Is Fornication Really a Sin?

197 replies to "Is Fornication Really a Sin?"

• John

  2013-01-08

  Ross: since (a) I only ever had one woman, and I’m 43, and (b), not being a Protestant, I’m not bound by bible alone, I don’t think this is really about me, my self control or lack thereof. The issue, for you as a Protestant, is that the bible teaches that sex and marriage are basically equivalent. Laura even pointed out that Jacob accidentally married the wrong woman by having sex with her. Now if you have any rebuttal based on the bible, lets hear it. If you want to only talk about my personal life, I think it’s because you don’t have an argument.

  Reply
• JB Chappell

  2013-01-08

  @Ross

  -“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.”-

  This much IS clear from scripture: you are not supposed to commit adultery. If that’s what you meant, great, but obviously that’s not what “monogamy” means.

  God did allow some leeway with marriage in the OT, mostly for practical reasons given the constraints of the time.

  Jesus makes it plain that the reason for the divorce laws in the OT was because of their stubbornness. Nowhere else is any indication given that sexuality was different in the OT because of “practical reasons”. This is yet another assumption.

  -“But this fails to justify premarital sex.”-

  Agreed. But you’re begging the question by assuming it needs justification.

  -“The stark omission of acceptable premarital sex…”-

  So on top of begging the question, we’re making arguments from silence now? Regardless, there is a good case to be made for sex before marriage being mentioned in an acceptable manner in the Bible. More on that later.

  -“…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.”-

  I’m not entirely sure what you mean by “expected sociological outcomes” not being mentioned. But again, the fact that the Bible is silent on the issue is not good reason to think it is against it.

  Reply
• JB Chappell

  2013-01-09

  @Ross

  -“On the flipside, however, at least one of you appeals to a sort of selective hyper-skepticism.”-

  Given that you later refer to me by name, I’m concluding you have me in mind here? I’m honestly not sure why, so I could be wrong. If so, in what way am I a “hyper” skeptic?

  The fact that there is no good case to be made for what you’re claiming should be rather obvious when the OP refers to only 2 verses to try to build such a case, neither mentions the act explicitly, and one is later admitted by the author as being possible to be interpreted otherwise. The lone verse remaining is problematic as well, but unfortunately I was (apparently) not clear enough in my response on that.

  -“So what else besides the selective skepticism? JB I’m all ears. Convince me.”-

  Again, not sure where any skepticism I have is “selective”. Where is the double-standard?

  In any case, I have already said I’m not trying to build a case against chastity, or for pre-marital sex being “right” (everything is conditional). I am saying that the matter is unclear, and that the church has built a dogma around a shoddy scriptural foundation.

  “Marriage” in the Bible has no explicit definition, and if one simply looks at concrete examples for implicit guidelines, one finds that the idea is fairly flexible – unless you’re a woman. Polygamy is accepted. Concubines are OK (how is the use of concubines not considered “acceptable” forms of pre-marital sex in the OT?). Forcing a female POW to “marry” = acceptable. Ceremony is unnecessary.

  Likewise, there is no explicit description of “sanctioned sex acts”, only “non-sanctioned” sex acts. I find it interesting that you see it as notable that there is (allegedly) no mention of acceptable pre-marital sex, but you do not find it as notable that neither is there any mention of it as “unacceptable” – unless it is connected with some other sin (rape, incest, adultery, etc.).

  Reply
• JB Chappell

  2013-01-09

  @Ross

  Besides the rather commonplace mentioning of concubines without negative comment, there are at least two other stories that could easily be interpreted as (implicitly) endorsing certain instances of pre-marital sex.

  Consider the story of Ruth. Naomi encourages Ruth to “adorn herself” and approach Boaz at night (!). Ruth does this, and ends up “uncovering his feet”, which pretty much everyone agrees is a euphemism for something far more intimate. After this, Boaz goes to town to find out whether he can marry her.

  The Song of Solomon… well, where to begin. In the very first chapter their bed is discussed, which again pretty much anyone can tell you is a euphemism for something done in a bed (hint: not sleep). However, notice they don’t have a marriage ceremony until later, at the end of chapter 3.

  Now, neither of these passages contains a “And the Lord did grin” clause. Many are quick to note that mentioning something in the OT is not necessarily a positive endorsement. I would argue, however, that especially in Song of Solomon, the actions mentioned here are portrayed as very positive, or, in the case of Ruth, heroic.

  Again, note that I am not arguing one can build a clear-cut case either way. I would say that implicit examples are mixed, and that people too often read their own assumptions unto the text.

  Reply
• JB Chappell

  2013-01-10

  @Laura

  -“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”-

  But God did not command him to do so. The relationship ceased to be “monogamous” as soon as Abraham slept with Hagar (with Sarah’s approval!), and God never condemns this action – Sarah simply got jealous.

  -“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.”-

  No one here is arguing that it would be convenient to have multiple wives. That such an arrangement might present difficulties is obvious. That we would not consider it ideal is much different than saying it is morally wrong, however.

  I just rather believe, that God meant people to be monogamous for their own good.

  It is possible that He did. If He did, however, He could have been more clear about it. But, again, we have to be careful about casting our own cultural biases upon others. I can imagine people in other cultural contexts being repulsed by the notion of monogamy, and thinking God intended for it to be otherwise “for our own good”.

  You use the example of Joseph as highlighting something wrong with the multiple wives family dynamic, yet we see family tensions with Jacob & Esau with only one mother/wife. Family tensions can exist anywhere. Again, when you read that story and interpret the fallout as being the result of polygamy probably says more about you than it does about them.

  Reply
• JB Chappell

  2013-01-10

  @Laura

  -“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.”-

  And you have every right to feel this way. So long as you’re up front with a man about this, and he feels the same way, I imagine that the stage is set for a wonderful relationship.

  -“But I also know, that my opinion doesn’t really matter here. It’s just my opinion.”-

  You’re opinion is important – for you. But, again, what we’re discussing is whether it is *morally wrong* to engage in premarital sex. That you have certain preferences, or even heartfelt convictions, is perfectly fine. But the church as a whole has gone much farther than that. That people engage in premarital relations is seen by many (at least here in the US) as the downfall of western civilization, as if it hasn’t been occurring for millenia already.

  You reference 1 Tim 3:2 and 12 and other verses
  -“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;”-

  -“Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.”-

  As John pointed out, these standards are obviously selected for *leaders* within the church. Does it not seem obvious to you that if there are these requirements for the leaders, that this is an implicit acknowledgment that there are others in the laity that are polygamous. Is it not significant that this isn’t condemned?

  One could make the argument that if these standards exist for the leaders, then this is obviously the more “ideal” scenario. That is certainly possible. It is also possible that it was considered a man with multiple wives to have too many distractions for leadership. More likely, however, is that because the Romans frowned upon polygamy, they didn’t want leaders who would attract negative attention.

  Reply
• Ross

  2013-01-12

  @John

  You seem to think oblique references to consummation and the marriage contract serve as ironclad evidence that “sex is marriage”.

  This kind of reasoning is not rigorous. Many contemporary views of marriage similarly hold to consummation as defining a marriage. In these perspectives, consummation is a necessary, not a sufficient condition for defining a marriage. This is the critical difference between your claims and the Biblical position.

  There’s a reason you don’t see a social trend in the Biblical text whereby people coerce their loves into sex in order to enforce a marriage contract upon them.

  Your entire claim falls apart when you ask yourself why Jacob had to deal with Laban to marry his daughters when he could have just taken Rachel to bed.

  Sorry John. Your argument sounds like an exegetical hatchet job. You shouldn’t be arguing for it.

  Reply
• John

  2013-01-12

  @Ross – that’s fine. My main objective was to force you into justifying your own position, from the bible. You are yet to do that, but you moved one step closer in expressing some vague dissatisfaction with what I said. I await your much more rigorous proof of what marriage is, from the bible.

  As for why Jacab had to deal with Laban, I hope your response is better than the guess work you ask me to indulge in. After all, there’s a difference between common courtesy and the local culture as far as that, and what constitutes marriage.

  Reply
• Ross

  2013-01-12

  JB Chappell,

  An argument from silence works both ways.

  That being said, we can certainly make the case that if premarital sex were acceptable in the Bible, we would certainly not see any silence on it. Premarital sex leaves such a prevalent and pervasive mark on culture, with such pervasive outcomes that it would be impossible for the Bible to be silent on it if it were true. In fact I have a hunch you could make a Bayesian argument for this if you were sufficiently motivated to.

  So yes we can make an argument from silence here.

  Your reference to Ruth’s marriage just goes to show you have done no real research on the subject. Ruth’s marriage to Boaz was of a type codified by the culture of the time as a Levirate marriage, not a mere “I walked up to someone and voila we’re married.” Would this be a good time to insert the (!), or does your improper reading into the text deserve no mention in this case?

  Keep in mind, most if not all these arguments that try and weaken the definition of marriage and a prohibition of sex outside of marriage do so by misusing sociological and cultural factors of the day.

  I suppose I’m just left wondering why these arguments are so prevalent in the first place.

  Reply
• Ross

  2013-01-12

  JB, some added food for thought:

  Despite your interpretation of Ruth laying at Boaz’ feet, Ruth 4:13 makes mention of the actual start of their marriage.

  Reply
• JB Chappell

  2013-01-12

  @Ross

  -“Premarital sex leaves such a prevalent and pervasive mark on culture, with such pervasive outcomes that it would be impossible for the Bible to be silent on it if it were true.”-

  I’m not sure how this could possibly be justified. There are many morally acceptable actions that the Bible is silent on. I would think it is far easier to justify the assertion that it is impossible for the Bible to explicitly address all moral actions, positive or negative, than it would be to justify any notion that it is impossible for the Bible NOT to address one. There are many moral actions that are *now* considered to have “pervasive outcomes” that are not addressed in the Bible. That they were not *then* considered as such is why they were not addressed. You are, again, begging the question in that you assume Biblical authors felt as strongly about this as you do.

  -“So yes we can make an argument from silence here.”-

  One can make an argument of silence if it is thought that something could easily be considered to have been mentioned, but wasn’t. The problem, as you already stated, is that it works both ways. It would be just as easy to make an argument for the permissibility of pre-marital sex based on silence. After all, folks tend not to rant against things they have no issue with.

  Reply
• JB Chappell

  2013-01-12

  @Ross

  -“Your reference to Ruth’s marriage just goes to show you have done no real research on the subject.”-

  Excuse me? Ignoring the presumption here for a moment, would you kindly explain where I referenced Ruth & Boaz’s “marriage”?

  -“Ruth’s marriage to Boaz was of a type codified by the culture of the time as a Levirate marriage…-”

  Right, which you later mentioned was arranged in 4:13. Problem (if you want to consider it such) is, in Ruth 3 some rather interesting things go down:

  – Naomi tells Ruth to seduce Boaz
  – Ruth uncovers Boaz’s “feet” (euphemism for genitals)
  – Ruth asks Boaz to spread his garment over her as well.
  – Boaz tells Ruth that she has done him a great “kindness”

  Now, you can try to claim that a naked man lying next to a women clearly trying to seduce him might not have actually done the deed, I suppose. I have heard it said that Ruth was merely trying to trick Boaz into thinking he had sex with her. I’m not sure the distinction here is that important. The bottom line here is that all of this appears to be portrayed in a positive light.

  So, either Ruth & Boaz were “married” the night in the threshing fields, or they were married later and appear to be “guilty” of some rather intimate behavior before then. Either way, this does not help your case.

  -“Keep in mind, most if not all these arguments that try and weaken the definition of marriage and a prohibition of sex outside of marriage do so by misusing sociological and cultural factors of the day.”-

  You’ll have to elaborate on this; it’s unclear how the “sociological and cultural factors” are 1) misused, and/or 2) significantly different than our own (with respect to sex before marriage).

  Reply
• John K

  2013-01-28

  I’m entering the fray late, so here goes:
  1. The command about lusting is not just to married males. It is to unmarried males as well. You don’t have to be married to commit adultery; an unmarried person commits adultery when they commit adultery with an unmarried person. So Jesus was not just addressing married males but unmarried males as well.
  2. If the OT says that marriage happened once a couple went to bed, were Judah and Tamar married because they had sex once? If so, he was a very bad husband because he never had sex with her again (or she was a bad wife).
  3. If the Deut 22 passage refers to consensual sex, why is it considered wrong and the male penalized? After all, if by virtue of having sex, they were married, why should there be a penalty? Unless, of course, they weren’t actually married by having sex. Or perhaps they only were married unless they weren’t betrothed, or the man didn’t want to stay with the wife. But those are pretty big exceptions which might disprove the “rule”
  4. If its only OK to have sex with your future spouse, but not OK to be promiscuous, then having a wedding ceremony with vows as a hard and fast absolute rule is a great practical thing, since even engagements get broken, and a lot of men (and some women) lie to get in bed, or break their promises easily. And I’m not even referring to the possibility of death.

  Reply
• John K

  2013-01-28

  And as far as the issue of “fornication” and “sexual immorality” is concerned, whether it means unmarried sex, in I Corinthians 6, Paul asks rhetorically whether the Corinthians should join the body of Christ to a harlot? Of course, the answer is no. If unmarried sex is not actually wrong, then what’s wrong with having unmarried sex with an unmarried harlot? But Paul does not make any distinction here. All sex with a harlot is wrong, including an unmarried man having sex with an unmarried harlot. And so this is an example of the Bible condemning unmarried sex as part of a blanket condemnation of sex with a harlot. BTW, I said “an unmarried person commits adultery when they commit adultery with a married person.” I meant to say “when they have sex with a married person.”

  Reply
• John K

  2013-01-28

  One more thing now. The argument advanced that the wife is an exception to the “everyone” in “everyone who lusts for a woman” in Matthew 5 does not work. It is not possible to “lust” for your wife in the Matthew 5 sense. I believe the def that the blogger put out about lust or covet is “an insatiable desire for something you cannot have.” Another way that lust can be defined is as an “evil” desire. It is not an evil desire to sexually desire your wife, and your wife is not something you “cannot have”. So “lusting” for your wife is not an exception to “everyone” as it is not possible to “lust” for your wife in the Matthew 5 sense.

  Reply
• John

  2013-01-28

  John K: ” an unmarried person commits adultery when they commit adultery with an unmarried person”

  That’s not my understanding of the definition of “adultery”. But I’m happy to hear an actual argument for it, should you have one.

  “If the OT says that marriage happened once a couple went to bed, were Judah and Tamar married because they had sex once?”

  But Tamar was playing the harlot. This seems to be a case of unsanctioned relations rather than sanctioned, surely? If you want to make an argument from an OT narrative, surely it has to be one that plausibly is sanctioned.

  ” If the Deut 22 passage refers to consensual sex, why is it considered wrong and the male penalized? ”

  Which verse and penalty are we talking about? Are we talking v28 and the 50 shekels? Is it a “penalty” or is it a dowry?

  “having a wedding ceremony with vows as a hard and fast absolute rule is a great practical thing, since even engagements get broken, and a lot of men (and some women) lie to get in bed, or break their promises easily”

  That’s true. But a lot of people lie to get married and lie when they are married. One could argue that at least then when you are abandoned you don’t have the legal destruction of your life added to the emotional one.

  “If unmarried sex is not actually wrong, then what’s wrong with having unmarried sex with an unmarried harlot?”

  I think we are all capable of distinguishing a harlot from other scenarios. The bible draws such a distinction, so the “what’s wrong?” question is really moot. I could give you some plausible answers, but it’s unnecessary. Extending the harlot case to non-harlot case would be like extending it also to the married case, which would be absurd.

  “It is not possible to “lust” for your wife in the Matthew 5 sense…. your wife is not something you “cannot have” ”

  Neither, most likely is your girlfriend something you “cannot have”. So, all Mt 5 applies to is violating someone else’s, or…

  Reply
• John

  2013-01-28

  … your marriage.

  Someone should really fix the character limit on this site.

  Reply
• JB Chappell

  2013-01-29

  @John K
  -“…an unmarried person commits adultery when they commit adultery with an married person.”-

  (I edited this to reflect what you meant). This would still be incorrect, as only the married person would be the one committing adultery. That doesn’t mean that the unmarried person isn’t “fornicating” of course. Only that they mean different things. Adultery is when a married person cheats on their spouse, period. This is isn’t denying that there are other forms of sexual immorality. Thus, the context of “adultery” is that Jesus is addressing married men (although we’d assume the concept applies to women as well), although his utilization of the word lust/covet could easily be seen to extend it to folks who want something that belongs to someone else, as in your example above. It is a far more strained interpretation to think that this extends to everyone with a sexual attraction to someone, which is how this is most often interpreted.

  John responds well to your Judah & Tamar and 1 Cor. 6 examples. Prostitution is never OK, and comparing other examples to such reveals quite a bit about the assumptions your bringing to the table. I’d also echo what he said in that it isn’t clear what you’re referencing by simply “Deut 22”.

  -“If its only OK to have sex with your future spouse, but not OK to be promiscuous, then having a wedding ceremony with vows as a hard and fast absolute rule is a great practical thing, since even engagements get broken…”-

  First of all, with possible rare exceptions, having absolute rules are never “a great practical thing”. Morality is always conditional, and absolute rules ignore conditions. Second, no one is arguing that weddings are bad, that waiting until your wedding night is bad, or that either are “impractical”. Lastly, if it is promiscuity that is forbidden, then of course there would be no reason to worry about an engagement that were to end on good terms, death, etc.

  Reply
• Shell

  2013-03-01

  I have found this in 1 Corinthians 7….can you explain what it means? 36 If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly towards his betrothed,[i] if his[j] passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry—it is no sin. 37 But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well. 38 So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better.
  —————————————————————-
  Betrothed means virgin (Greek)
  We study so much of the GREEK side of things, when we should be studying the Hebraic side, they were Hebrew and Hebrew was their tongue.

  Thank You

  Reply
• JB Chappell

  2013-03-08

  Shell, there are a number of ways to translate this passage. Some decent synopses can here:

  http://lukeplant.me.uk/blog/posts/1-corinthians-7-36-38-marry-or-give-in-marriage/

  http://www.tyndalehouse.com/tynbul/library/TynBull_1998_49_1_05_Winter_1Cor7_Puberty.pdf

  Basically, what is being referred to is the phenomenon of arranged marriage. Its confusing, as some aspects of the verses seem to refer to a father giving/keeping his daughter, but others seem to refer to an amorous couple. Regardless, the end result is that Paul is saying that it is neither a sin to marry or not to marry.

  I think the traditional view here would be that Paul is telling the Corinthians to let the couple marry, because otherwise they will sin by fornicating. I think it needs to be emphasized that this not clear at all, and that actually the [alleged] “improper” behavior referenced in v36 could very well have been pre-marital sex. So, the question is when, later on, Paul says “it has to be” or “its bound to happen” (as one of the documents above say it should be translated), the question is what is “it”? It’s not entirely clear. It could be that Paul is referring to consummation of passions yet to actually fulfilled, a pregnancy that is bound to occur, but it could also be that he is referring to a marriage that would take place with or without the approval of the church. Who really knows? Only Paul and the Corinthians, at this point.

  In any case, the most important point of the whole chapter (IMHO) is v27: “concerning the betrothed/virgins, I have no command of the Lord…” He says he speaks as someone who is trustworthy, not infallible – which is more obvious when He indicates the Lord’s return is so imminent that people shouldn’t even act like they have a spouse. Yikes.

  Reply
• Teresa Rincon

  2013-04-30

  “Here Paul tells all unmarried people that if they cannot control their sexual desires, they need to get married.”

  What would be the biblical solution to someone who experiences sexual desire but is incapable of marrying, either due to physical/mental disability or other problems?

  Reply
• Woman who claims to be a Christian denounces premarital chastity | Wintery Knight

  2013-08-07

  […] let’s take a quick look at what the Bible says about chastity and premarital […]

  Reply
• pilar opo

  2013-08-18

  is kissing a sin?

  Reply
• chi

  2013-10-25

  just passing through. I have read what you all have to say about the matter and I must confess that I am more confused now than I was before reading your posts. is it right to say that each person would be judged based on what he perceives as wrong or right as it appears each person has his own interpretation of what is read in the bible. well, I’d keep reading up on your posts, but for now I’m curious to know the answer you’d have to ‘pilar opo’s’ question.

  Reply
• JB Chappell

  2013-11-12

  Chi,

  James 4:17 “So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.”

  So, yes, it is correct to say that we would be judged not only on what is *actually* right and wrong, but also according to our own consciences – what we *thought* was right and wrong.

  Reply
• John

  2013-11-12

  “So, yes, it is correct to say that we would be judged not only on what is *actually* right and wrong, but also according to our own consciences – what we *thought* was right and wrong.”

  So if we think its right to slaughter innocents, but we don’t do it, then we are judged for it? I don’t think that’s what it’s saying.

  Reply
• JB Chappell

  2013-11-12

  @John

  Probably the better passage to reference would have been this:

  Romans 14:14 “I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean.”

  Of course, the specific context here is food offered to idols, but the principle seems easily extended, as the Epistle of James seems to indicate. If you think something is right, but don’t do it, then it is wrong. The same principle seems to be expressed inversely in Romans: if you think something is wrong, then it is (if you do it).

  Reply
• chi

  2013-11-12

  @john, if you don’t agree with Jb Chappell, may I please have your own interpretation.

  Reply
• chi

  2013-11-12

  @ john, if you dont agree with JB Chappell, may I please have your own interpretation

  Reply
• John

  2013-11-13

  I would have thought the “know” of James 4:17 means true knowledge rather than mistaken knowledge. But I guess it’s a matter of interpretation.

  Reply
• JB Chappell

  2013-11-13

  @John

  I think that is a possible interpretation. One complicating factor is that the context isn’t as clear to me in James, as it is in Romans (which is why I should have used Romans first). The statement in question (at least in English) seems somewhat disconnected from what precedes it and from what follows it. However, here are a few factors that might sway you in favor of interpreting it the way I do:

  1. It seems unlikely to me that James (or whoever) was thinking in terms of formal epistemology. Admittedly, this runs the risk of under-estimating the author who apparently (I’m not familiar with Greek) wrote in cultured Greek. But I just don’t see any clues which would indicate thinking that formally/philosophically.

  2. If you use the hermeneutic of using clearer scripture to inform less-clear scripture, then the passage in Romans would seem to shed some light on the one in James. However, this is problematic as well, as it certainly seems as if the authors might have had a few disagreements.

  3. Ultimately, James seems to emphasize a pretty strict moral code. It seems more likely to me, then, that James would see a violation of conscience – even if one’s conscience were incorrect – as sinful.

  Not necessarily a slam-dunk case, I grant you. But I’d be curious what you think, especially in light of the Romans passage as well.

  Reply
• Rachel

  2013-11-15

  “Do unto others and you would have done unto you” is the correct verse. Should you risk someone’s life and emotional health for a few seconds of pleasure? No. Since sex involves serious risks (disease and possible death from childbirth for the woman – even today) it should not be done outside the protection of a monogamous marriage covenant. This covenant protects from disease and provides means to care for the children should pregnancy occur.

  Reply
  • BradyR

    2014-08-03

    Rachel, real life just doesn’t work like that. And this is what we are talking about, real life. We are not talking about the way we wish things were. Marriage doesn’t protect people from disease or provide for children. That is just not something we are promised, and has not been effective for many people. Birth control and education is the only proven method that prevents disease and children born into poverty. Most people who are successful at abstinence marry too early. Early marriage has an extremely high rate of divorce, and I’m not sure how relationships that end in divorce are any better than relationships where couples just live together or have premarital sexual relations. Suppressing a biological urge, like sex, causes people to make horrible decisions in regards to marriage, because they end up marrying to satisfy their urges, and not for rational reasons. As for emotional trauma, please google “evangelical purity culture.” You will find endless stories of mostly women, but also men who were seriously emotionally harmed by these aggressive abstinence teachings. That is real emotional trauma that causes sexual dysfunction that follows them right into, and damages their marriage, which leads to more divorce. That is not okay, the ends do not justify the means when it causes unhealthy attitudes about sexuality. We know from endless studies that people who wait until they are older (late twenties) to marry are more financially stable, and make better decisions regarding a spouse, and their marriages are more likely to last. We also know that these people are rarely virgins. All of the things you mentioned, disease and pregnancy, can easily be managed with a very high success rate, all without marriage or abstinence.

    Reply
• JB Chappell

  2013-11-15

  Rachel, can you explain how the covenant of marriage protects someone from possibly dying during childbirth? I agree that sex involves risks, but your golden rule application here just means that if both parties are willing to accept those risks, then they aren’t violating the golden rule. Yet, I’m pretty sure you’d still claim that it is wrong (correct me if I’m mistaken). It is also true that if everyone waited until marriage, that would significantly reduce the risk of STD’s. But, of course, the question here then is: what is the acceptable risk threshold? Avoiding marriage and sex altogether reduces the risk to zero, yet I’m sure you’d agree that isn’t an obligation.

  Reply
  • Rachel

    2014-07-31

    A monogamous marriage covenant does not protect anyone from dying, but in it, both parties are agreeing to risk death for each others well being. The man is love his wife as Christ loved the church, ie sacrifice himself for her. (see Eph 5:25) Childbirth is when the wife makes this offering of herself as well. It isn’t about risk it is about equality of relationship. In premarital sex the woman is committing her very life and the man is committing nothing since he has made no life commitment to her. A man shouldn’t expect a woman to offer her life to him if he’s not willing to do the same to her. When two people do that it is called marriage. That is why multiple spouses were never the ideal, you can’t die for one wife without abandoning the others.

    Reply
    • JB Chappell

      2014-08-03

      Rachel, I think it’s really strained to claim that childbirth is a sacrificial act the wife makes for her *husband’s* well-being. It is true that, in pre-marital sex, the woman assumes a risk that the man does not. Of course, this is the case any time a man and a woman have sex. What you’re trying to claim is that marriage insulates the woman from at least some of this risk. So, again, your argument really does boil down to what level of risk you’re willing to accept. Again, however, if the goal is merely risk reduction, then no sex is the way to go – but no one is arguing that is the ideal.

      I am not going dispute that marriage is a good thing, that it lessens the risk involved. Given divorce nowadays, I think that is easily contested, but I am willing to grant it for the sake of argument. What is lacking here is a justification for why assuming extra risk is *morally wrong*. I think a key statement you make is found here:

      “A man shouldn’t expect a woman to offer her life to him if he’s not willing to do the same to her.”

      Again, I think it is inaccurate that a woman is offering her life *to a man* in pregnancy/childbirth, but your claim is conditional: IF he’s not willing to reciprocate. There are plenty of pre-marital sexual relationships occurring where a man would help raise a child if pregnancy occurrs, or even lay down his life in defense of the woman. My guess is you’d still claim that those relationships are immoral.

      Regardless, your claim works inversely as well. Perhaps it is the case that the man is not willing to do those things. In that case, he should not expect the woman to make such a sacrifice. Fine – that is why birth control exists. It isn’t 100% effective, but it has a much higher success rate than marriage.
• BradyR

  2014-01-15

  I did not read all of these comments, but I got as far as a few men arguing about whether or not women being stoned on their wedding night is proof that men having premarital sex is a sin. First, the whole scripture on this issue is cruel and illogical. Bloody sheets on a wedding night is not proof of virginity. It is only in the mind of an ignorant person that it seems logical that a young girl barely out of puberty would have gone around ‘playing a whore’ with permission of her father. Many murders were committed by this scripture because of ignorance of the female anatomy. Second, these laws only applied to Jewish women, not all women. We often forget that the OT was not written for all ancient people, but for the Jewish people. They did not go around stoning prostutites from other cultures. Jewish men did take liberty to engage in sex with prostitutes, Judah and Tamar is an example. Judah was going to stone Tamar for playing a harlot, but nobody was coming to stone Judah, even though he didn’t hide the fact he had been with a prostitute. The laws about premarital sex in the bible is about property ownership. That is why a man who has sex with a virgin must pay her father, because the man is paying for property he has damaged. It is the same reason we place so much pressure on females to remain virgins by equating their virginity to their very worth. We do not come close to putting the same pressure on young men. Sure, we mention in passing that they shouldn’t have sex until marriage, but the issue is not stressed in the same way. I can’t believe Christians can’t resolve this issue without refering to women as chattel. We have to come to terms the reality of our society. If young teens get married it will end in divorce. If young girls marry older men in arranged marriage that is abuse. If both parties wait to marry when they are at a mature age, they will most likely engage in premarital sex. Those are the only options we have. I choose option #3.

  Reply
• Brian Khanyile

  2014-03-29

  Let us not confuse an already confused matter. I am convinced about all ur comments, u knw wat u talkng abt. But I think we should 1st ask: what is marriage? 4 this see: Matthews 5:34 (isnt mere counter sayings of love b2wn 2 not enough 2 amount 2 a marriage (Wise man Solomon had 700 wives & 300 concubines)); what abt th use of “HUSBAND” 2 a Samaritan woman by the Lord? Do u notice dat where fornication features in the bible it tacitly refers 2 whoredom(Ezekiel 22-23); Note also Leviticus 18 (OT-Almighty God) and 1 Corinthians 7:25 (NT-The Master is silent on the matter)…space does not permit me to go further…

  Reply
• Kurt Cobain

  2014-04-25

  “…I did not do to well in the sex before marriage department…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.”

  So we are to take advice on the sinfulness of fornication from a promiscuous fornicator who bedded women he barely knew much less respected? Did you bother finding out the expectations of these women you bedded? Or did you slink away after “scoring”, never to contact them again?

  You may find it surprising, but many unmarried couples are capable of having intimate and rewarding relationships which are founded upon trust and mutual respect. Some of these relationships don’t last, but many are sealed with marriage for the sake of having children. To label such relationships as “sinful” is not only wrong, but obscene. Who are you, or anyone else, to judge those in such relationships? Don’t hide behind the rants in some ancient book, be honest: you are mining the Bible for passages that vindicate your judgement of others. Your hypocrisy is the icing on the cake. Saying you wouldn’t have done it if you could turn back the clock doesn’t wipe it away, nor does whining about feeling guilt. You enjoyed fornicating, but now that you’re married, it’s a sin which should not be enjoyed by anyone else. How clever and convenient of you.

  Reply
• Joseph

  2014-05-06

  Christ did not condemn lust. He condemned adultery, and the lusting after another person’s wife or for other women when you already had your own is what he was getting after here. Remember that he said “has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” If you’re unmarried, you’re not committing adultery. Did you lust for your wife before you were married?

  Reply
• John

  2014-05-15

  “Wise man Solomon had 700 wives & 300 concubines”

  Okay…. And now you’ve pointed this out, what is the biblical status of concubines?

  Reply
• D. John

  2014-06-05

  Ok, I see now it says awaiting moderation, but my first post does not even appear for that.

  Reply
• D. John

  2014-06-05

  Maybe my first post was too long. I’ll break it up and try again.

  Reply
• D. John

  2014-06-05

  I’m no longer convinced that the standard understanding of this matter is accurate and true. Of course, I guess that would mean that people have been wrong all these centuries, but that is certainly not impossible.

  Some background on me: male believer since early 1980’s, happened in college. Transferred more than once and graduated from one of the well known Christian colleges afterward. Did very well after some early turbulence during college, but no great accomplishments. Might have gone to seminary and had a different life if I had been more fully “sanctified” and spiritual, but it’s in the past. Very regrettable college major now, however. No grad school. Independent minded, critical thinker, but also strong believer not only in scriptural inspiration and inerrancy but also total “calvinistic” predestination. I suppose you could probably also call me a full “five point” calvinist, though I don’t dwell on those kinds of formal labels or concerns at all – merely think of myself as a Bible believing believer.

  Supposedly had a bright future when I was young, but was not meant to be I guess. Anyone who has been through similar things would understand. Have had a “perfect storm” of circumstances and problems, especially various health problems, that have derailed everything. Average I.Q. higher than what I heard Einstein’s was, once tested in the 99.9%-tile. Yes was a member of Mensa. When I was younger people often did consider me to be a “genius,” but life has turned out rather extremely embarrassingly the opposite of what everyone self-included thought. People still often think of me more or less the same way despite my lackluster life. I often say I’ve had a “book of Job” kind of life, and am still living it now. (continued below)

  Reply
• D. John

  2014-06-05

  I don’t really want to mention all the “IQ” stuff in my last paragraph and normally I never talk about any of that, by the way, so hopefully nobody thinks it’s about anything like bragging, which would actually be pretty laughable now considering how my life has turned out. I wanted to mention it because I’m genuinely just looking for an answer to this issue and wanted to convey if possible the idea that I approach it very thoughtfully, and with a keen sense of investigation and so forth. And yes I’ve spent plenty of time on the “philosophy of religion” with regard to the “calvinism vs. arminianism” debate and such, by the way, so you can be sure there’s no simplistic thinking going on.

  Was once a really cute young fellow, girls definitely thought so and definitely verified that many times, but that’s in the past. I’m definitely not “marrigeable,” however. All these years since college have never been able to get married and have been living without intimacy of every kind, including sex. No pushing the envelope, either, but simply no physical contact at all – no kissing and everything else between that and “intercourse.” Only once I “compromised” a bit, but not “all the way” and that’s it during all these years. As you might imagine, um, difficult to even convey in words what that has been and is like, especially as you see more or less all your friends and acquaintances marrying away over the years, some from college married more than 20 years now.

  I’m no Greek and Hebrew scholar either, though definitely not without some of the Lord’s gifts.

  I read the posts here down to a certain point, then rapidly scrolled down to the end. Some have already mentioned it here, including as late as post #137 just above, so addressing the Matthew 5 element of the authors argument is certainly on my mind. It happens that prior to doing the search that even led me to this blog post I had already thought of this many times. (continued below)

  Reply
• D. John

  2014-06-05

  It stopped letting me add the parts to my post. I’ll try again below.

  Reply
• D. John

  2014-06-05

  It’s not letting me add more, but there was much more to my post. Also the captcha is very hard to make out and I have to zoom it a lot.

  Reply
• D. John

  2014-06-05

  continued from 143: The standard or what I would describe as “politically correct” or “intellectually correct” understanding of the Matthew 5 passage is that it is a reference to all forms of “lust” or desire for sex with a woman. It’s continually taught as if it is “Gospel truth” and I used to be among those who accepted this idea as accurate and true. It’s become one of those unquestioned ideas that people don’t even think of questioning or thinking about. continued below

  Reply
• John

  2014-06-05

  I managed to get a number of posts in “awaiting moderation” status last night, but after a while was unable to add anything more. My main post had to be broken up into smaller parts but was unable to get all the parts in. I don’t know how often posts in moderation status are even checked here, and even with zooming the browser it was often almost impossible to make out the captchas just to try to post. Perhaps what I did get in will be approved and appear, however.

  Reply
• Gahigi

  2014-07-14

  I know this started in 2012 and I haven’t read all the comments but I would love for a couple issues to be addressed. Jesus says if you lust/covet after someone you’ve committed adultery. I’m not married but if I covet a man’s wife I’ve commited adultery. That makes sense. Jesus also says your righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees (maybe not exact words but at least implied). That’s scary. They kept a lot of rules that I could never keep. Thus whether in the OT or NT it seems we should give up trying to keep a bunch of rules and regulations.

  Also I always wanted a loophole as a kid but now that I know a few more things I’m not even sure I’d want to have premarital sex whether it’s right or not. Are we being too hard when we give people rules like this. If God has a problem with it then I think he has his own ways of getting His point across to someone engaging in this activity especially Christians.

  Reply
• Tan

  2014-07-20

  So in the Bible when it states those that commit fornication, adultery etc will NOT enter the kingdom of Heaven…. What is it really saying?!
  See also Heb 13:4, Eph 5:5 WHAT IS FORNICATION in these verses meaning?,

  Reply
• John

  2014-08-01

  “That is why multiple spouses were never the ideal, you can’t die for one wife without abandoning the others.”

  Where does the bible say that’s why multiple spouses were never ideal?

  For that matter, where does the bible even say multiple spouses were never ideal?

  Purely as a matter of logic, if you had to die for your one spouse, won’t that mean abandoning her, just exactly as if you had multiple spouses?

  Reply
• D. John

  2014-08-03

  @Gahigi, post #47: That verse has so often been used to refer to all forms of male to female desire, but how about just going by what it actually says? Clearly it is a reference to adultery. The explicit reference to adultery does not give anyone a license to make it say more. Also, though I’m not qualified, there may be word/language studies out there to show that the noun normally appearing as “woman” in English may be a greek word which is also normally supposed to refer to wife or a married woman.

  @Tan, post #48: This question seems to get phrased in ways which can unfortunately be confusing. The real question should be more like, “is any and all sex between a single man and a single woman before or outside of marriage the sin of fornication?”; or, another way, “is what is normally known as ‘fornication’ according to English vocabulary really and truly the sin which is known and translated into English as ‘fornication’ or ‘sexual immortality’ from the Bible?”

  So even if you accept that the term ‘fornication’ or ‘sexual immorality’ is the correct English term to refer to such sins, whatever they really are, the real question is whether sex outside of marriage really is ‘fornication’ or ‘sexual immorality’ at all according to the Bible. ‘Fornication’ itself may be the sin, but what is it? For more on this, check out this video on youtube: “What does fornication mean in the Bible; Latin Greek and Hebrew origin” (www(dot)youtube(dot)com / watch?v=UVAI2TTOcgM

  Reply