16 “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife.
17 If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins.
Please notice: the father had the final say in the Mosaic Law. No marriage could be contracted between the man and the (ex)virgin unless her father approved. Therefore, since the father’s consent was required to make a marriage, then the act of fornicating doesn’t make a marriage.
There’s also an issue of sequence. In this verse, it’s clear the wedding is after the fornication. How can the fornicating be the wedding when the marriage only happens afterward?
It makes no logical sense.
“But I love him/her, so how can it be wrong?“
Consider what you’re saying: That’s like saying that feelings are a good justification for any wicked action. If we tried that with any other sins, everyone would laugh. For example:
- I really “loved” that woman’s necklace, so I stole it.
- I really “loved” not getting in trouble, so I lied in court under oath.
- I really “loved” the idea of never seeing them again, so I killed them
I mean, really?
Feelings don’t justify wicked actions. Ever. Just because you really want to do something doesn’t mean it’s morally acceptable. Further,the people who say this are looking at it backwards.
To put it bluntly: if you’re fornicating with someone, that’s proof positive that you don’t love them.
I have an article about how (in Greek) the Great Commandment isn’t about “love”. But even if it was, that requires a proper definition of love as a verb.
You can define our English word “love” at least two ways depending on how it’s used. As a noun (person, place, thing, or feeling/emotion), you can define it as the “warm fuzzy” feeling typically – and more correctly – called infatuation.
As a verb (an action), love must be defined differently. (I have an article about how In Greek, the Great Commandment isn’t about “love”) If you say “I did the loving thing”, you don’t mean “I did the emotional thing”. You mean “I did what was best for the other person“. I would define the English word “love” – as a verb – this way:
Love: Doing what best for someone else regardless of what it costs me.
Is committing a wicked sin with someone else what’s best for them? Is it best to help them commit a sin for which the Bible clearly says God will judge them (and you too). Fornication often leads to cohabitation (living together and fornicating while not married), which – if it came with a warning label – no would in their right mind would ever do.
Cohabitation is horrible for everyone involved
It’s very much “in vogue” these days for couples to live together (fornicating while they do) and not get married. However, that’s a horrible idea. There’s a great data-driven article from life Site News which sums this up, entitled: Cohabitation is bad for men, worse for women, and horrible for children.
Here are some of the highlights (lowlights?)
- One-sixth of cohabiting couples stay together for only three years; one in ten survives five or more years
- Greater risk of divorce for those who cohabitate before marriage: (39 percent vs. 21 percent)
- The rate of STD among cohabiting couples is six times higher than among married women
- Greater risk of substance abuse and psychiatric problems
- Higher poverty rates: Cohabitors who never marry have 78 percent less wealth than the continuously married
- “Cohabitation breeds abuse, violence, and murder: Abuse of children: Rates of serious abuse are lowest in intact families; six times higher in stepfamilies; 14 times higher in always-single-mother families; 20 times higher in cohabiting biological-parent families; and 33 times higher when the mother is cohabiting with a boyfriend who is not the biological father“
And the effect on children bears more looking at.
Most Americans believe cohabitating couples raise children just as well as married couples…
The reality: Children of cohabitating parents face higher risks of negative outcomes. The Pew survey’s question focused on the perceived parenting skills of the couple rather than the actual outcomes for the children. The actual outcomes are notably worse for the kids.
While Americans are optimistic about the ability of cohabiting couples to raise children, a study published by the American College of Pediatricians in 2014 reported that children whose parents cohabit face a higher risk of: “premature birth, school failure, lower education, more poverty during childhood and lower incomes as adults, more incarceration and behavior problems, single parenthood, medical neglect and chronic health problems both medical and psychiatric, more substance, alcohol and tobacco abuse, and child abuse,” and that “a child conceived by a cohabiting woman is at 10 times higher risk of abortion compared to one conceived in marriage.”
And that’s just a sampling – a mere fraction – of the data I have on the topic. From a data-driven/scientific perspective, it’s far worse for everyone – man, woman, and child – than I’ve laid out in the short summary here. (Seriously, I could double the length of this article with all the data I have.)
God is NOT “Anti-Fun” or “Anti-Sex”
His first command to mankind was “have lots of kids”, which boils down to “have lots of sex” (inside marriage). He commanded the Israelites to throw a bunch of huge feasts every year. In fact, “ever good and perfect gift comes from the Father above.”
God wants you to have sex; lots of sex. He just wants you to do it the moral way (inside marriage). Doing it His way produces far better outcomes in the long run. Not only do you avoid sin, but you actually have a better life. That’s what obedience to God always brings.
In fact: Married Christians have the best sex!
One of the most comprehensive and methodically sound sex studies ever done found that consistent church attendees have a significantly higher frequency and intensity of orgasms than the general population of the U.S. Even more exciting, women who attend church more than once a week experience even bigger, (cough), …you know what I mean.
But this is hardly the only study to find this. According to another University of Chicago study, researchers found that church goers not only experience more personal satisfaction but also rate their sex partners as “extremely enjoyable” significantly more often than other demographics.
…
“We also found that married couples reported significantly higher levels of relationship quality than cohabiting couples,” the report says.
God definitely wants you to have sex. He just wants you to do it inside of marriage. The first commandment to mankind was to have lots of kids, which requires lots of sex. In 1 Corinthians 7, God said married couples shouldn’t stop having sex, except for a short time to fast/pray, after which they should “come together again”.
God even included a book (Song of Solomon) in the Bible which never even mentions God. Yes, one of the books of the Bible – the one that goes on at length describing a naked woman – doesn’t even mention “God” or “the Lord”. Song of Solomon is just shy of an erotic novel… and it’s in the Bible.
God isn’t shy about sex.
(Note: the Song of Solomon even mentions oral sex – on both men and women – in euphemistic/pictorial terms. I bet you never heard that in a Sunday morning sermon.)
If you want to have sex, good! God wants you to have sex too, as long as it’s inside marriage.
Conclusion
Fornication (sex outside of marriage) is a wicked, shameful, and senseless sin. Biblically, your options are getting married and having lots of (amazing) sex, or remaining single and having none. It’s God’s will that you abstain from fornication, and He will judge those who practice such things. Fortunately, you can also repent and have that sin cleansed through Jesus work on the cross.
Fortunately, God isn’t a kill-joy.
He’s quite the opposite in fact, and wants us to have sex – preferably lots of sex – inside of marriage. Married Christians have the best sex and better relationships. Conversely, “shacking up” (cohabitation) is horrible for everyone involved, especially the children. Please, don’t make your children suffer for it. Even if you don’t have children, there are still consequences.
Sin always has consequences.
Always.
I noticed that you used John 8:10-11 which is bracketed in most modern translations. The modern scholars-translators doubt that this is scripture. Augustine said that it was probably removed from subsequent manuscripts to keep women from fooling around and then simply repenting afterwards.
EDIT: I’ve done a lot more research since writing this comment and come to the opposite conclusion of what I said below. I wrote an article about it too, which you can read here: Was the Pericope Adulterae (Woman Caught in Adultery) Original or Added?
There’s tons of evidence for its inclusion, including Eusebius citing Papias (early second century, possibly a disciple of John) as referring to a story about a woman accused before Jesus. It’s also in the majority of Greek and Latin manuscripts.
But further, a plain reading of the text reveals a huge problem without the passage. John 7:45 asks “why did you not bring Him?” and 8:51 makes mention that He’s not present because they need to hear from Him before accusing Him. If the woman caught in adultery passage is removed, then you skip right to John 8:12, where Jesus is present. It makes no logical sense. This problem is completely solved with the inclusion of The Pericope Adulterae (Woman caught in Adultery)
There’s plenty more evidence, but this is a comment, not an article.
Some very serious problems with your theory here.
1). A young woman who has had sex with a man and whose father has then refused the automatic marriage, keeping the fine, is clearly not a virgin but remains unmarried and is still available to marry again. i.e. she has had sex before marriage.
2). The whole test for virginity only relates to instances where the man believed that he was marrying a virgin per the marriage agreement, if the woman admitted that she was not a virgin then the man has no legal ability to claim that he believed that she was. Moreover, this test would not apply to a man marrying a widow who had already had children from the previous marriage, as he obviously knew that she was not a virgin.
3). You seem to have ignored the many instances of lawful concubinage and handmaids in the OT. This is clear evidence of the biblical norm of non-martial sex between a man and a woman who was not his wife. There are too many include but, Jacob’s sons of Dan, Asher, Gad and Naphtali were produced from the union of he with his two handmaidens, and these sons were considered lawful.
4). Both Judah and Samson have sex with prostitutes with no moral comments against this.
5). Most high-ranking Jews practiced polygamy, David, Solomon etc. (Probably having Harems as well) Herod had multiple wives as well.
6). You also seem to have ignored the obvious non-marital and celebrated sexual event in the song of Solomon, which clearly destroys the myth on the non-martial sex ban.
For the NT.
1). Your notion that a eunuch was simply a celibate is against all scholarship that accepts that the eunuchs in Matthew 19:10 were castrated men.
2). Your lengthy attempt to equate the Greek ‘porneia’ (all variants thereon) is simply not supported by the Greek language and the contextual use of the word in both the Hebrew OT, Greek culture and NT usages. It has always been a difficult word to translate due its vagueness but the serious scholarship looks to its use in the ancient world and not to the 16th century attempt to link it to ‘’Fornication’’. A ‘porne’ in Greek was always as slave (the lowest of the low) subjected to sexual slavery. It was actually used commonly as an insult. Porneia is thus more accurately translated as; ‘to sell one’s self physically’ and from numerous uses in the OT was used mainly to describe idolatry in that a person had ‘sold themselves’ into the thralls of foreign Gods.
3). (2 part 2)… Paul’s use of it, if we assume that he has not changed the Greek language and keeps to the Septuagint theological use of the term refers to Idolatry. Specifically, participation in the rituals, public festivals and initiation rites of the various Pagan temples which usually involved grotesque sexual orgies, physical defilement and other impurities. Romans 1 is a good example of how Paul saw that idolatry leads to unnatural sexual practices of homosexuality and then complete amorality.
4). We must note that sex before marriage is never mentioned as a wrong in the Leviticus 18 ‘’vice list’’, yet paul’s outrage at homosexuality and a man sleeping with his father’s wife in 1 Cor 5:1 are breaches of the code of Leviticus. Porneia is then seen as idolatry, involving sexual rituals which leads to breaches of the Levitic law. Nothing to do with non-marital sex.
5). Paul’s advice about marriage is mixed in that he leaves it up to the individual. But, in 1 Cor 7:37 he allows men to keep their ‘’Parthenoi’’ (maids) if they choose not to marry them, perhaps stating that the can keep their women and remain unmarried.
6). Lastly, to a Jew of the 1st century, all Gentiles were having sex outside of marriage as it was spiritually impossible for a gentile ‘marriage’ to be valid as the covenant was being made towards idols and not the real God. Nowhere does Paul command the new gentle members of the church to validate their old marriages.
Sorry to go on, most of this is from memory, but I looked into the ‘no sex before marriage’ myth and a while ago and I think the above is pretty strong. For Paul to radically change the Greek language, the OT use of the word as well as add to the Torah a completely alien new rule of pre-marital virginity seems completely out of reality. God bless.
I won’t comment on everything you said as I debunked most of it in the article, but I will touch on a few that I didn’t cover in the article.
Concubines. My research says “concubine” isn’t quite right as a translation because “concubine” means a woman a man sleeps with without being married to her”. However, Biblical concubines were “slave-wives” and actually married to the man. They were different than free/normal wives and had fewer freedoms because they were slaves, but they were still wives.
Polygyny. Again, they were actual wives. There was more than one, but they were actual wives.
Song of Songs. They were married. 3:11 even specifically mentions the “wedding day”. There are also several verses which say not to “awaken love before it is time”.
1 Corinthians 7:36-38. Please read it in the NASB or NKJV. Nearly every other translation perverts these verses to make them about an engaged couple. They aren’t. It’s about a father allowing or not allow his virgin daughter to marry.
Okay, thanks, but Porneia has never meant pre-marital sex. Its use in the Greek world was always a slur over (usually a freeman) who had metaphorically enslaved himself into brothel work. It was a double ‘whammy’ as it meant you were a slave, and the lowest kind of slave. The Jews adapted this to relate to their disgust over vile idolatry and its physical repercussions in breach of the clear sexual sins in Leviticus.
The OT rules are pretty clear that they guard against women either being taken my other men without the father’s permission or deceiving their husbands about their previous sexual experience. It was critical that Hebrew men could identify their legal heirs or risk accusations of ”mamzer” and have their kids ostracised.
Concubinage is a complex issue, from memory, some have defined them as ”secondary” wives, under a ”contract” but not under a covenant, meaning that their was no marriage in the ritual sense. That they lack the full process is enough for many that they are not wives. I should have clarified that polygamy was generally the preserve of the elite, i.e the chieftains and the kings, and yes, relations with 1000+ wives is still still sex within marriage. The handmaidens and harem-women though were also clearly not wives, nor were the other sex slaves captured.
The song of solomon, has always been read as a sexual romance before or not including a marriage. I shan’t go into the imagery. Theological interpretations of the text are of course valid but the first layer has always been seen as a non-marital romance.
1 Cor 7:36-38 could be more clear I agree. The Greek doesn’t help but the use of the a ‘maid/young woman’ instead of ‘daughter’ or ‘child’ in the wider context of discussing what married and unmarried men should do, leans heavily toward a man with an unmarried woman as a partner, completely normal in 1st century Greece. Translations do vary, the worse of which that I’ve seen is the NWT which equates a ‘young woman’ to mean a man’s own virginity (???)
…
I think we’ve probably ran out of things to say now. I hope you can see that my view is at least reasonable given the standard reading of Torah and Greek and supported by many scholars if one cares to look. Paul’s Greek is very interesting in that he (and his team) held to the plain meaning of the language in relation to common texts of the day. From memory he only created one word ‘arsenokoits’ (generally read as a dominant homosexual man) as the Greek couldn’t match his meaning. That in mind he never used or made any term close to a ban on sex before marriage. Greek had much plainer terms for sex than ‘porneia’. The gospel of John even, written for the gentiles specifically, never adds this ‘command’ to abstain from pre-marital sex for gentiles to now obey. As I said previously, Gentiles had no proper marriages in Jewish eyes.
I’ve enjoyed your writings if not agreed with 100% of them.
God bless.
Every lexicon I’ve looked at mentions “fornication” as a definition for porneia. Having read a large of chunk of the New Testament in Greek, that’s consistent with its usage. Do you have some reputable sources for an alternate definition?
You can find where fornication was against the law ( written by man) but no where is it written in the bible that it is a sin. People need to stop teaching this lie. The word is only in the book one time. Paul discusses sex to the Corinthians but that’s because they worshipped Aphrodite. Adultery is listed as a sin but fornication is not.
You said:
Actually, 25 times… and that’s just the noun form in the New Testament. It has other forms which are also used, increasing the count even more. Every time it’s a negative thing. You know, like Hebrews 13:4b which says “for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.”
The church has lied about fornication, and everything else. Adultery is in the physical realm. Fornicating is in the unseen realm. Fornicating people are married to the mind of Satan saying fear me. John 8:41“Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.”
(KJV). John 8:33“They answered him, We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?” Abraham would not have wanted Jesus to be dead. Christs enemies were not of Abrahams seed, when they were the seed of Abraham. They were born of fornication. They were married to Satan, sinning against their God made image. Christs enemies needed to be born again. They were not abstaining from fornication. Christs enemies would be of Abrahams seed had they heard the Father Spirit through Jesus, who is the Lord of Glory. Legal system is like Christs enemies. Islam is like that. Devil possessed people will not be in God’s kingdom. People like that will vex people with filthy, good for nothing, froward, deceiving, conversation. 2 Peter 2:7 – 8, KJV. Vex is not sex. God’s loving mind needs to be in our mind, loving God who made us, and others, forever. Swearing is saying an oath that God does not want us to say. God is light to the saved. God will be fire to the lost. The lost will die body, and soul. God’s light purifies the earth to the lowest hell or lowest depths. It is a purifying processes. Hell is not a kingdom. The soul that sins it shall die. The church ended up saying what Satan said, with eternal torment. The lie about eternal torment, made people to torment others.
I might be the first person here to comment to say what I wonderful article this is. We naturally want to justify sin, especially when we’ve recently committed it. I never understood the difference between fornication, sexual immorality and adultery, and I’m glad (as a male with some of these problems) to have it explained so well without comprimising the word. Much Thanks!
Thank you for this article. I have one question that is important to me. You explain the Bible’s definition of fornication as “sexual intercourse” outside of marriage. Do you have any guidance toward understanding what God might think about other sexual acts of gratification (that come short of intercourse) within a loving dating relationship, prior to marriage? Is there some freedom there, or is it also always sinful?
Thank you!
1 Corinthians 7:1 touches on this, and the Greek word translated “touch” there has this footnote in my favorite translation:
That’s a pretty solid “No, don’t do that.”
My father’s rule was this: “If you wouldn’t normally do it with your sister or a female friend, don’t do it with a girlfriend or fiancé.” There’s some basis for this in 1 Timothy 5:2, which mentions treating “younger women as sisters in all purity.” (in the context of reproof)
Additionally, a man has ZERO right to a woman’s body without marriage, and a woman has ZERO right to share her body without marriage. (See my article series on marriage for more information, especially the 5th article.)
“1.Marry and have sex
2.Remain unmarried and be celibate
Biblically, those are your only moral/ethical options. And this is the will of God Himself”.
And if marriage isn’t an option but celibacy is unbearable? What then?
Better to marry than to burn, Paul says. If marriage isn’t on the table then burn forever. Isn’t that called hell? It’s just too difficult to get married under today’s conditions. Humans weren’t designed to live functionally asexual lives until they’re 30 (or even older). There has to be some other option.
The idea with “better to marry than to burn” is almost certainly “burn with passion”; i.e., unmet desires which can lead to sin. He says much the same thing in verse 1-2 of that chapter. Unfortunately, the reason it’s so hard to find a good wife is because of sin. I suggest my article How Getting Marriage ‘Wrong’ Destroyed Every Great Civilization in World History for an explanation on why… but it might not help you find a wife.
Yes, I know what “burn” means in the context of that verse. Comparing it to hell was rhetorical. Better to get married than burn with passion. And if marriage isn’t an option? Burn forever. Sounds like hell to me. Humans weren’t designed to be functionally asexual for decades after sexual maturity.
As far as I can tell, there is no biblical advice for someone who has a healthy sex drive but for whom marriage simply isn’t an option. The biblical authors don’t seem to even be aware of such a concept. That’s not surprising since marriage was primarily an economic arrangement at the time the Bible was written. What is to be done in light of the broken dating and marriage market we have now? Getting married is harder than ever and the average age at marriage is climbing steadily. The biblical model simply doesn’t work under these conditions. So what is the average man to do?
Marriage in 1st century Rome was closer to modern America than most realize. Rome had long since eliminated their patriarchal structure by the 1st century. I talk about this in the first part of my article on authority in marriage. I realize this doesn’t directly help your plight, but Paul lived in a world that was more similar to ours than most know (Again, see either of the two articles I linked to.) so that means it’s still applicable.
Even Proverbs says “An excellent wife, who can find? For her worth is far above jewels.“. Good wives are indeed hard to find.
If I may ask, why do you say that “marriage simply isn’t an option”? Is it because of the culture, or something more specific to you? (and if you don’t want to answer publicly, feel free to send me an email)
I’m not interested in talking about any specifics in regards to myself. Because I’m far from the only one. The number of new marriages are steadily declining each year and the age at which people do get married keeps climbing. The dating market is ruthlessly competitive, especially with so much of it taking place on dating apps like Tinder. There are the effects of Feminism and women being in the workforce. Looking to marry within your own religion further limits your options; you can no longer reasonably expect that someone you meet at the coffee shop is a Christian in any meaningful way. Some people have mental or physical health problems that present obstacles. The list is long. I’ll stop it here lest this become an essay.
Paul’s advice in 1 Corinthians 7:9 seems to assume that getting married is relatively easy. It is now much harder to get married and the “burn” is much worse thanks to the prevalence of pornogrably, commodification of sex, and the longer interval between puberty and marriage.
Even under perfect conditions marriage won’t always be on the table in everyone’s near future. It isn’t just a matter of going to the store and buying a spouse. It is unfortunate that none of the writers of the Bible thought of that possibility or offered any solutions.
I understand your predicament, but can’t offer an easy or fast solution. Masturbation doesn’t quite ‘scratch the itch’ and good wives are very hard to find.
You’ve correctly addressed the problem (feminism and the resultant proliferation of immorality). However, there are no easy fast solutions because the Church caused the problem. The rise of feminism (and resultant proliferation of immorality) is a side effect of an unbiblical doctrine that 99%+ of Christians believe and vehemently teach. The fault belongs to all of us and our forefathers. We did this; we made our bed and don’t like being forced to lie in it.
It’s rather like Proverbs 19:3 “The foolishness of man ruins his way, And his heart rages against the LORD.” The Bible does address this: but it does so by telling us how to avoid the problem in the first place. Our foolish and sinful disobedience got us into this mess, so only our obedience will get us out of it. However, societal change would take ~100 years if it started now, which won’t help you (as you pointed out).
It’s a problem, but one of our own making.
The best that I can offer is to recommend that you fast and pray like you’ve never done before. Perhaps God will grace you with a good wife.
You understand the nature of the problem. That’s the first step. Most people in the Church can’t even recognize that, much less begin to think of solutions.
I think conditions are bad enough that we’ve reached a crisis state. A crisis state calls for a state of exception. The Church needs to suspend the law and allow for some kind of sexual activity for unmarried people until conditions can be improved. Draw up some clear guidelines on how and when it can be permissible. The Bible is not a suicide pact. The traditional Christian view of sex just doesn’t work under these conditions. There is nothing left to conserve, so why hold on to it?
The church doesn’t get to decide what’s lawful; that’s up to God who doesn’t change. Hebrews 13:4 says that God will judge fornicators. You are free to engage in whatever activity you wish, but you aren’t free of the consequences. Read 1 Corinthians 5 and 6 if you think think God will suspend His moral law concerning fornication. He’s so serious, He commands Christians not to socialize with “Christian” fornicators in 1 Cor 5:11
Man was created to glorify God by imitating Him. Since everything we do is supposed to be a reflection of Him and what He would do, when we sin, we are – in effect – saying that God would sin. God doesn’t tolerate that blaspheming of His name, which is why He will judge fornicators. He is most glorified when it’s hard to follow Him, but we do anyway. We should “hold to it” because of the many times the Bible tells us to “hold fast” to these things. We should “hold to it” because it’s the very reason that we were created. (To glorify God by imitating Him)
As is clear from the article, the God calls sex outside of marriage a shameful, stupid, wicked, sin/crime. God won’t change His mind on that because He doesn’t change. The real question is this: are you going to (1) be obedient even when it’s hard and do the hard work of finding a good wife, thus glorifying Him and fulfilling the purpose for which man was created. OR (2) ignore God’s clear commands and fornicate, thus bringing judgement on yourself.
Hint: I recommend the option #1
More practically, I have heard that many in your predicament have tried using Christian dating websites to find wives with some success. You might consider that, just be clear that you want a biblical marriage and aren’t interested in a “feminist Christian”. (which is a contradiction in terms)
Was moral law created for the benefit of man or was man created for the law? Is God not sovereign and above His moral law? Is the Bible coeternal with God or did God create it at one point? If it did not exist and then later existed then by definition it changed. If God is sovereign then God decides on the exception. God can suspend moral law just like God can suspend natural laws (this is called a miracle). Who decides on the exception? If the Church represents God on earth then does the Church not have the authority to decide on the exception when it comes to issues affecting the lives of its members? How much authority does the Church have to adapt to changing conditions and states of crisis? Is the Bible a suicide pact?
P. S. Dating sites are just as useless as anything else.
For some reason this conversation about sex always ends up being about theology and philosophy. I guess theology really does determine everything.
Theology aside this is the reality:
The Bible presents two options. Marriage or celibacy. But there are many people, (I call them the orphans), who can’t successfully live in either option. Paul and all the other biblical writers didn’t anticipate that. If they were aware of such people then they didn’t leave us any guidance on the matter. So, without biblical guidance, the Church has to figure out how to handle this issue. Creating societal change is a good goal but it won’t bear any fruit in our lifetimes. So, what now? How do the orphans survive today?
Moral law was created by God for the benefit of God, so we could properly glorify Him by imitating Him. God made the moral standard; the Bible merely informs us of that standard. Yes the Church represents God on Earth, but since when does an ambassador make laws?
As I’ve said before, the New Testament was written in a cultural climate that was shockingly similar to ours. Yes, I mean the absence of good wives and problem of wanting one (and/or sex) but that being very hard to come by. I’d argue 1st century Rome was worse than America today. So yes, the Bible writers absolutely did touch on it. Here’s what they said.
It’s hard; I know. That’s why I suggested you fast and pray that God – who is able to bring you a good wife – will do so. It’s the only avenue He allows for sex without sinning. God warned those who would change His words; read the end of Revelation if you don’t believe me.
It up to you: will you be obedient when it’s hard, or not?
Sorry but I disagree on the purpose of moral law. God is above the law. The law was created for the benefit of man; to foster peace, order, and good government. Would you say you’re a moral deontologist? I lean more toward teleology and/or consequentialism. There are negative consequences when large numbers of people, especially men, are priced out of the sexual market. Holding on to abstinence before marriage under these conditions just makes it harder to get married. In at least one survey the majority of women said they wouldn’t so much as date someone who is still a virgin. In the same surgery, men were much more willing to date virgins. That’s female hypergamy at work. Statistically, women are also much more likely to to hold attitudes that enforce the “double standard” that men with lots of sexual experience are studs and women with the same level of experience are whores. Not surprising. Women are attracted to high status men and a man who has been able to attract a lot of women are seen as successful. Women with lots of experience are seen as direct competitors.
Sorry, but the Bible passage doesn’t address the issue. The text you bolded boils down to “don’t fornicate” and “if you reject this advice you reject God”. Nothing about the issue of marriage being unobtainable.
The verse in Revelation only refers to the book of Revelation itself, not the Bible in general. Both testaments were seperate books that weren’t collected together until later. That’s beyond the point though. This isn’t about changing the Bible. It’s about temporarily suspending a point of biblical law until the state of crisis is over. Who decides on the exception?
Since God made the law, can anyone override His judgement except God Himself? That would require a prophet who has greater authority/connection to God/credentials than the apostles themselves. I don’t see how that’s possible because the original apostles/writers of the NT walked with Jesus Himself. (even Paul – who said he learned directly from God Himself – went to apostles to verify “lest he run in vain”)
Short of the second coming – which will render this moot anyway – I don’t see how that could happen.
A verse I have often thought about lately is:
I will not punish your daughters when they play the whore, nor your brides when they commit adultery; for the men themselves go aside with prostitutes and sacrifice with cult prostitutes, and a people without understanding shall come to ruin- Hosea 4:14
Perhaps it’s a stretch but I can’t help but see a parallel. The parents and grandparents of this generation created the conditions were are now in. They’ve made it near impossible to get married, they’ve commodified sex, mass immigration and women entering the workforce has made it impossible for men to make a good wage. In short, it is nearly impossible to do it the “right way” under these conditions. Can anyone blame people for merely following their nature and trying to do the best they can under the conditions? Who will God hold accountable for all this? I don’t know. But I don’t think it will be the young people of today. They didn’t create this mess.
If you read those verses in context, you’re twisting the passage. Even the end of the verse says that their “harlotry” – which is the same word as fornication – causes their downfall. The interlinear uses “therefore”, and the NASB gets the gist with “So the people without understanding are ruined.” Their fornication is the cause of the ruin.
This is backed up by all the data too
Please, read my article on How Getting Marriage ‘Wrong’ Destroyed Every Great Civilization in World History. If that doesn’t convince you, read “Sex and Culture” by J.D. Unwin (link to PDF version in the article). In every single case, a society that allows sex outside of marriage declines and becomes incredibly immorral. Period. No exceptions.
Sex outside of marriage destroys societies.
What you are advocating will make the problem worse. More importantly, it’s wrong.
P.S. And BTW, in a society that was setup the way God intended, wives would be hard-ish to get. See my answer to your comment on the other article for more info on why.
Although I agree with your exegesis in places, I think much of what you’ve argued is misguided. I’ll return to this thread later to give a more in depth explanation of how I understand the passages you mentioned. For now, I have a bone to pick with you with respect to your understanding of the greek word πορνεία/πόρνος.
You acknowledge (rightly in my view) that the word does not have a one-to-one correspondence with the modern usage of the word fornication. The average English speaker would not use the word fornication to describe adultery (as Christ does in Matthew 5:32) or incest (as Paul does in 1 Corinthians 5:1). But neither is it correct to say “πορνεία…means fornication; i.e. “**all sex outside of marriage**“. The word definitely refers to forbidden sexual activity, but its meaning is broad enough that it was even used in some places to refer to forbidden sex *within* marriage (see Tobit 8:7; http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/sites/719/2018/09/jbl.1372.2018.345030.pdf)! Thus I suggest the generic translation “sexual immorality” as most modern translators do.
My point is that the NT vice lists (or other passages that use the word πορνεία) are not enough to demonstrate that sex before marriage is a sin. The word refers to forbidden sex but we have to look elsewhere in Scripture to see what is forbidden.
The article/PDF was interesting, but ultimately unconvincing because it ignored a few things and made several baseless assumptions. I’d further add it seemed to intentionally ignore some things, but that would be impugning the author’s intentions, which I don’t know. He might’ve simply been ignorant.
As to Tobit, the referenced story reveals an incorrect (and arguably sinful) view of sex. If he is right, then we should only engage in sex to procreate, which is nowhere supported in scripture. The author of Tobit got it plain old wrong.
Sure, Tobit’s view of sex is not the biblical one. But I think it’s unnecessary to assume he’s using the word πορνεία incorrectly (if that’s what you’re arguing? I hope I’m not misunderstanding you). Just like if someone were to argue, for example, that dancing is a sin. They’d be wrong – but they’d be using the word sin correctly.
If this particular passage is troubling you, the authors do cite others to support their claim that the word was sometimes applied to marital sex. I know the article is lengthy, so if it’s alright I’ll just note a few here:
– It is used to describe intermarriage with non-Israelites (Tobit 4:12).
– The children of the Sons of God and their human brides are called “sons of πορνεία” in 1 Enoch 10:9-10
– The church father Irenaeus condemned the heretic Tatian for claiming that marriage itself was πορνεία. For Tatian to claim that “marriage is sex outside marriage” would be nonsensical. It makes much more sense to understand him as saying that all sex, marital or otherwise, is immoral. Irenaeus certainly thought that was what he meant.
I’m not sure that intermarriage with non-Israelites is the referent in Tobit 4:12. While it could refer to that, it seems just as likely (and more likely in my opinion) that he was saying to avoid sex outside of marriage/prostitution by getting married, much like 1 Thess 4. He then follows by saying what kind of woman his son should marry. It’s at least unclear, and it’s a bad idea to base anything on things that aren’t clear.
I did a quick search for Enoch and found that passage. Here it is with a bit more context: “And to Gabriel said the Lord: ‘Proceed against the bastards and the reprobates, and against the children of fornication“. The Jews love repetition for emphasis and “bastard” literally means a child born to parents who aren’t married…
Tatian’s views are problematic to cite as evidence because the man himself was an ascetic Gnostic. IIRC, many ascetic Gnostics considered marriage to be a creation of Satan and thus always invalid. Since they believed it was invalid, πορνεία still makes sense; doubly so when seen in the sense of prostitution/spiritual “fornication” because you were aligning yourself with Satan in their view. (Some also believed women were a work of Satan, and thus uniting yourself with a woman in sex was also uniting with Satan)
Tobit also screams of ascetic Gnosticism, hence my skepticism with taking anything at face value, even the definition of words as in your dancing example.
Your explanation of Tobit 4:12 seems like a plausible alternative to me. You’re right, if it’s unclear we should probably focus on other passages.
With respect to Enoch, that’s what a bastard is in our culture but to a hellenistic Jew a bastard was the child of any forbidden union, married or otherwise. We have examples in rabbinic literature of the word bastard (mamzer) being applied to children of incestous marriages, exogamous marriages, and even to a child conceived while the wife was menstruating. We know the parents in Enoch were married because (a) the rest of the book tells us so and (b) the Genesis account tells us so. (1 Enoch 6:2, 7:1; Genesis 6:2)
On Tatian and Tobit, I’m happy to admit their views were problematic. But if we restrict our study of the greek language to those with perfectly orthodox beliefs we’d never get beyond scripture and would have nowhere to turn to understand hapax legomena. It would help if you clarified how you think they are using the word πορνεία. That is, do you think they are using the word incorrectly?
Interesting point about Enoch and you’re right about mamzer. Enoch actually ties in with my point about Tatian; i.e. what constitutes a legitimate marriage, and therefore moral sex. I found and read chapters 6-10 of Enoch and according to the writer of Enoch, God clearly considered angels taking wives to be illegitimate = not a marriage = they were having sex outside of marriage. The definition still stands, and stands perfectly.
Likewise, Tatian considered all marriage to be illegitimate. If a marriage was illegitimate, then all sex in it would actually be sex outside of marriage = πορνεία. If all marriage were illegitimate as Tatian (heretically) thought, then all sex would be πορνεία.
To say that πορνεία is general “sexual immorality”, you’d need to prove that a married couple could commit πορνεία. You obviously realize this, which I assume is why you’ve brought up what you have. While I’m willing to entertain the idea that πορνεία = general “sexual immorality”, there’s a burden of proof to change my mind that hasn’t been met yet.
Can you provide a reference for the passage(s) in 1 Enoch you see as saying these were not real marriages? To be clear, I’m not looking for evidence that these relationships were immoral, unnatural, or forbidden. I think we’re on the same page that they are all three. What I don’t see in Enoch is evidence the author thought they were “not a marriage.” Just the opposite since he (and his Genesis source material) uses the language of “[taking] unto themselves wives.”
Similarly, I don’t see anything in Tatian to suggest he thought marriages were fake or illegitimate. I think, perhaps, you might be imposing later gnostic theology on the otherwise orthodox Tatian. If you had a specific passage in mind, I’d love to discuss it. Without such a reference, I have a hard time believing that’s what Tatian thought since it posits something tautologically false. That
“sex in it [marriage] is sex outside marriage.”
With respect to your last paragraph, I’d actually suggest you approach burden of proof differently. Given most modern translations use the phrase “sexual immorality” as I do (NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, etc), maybe you should consider treating my view as the default unless clear evidence indicates otherwise?
It seemed to be the logical conclusion when I read Enoch chapter 10. God clearly considered what was done to be wrong. And since taking wives isn’t wrong, then that leaves the obvious conclusion that angels taking wives is intrinsically wrong, and therefore illegitimate. It’s not explicitly stated in the passage, but it logically follows.
As to Tatian, I’ve read virtually none of his writings. I was making a (possibly incorrect) inference based on some quick research, what you said, and my knowledge of Gnosticism. If you could provide a link to the passage to which you were referring, I’d be happy to read it and give a more complete opinion.
When translations conflict with lexicons, I almost always go with lexicons. Not saying lexicons are always right, but translation work is usually far more biased than lexicons. Lexicons do have overwhelming support for “fornication” as you can see from the article.
I think we’re awfully close to agreement on 1 Enoch. But even if angels taking wives is intrinsically wrong (I suspect it is), that wouldn’t make their marriages illegitimate in the sense of “not really a marriage.”
I don’t have a link to an online version of Tatian, but I can copy a relevant passage here. When discussing Paul’s advice to married couples in 1 Corinthians 7:1-7 he says, “For by conceding that they might come together because of Satan and lack of self-control he made it clear that anyone who would conform was going to serve two masters’ through agreement he would serve God, but through want of agreement he would serve license and _fornication_ and the devil.“ (Fragment 5, from Clement, Stromatae)
Tatian saying directly that γάμος is πορνεία comes from Irenaeus’s response to him in Adversus Haereses though I’d have to look that one up.
I’m not convinced the translators and the lexicographers are at odds though. None of the lexicons you cited (Strongs, Thayer’s, NAS exhaustive, or HELPS) say anything that would make me think they would limit πορνεία to non-marital sexual sin. Several of them even use fornication and sexual immorality interchangeably, suggesting the lexicographers are using the archaic sense of the word.
One other quick note. BDAG, probably the best respected Greek-English lexicon, lists this under porneia (emphasis mine):
*πορνεία, ας, ἡ*
(of various kinds of ‘unsanctioned sexual intercourse’: Demosth. et al.; LXX, En, Test12Patr; GrBar [in vice lists]; AscIs, Philo, apolog. exc. Ar. W. φθορά Iren. 1, 28, 1 [Harv. I 220, 14])…
1) unlawful sexual intercourse, prostitution, unchastity, fornication,…
*2) participation in prohibited degrees of marriage, fornication,*…
3) immorality of a transcendent nature, fornication.
Yeah, I don’t think we’re too far apart there. I tend to see it in legal terms. Legally speaking, it’s wrong for me to forge a signature, and if I did it’s invalid because it’s wrong. I see Angels taking women the same way.
I would like more context around that excerpt you quoted, and if you could dig up that part of Adversus Haereses I would be interested in reading it. BDAG’s “participation in prohibited degrees of marriage” carries a touch of weight.
Those together seem enough to allow the possibility that one arcane/rare use of πορνεία wouldn’t quite fit our English word fornication. Not a certainty by any stretch, but perhaps a possibility. However, that’s pretty scant evidence for completely redefining a word. Perhaps adding an additional definition (like BDAG did) with a note that it’s rare, but certainly not enough evidence to change the primary definition.
I can’t give you more context in the above quote because that’s all Clement records. Here is the relevant section from Adversus Haereses:
“A certain man named Tatian first introduced the blasphemy. He was a hearer of Justin’s, and as long as he continued with him he expressed no such views; but after his martyrdom he separated from the Church, and, excited and puffed up by the thought of being a teacher, as if he were superior to others, he composed his own peculiar type of doctrine. He invented a system of certain invisible Aeons, like the followers of Valentinus; while, like Marcion and Saturninus, he declared **that marriage (τον γάμον) was nothing else than corruption (φθοραν) and fornication (πορνείαν).** But his denial of Adam’s salvation was an opinion due entirely to himself.” (Ad. Haer. 1.28.1)
Hmm. Without more of what Tatian wrote it doesn’t seem prudent to redefine the word. Even if there was more context that supports your position, at best that might argue for adding a rare use as an additional (rare) definition as BDAG did, but not redefining the whole word.
Besides, IIRC at that time Roman husbands needed to “buy” their wives from their father with a bride-price. With that context, it’s easy to think of Tatian drawing a parallel between πορνεία in the sense of prostitution, and him saying that marriage was essentially the same thing (because a husband literally bought his wife from her father).
All three of the examples you brought up have very plausible alternate explanations which arguably fit the standard definition better than yours. At worst they fit equally well. Tatian is perhaps a bit more muddier, but as you said: “if it’s unclear we should probably focus on other passages”. What other passages are left?
I don’t agree that your explanation of 1 Enoch is plausible. It relies on the unsupported idea that forbidden marriages are not “real” despite the textual evidence otherwise.
I don’t agree that your explanation of Tatian is plausible. We can speculate about things he might have said/believed that haven’t lasted till today (that all marriages were farces, that marriage is like prostitution because of dowries). But that’s pure guesswork and doesn’t address the crux of the matter – that if πορνεία is limited to “sex outside marriage” what Tatian says is tautologically false.
And I don’t agree that your definition is the standard one or that recognizing the broader
usage of the word πορνεία requires us to redefine it.
Truthfully, I think we’ve reached an impasse. It feels like we’re just retreading the same arguments from earlier in the discussion. If you’re interested in exploring other passages, please feel free to explore the rest of the article I shared earlier. It goes into much more depth than I’ve been able to in this forum.
Sounds like an Eunuch is none other than a MGTOW, but for the Lord. For those who want to make an unbiblical third option past the marriage and celibacy, don’t. We all know is “hard” but sitting there and “burning” is not what Bible says, on the contrary, ask God to eliminate that urge in your genes by fasting and praying, and hopefully become an emotion-less asexual, who has conquered lust. Or perhaps, masturbate once in a while and move on?
There is no such thing as sex outside of marrage. It takers two to marry, not three.
Marrage can be repeated as in Jacob, Rehoboam and Solomon. Concubines’ were used, too. The church is hush, hush about that. Biden and church leaders have zero Biblical, truth.
I do believe fornication is sin. And if God is not interested in us repenting of it why would God have saw fit to mention that one of the sins that folks keep not repe ting of in the Book of revelation is fornication. Fornication includes adultry. It is sex outside of and including before marriage. Also We are told that the 144000 Isrealites whom God chooses to preach during th The Great Tribulation Period will be virgins and will not have defiled themselves with women not corrupted themselves with premarital sex. Thank God that forgivness and cleansing from all unrighteousness is still available through Jesus Christ our Lord We must.have Godly Sorrow and We Must Repent!
Christs enemies boasted about not being born of fornication, being of Abrahams seed. They were not of Abrahams seed wanting Jesus to be dead. They were born of fornication wanting to pierce Jesus. Look at how people are to pedophilia people. People wanting to harm them are born of fornication. Same for they that want to harm naked people wanting a laws against them, and zoosexuals, wanting to harm them. People who are born of fornication will be married to Satan the blasphemer, who calls arresting, and death giving, sweet.
Adultery is human to human. Fornication has to do with the unseen. It is how a person thinks. What spirit is your soul married to? No such thing as sex outside of marrage. It takes two to marry, not three. Jacob, Reaboahm and Solomon did not use a priest. Luke 2:23“(As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)” King James Version (KJV) The number is symbolic.12 thousand X 12 = 144,000. We need a forgiving Spirit in us. Forgive us our debts, even as we forgive our debtors. We have the debt of death in us.
Fornication is not sex. Christs enemies were born of fornication because of what they wanted to do to Jesus. The Scribes and Pharisees did want not to have sex with him. They wante4d Jesus to be dead. The same with the Sodomites outside Lots house. The worse the Sodomites wanted to do to Lot had nothing to do with sex. hose people vexed Lot with filthy conversation. Christs enemies vexed Jesus with filthy conversation. people vex naked people zoophilia and pedophilia people with filthy conversation. Who then is the Sodomite? Sodomites were religious people who did not know how to edify, counsel, or comfort anyone with their words. Read Isaiah 1, verse 10 down, KJV. The that cannot have children, need to remain, even as Jesus remained.Praye3r needs to be a sweet savor unto God. The prayer of the saints. Pure thoughts are prayer to God. Our conversation is in heaven. Guilt givers will not have pure thoughts. Asking needs to be horizontal, not vertical. Money keeps receiving from happening when a person asks for whatever.. Not having world wide ask and receive is wrong. That will get rid of the money that is wrong. Peacful people are moral people. Devils hate peace. God’s law is not legal and illegal. Can’t people figure that out? Holy is the man who openeth the womb. Christs enemies would have killed the woman at the well. She was living with a man that she was not married to, according to the laws of man. She was divorced five times, too. God is not agaanst the sight of the nude form, and yet the church rejoices when there are laws against nudity.
To be honest, I didn’t understand much of your comment. To you last sentence (which I did understand), that is incorrect. Nudity was a legitimate cause for a husband to divorce his wife; see my article Are Porn, Masturbation, and Fantasy Sinful? Does the Bible/God Allow Them? for details.
We would be immortal had we have no sin in us. Can’t people see that. Artie Whitefox
Nudity is not a sin. All things that God made are automatically sinning had nudity be a sin. They are nude. God did not make things to automatically sin. Fornicating people are married to the death loving Satan. Christs enemies would have not been born of fornication had they not wanted Jesus to be dead. It is not good to be with a woman who has a death loving mentality.
Look at Jacob. He had more than one wife, and concubines. Jacob did not divorce lea when he married his sister Rachel. He had children through Lea. Reaboahm had many wives and concubines. It was like a Bull, with many cows. All know that Solomon had many wives. The man before he was formally married, humbled a woman having sex with her. That marrage was finalized with fifty shekels of silver. He was not punished. The man who was living with a Samaritan woman, not being formally married to her, was not punished by Jesus knowing they were not formally married. The Samaritan woman was not punished either. Marrage is honorable. We are not to punish people who are not married, according to the law of man. Punishing is condemning. The Bible counsels us to not condemn people.
Jacob was married to his wives; all four of them. A Biblical concubine is a wife who was also a slave, so he was actually married to Bilhah and Zilpah, as well as Rachel and Leah. The same with Solomon and Rehoboam. In Bible times, marriages were finalized with the bride price. That’s literally how a woman was married, by her groom paying a bride price to her father.
If you believe that Christians are never to confront other Christians about sin, I suggest you read Matthew 18 and 1 Corinthians chapters 5 and 6. Fornication is specifically mentioned as a reason not to socialize with someone who calls himself a Christian in 1 Cor 5:9-11.
could porneia means “sexual immorality” but include sex outside/before marriage as one of its Activity?
It’s possible, but seems highly unlikely given the definition of the word. I had a rather lengthy exchange with “Chi Rho” above in the comments to this article. I haven’t yet seen a clear usage of the word that doesn’t include sex outside of marriage.
There was also giving in marrage. The scribes and Pharisees were born of fornication. They wanted Jesus to be dead. Satan was in their mind wanting Jesus to be dead. It is not good to be married to a woman with that mentality. Jezebel had that mentality in her mind, wanting God’s prophets to be dead. Sex was a reward.
i am still Soooo skeptical on why Tatian The Ascetic Says Christian Matrimony (marriage) Is “Fornication/Porneia” in Ireneus’ Book “Against Heresies” Book 1 Chapter 28 Verses 1,it doesnt make any sense if tatian truly says something like “marriage is sex outside marriage” or “marriage is sex before marriage” or “marriage is sex with someone who is not your spouse”,man! it just doesnt make any sense!,we just need to solve this one mystery and we will come to the truth and truth will set us free,anyone can soundly explain it?,btw,im sure that 1 Corinthians 7:2 alone is enough to bash anyone who have had sex outside of marriage
1 Corinthians 7:2 “and On the account of Fornication,each man is to sleep with his own wife, and each woman is to sleep with her own husband.”
the word “have” in 1 Corinthians 7:2 should be translated to “have sex” or “sleep with”,and the word “f***” is basically synonymous with that word 😉
ADMIN EDIT: Profanity isn’t allowed in the comments, so I edited that one word to its current form.
It occurs to me that porneia is also used in a metaphorical context to indicate spiritual unfaithfulness, much like God calls Israel’s turning to other gods adultery. Tatian might’ve meant it in this sense. Not sure though.
As to 1 Cor 7:2, I completely disagree on the translation of ἔχω (echó = “have”). It’s an extremely common word in the NT and means exactly that: “have” and the idea of sex is obvious from the context. I highly recommend reading the first two section headings of my article What’s the Best Bible Translation? And More Importantly, Why?. 1 Cor 7:2 is indeed poorly translated, and should read:
That more accurately represents the Greek there.
what does “have the wife to himself” mean? it sounds like there is a sexual connotation isnt it?
There absolutely is.
i just think the word “have” in 1 Corinthians 7:2 have the same semantic with the word “know” in matthew 1:25,the word “know” in matthew 1:25 really mean “to know”,but we knew 100% that it has sexual connotation in it and therefore should be translated into “sleep with” or “f***”
i have a source to explain you why we should translate the word “have” in 1 Corinthians 7:2 into “sleep with”
here:https://www.bibleref.com/1-Corinthians/7/1-Corinthians-7-2.html
While the obvious meaning is about sex – about which that article is correct – God inspired the word “have”. Again, I would point you to the first two headings in my article on bible translations. We shouldn’t change His words. Ever. It can cause all sorts of problems too. For example, back up one verse to 1 Cor 7:1. It literally says “It’s good for a man not to touch a woman.” Many translations render this “have sexual relations”, but that’s not what God inspired. The meaning of “touch” covers more things, as this footnote explains:
There’s a whole range of sexual behaviors that “touch” prohibits that “have sexual relations” doesn’t. “Touch” prohibits things like heavy petting while “have sexual relations” doesn’t. Again, we shouldn’t change the words God inspired. So while you’re 100% correct that this verse is talking about sex, we should use the words that God inspired.
I think the same of Matthew 1 too. It should be translated “know”, or perhaps “intimately know”, which gets the point across while still using God’s words. We shouldn’t change His words. Ever. That’s why paraphrase translations shouldn’t be used.
Hello Berean Patriot – I agree that anyone who says the Bible allows sex before marriage is deceiving themselves. However, your article does have several issues that I’d like to comment on.
First, the meaning of πορνεια – in the ancient world, this had the meaning of ‘prostitution’, in fact the root of the word, πορνη, literally means ‘female prostitute’. Although today it is translated as ‘fornication’, to say that that includes sex before marriage is begging the question. We don’t really know what the total range of meaning of πορνεια is within the NT, so to use every instance of πορνεια as a warning against premarital sex is circular reasoning.
Second, your use of 1 Cor. 7:1-2 – proper exegesis shows that this is about sex within marriage. The question that the Corinthians were asking was not about premarital sex, but about sex within marriage, which is why Paul says “every man should *have* [i.e. sexual relations with] his own wife and each woman *have* her own husband”. That is, he was saying sex within marriage is acceptable, because otherwise they will be forced to turn to πορνεια (prostitution) to release their sexual urges. This is confirmed because immediately afterward he says “husbands, fulfill your duties to your wives [i.e. have sex within marriage] and wives, fulfill your duties to your husbands”.
See this article from JETS which properly exegetes 1 Cor. 7:1-7: https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/23/23-4/23-4-pp307-314_JETS.pdf
However, I agree with you that Paul elsewhere says that premarital sex is sinful (1 Cor. 7:8-9). I just wanted to provide some critical feedback on your article so perhaps you can make it better and even more persuasive.
Regards,
Andrew
Andrew, thanks for the comment. 🙂
About πορνεια, notice 1 Cor 5 where the man was sleeping with his father’s wife. It doesn’t seem like prostitution was involved in that situation, yet it’s still called “πορνεια”. And I don’t think it applies to just premarital sex either. I would say that adultery is technically one type of fornication, as is a widow having sex.
I agree with your take on 1 Cor 7:2, 7:1 though is a little more open ended and I think applies outside of marriage. While I agree with the paper that “marry” is completely out of line, I also think translating it as anything other than “touch a woman” (or something substantially similar) is a grave error. There’s a whole range of sexual activities that “touch” prohibits that “have sex” doesn’t. (See the comment above yours) You lose that when you paraphrase. Please see my article on bible translations for more on what I consider to be a proper translation philosophy.
(And I realize I can be a bit pedantic when it comes to Bible translation; I’ve seen bad translation hurt too many people to not be pedantic.)
Hi admin,i just read augustine view on porneia/Fornication,it might be a good evidence that pre-marital sex is one of Activity in the term “porneia”,augustine says Fornication is “what men who do not have wives do with women who do not have husbands” in Qu. 2.71 ,hmmm,im curious whether this is a real translation of augustine’s word,even if that is the true translation of It then Augustine’s view on Fornication can be biblically problematic since the bible explicitly talks about how someone can commit Fornication by having sex/sleep with the wife of his father (read 1 Corinthians 5:1),thats why im searching for the source of this quote,and i get this information from here:
https://books.google.co.id/books?id=GcVhAGpvTQ0C&q=augustine+fornication&pg=PA11&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=augustine%20fornication&f=false
the source of that quote is written there in the 11th page,it was “Qu. 2.71”,i dont know which book of augustine is named “Qu”,it is an abbreviation,can you search For me what it is?
Perhaps both you and Augustine are guilty of porneia by blurring the line between sexual enslavement as Jesus preached against in the original context and text, and general sexual impurity.
Of course God wants everyone to get the best, but does God really think sexually enslaving someone and having consensual, albeit unmarried sex, are equally contemptible?
I’m curious why you think Jesus was talking about sexual enslavement. Do you have a source, verse, or line of reasoning for that?
To admin:
First of all- thank you for your articles. They have been very thought provoking!
I think it would be helpful to explain what exactly ‘to marry’ meant at the time of the OT and what would be the equivalent of that today.
Actually, this is what I want to know: what are the absolute minimum requirements for something to be considered a marriage by God? (Especially in the context of polygyny being approved by God as you argue. Right now I think you would be hard pressed to find a pastor and witnesses who would be willing to support you in marrying a second wife. (Idc if legally it can’t be done, because to me the matter of family is God’s, not ‘Ceaser’s’))
To Raphael Tisserand and anyone else in his situation:
Why not just find a woman that loves Jesus and would be willing to have a humble wedding, then get two witnesses and go get married?
With regards to the woman: Loving Jesus is literally the only thing you need. Leave the rest to God. If you love her and take good care of her, and you both love God, in time she can become better than the best you could find had you searched for even 10 more years. God loves using the weakest, most humble and meek. Yet, we try to find the most beautiful, smartest and so on and so on. Try to search with the eyes of the Lord when you are looking for a partner, not your own. To see what I mean, read about king Saul and how/why people picked him, then about king David and how/why God picked him. Then, think about how that might look like in the context of picking a wife instead of a king.
In summary: Just find a humble woman who loves and is passionate about God. Then, get two witnesses and get married. (By get married I don’t mean the throw a party for tens of thousands of dollars and so on and so on. No. I mean the absolute minimum requirements for the marriage to be official before the Lord (and maybe the government)). Hopefully, admin would help clarify what exactly that would look like.
Marriage today is (conceptually) much the same as marriage then, but the method of contracting it is different. Today, a man and woman say vows to each other in front of witnesses. It the OT times, marriage was a transaction. That is, the prospective groom would pay a bride price for the girl to the girl’s father. If the father accepted it, they were then “betrothed”. Betrothal = marriage before its consumated. Deut 22:22-29 makes this clear, especially verse 24, which calls the betrothed girl a “wife”.
Notably, the woman’s consent wasn’t required for betrothal. She had no say at all, only her father did. God says this quite clearly in the Bible in several places. I cover this whole topic in detail in the 5th article of my marriage series (I recommend you read it from the beginning instead of jumping in at article 5). The New Testament specifies that literally buying a girl from her father is the “will of God” and how a man should seek a wife. (details in the 5th article) Now, if her father has died, or if she is widowed or divorced, then the girl can make her own vows to get married; see Numbers chapter 30, which I do cover that 5th article. Regardless, 2 or 3 witnesses should be present given the Bible’s judicial standard for establishing a matter. (Duet, 19:15, among other places)
So in summary: you should buy a never-married girl from her father, or at the very least get the father’s permission. A divorced or widowed woman can choose who she marries. You should have 2 or 3 witnesses to the event.
(And just a note, depending on how you do the conversion, the bride price for a virgin was either around $6k or $20k; wives were expensive even then.)
About your advice, It might be good advice, but women like that are hard to find: Proverbs 31:10 “An excellent wife, who can find? For her worth is far above jewels.” Further, Biblical marriage isn’t about “love”, or at least the way we think of love. More details in my marriage series.
“Why not just find a woman that loves Jesus and would be willing to have a humble wedding, then get two witnesses and go get married?”
The expense of the wedding ceremony isn’t the reason why it’s hard to get married. I agree that it doesn’t need to be elaborate. It’s finding a willing partner (who is also a Christian) that’s the hard part.
I guess you could express it this way:” it’s hard enough just finding a girlfriend. You want me to get married too?!”
The Sexual Revolution is an unprecedented crisis and the Church must decide on the exception. I don’t see how it should be a sin for a mature, independant adult to engage in sexual activity.
You said:
Setting aside the “because God said so” argument (which is always the strongest and I think I demonstrated it in this article), I think the problem lies in thinking of women as “independent adults”. That was never God’s intent. This article does a reasonable job of explaining the relatively recent invention of the social class “adult”. I don’t agree with everything in the article, but his main point is spot on. Just because a female has reached physical/biological maturity doesn’t mean she’s allowed to make certain decisions for herself. (see my response to Humble Joseph just above)
I think I see what the issue is. I think you might need to forget about finding a girlfriend/wife/whatever for some time and instead focus on your relationship with God. Try to get to know Him better. In order to do so, you need to stop doing any sin that you know you are doing (especially pornography). Devote some time (at least an hour) to God EVERY DAY WITHOUT EXCEPTION (first thing in the morning would be best). During this time of devotion, spend time in prayer (ask God to reveal Himself to you and help you understand His Word), read the Bible (try to read as many chapters as you can in one go – don’t just read one and call it a day. The Bible is way too deep and interconnected to think that you gan grasp by reading one chapter a day.)
When you pray you can try this prayer:
Dad, please help me get to know You and Your word better. Please also bless me with the perfect wife for me, in the perfect time and perfect way that only You can. And make me the perfect man for her.
(Tell God how You feel (e.g.: I am so lonely/I feel hopeless/I feel tempted) and ask Him to help you with that).
All this is just an advice. It is something which has worked for me. Try it if you want – maybe it could work for you too.
But at all times your number one priority should be getting to know God. (Reading the Bible, praying, watching sermons, etc.)
If you do that, you will lack nothing.
It is not a promise I make – it is a promise God makes: Matthew 6:33
But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.
Peace be with you, friend.
You might not think that women should be “independant adults” but that is how they are considered in present day culture. That is not changing anytime soon. We aren’t going back to full patriarchy and the permanent tutelage of women in our lifetimes. Short of becoming Amish (no thank you), people looking for a spouse have to operate in the culture they find themself in. They can’t operate according to how they’d like things to be. You can’t ignore reality.
Have you read the book Political Theology by Carl Schmitt? It is absolutely vital to understanding law, especially biblical law. States of Exception apply to every law, even biblical law.
We’ve gone back and forth on this several times. The Bible says one thing, you want to do another. You’re free to do as you like, but you’re not free of the consequences, which in this case are dire: (And the word translated “purchase” in verse 4 can mean to acquire without money, but money is strongly implied)
You are free to reject God’s standard of “all sex belongs inside of marriage”, but that means rejecting God Himself according to verse 8. So avoid fornication by purchasing (or acquiring) a wife if you want to have sex.
And how do you propose to change society so that we go back to polygamy, “purchasing” wives, the perpetual tutelage of women, etc? News flash: that does not exist in our society and it is not going to exist in our lifetimes. Unless your advice is useful for people who are living right here and right now then it is worthless.
The Bible does not mention cultures where the average age of marriage is 32 for women and 35 for men. It does not mention cultures where people have to spend years past sexual maturity scrolling through dating apps just to find a spouse.
Your advice is going to lead to congregations full of 40 year old virgins. Is that what you want?
Who decides on the exception?
No norm is applicable to chaos. The “biblical” standard cannot be applied under present conditions.
“‘But the law!’ screamed Tu.
‘I am the law!’ roared Kull, swinging his axe; it flashed downward and the stone tablet flew into a hundred pieces. The people clenched their hands in horror, waiting dumbly for the sky to fall.
Kull reeled back, eyes blazing. The room whirled to his dizzy gaze. “I am king, state and law!” he roared, and seizing the wand-like sceptre which lay near, he broke it in two and flung it from him. “This shall be my sceptre!” The red axe was brandished aloft, splashing the pallid nobles with drops of blood. Kull gripped the slender crown with his left hand and placed his back against the wall. Only that support kept him from falling but in his arms was still the strength of lions.
“I am either king or corpse!” he roared, his corded muscles bulging, his terrible eyes blazing. “If you like not my kingship – come and take this crown!’ The corded left arm held out the crown, the right gripping the menacing axe above it.
‘By this axe I rule! This is my sceptre!'”
Who wields the axe?
Again, read Political Theology. It’s pretty short and you can easily find it online.
Raphael , we’ve gone back-and-forth a lot on various articles, yet the answer won’t change.
Who decides the exceptions? God. God always has the final say because He wields the biggest ‘axe’ around. He decided on no exceptions for the “no sex outside of marriage” command. I’m open to listening if you find someone with a bigger ‘axe’, but I won’t hold my breath…
BTW, I know many families who believe that fathers should decide who their daughters can marry. They actually seem to have an easier time finding wives, and get married younger too. (early twenties usually) However, not a single one of those fathers would let you marry his daughter because you feel free to ignore God’s commands when they are inconvenient or hard to follow. They would flat out refuse.
Jesus said “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” However, you are actively arguing that we should break God’s commands = rebellion against God Himself. (see that 1 Thess passage above) Therefore, to be perfectly frank, no Christian woman should marry you.
If you want to marry a good Christian girl, you must be a good Christian man. You aren’t. You aren’t because you are engaged in active rebellion against God, and trying to convince others to join you in your rebellion.
Once you’ve repented and stopped rebelling, find a girl whose father will give you permission to marry her, (no purchase needed, the Greek word only strongly hints at purchase, it doesn’t technically require it), or a divorced or widowed woman who’s willing to marry you. But first, stop rebelling or you won’t find a good Christian wife because as you are now – in rebellion against God Himself – no Christian woman should marry you.
Dear admin,
Thank you very much for the swift and diligent reply. God bless you!
You’re welcome, and may God bless you too. 🙂
States of Exception are always valid. The Church has the authority to bind and loose. I expect you know that “binding” and “loosing” are terms found in Rabbinical literature to refer to morally allowing or disallowing something. And the Bible is explicitly referring to that when it says the Church has the authority. The Church has the authority to decide on the exception and loose the restrictions on sexual activity. God doesn’t make Himself available for direct questioning when something comes up that the Bible doesn’t adress or when more clarification is needed. Books can’t make decisions. The Bible cannot be directly spoken with, it cannot think, you cannot present your case to the Bible, it does not give new rulings in response to new issues, it does not clarify its previous rulings when asked. That is the job of the Church. As God’s earthly representative the Church shares in a measure of God’s Sovereignty, which includes deciding on the exception.
I am not in rebellion. I am only trying to make life work for real people who live in the real world as it currently exists today. I don’t live in your fantasy world where polygamy is legal and you can buy women. And I have no interest in becoming Muslim and moving to Saudi Arabia where that does exist. How does your advice help people today? You might know a few families who think that fathers should decide who their daughter marry, but I sincerely doubt there are a lot of them. How does that help the average Christian man living today?
Your advice is going to create congregations full of 40 year old virgins. Is that what you want? Answer the question please.
Are you going to read Political Theology?
The person/book you’re using to defend your rebellious ideas is what created the ideological foundation of the Nazi dictatorship and he supported ethnic cleansings; ideas from which he never recanted. Perhaps not coincidentally, the Nazi party’s underlying philosophy is satanic in nature. (See my article on CRT). “Birds of a feather flock together” I suppose. No, I don’t plan to read Political Theology; I’d rather read the mountain of other books recommended to me with the limited time I have.
You’re so incredibly wrong about binding and loosing and its context, but let’s pretend you’re right for a moment. The church at large will never agree with your position, and certainly not in our lifetime, so it’s still wrong even if you were right (and you aren’t).
Now, how to help Christians today? How about: “If you love Me you will keep My commandments.” So, get the father’s permission before marrying (again, bride price isn’t required), or find a divorced or widowed woman who will have you. That’s not too burdensome, as evidenced by the fact that most every married man I know has done so. You state without evidence that it will create congregations of 40 year old virgins, when I know a LOT of families whose existence testifies that it’s not the case.
A warning: I’m starting to consider applying Romans 16:17-18, and 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 to you because I don’t want you using the comments section on my website to lead people astray. (Which you are doing; if only for your own sake, please repent.)
By discounting Schmitt’s writings because of his work for Germany’s government between 1933-1945 you have only reaffirmed one of his other central ideas, The Friend Enemy Distinction.
“The specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy”.
If you want my opinion on that particular German political movement which was in power from 33-45, I recommend watching Hans-Jurgen Syberberg’s film Hitler: A Film From Germany. You can find it posted online. It’s a great watch if you have 7+ hours to spare and a basic knowledge of German culture and history. Its the third part of a triptych of film portraits of figures from German history. It was preceded by the films Ludwig: Requiem For A German King and Karl May. Those two are a lot harder to find. Watching those first will add to the experience of watching part 3 but it can be watched standalone with no problem. I have much more interest in the German Konservative Revolution thinkers like Edgar Julius Jung, Oswald Spengler, Arthur Moeller Van Den Bruck, etc. Of course I’m not German, so a distinctly German political movement is only useful to me inasmuch as I can draw generalized insights from it. Old style British Tories like Filmer and British post-conservatives like Carlyle are more in line with my own country’s political tradition (hint: I don’t live in the US but I live close to it)
Schmitt just happened to be right about a lot of things. Including that “all significant concepts of the modern theory of the state are secularized theological concepts”. In other words, all political questions are ultimately theological questions. That also means the opposite is true. You can and should apply political insights to theological questions.
Of course I’m sure you aren’t going to watch that film. Just like you won’t read Houellebecq, you won’t read Sexual Utopia In Power, you won’t read From Shame To Sin, and you won’t read anything else I’ve asked you to read.
You can lead a horse to water…
In regards to binding and loosing: binding means “to forbid by an indisputable authority” and loosing “to permit by an indisputable authority”. This is how it was used in the context of Jewish rabbinic deliberation and that is what the New Testament is referring to when it uses those exact terms in places like Matthew 16:19.
I discounted the book because as far as I could tell, the book’s contents themselves contained the philosophical support. Regarding binding and loosing, it only allowed forbidding or permitting practices about which the scriptures were not clear. Never did it give the power to abrogate the commands of God as you wish to. (And contextually in Matthew 18, it’s about church discipline anyways)
For once I’d like to talk with someone who is willing to engage with the material/ideas I am referencing. People usually don’t know anything about what I’m referencing and I have to tediously explain the concepts over and over and then they act as I if I made it all up. Either that or they briefly google what I’m referencing, let Wikipedia tell them what to think, and then refuse to read the material for themself. It appears you have done the latter.
I accept it as axiomatically true that all law is subject to States of Exception.
I accept it as axiomatically true that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath; that none of God’s laws are arbitrary and that they are for man’s benefit. I see little concrete benefit (and much detriment) in an adult male being forced to remain a virgin past 30 just because he hasn’t found a wife yet. God declared that a world in which Adam had no partner was a world that was “not good”. How much more “not good” is a world in which countless men have no partner or, at the very least, have no access to sexual activity?
I accept it as axiomatically true that all political questions are ultimately theological questions and, consequently, that all theological questions are political.
The Bible is not clear on what to do about the conditions of our present culture. It does not mention dating. It does not mention cultures like ours where the average age at which people first get married is 32 for women and 35 for men. The Sexual Revolution is an unprecedented crisis; a radical break with everything that came before it. You would understand this if you read Houellebecq and Sexual Utopia In Power. The Bible is only clear about how to live in a pre-Sexual Revolution culture. Now that the Sexual Revolution has happened, much of what the Bible says about sex is inapplicable. No norm is applicable to chaos (another axiom). In order for a norm to be applicable a normal situation must exist.
The only material I have seen you reference in this whole argument has been the Bible and that one JD Unwin book from the 30’s.
I have had this conversation many many times over with many people and nobody understands the nature of the Sexual Revolution, or if they do, they refuse to recognize that the Bible may not be strictly applicable because of it. It is getting very tedious and I’d really like to start talking about solutions instead of being stuck on convincing people there is even a problem.
I suspect I am alone and, like the priest in Shusako Endo’s novel Silence, I may have to trample on the image and adopt the customs of the hostile culture I find myself in.
I started reading several of the things you suggested, mostly to abandon them when I realized they weren’t worth my (limited) time. Political Theology was particularly obtuse.
You know my position on God’s commands; I know you think we should ignore/change them. I will not change my opinion of obedience to God’s commands. Period. Thus, I’m fairly certain further discussion on this topic would be pointless until you repent. (Which I highly recommend)
By obtuse you mean you couldn’t comprehend it. That explains a lot. You’re fundamentally unserious and don’t know what you’re talking about.
Was man created for the Sabbath or was the Sabbath created for man?
If a world where Adam had no partner was kit good then how much more “not good” is a world where countless men have no partner?
I’d like answers to those questions.
“If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it?- James 2:16“
It’s you who needs to repent, brother.
The fact you won’t even read the material I have referenced proves to me that you aren’t interested in solutions. No, starting them and abandoning them doesn’t count as reading it. In fact it’s worse than not reading at all. You’re just interested in maintaining your myopic, Puritanical, self righteous view of law and purity.
In AD 66 the Jews in Palestine rioted because some Gentiles had spilled the blood of birds in the doorway of a synagogue. This was the start of the Jewish Revolt of 66-70. In the course of the revolt, the Jews themselves ended up spilling human blood on the grounds of the temple in Jerusalem. By the AD 70 the temple was destroyed and Jerusalem sacked. In their myopic obsession with purity they ended up committing a greater impurity and they wound up coming to ruin.
Repent.
you are trying to use christ as a proof to compromise things and yet Christ teach to obey His commandment,you DO NOT love him if you did not follow his commandment,you are not in love with Christ,when Christ said sabbath is for man he is trying to interpret the law as it is,different than how the jews did it,its so obvious he is not trying to compromise,Christ is the same yesterday today and forever,Berean Patriot absolutely debunks your ENTIRE babble by quoting 1 Thessalonians 4:8 that there is no actual need to continue,also you seems to be using God’s compromise in the past as an argument,what about the fact that God himself said this:
Acts 17:30 ” Therefore, having OVERLOOKED the times of ignorance, God is NOW declaring to men that ALL people everywhere SHOULD repent”.
should make it conclusive that your entire foundation of arguments are wrong here,its so surprising at how much christian coping just to lower the standard of God by heap themselves to a bunch of teacher that can fulfill their worldly human desire,just like what the bible said
2 Timothy 4:3 (KJV) For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own LUSTS shall they HEAP to themselves teachers, having itching EARS;
the fact that you call anyone who want to be obedient to law as “self righteous” rather than motivating them really shows how heretical and negative you are,if someone is a psychopath and really cant held himself from killing and infllicting pain to people,you should motivate him to stop and not judging every man who wanted to motivate him to stop,and it applies to people who want to defile each other voluntarily with Promiscuity,you are probably a liberal,people who preaches God’s commandment fulfill what Christ said,christ did not only say to preach gospel,but also to preach whatever he command (matthew 28:20)
Yeah I’m a liberal… (sarcastic). Yep, having a sexual drive as a single person is exactly like being a psychopath who wants to murder people. (sarcastic)
I’ve extensively invoked anti-liberal figures like Michel Houellebecq and Carl Schmitt to make my arguments. You really misunderstand what I believe. I’m no liberal but I’m no conservative either. If you want to be a conservative there has to be something left to conserve. My view of conservatism is best summed up by this passage from Thomas Carlyle:
“O my Conservative friends, who still specially name and struggle to approve yourselves ‘Conservative,’ would to Heaven I could persuade you of this world-old fact, than which Fate is not
surer, That Truth and justice alone are capable of being ‘conserved’ and preserved! The thing which is unjust, which is not according to God’s Law, will you, in a God’s Universe, try to conserve that? It is so old, say you? Yes, and the hotter haste
ought you, of all others, to be in to let it grow no older! If but the faintest whisper in your hearts intimate to you that it is not fair,–hasten, for the sake of Conservatism itself, to probe it rigorously, to cast it forth at once and forever if
guilty. How will or can you preserve it, the thing that is not fair? ‘Impossibility’ a thousandfold is marked on that. And ye call yourselves Conservatives, Aristocracies:–ought not honour
and nobleness of mind, if they had departed from all the Earth elsewhere, to find their last refuge with you? Ye unfortunate!
The bough that is dead shall be cut away, for the sake of the tree itself. Old? Yes, it is too old. Many a weary winter has it swung and creaked there, and gnawed and fretted, with its dead
wood, the organic substance and still living fibre of this good tree; many a long summer has its ugly naked brown defaced the fair green umbrage; every day it has done mischief, and that only: off with it, for the tree’s sake, if for nothing more; let the Conservatism that would preserve cut it away. Did no wood-forester apprise you that a dead bough with its dead root
left sticking there is extraneous, poisonous; is as a dead iron spike, some horrid rusty ploughshare driven into the living substance;–nay is far worse; for in every windstorm (‘commercial crisis’ or the like), it frets and creaks, jolts itself to and fro, and cannot lie quiet as your dead iron spike would!”
i said “PROBABLY liberal”,my equivalency is right,its not a false equivalency,what makes laws of Fornication can be compromised but law of killing cant?,SERIOUSLY WHAT!?!?,did not the bible said “For whosoever keeps the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of ALL.” in James 2:10?,lets paraphrase it “whoever guilty of law of Fornication,is guilty of law of killing”,and your further comment is so contraproductive
Feel free to keep disagreeing, but I won’t allow name calling in the comments. I edited your comment to remove that.
Unless you’re a total pacifist, then I think almost anybody would agree that there are times when taking a human life is morally justified. You can argue about which situations may justify it, but almost everyone agrees that there are at least some situations that do justify it.
You did make a false equivalency. Being a sociopath who wants to kill people for fun is in no way comparable to being a unmarried person who wants to exercise their natural, God-given sexuality.
Every law is subject to States of Exception. That includes biblical law. I accept this as axiomatically true. If you don’t accept that then
1. You’re wrong.
and
2. We aren’t going to get anywhere without you accepting it for the sake of argument
The Bible is not a suicide pact.
It just occurred to me that you’ve made a self-contradictory statement. You said “Every law is subject to States of Exception.”, to which I say: “Even that ‘law’ itself?”
You’ve stated it as a ‘law’ of sorts. Thus, you’re effectively saying that “all laws have exceptions”, except that ‘law’/statement itself. You say that your ‘law’/statement has no exceptions, meaning it’s false because it contradicts itself.
No, you could probably “suspend” that law too if you were omnipotent. God performing a miracle is precisely an example of “suspending” a natural law. Schmitt explicitly derives the idea of a sovereign declaring a State of Exception in relation to a legislative law from the concept of God performing miracle. One of his key insights is that all political ideas are just secularized theological ideas. Can humans perform miracles? Well, there are plenty of examples from the Bible and tradition that would say yes. The question of whether they can do so right now is going to have a different answer depending on who you ask. Catholics, Pentecostal/Charismatic Protestants and others would say, yes. Some other denominations/traditions would say no.
Laws of nature are a law in that they are the norm. Miracles are rare by definition. If they happened all the time they wouldn’t be miracles.
@Raphael, False,there is no Exception for the law of killing,you know you dont need to be a pacifist to know killing an innocent person even to save 1 billion people is still wrong and immoral,right?,at the time you say that i knew you have loss most of your conscience,its so sad people can come into this conclusion,if you read the law of God,it never says “you can compromise my law at this circumstances bla bla bla..”,instead,he said NOT to take away from it or ADD it and to DO it,but you did ADD to it and did not DO it,moreover,you did that voluntarily!,and yet the bible EXPLICITLY said in Hebrews 10:26
“for IF we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there NO LONGER remains a SACRIFICE for sins,” (note:i agree that the word “no longer remains a sacrifice for sins” here doesnt mean you cant get any sacrifice for you anymore,its only that there is no sacrifice for the wilfull sin,which is the sin that you are proud and STILL accept,but you have to repent,which mean change your mind on that sin,to make that sin to be an unwillful sin),so the burden of proof is ENTIRELY on you but you keep bringing your selective books according to your taste to prove it,whenever the law seems to be compromised,it is GOD who compromise it,even Christ declare that he is the LORD of sabbath when Jewish questions him why did he allow his disciple to pluck grain on the sabbath,i dont have any problem with God compromising his law at all (even when he told joshua to kill babies),i agree with you that EVERY law is subject to compromise,but not by the subject,but by the LORD (the head) of the law itself,again the bible says You are not IN LOVE with christ if you DID NOT DO what he commanded to you,going against the law of Fornication is against his commandment and therefore its a straight conclusion you are not in LOVE with christ,you cant translate it to be allowing compromise because that would mean you did not LOVE him,and you seems to be unable to answer the verses that is quoted by berean patriot until now (1 Thessalonians 4:8),i hope you understand love rather than lust in the future,thats why i quote acts 17:30 where it says God did not overlook anymore now and therefore all men (humans) everywhere should repent,there is nothing natural with Promiscuity,i agree it comes naturally from human,BECAUSE human are naturally inclined to sin,it comes from their wicked hearts and flesh,God did not create Promiscuity,neither he create murder,humans lustful heart and work of the flesh create it just like what Christ said in Mark 7:21-23,just like what paul said in Galatians 5;19-21,he created marriage,did you read your genesis yet? but if you read the genesis and came out as an evolutionist then i cant hope much from you to even understand the book of genesis in the first place,just like what Christ said “if you don’t believe me when I tell you about earthly things, how can you possibly believe if I tell you about heavenly things?” (john 3:12),so,again my equivalency is right,anyone knew God created sex within marriage,not outside,just read your genesis,both Promiscuity and murder comes from the wicked heart of man,and again,your further comment is contraproductive
In response to Kvn: most people would agree that it is morally justifiable to kill someone in self defense, in war, or when administering capital punishment. There are other situations where it may be justifiable to kill someone, depending on who you ask. Just as it is justifiable to lie or steal in extreme circumstances there are times when killing is justified.
In further response to Berean Patriot:
This is a very simple principle and I don’t know why you can’t grasp it. The State can suspend the constitution (in whole or in part) in response to an emergency. Likewise the Church can suspend Biblical law in response to an emergency. The Sexual Revolution is an emergency.
There are two people. The first person participates in the modern Sexual Marketplace by dating around, having a series of mid-to-long-term relationships that involve sex, having a few hookups, but ends up in a stable marriage and has children by his mid-to-late twenties. The second person follows Biblical Courtship (or whatever you want to call it), saves sex for marriage, only courts/dates Christians, but never finds a spouse and ends up as a 40 year old childless virgin.
Who was the more righteous of the two?
All other things being equal, the second because he didn’t fornicate.
There we go. You think that the Bible is a suicide pact. If you don’t think that, then I’d love to hear more about your thought processes. You seem to think that laws are arbitrary and should be followed even when they lead to a bad outcome. You think that man was made for the Sabbath and not the Sabbath for man.
In Shusako Endo’s novel Silence, a Portuguese priest is doing missionary work in feudal Japan. The authorities have learned that they can’t stop the spread of Christianity by torturing missionaries. The missionaries don’t break under torture and killing them just creates martyrs. So they torture others and tell the priest that all he has to do to stop the torture is blaspheme by stepping on a fumie (a bronze image of Christ). A mere formality, they tell him…
“The priest raises his foot. In it he feels a dull, heavy pain. This is no mere formality. He will now trample on what he has considered the most beautiful thing in his life, on what he has believed most pure, on what is filled with the ideals and the dreams of man. How his foot aches! And then the Christ in bronze speaks to the priest: ‘Trample! Trample! I more than anyone know of the pain in your foot. It was to be trampled on by men that I was born into this world. It was to share mens’ pain that I carried my cross’. The priest places his foot on the fumie”
Did the priest sin by trampling on the image?
Likewise, in the parable of the Prodigal Son, who was more righteous? Was it the older brother in his living rebellion or was it the older brother in his dead obedience?
Who commited the greater sin in AD 66? Was it the Gentiles who spilled the blood of birds in a synagogue or was it the Jews who spilled the blood of humans in the land, up to and including on the grounds of the Temple?
Correction: Was it the younger brother in his living rebellion or was it the older brother in his dead obedience?
I think that not obeying God is a “suicide pact” as you say. If not in this life, then certainly in the next. Hebrews 10:29 speaks directly to your example of the priest, and Christians in the Bible rejoiced that they were counted worthy to suffer for Christ. You repeatedly claim it’s impossible to get married the right way, but nearly every Christian husband I know did it the right way, and all of my devout Christian cousins got married before 25 doing it the right way.
The actual problem is that you have no fear of God, nor reverence for His commands.
He issued the commands that you say we should break. Are you wiser then He is? Do you know better than God? More pertinent, no devout Christian woman would want to marry you because you aren’t a Christian; Christians don’t argue that we should disobey direct commands from the Bible. It’s entirely possible that your rebellion is what is preventing you from getting married. The Bible warns about people like you, and the various “false teacher” warnings also apply in addition to the verse below:
So, I’m going to follow the Bible’s command. I’m on the fence about whether to simply ignore your further comments, or delete them. I basically never delete comments, but you are actively using my website in an attempt to lead others astray/into sin; I can’t allow that. So unless you’ve repented and want to say so, please refrain from commenting here on Berean Patriot.
Raphael Tisserand
Out of curiosity, considering the data on Christianity in America, it appears there is currently a surplus of 20,000,000 million women to men in the Christian Church body.
This is not accounting for marriage rates within the church. Now I am 1) married, and 2) not actively involved in any local churches. But I am curious about the state of affairs.
Are you actively involved in a church? If so what is the general issue with finding Christian wives? Is it availability or lack of desire for marriage? There cannot be an availability problem with a woman/man ratio as it is reported. Perhaps locally, isolated, but not generally across the country. It would seem to me there is a surplus of Christian women who are single, the question is why aren’t they marrying?
Are there not singles groups at almost every local church for this particular reason? I am not doubting your experience as I am well versed in how women in “general” are today in society, but with men checking out of marriage en masse, the female/male ratio in the Church, I would think the advantage would be for the Christian man, 25-40, who is well put together, somewhat established career wise, etc… rather than it being impossible to find a Christian woman to marry.
Mind you, I’m not, as a married man, directly involved, so I’m just looking for data/input/understanding from someone struggling.
Hey man, I love your articles and am learning a ton, but I have a few questions for you on this one.
Disclaimer: I’m not attempting to justify any kind of sin. I’m also not saying your wrong. I’m just trying to gain clarity and understanding. I’m new to learning about what the Bible actually says vs what I’ve been told it says all my life. Starting over from scratch, if you will.
Question 1
You established the definition of fornication as male prostitution, and then said that adding payment for that service into the equation made it no different than if payment wasn’t in the equation. You compared it to our command to not murder. To me, these aren’t comparable though, because (as far as I know) God explicitly commands us to not murder. He didn’t command us to not be hitmen (murder for money).
It seems that God is specifically saying that male prostitution a sin, which involves an exchange of money and is the only thing that makes it specifically prostitution as opposed to just sex outside of marriage for fun. Why would God define it that way and then expect us to assume that also means sex without payment? Was there no concept of consensual sex outside of marriage for pleasure without payment in that culture? It seems to me that adding ‘any sex outside of marriage’ into the definition of prostitution is a bit of a jump.
Again, not trying to justify sex outside of marriage. I’m just trying to understand EXACTLY what God is saying here. I think that, once people start making assumptions or implications about what God is saying, then things start getting distorted and I’m guessing that this is why there’s so much disagreement amongst Christians. You also have mentioned in other articles about how adding-to or subtracting-from God’s word is a sin. It seems this should be something we are to be extremely cautious about without having disclaimers as being ones opinion or not fully clarified.
Question 2
It seems that some of these scriptures are in regard to the laws of the time and place, not necessarily God’s commands given to a prophet to then give to the people. Is there some reason that we are to assume that the laws of that culture and time are also God’s laws to be applied to all mankind throughout all space and time? Why don’t we still consider the death penalty for adultery (as defined in one of your other articles) as a command from God? How do we discern between mans’ laws and God’s laws within the Bible?
Question 3
It seems that marriage was a different thing back then than it is now. Back then it was a contract between the woman’s parents and the man to be married, and there were obviously different laws surrounding it, like the death penalty for adultery (as defined in one of you other articles), and women were viewed as their husband’s property, so adultery (as you define it) seems to basically just be an extension of the command to not steal, not necessarily a sexual sin.
Does God define what marriage is anywhere in scripture? In our culture (2023 AD United States), marriage is mostly just signing a legally binding contract with the state. Sure, we do our religious ceremony too, but are these ceremonies based on biblical instructions, or did people just invent them? I did ask my wife’s (girlfriend at the time) father’s permission to marry her, but not because I thought it was biblical. I just thought it was respectful and culturally appropriate (or expected). I certainly didn’t pay him any money or sign a contract with him though, as was actually done in the Bible.
I’m glad you like the articles. 🙂
Question 1: I apologize if I wasn’t clear, the definitions basically all include “fornication”, and fornication means sex between two people who aren’t married to each other. The etymology comes from male prostitution, but it certainly doesn’t mean only male prostitution. Look also at the verb form definitions, which only include fornication and not male prostitution.
Question #2: I see your point and it has some validity. We aren’t required to follow the OT law, but do consider Romans 15:4; it was all written for our instruction. That doesn’t mean we need to follow it, but when God calls something a wicked sin and attaches the death penalty to it in the OT law, that seems like a good clue, especially when it’s repeated many time in the NT. I personally think the penalty for biblical adultery (a man having sex with another man’s wife) should be death. (And for anyone reading this who wants to cite the story of the woman caught in adultery, I recommend my article on the topic. It was added to the Bible centuries after John lived and thus isn’t scripture)
Question 3: I suggest you read my series on marriage, especially the 5th article for more on this, and please start with the prologue. God specifically states that men should buy/acquire their wives from the woman’s father, even in the NT. (though money isn’t required to change hands, it’s assumed and approved of.) Details in the 5th article.
Thanks for your reply. I actually just discovered the marriage series today and plan to read it with my wife so we can get rid of all the distorted cultural beliefs that we were raised with, and get to the bottom of what God actually says. Thank you so much for what you’re doing. Seriously.
You’re welcome. 🙂
I can see some people here want to neutralize scripture then fight about ‘Pros and Cons’ of sex outside of the marriage context.
Sex is obviously powerful and potentially very pleasing. Couples share a unique bond and usually have the potential to bring a new life into the world.
Why in the world would a marriage agreement be such a big deal just before or certainly very soon after a relationship has reached sexual intimacy?
I’m focusing mostly on the logical ‘Pro / Cons’ of sex in marriage context.
A main question here seems to be, “How soon and or easily can I start having sex?”
I’m not addressing the person that simply is wanting to engage with sex just for its pleasure not connected with a marriage commitment in mind. Sexual self control is still needed to avoid huge problems, even after a person finds the one true love – instinctively most people don’t want to sexually share the love of their life.
Once a decision is made ‘you must experience sex’ with or without the requirement of eventual marriage in mind, the consequences of that (even after marriage) is a different topic.
I would suggest the focus could be on, “How can I keep from having sex until I know I’m fully committed to love that person – to best protect and respect their heart, body, soul and the possible children.
You may personally know or know of others (Google perhaps) that can attest to the pain of a single parent home (God bless all single parents!) knowing a marriage requirement before sex could have prevented much pain.
(1 Corinthians 13:4–8a)
A good marriage with its benefits is no guarantee but the result of two individual’s good character / principles.
An early evidence of good character is desiring the most protection of the love of their life and potential spouse by wanting the additional protections, benefits and commitments of marriage.
How do you respond to this? https://godrules.net/articles/harlotry.htm
Oi vey, where to begin. So he begins (badly) with this assertion:
So basically, he says that unless the law has some blood sacrifice or the death penalty for an action, then it isn’t a sin. However, What about coveting? That doesn’t even have a penalty of any kind attached to it and it’s one of the Ten Commandments, so clearly a sin. He completely misunderstands the two verses that he uses to support this, and if you look at a few commentaries on Hebrews 9:22, you’ll see that you can’t use that verse that way.
Additionally, he also ignores the context of Hebrews 10:4 and especially Hebrews 9:7. Frankly, the whole article is filled with errors. However, I don’t have time to deal with all of them because I would need to write another article. Instead, I’ll focus on two things.
(1) Original word definitions. He only includes original word definitions when they support his point and doesn’t include them when they don’t. In this article I covered a LOT of words that he doesn’t cover and they clearly show that sex outside of marriage is wrong. He should’ve checked all the original words, not just the ones that don’t contradict his point. The word he mentions as meaning only “temple prostitute” is “קָדֵשׁ” (qadesh), which is only used 6 times total and only once in the law. However, he makes it sound like it’s the only word that used to talk about it. That’s at least misleading and seems downright deceptive to me.
(2) Leviticus 19:29. This one verse blows a whole completely through his entire false theology:
Need I say more? Sex outside of marriage/prostitution leads to the land becoming “full of wickedness”. The word translated “prostitute” and “into harlotry” are the same word I covered in the article: “זָנָה” (zanah, click to check a lexicon). It means “commit fornication, be a harlot”. I’m really not sure how it could be clearer. He mentions this verse but incorrectly says that word only means “temple prostitute” and not prostitute/fornicator in general. Check the link and/or the verse in an interlinear Bible if you don’t believe me.
What do you think of this comment? Also are you going on anymore podcast?
https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/11tj642/comment/jcjxao6/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
Let’s pretend for a moment that he is 100% correct in everything he says (he isn’t, but we’ll pretend), that still doesn’t allow for sex outside of marriage. Speaking of the Hebrew word “זָנָה” (zanah), he argues that the word changed meaning over time, but what matters is what it meant when written. He says:
That seems to actually expand the definition (only IF he is right) to anything sexual outside of marriage, not just what we call intercourse. The definition of “female unchastity and sexual dishonour” actually strengthens the case that it is about sexual activity outside of marriage, not just prostitution.
Now, to πορνεία (porneia). It’s true that while it does primarily refer to sexual activity outside of marriage — and that’s how it should be normally understood — it can refer to any illicit sexual activity. However, using a secondary definition to nullify a primary definition is folly.
I’m interested in hearing why you believe he’s wrong. I’m not trying to argue that fornication is ok, but I don’t understand why you don’t agree with him.