Introduction
I spent seven years as a singles pastor. Can you imagine the issues I had to deal with regarding sex? How far can we go before marriage? What if we are engaged? What happens when we have already crossed that line? Is it okay to try living together if we don’t have sex? As well, I knew the issues of lust and temptation that come from magazines, internet sites, and promiscuous thoughts in general. While I was at seminary, I remember the head of the counseling department saying that by his estimation, half the male students were struggling with internet pornography. Half! If half this body of guys sold out to Jesus, selling everything they own to go to seminary, were this deeply involved in sexual struggles, how much more so the singles at my church?
Many of these are difficult questions. More difficult than one realizes, until pushed for an answer. We are dealing with sexual sin among sexual people. We are bound to attempt to find as many loopholes as possible.
The Claim that Fornication is Not a Sin
One day I was blindsided by a question that, before then, I had considered a softball. A man walked up to me after my lesson and said that he had some good Christian friends (and by “good Christian friends” I mean he considered these friends to be good Christians), who questioned him about the issue of sex before marriage. They had suggested to him that, contrary to popular thought, the Bible does not anywhere condemn what is known in our language as “fornication.” They said that the word “fornication,” when it is used in the Bible, does not mean sex before marriage, but sexual immorality in general. According to their studies, the sexual immorality condemned in the Scripture does not include fornication.
After some quick research, I discovered that what they said was true . . . at least part of it.
My Sordid History with Fornication
Now, let me be up front here. Before I married Kristie, I did not do to well in the sex before marriage department. I regret it quit a bit. I don’t think I ever actually committed adultery, but for the most part I worked on a “don’t-ask-don’t-tell” basis. I was a Christian at the time and the guilt was bad. However, I took some comfort in thinking that I had not crossed the actual adultery line (at least as far as I knew). Why? Because I knew that the Bible had a lot to say about adultery. You know, it was all that “take them out and stone them” stuff. But, while the guilt was bad, it was not as bad as it could have (or should have) been. After all, who was I hurting? God made me a sexual being. I was not coloring outside of the lines that much. After all, what does he expect? It is quite a killjoy to create sexual desire and then say, “You cannot touch.”
So, back to my question: Is fornication really a sin?
Translation of Pornia
It is true that in the Bible, the word for fornication does not necessarily refer to sex before marriage. The Greek word translated “fornication” by the King James Bible is pornia (from which we get our word “pornography”). It refers to any unlawful sexual activity. BDAG (the standard and best Greek Lexicon) defines it as “unsanctioned sexual intercourse.” The sanctioning of a sexual activity is defined in the Old Testament by what it is not more often than what it is. In other words, we learn what is lawful with regard to fulfilling our sexual desires by creating boundaries of foreign territory considered sinful. Much of this law is covered in Leviticus 18. Take notice of the boundaries here:
Lev. 18:6-21, 23
6 “None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the LORD.
7 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness.
8 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness.
9 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether brought up in the family or in another home.
10 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your son’s daughter or of your daughter’s daughter, for their nakedness is your own nakedness.
11 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife’s daughter, brought up in your father’s family, since she is your sister.
12 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s sister; she is your father’s relative.
13 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister, for she is your mother’s relative.
14 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s brother, that is, you shall not approach his wife; she is your aunt.
15 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son’s wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness.
16 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is your brother’s nakedness.
17 You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and of her daughter, and you shall not take her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter to uncover her nakedness; they are relatives; it is depravity.
18 And you shall not take a woman as a rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive.
19 You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness while she is in her menstrual uncleanness.
20 And you shall not lie sexually with your neighbor’s wife and so make yourself unclean with her.
22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
23 And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion.
That pretty much covers the law with regard to sexual sin, right? After all, to “uncover the nakedness” of someone is a euphemism about sexual relations. However, one thing that is left out here is sex before marriage. It does not say, “You shall not uncover the nakedness of someone who is not your wife.” Yes, there are a lot of parameters, but it looks like we might have found ourselves a loophole toward a sexual revolution in Christianity! Not so fast, singles. While it is true that this particular passage does not speak specifically to the sex before marriage issue, sex before marriage is nonetheless condemned in Scripture as sin.
You won’t believe the scholars you can sit under today!
Fornication in the Old Testament
Let me be honest. From what I can see, the Old Testament does not seem to come down too hard on men having sex outside of the bonds of marriage. It is another story for women. Notice here:
Deut. 22:13-14
“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,'”
This introduces a situation where a man finds out that his wife was not a virgin before they got married. If the charge was found to be true, then the women was to be stoned (Lev. 22:20-21). At the very least, this demonstrates that, for women, the laws against sexual immorality included sex before marriage.
Passages such as Lev. 19:20 further confuse the matter, giving males more liberty.
However, the liberty is not carte blanche for men. Notice here:
Deut. 22:28-29
“If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.”
Here, either through rape or consent (this is debated), we have an unwed woman and a man who sleep together. The woman has lost her virginity to the man. Due to this, the man is forced to pay a “fine” or properly marry the woman to cover her shame and make sure she is provided for. This shows that sex before marriage for men was not without its consequences in the Old Testament.
Fornication in the New Testament
The issue of sex before marriage becomes much more clear in the New Testament, as it is more explicitly forbidden to both men and women.
(This is not the time to discuss why the Old Testament is not more clear on this issue. It is my assumption that, like with so many other things, God, in the progress of revelation, did not express his full ideal in the Law of Moses, but conceded to some cultural norms like he did with slavery and polygamy.)
The word “fornication,” as I said above, does not necessarily mean sex before marriage. However, I do believe it is implied many times for two primary reasons.
1. Christ’s condemnation of lust
Mat 5:27-28
You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
If sex before marriage was not forbidden, why does Christ say that lust is? Implied here is that everything from lust to adultery is forbidden by the sixth commandment. Sex before marriage definitely fits right in between.
2. Paul’s admonishment to marry rather than burn
1 Cor. 7:8-9
To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to stay single as I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
The idea of “burning” here has to do with sexual desire. Here Paul tells all unmarried people that if they cannot control their sexual desires, they need to get married. Why? Because Paul assumes that one cannot fulfill this sexual desire outside of the marital bed. While Paul would love for them to remain single (1 Cor. 7:7), he believes that sex outside of marriage is a destructive sin and cannot be used as a gratifying release of our sexual passions.
Conclusion: Yes, Fornication is a Sin
While there are other passages that can be used to build the case that sex outside of marriage is indeed sinful, I believe that these are strong enough to bind Christian consciences.
God created sex. God created our sexual desires. Sex is good within the borders of marriage. For those of you who think that God is a killjoy for limiting sex to such a situation, please remember a couple of things: 1) God created sex! How could he be a killjoy? Think about it. The very act about which you are complaining is an act he created. 2) God knows better than you do what will satisfy you. It takes an act of faith to believe this, but it is not too big a step to take. 3) Most married Christian men and women who, like myself, did not have a very successful single life would love to turn back the clocks and do it all over again. And this is not because we are not forgiven . . . we are. It is because we know the intimacy which is lost when you have already given yourself to another. Our advice to you would be to wait. If it is too late, stop and wait. It is never too late to trust God in this matter. As cliché as it may sound, he really does know best. Fornication is really a sin.
200 replies to "Is Fornication Really a Sin?"
Not really sure what your point is Chad.
I had the romantic notions of many folks here. Marriage is forever, blah blah. Then my wife left me, with a lot of nonsense excuses. Still, my opinion didn’t change. Marriage should be forever, but we don’t always get the choice, and we can’t live in loneliness on romantic notion. That’s my sad lonely opinion this New Year’s Eve. Happy new year folks.
@JB post 21
Should I abandon the OT texts because we are in the New Covenant? Seems inane at the best. My point is not to say that we should go stone some non-virgins right now, but to show you a contextual example of what we are discussing and the “spirit of the Law” behind it as you discuss later. The point, and a very serious point it was, was that a woman should be a virgin on her wedding day. Does that explicitly state that men should be virgins on their wedding day? No, but it could be seen as implicit by virtue of not provoking your wife to anger or shame or putting unrealistic sexual expectations upon her based on a male’s past experiences.
So, you went into the engagement of sexual relations thinking it was not just OK, but acceptable by God? You were a believer at the time, she was as well, you consulted the Scriptures for definitive information, prayed for the Spirit to move to the truth? Obviously you have not found any explicit command in Scripture against it, so you were an active member of a Christian church, and decided to concede to their authority in the matter? You consulted them and saw what their answer regarding the matter was, and then proceeded based on conscience if they approved of premarital sex? You may think that the line of thinking here is extreme or oppressive, but in fact you fall under all of these authorities and you are supposed to respect and obey these authorities. Let me know if you see where I am going with this and whether you agree or disagree.
I think your point is arguing whether sex is actually covered under the covenant of marriage, and that my point did not adequately ascertain this fact. I would then have to ask what the purpose of sex is and investigate in Scripture these purposes. They are numerous and varied, but could briefly confine them to procreation, pleasure, and expression of love. Do we see sanctioning in the eyes of God in these things outside of marriage?
@John, page 2, comment 1
Sorry to hear that your wife left you. I can only imagine the pain and distress that would cause in the life of anyone. Was she a believer? I assume you are since you are posting here, but you can tell me I am wrong if I am. I do not believe that marriage is forever. I believe that marriage is temporal, it is only valid here on earth and while both parties are alive. We do not always get the choice in how things play out, and the truth of the matter is, that no matter what there are 2 sinners involved in a marriage and we can not have a completely redeemed and perfect marriage here on earth. Again, sorry to hear that you are lonely and pained by this.
Yes Chad, she was a believer. It’s amazing what people will justify, if it suits them. She was my first and still only. But now, probably not last, because I can’t be alone.
I would also like to throw Matthew 19:1-12 into the ring. This actually seems to work backward from marriage to singleness. It starts off with the creation of man and woman and the ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’. We can debate about what it means exactly with the two becoming one flesh, whether that is explicit to sex or to the relationship decisions as a whole, etc. But the point I would like to make here is that the progression of events is clearly, a man lives with his father and mother, leaves them, holds fast to his wife, and the two become one flesh. It does not teach, a man leaves his father and mother and has some sex, then gets married later. While not explicitly applicable to all situations, specifically JB’s case, it does seem to implicitly state that you would be married prior to becoming one flesh physically, emotionally, and spiritually. Obviously it is metaphorical to an extent because each person still exists, etc.
Continuing from there, is the question about “well if it is going to be that tough to stay married, why bother?” Jesus states that some will be eunuchs for various reasons, but that it would be an extremely difficult teaching and only some would be able to receive it, whether by nature, man, or choice. The thing to note here is that the idea of the eunuch is that they would be unable to have sex. I do not know the science behind whether castration makes it impossible to have sex or not, because that is weird science. But the implication certainly seems to be that you are either married and having sex, or not married and not having sex. There does not seem to be room for a third position of not married and having sex. I could be mistaken, so feel free to point out the other options.
@John, page 2, post 4
Unfortunately it is part of our sinful nature that we attempt to justify behaviors based upon our own desires instead of what God would have us do. This is a constant battle for all of us, but seems to be extremely potent when it comes to divorce. People become so hardened in heart that they become blinded to the truth of Christ and want to willingly pursue the enemy. I pray that you will be able to pursue a new Christian woman who will team with you to pursue sanctification through marriage…the most difficult of ministries. I hope that you are connected within your church and able to lean on them for support in these troubling times.
@Chad
-“…the debate between lust and covet was not important as the definitions of them are extremely similar”-
And yet, they do mean different things. Again, the fact that “coveting” refers to desiring something *that belongs to someone else* is not insignificant here.
-“As far as would I attest the “belonging” portion of women to the nearest male relative still, I would say yes I do and find it irrelevant to the age of the woman in question.”-
Um, OK. Can you explain why this is an element of the OT that we should affirm, but not prohibiting wearing mixed fabrics?
-“Does that mean that I would sell her like a belonging or disrespect choices and preferences in a suitor, no…”-
But you would find it OK to deny her a suitor that she wants, as long as you “respect” it?
-“…but until she is married I view it as my responsibility to protect my daughter.”-
That is your obligation as a father, yes. But the nature of this changes as they grow. eventually, they become morally autonomous beings.
Should I abandon the OT texts because we are in the New Covenant?
Nope. But there are principles in the OT that are not worth affirming anymore, and probably never were.
-“The point, and a very serious point it was, was that a woman should be a virgin on her wedding day.”-
No, I think it’s obvious that the “wedding day” was often simply whenever they had sex, as John pointed out. Further, the issue here is being MISLEAD about the wife being a virgin.
-“Does that explicitly state that men should be virgins on their wedding day? No, but it could be seen as implicit”-
This assumes that men were held to the same standard. It should be obvious they were not, even CMP conceded that much.
-“Obviously you have not found any explicit command in Scripture against it, so you were an active member of a Christian church, and decided to concede to their authority in the matter?”-
Call me crazy, but – no – I did not…
@Chad (cont’d)
…consult my church about my sex life. Nor did they ask me about it. The answers to your other questions were “yes”.
-“You may think that the line of thinking here is extreme or oppressive”-
Yes, I do. Many of these things are what we do when unsure of what was right. I was not uncertain. My guess is most people don’t call their church every time they make a moral choice.
-“Let me know if you see where I am going with this and whether you agree or disagree.”-
I respect my church, but their authority does not extend to unilateral control. Again, you are approaching it as someone who thinks I should have seen this was wrong. One does not do all this consulting when conviction is otherwise.
-“I would then have to ask what the purpose of sex is and investigate in Scripture these purposes.”-
There is no explicit mention of this in scripture either. See, this is where I find it funny that those of us who think things are unclear are “over-exegeting”. People try to read into the text, extract principles from what (they think) is implied, then turn around and make it dogma.
-“They are numerous and varied, but could briefly confine them to procreation, pleasure, and expression of love. Do we see sanctioning in the eyes of God in these things outside of marriage?”-
I would argue that we don’t even see what you have stated so far. Where in scripture does it say sex is an expression of love? Pleasure and procreation hardly require scriptural interpretation. Do we see God sanctioning these things outside “marriage”. That depends on what we mean by “marriage”. Obviously, it worked much differently. This is why things are unclear. If you mean “a sexually monogamous relationship preceded by a socio-religious ceremony” then that concept is nowhere to be found in scripture. Regardless, there are plenty of examples of sex outside marriage in the Bible, some of which have already been mentioned. It is questionable…
@Chad (cont’d)
…whether they are “sanctioned”, but neither are they explicitly condemned.
Re: Matthew 19:1-12
-“…the progression of events is clearly, a man lives with his father and mother, leaves them, holds fast to his wife, and the two become one flesh.”-
This doesn’t help at all. If “becoming one” is a euphemism for sex, this obviously doesn’t help your case at all. If it is a euphemism for marriage, then it says nothing regarding whether sexual relations are prohibited. Either way, doesn’t work.
-“But the implication certainly seems to be that you are either married and having sex, or not married and not having sex.”-
My impression here was that they didn’t like what he had to say about divorce, not sex. It used to be they could get rid of a woman if they wanted to, now they were stuck with her. That was a bummer for them. This makes it easier to understand why they would say “why get married at all?” They can have sex anyway, but if when you get married you’re STUCK with her. Apparently, that was a bummer.
6th or 7th?
I am intrigued by this conversation. Against my will, I have loosened my grip on sex before marriage as being a sin. But I still hold to it based on the Cor passage. It still seems strongly implied that sex before marriage is a significant sin. So much so that the life changing institution of marriage is invoked as a safeguard. This passage is enough right now and I have seen no arguments that are strong and against my interpretation.
Michael. I think even without an explicit commandment, considering the way marriage is seen in our society, this is a good practical rule. I’d say for the ancients, as soon as you had sex, you were technically married. Today, it’s best to wait for marriage since anything could happen before the time of the wedding.
Sola Scriptura Michael: what is marriage? Prove your answer from bible alone, while refuting other possible answers.
@CMP
RE: 1 Corinthians 7:9
-“It still seems strongly implied that sex before marriage is a significant sin.”-
This still puzzles me.
“But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”
What is it about this passage, or its context, that indicates if one chooses some other option – for instance, exercising self-control while still engaging in pre-marital sex, they are committing “a significant sin”? Stating that one thing is better than another is either majorly underplaying something considered significant, or a reflection of something considered not very significant – or at least not necessarily “right” vs. “wrong”. I’m especially curious why this is in light of the passage in question seemingly not falling under the domain of his “commands” from God later. This seems significant to me, I’m not sure why it isn’t for you (or if it is, how you interpret it).
@Nick
-“I think even without an explicit commandment, considering the way marriage is seen in our society, this is a good practical rule.”-
Curious what you mean by “how marriage is seen in our society”. I actually agree that is a good, virtuous practice. I don’t want to come across as someone who thinks chastity isn’t a virtue. It is. So maintaining chastity until marriage is something to be celebrated and honored. But I think it is obvious the rule isn’t a “practical” rule at all. Not sure in what sense you mean it is.
-“I’d say for the ancients, as soon as you had sex, you were technically married. Today, it’s best to wait for marriage since anything could happen before the time of the wedding.”-
Well, I assume you’ve abandoned many other ideas that “the ancients” had. If you maintain this one, I’d be curious why the solution here is to wait until a ceremony, as opposed to simply doing what they did. If you don’t want to preserve this concept, then what’s the importance of waiting?
Jb
Thanks so much. I am very interested to hear arguments against the traditional understanding of this passage (and my interpretation seems to be where most interpreters go). However, I did not really understand any of your counter-argument. This does not mean I am saying it is wrong, it is just that it made no sense to me at all.
I will try to check back in here sometime, but my involvement in this post will not be very practical soon.
@CMP
Fair enough! I’m sure the fault is mine for not being very clear.
I think my post has my implicit answers. Still, I’d answer that the sexual bond is a powerful and explosive bond that I believe only should be unlocked with the special bond of trust that comes in marriage. If you think you’re ready for sex, go ahead and get married. If not, then don’t do it. A love that truly loves will be capable of waiting for fulfillment.
I wonder how many contesting from a position of “I can’t/don’t want to restrain my lust, therefore fornication must be reconciled with Christianity.”
If sex outside marriage was lawful, then sex outside marriage would be prevalent. If sex outside marriage was prevalent, children outside marriage would be prevalent. As well, resistance to marry would be prevalent.
Neither of these features are prevalent in the narrative. So it’s fair to conclude that it’s unlikely that sex outside marriage was lawful.
Again Ross, what is marriage? Prove your answer from “the narrative”. Maybe these things aren’t “prevalent” because they simply can’t exist.
I’m not sure what your point is, John.
What is marriage, prove your answer from “the narrative”? What narrative are you talking about? Are you saying that marriage is an incoherent concept? What can’t exist?
You’ll have to be clearer.
John said: “Good article. One thing that should be noted is that premarital sex was not nearly as big of an issue in ancient times b/c people got married shortly after puberty. This business getting married in your mid to late twenties is very new. It’s not that God is a killjoy. It’s that modern western society has a very unnatural view towards marriage. Men hit their sexual peak in their teens but don’t get married until 10 years later when they’ve calmed down some. You can’t tell me that’s natural, especially when people got married early for 1000s of years and still do in most cultures.”
An excellent point. So, why do we follow the culture on this? Genesis 2 seems to presume a pattern of heterosexual union brought forth by the groom’s (and bride’s, if God counts as dual roles here) father, with the groom possibly having direct input in selection, also. It also seems to imply that one does not leave one’s parent’s house until marrying, anyway. For clan-centered Israel, this makes sense: leaving/abandoning one’s parents needs justification; the multiplication of mouths to feed provides that justification.
Young people today, myself included, are too married to their singleness and freedom. I admit that arranged marriage of teenagers is not just countercultural, but also a barrier to higher education, but to what extent is society making the mistake of Icarus flying too close to the sun? Are we foolishly trying to “ascend” higher than we ought as well?
Being young and single in the church is hard. It seems as if women in their 20s do not feel compelled to marry or even date. I speak as someone who attends a conservative Evangelical complementarian church.
What solution is there to the people-who-should-marry-not-marrying problem?
The point is Ross, that maybe you haven’t defined your terms the same way the “narrative” does, so that you you see in it what you think you see. If those people slice and dice reality different to you, then it explains the omissions that you think you see.
I belong to a small, conservative Lutherian congregation in Scandinavia. One of the best cermons I’ve heard was being held by a young priest in Christmas time couple of years ago. It was about Joseph and her young fiancee, who all the suddenly was pregnant. Of course Joseph new immediatelly that the baby wasn’t his. Why? Because he had waited, done the right thing.
Priest stated that an honorable man during those time wanted to be the one who was able to wait. And all the suddenly, the society, the whole village looked at Joseph as a man who hadn’t had the nerves to wait till marriage with her beautiful young bride.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I have an illusion in my mind that Joseph and Maria got married only after Jesus was born? I highly doubt that their life included premarital sex before that. I would assume, that nevertheless Joseph wanted to be the godly man who waited till marriage.
What comes to the importance of waiting before marriage, I’d like to share a woman’s view of the subject too. Have you ever thought of, that maybe waiting before marriage is meaningful because of the more vulnerable party in the subject? 1. Peter 3:7
Pieter, a married man, actually says, that women are more fragile creatures. And that men have great responsibility over them in the eyes of God. In fact, so great responsibility, that God even gave the law (the instructions not to eat from the tree etc.) to Adam way before Eve was even created for him to share his life with. Genesis 2:15-18.
So I would personally assume, that God was quite serious about this order. Even after the fall, it was Adam, God fronted first. Just by asking. Where are you? Gen. 3:9
If you would have kids, and the younger would set house on fire, would you in that moment call the older one (who was suppost to take care of the younger one and the house too) just by asking, where are you?
As a woman, it is also almost quite impossible to truly respect a man who cannot…
Sorry -too many words and too many mistakes with them, due to my language skills…
But I was about to say, that as a woman, it is far more easier to respect a man as a husband (or any man) who can and are able and willing to control themselves with their lusts. Because woman can and do lust too, and it’s almost impossible for them to “lead the ship” in that situation to other direction if their loved ones decides not to wait. And that act gives a woman clear signal about the foundations of their marriage. It’s based on lust, maybe he doesn’t love me as a person that much after all? Plus man gave a way, even temporarily, his capability to lead the whole relationship to the right direction. This is not a good start for any marriage.
How to respect a leader, who puts his desires first over the one who is weaker? It is extremely difficult to do that as a woman. Would you guys follow that kind of church leader as your spiritual leader? Not to mention in war? And yet so many woman have to trust their whole lives and children’s lives for these kind of leaders, who think more of their own lust than anything else.
So, personally, I think there are no loopholes in this matter. As always God is thinking the weaker parties when giving his commands and instructions for us. And that way it will be the blessing of the leader as well.
@Laura
Your perspective is an interesting one; thanks for sharing it.
-“Of course Joseph new immediatelly that the baby wasn’t his. Why? Because he had waited, done the right thing.”-
This is bringing your own assumptions to the text. Joseph could have known because of the timing. If they had only recently had intimate relations, but she was showing, then he would obviously have reason to be suspicious. There simply isn’t enough information to conclude one way or another. We know that an unmarried couple spending a significant amount of time alone together was well outside the norm, and we know what unmarried couples tend to do with such time, but that doesn’t mean that they did. Again, there simply isn’t enough information here to conclude one way or another.
-“Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I have an illusion in my mind that Joseph and Maria got married only after Jesus was born?”-
The Bible does not actually say if they ever did get married, I don’t think.
-“I highly doubt that their life included premarital sex before that. I would assume, that nevertheless Joseph wanted to be the godly man who waited till marriage.”-
That’s fine, as log as you recognize that is your *assumption*. It isn’t anything you conclude based on reading the text, and it definitely isn’t something we should build a doctrine on, even in part.
JB Chappell, Your comment: “This is bringing your own assumptions to the text. Joseph could have known because of the timing. If they had only recently had intimate relations, but she was showing, then he would obviously have reason to be suspicious. There simply isn’t enough information to conclude one way or another.”
The Bible states “Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly…Behold the Virgin shall be with child…And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus. (Matt 1)
This is clear they had no prior sexual relations, they did marry.
Anna, I appreciate the correction. I was going off the Luke account, and I should have known better to consult only the one. I can understand why you would conclude what you do based on the way it reads in English, so you were not really bringing your own assumptions in – so I apologize for saying that you did.
However, the “come together” phrase in Matthew is not a euphemism for intercourse, it is a euphemism for *cohabitation* (which can involve conjugal relations). The “knew” terminology used later (v25) is the common Jewish euphemism for sex, and it is significant that it was not used in v18. So, it is still the case that the text is not clear that they never had sex.
However, it may be a moot point as they were “betrothed”. This is partly what muddies the waters – Jewish marriage did not work like our marriage now. Joseph and Mary were “betrothed”, which would actually be more like our “marriage” – at least legally. They were bound to each other, and could only be separated by a divorce. However, despite that, they had not actually lived together yet. So, even if they were having sex, it isn’t at all clear (to me) that this would have been considered “wrong”. The area is actually pretty gray in terms of Rabbinic tradition as well, from what I understand. Usually they just delegated the interpretation of “pre-marital sex” to community leaders.
@Laura
-“Have you ever thought of, that maybe waiting before marriage is meaningful because of the more vulnerable party in the subject? 1 Peter 3:7”-
No, honestly, I had not considered this. I think, however, that you are speaking on behalf of all women, when perhaps you should only be speaking for women who think like you do. It may very well be the case that for many women, they need to see a man is capable of waiting. It may also be that for many women, this is a non-factor.
-“But I was about to say, that as a woman, it is far more easier to respect a man as a husband (or any man) who can and are able and willing to control themselves with their lusts.”-
Well, I think this goes for the men as well. I mean, I wouldn’t exactly prefer a woman who wants to get it on with just about anybody. I think the assumption here is that EITHER someone has self-control and waits until marriage, OR they lack self-control and don’t. That seems to me to be mistaken.
-“And that act gives a woman clear signal about the foundations of their marriage. It’s based on lust…”-
Again, I think you’re introducing your own assumptions into the fray here. Just because pre-marital relations have occurred, does not mean the relationship is based on lust.
@John “The point is Ross, that maybe you haven’t defined your terms the same way the “narrative” does, so that you you see in it what you think you see. If those people slice and dice reality different to you, then it explains the omissions that you think you see.”
I understand what you are saying here, John. That differences in definition can change meaning. However, I don’t see any reason to believe I am misinterpreting what the Bible is saying here. The army of scholars, researchers, textual critics and anthropologists have not told us any such thing.
But I wonder, John- Do you wish the Bible permitted premarital sex?
@Laura: I found your thoughts interesting. Because of the female perspective, but also because of your cultural background, which brings a fresh, non-anglophonic perspective. Please post more often.
Ross, does your army of scholars and anthropologists say that when the bible says Abraham took a wife, it means he fronted up at the local synagogue for a ceremony, or does it mean he took her to bed?
As for what I “hope” the bible says, not being a Protestant, I think the Christian tradition carries some weight. So it doesn’t affect me what the bible teaches. I think from bible alone teaching, going to bed and taking a wife would be equivalent. Just as well I’m not Protestant huh?
John,
I’m not sure one has to “front up at a local synagogue” in order to be married. Nor does it mean one just “takes her to bed”.
Sounds like a false dichotomy here. Why can’t we believe it was meant to be a monogamous lifelong social contract, meant to be recognized by all?
@Ross
-“Why can’t we believe it was meant to be a monogamous lifelong social contract, meant to be recognized by all?”-
Because marriage obviously wasn’t thought to be a monogamous arrangement… unless you were a woman.
Ross: “Why can’t we believe it was meant to be a monogamous lifelong social contract, meant to be recognized by all?”
There are many many things we could choose to believe about this. But since the whole argument hinges on it, you would have to prove it, no?
BTW, it doesn’t seem to be lifelong OR monogomous, since Abraham sent away one of his wives.
What I meant to say by monogamy was “infidelity, or the idea of an open marriage” was not condoned as being within God’s definition of marriage.
But you guys are partly right. God did allow some leeway with marriage in the OT, mostly for practical reasons given the constraints of the time.
But this fails to justify premarital sex.
The stark omission of acceptable premarital sex, or some of the expected sociological outcomes of premarital sex from Biblical narratives provides plenty of reason to think that sex was meant to be within marriage.
On the flipside, however, at least one of you appeals to a sort of selective hyper-skepticism. Ie, when it comes to marriage, we conveniently have no idea what anything means anymore. Until suddenly we’re made to believe that Abraham just “took Sarah to bed” one day and she became his wife. And according to John that’s the only place where we don’t have to be skeptical.
So what else besides the selective skepticism? JB I’m all ears. Convince me.
@JB Chappel on comment nro 27.
Thank you for your welcoming thoughts and good points concerning my own assumptions.
I admit, I was hasty with my conclusions and assumptions. However, as said they were not originally my own inventions since many points were coming from the sermon I heard from one of our priests.
But – I still stand behind those thoughts based on how I interpret the Bible. And also, I’m a layman, I don’t know any hebrew, aramaic of greek. But I took a better look on the bible again. Matt. 1:18-21
I used two current translations we have in Finnish. The one for modern Finnish language is from 1992 and the older one from 1938. These two are the only ones we use in Finland. (But I also checked these verses from the year 1776 Finnish bible and also the Swedish version from 1917 and the King James version (don’t know the year)).
It says there:
“Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
In the Finnish and Swedish versions of bible I checked, instead of word espoused was being used the word engaged.
Then the more important phrase: before they came together.
In the older scandinavian versions it says in the bible just like that, before they had been together and in the Finnish version from year 1992 it says that before their union was validated.
To me this is a matter of faith part here. I take it literally. When it says that they hadn’t been together I believe it.(meaning, the union would become an official validated marriage if they would have had sex).
And that’s why I assume, that Joseph knew that he definitely was not the father, because he had waited and hadn’t had sex with Maria. (Since they weren’t “married”).
I also want to remind that in case of Jacob, Leah and Rachel the marriage happened immediatelly when Leah “accidentally” happened to be in Jacob’s wedding bed of instead of Rachel that night. After that Leah become his official wife in…
Ross: “The stark omission of acceptable premarital sex, or some of the expected sociological outcomes of premarital sex from Biblical narratives provides plenty of reason to think that sex was meant to be within marriage. ”
Again Ross, you seem to be obtusely ignoring the obvious. The reason there is no premarital sex in the bible, is because when they took the woman to bed, it was considered marriage. Premarital sex is about as as realistic as unicorns in that mindset, wouldn’t you say? It’s not that it’s bad, in that world view, rather it can’t exist.
Continuing…
After that Leah became Jacobs official and validated wife immediatilly, because they had had sex the night before. No matter how fair the circumstances were. Laban used that knowledge when he orchestrated the whole thing. He just merely stated to Jacobs astonishment:
“It must not be so done in our country, to give the younger before the firstborn”.
And I also noticed, that the words go in unto her were used here when Jacob spoked about marrying Rachel after seven years of waiting:
21 And Jacob said unto Laban, Give me my wife, for my days are fulfilled, that I may go in unto her.
22 And Laban gathered together all the men of the place, and made a feast.
23 And it came to pass in the evening, that he took Leah his daughter, and brought her to him; and he went in unto her.
25 And it came to pass, that in the morning, behold, it was Leah: and he said to Laban, What is this thou hast done unto me? did not I serve with thee for Rachel? wherefore then hast thou beguiled me
And the same words went in unto her were used, when the marriage became official to Leah.
So sex = marriage, even I don’t quite understand here the exact words, but I do understand these same phrases in my own language and the meaning is the same there.
Now I also remember why I thought that Josef didn’t marry Maria only after Christ was born.
It says in Matt.1:25
25 And (Josef) knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
So, basically, you can now see my “logic” here, albeit I admit it’s based on assumptions and merely to faith that the Scripture is precise in this matter. When it was stated earlier that Josef and Mary hadn’t had sex (hadn’t been together)= they weren’t married. And since Joseph didn’t have sex (didn’t knew her) before the born of Christ = they weren’t officially married before that either.
Conclusion, they were married after the born of Christ when they had sex…
“Conclusion, they were married after the born of Christ when they had sex…”
You mean IF.
Ok – I have to admit, that I’m a bit over my head with this topic, but Jacob did have an official wedding party too.
Laban even asked him to go through the whole wedding week with Leah, eventhough he had been just betrayed and given the wrong wife.
To make things even more complicated with this debate, I have always wondered how on earth Jacob didn’t notice anything strange while having sex with Leah instead of Rachel, the woman of his lusts for more than seven years. Was he so drunk that night or what just happened???
At least that should clear out, that if he would have had sex with Rachel before that night, he would have definitely noticed the difference. Or otherwise he was just an idiot and had sex with Leah too, no matter what the consequences because he had an opportunity to do so in the heat of the night. Hope that is not what happened.
On the other hand, his old man had been fooled years ago with the same trick. Jaboc with fake fur hands instead of Esau, to claim the blessing of his father. How that happened too???
@John 38.
When they finally had sex, because Jesus did have brothers.
They could be step brothers.
What comes to God giving some kind of leeway with many wifes, I believe it was merely the guys who gave the leeway themselves since they weren’t able to have kids in the first place.
Or as in Jacob’s case, to be satisfied to the fact, that God had allowed Leah to become his wife instead of Rachel and Jacob just decided to have her anyway…
Where does it say there, that it God gave Abraham or Jacob anykind fo leeway for what they did by taking more wifes than one?
I think the fact that Abraham had to repel this “extra wife” and child of his flesh and blood away from their home (Because God command him to do so) how seriously God took the idea of a monogamous relationship with Abraham and Sarah. Gen. 21:10-12
If Jacob would have just settled to what he probably knew was right thing to do ( at least he should have known from the examples of his grandfather what a havoc it caused to have more than one wife), maybe his wife’s, Leah’s life and their childrens life would have been easier. Especially when I personally believe, that God didn’t meant Jacob to have four wives. And not to mention his children from all these wives to be so gruelling towards each others, that they even wanted to kill their younger brother.
What a mess. When you think about the lives of those women, I would have never ever wanted to be in none of theirs shoes. Not Leah’s, Zilpah’s, Rachel’s or Bilbah’s.
I don’t think that Jacob’s life was a special treat either after these events. And yet bible tells, that eventually God turned out his lifelong mistakes to a blessing of nations. But in my mind in doesn’t meen, that God gave any leeway or freedom for him to take many wives. He just what he did, and bible only tells, that this happened in Jacob’s life.
Yeah but Laura, as I understand it, if a wife’s husband dies, the brother is obligated under the law to take the woman as another one of his wives. Polygamy was not just leeway, it was the law.
In any case, while you can choose to read into these narratives your own ideas, nothing in the bible prohibits polygamy, not even in the new testament.
Dear John. All this is possible, it’s even possible that the whole bible is mambo jambo world class fairy tail.
However, I don’t have anything else in this universe. I’m life scientist, and I cannot believe to anything else than that there is a God and that He’s accurate, precise and knows what He’s doing. Otherwise anything in this world doesn’t make any sense to me.
Whether it has to be something valid every time, when He says so, or anything what He says sometimes, doesn’t mean anything ever.
He either can tell us what His will is, and is a sovereign God or he’s nothing else but an untrustworthy whimsical creature who sometimes can tell us something and most of the time nothing.
And what I know from nature, everything works there for a reason. I know that doesn’t prove anything to you, but to me it does. Mathematically, statistically and with what ever scientific point of view you try to look at it, I cannot believe that something has created or developed itself from absolute pure nothing in the first place, no matter how many billion years there would be time for things to evolve from this nothingness of any energy or material substance.
It’s either that reasoning behind the life as we know it, or that there is a God.
I just personally rather believe in God, since otherwise life is too darn arbitrary and unfair to me. I put all my eggs to that basket, cling on to that hope, that bible is true and that there is a heaven for me also because of Jesus Christ.
Maybe I’m mad, maybe I’m stupid, but that’s all I got in this life and I want to cling on that hope.
As said, eventually, these are matter’s of faith. That’s all I got and even that is weak. But since it’s all I got in this life, I cling on that. It’s better than arbitraty randomness. I prefer more of the idea that there’s a rational God, who’s willing to help me and save me from this wretched world eventually.
All the best John, I’ll go to sleep now.
Laura: I’m not sure what your little speech here has got to do with the topic. We are debating here what if anything the bible is saying about relationships. We are not debating if there is a God. God doesn’t have to specify everything about everything, even if you want him to. I would also suggest perhaps, God did specify some things outside the bible, but that’s a topic for another day.
I also need a break with the language, you try to do this level discussions in Finnish next time… These are difficult subjects to debate even in my mother tong and it doesn’t make it any easier to try to this by typing in English…
Sorry, I give up. I just rather believe, that God meant people to be monogamous for their own good. That’s it. I honestly don’t think, that it makes life any easier to anyone to have many wives or husbands, or childrens to different mothers/fathers. The ones who are suffering the most on those situations are children. As in case of Jacob’s family life too. I don’t think that I’m too narrative, if I say, that there was something wrong with that family dynamic, if the other siblings wanted to kill Josef in the first place.
Gen. 37:20-21
20 Come now therefore, and let us slay him, and cast him into some pit, and we will say, Some evil beast hath devoured him: and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
21 And Reuben heard it , and he delivered him out of their hands; and said, Let us not kill him.
Anyway, I can only speak for myself as I already said. These are my personal opinions and believes.
I personally will not ever in this life respect a man 100%, who cannot control himself and who would like to have sex before marriage and call himself christian also. Not to mention have multiple wives, girl friends etc. But I also know, that my opinion doesn’t really matter here. It’s just my opinion.
Ok, now I’ll go to sleep, I’ll have to work tomorrow also.
There are so many lonely women out there, I’m not sure if monogamy is doing women any favours actually. I suspect they’d be happier if they brought back the law to marry your husband’s brother. You could say it is the fault of all the unmarriable men out there, which would be true, but isn’t much consolation. Perhaps one day you’ll find yourself middle aged or older, and seeing it as a lessor of two evils, when you can’t imagine it now. Who knows?
John,
Please forgive me my stubborness, but I just had to do still some research even though I should be sleeping.
I won’t harras you anymore after this.
BR, Laura
1. Tim 3:2 and 12
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
1. Tim 5:9
9 Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man,
Titus 1:6
6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
Is your husband s bishop Laura? 🙂
John,
Maybe I’m already there.
I didn’t mean to be disrespectful and some of the difficulties with these discussions are because of cultural differences. Finnish way of speaking is quite blunt in general and especially since I’m not a native speaker and not familiar with the nuances and correct way of saying things.
All the best to you, and God bless you.
Laura
John: “Again Ross, you seem to be obtusely ignoring the obvious. The reason there is no premarital sex in the bible, is because when they took the woman to bed, it was considered marriage. Premarital sex is about as as realistic as unicorns in that mindset, wouldn’t you say? It’s not that it’s bad, in that world view, rather it can’t exist.”
John, unable to add anything of substance. Your claims sound fictional.
We’re going to have to take this discussion for what it is- your attempt to legitimize a lack of self-control. Let’s be honest about it.
Ultimately though, if God asked you to abstain from sex, would you be able to obey God?
That seems to be the real question here. Only when you can’t, or don’t want to obey, or find it inconvenient will you try so hard to come up with these fascinating assertions.
Take it from me- managing your sexual desires is empowering and satisfying. Initially, it’s difficult and leads to frustration. Your mind and body is literally detoxing itself from lustful thoughts and desires. You’re moving in a new direction and your mind and body are not used to it. But once you get over the initial hump, it’s easy. What happens is a counter-conditioning of your reflexes associated with sexual impulses. Give it a few weeks and you’ll feel great.
I feel better now than when I was sexually active, with another person or otherwise. And I thought I could never let go.
Bottom line is, you don’t have to give up. You don’t have to twist the Bible to rationalize your feelings. Just be honest with your difficulties to God. He will carry you through.
You won’t become a nonsexual being. You won’t turn into a robot. Your personality won’t change. You’ll just be more clear-headed and authentic as an individual.