Premarital Sex

Debating issues regarding sexuality

Moderator: Moderators

Paradigm
Scholar
Posts: 446
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2011 7:36 pm

Premarital Sex

Post #1

Post by Paradigm »

According to Matt 7:12 It's not only ok, it is required by law that you do to your girlfriend whatever naughty things you would have her do to you.

The Greek word "pornea" has been translated in the New Testement quite accurately as "sexual immorality.". Since it is inarguably moral to obey Jesus, and He commanded that you do to your girlfriend whatever naughty things you would have her do to you, injunctions against sexual immorality obviously do not amount to an injunction against premarital sex.

If your argument is that "sexual immorality" means "any sex outside of marriage" please cite the passage that defines it as such.

Question for debate: Does the Bible prohibit premarital sex?
Last edited by Paradigm on Sun Aug 21, 2011 7:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 18068
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 430 times
Been thanked: 649 times
Contact:

Re: Premarital Sex

Post #11

Post by JehovahsWitness »

Paradigm wrote:Please show a passage that specifically prohibits premarital sex.

ALL SEX OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE - PUNISHABLE BY LAW
  • * If a couple had concensual sex (the woman being single), the man had to pay the girls father a penelty of 50 silver shekels ($110) in damages or they had to get married (Ex 22:16, 17)

    *If a man has sex with a single woman (against her consent , ie rape) the same penelty applied (Deut 22: 28, 29).

    *If an engaged girl had (consensual) sex before she was married with someone not her fiancé , she and the guilty man were to be put to death. (De 22:23, 24)

    *If a man had sex with a engaged woman against her consent (rape) he alone was to be put to death. (De 22:25). ¤ the woman screaming was taken as evidence the sex was non-con-sensual.

    * If it could be proved a single woman had had sex before she was wed she would be stoned to death (Deut 22:20, 21)

    *Adultery (sex with someone other than your marriage partner) carried the death penelty . (De 22:22-24; Ex 20:14)

    * All prostitution was outlawed Lev 19: 29
CONCLUSION: No sexual intercourse outside of marriage (or engagement) was viewed as legal under the mosaic law and all such acts were punishable (although not necessarily with death). Thus although the penelties were lifted for Christians, FORNICATION as expressed in all of the above "unlawful" (illicit) acts, remained something prohibited under the new Christian arrangement




RELATED POSTS
Can the expression "spare for yourselfs" be understood to be a euphemism for "have sex with"?
viewtopic.php?p=814434#p814434

did the Mosaic law support sex slavery?
viewtopic.php?p=815539#p815539

Did the Mosaic Law prohibit sex outside of marriage?
viewtopic.php?p=404057#p404057

What future could a young captive girl expect?
viewtopic.php?p=815772#p815772
To learn more please go to other posts related to...

WOMEN, SLAVERY and ...WAR CAPTIVES
Last edited by JehovahsWitness on Wed Mar 30, 2022 7:26 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Paradigm
Scholar
Posts: 446
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2011 7:36 pm

Re: Premarital Sex

Post #12

Post by Paradigm »

Angel wrote:
My view is not odd if you factor in other verses that have to do with the subject of the Law. For instance, Romans 3:31, Romans 6:15, Romans 3:20, and Romans 7:7-8. These passages cumulatively explain that the Law is not void, and that we are not to sin. But then you have to ask yourself what is a 'sin' to begin with and Romans 3:20 along with Romans 7:7-8 explain that the Law is the knowledge of sin. So while a Christian may not offer burnt offerings to God but they are still not to commit adultery.
Adultery was prohibited by Jesus, and clearly aligns with the Matt 7:12, the Golden Maxim that sums up all law.

This is how you can tell if something is against moral law or not. You can fit it naturally into this sentence:

"You wouldn't want X to Y you, so don't Y X."

In which X is a person and Y is an action.

For example, in the case of adultery, "You wouldn't want [your spouse] to [cheat on] you, so don't [cheat on] [your spouse].

Or with murder "You wouldn't want [your co-worker] to [murder] you, so don't [murder] [your co-worker].

You can use this with theft, false testimony, covetousness, dishonoring mom and dad, etc... Now try fitting premarital sex naturally in there.
I disagree and you're presupposing that all of Exodus chapter 22 has to do with property rights and I've shown it doesn't. Exodus 22:16 also talks about sex with a virgin and marriage.
No, I am observing that every item in Exodus 22:1-16 shares an identical pattern of identifying an action that causes a loss of some monetary asset, and prescribes some kind of tangible economic restitution to recompense the loss. Verse 16 follows this pattern to a tea, just as the 15 before it did. Exodus 22:17 is the first verse not to follow this pattern, so Exodus 22:17 is naturally the beginning of a new thought. Exodus 22:1-16 are all about property rights and restitution.
I put a distinction between what the Bible says which is what this thread is centered on compared to how our cultural customs are today. Just because we don't apply some biblical standard today does not mean it's no longer meant to be followed. I'm aware of the fact that in many Western Countries, there aren't any bride prices and perhaps that's not even a mandate if the woman lives outside her parent's house and/or there's no request for bride price.

If you sleep with your girlfriend and she has no intentions on marrying you then going by biblical standards should be would be a harlot or engaging in whoredom. She may not have a bride-price but at least the sexual aspect and marriage can be practically followed but it's just that you and your girl apparently don't care to follow it.
If she doesn't have a bride price, then a law requiring that a bride price be paid is entirely inapplicable. Trying to twist the law into some kind of onus to propose isn't biblical. The law says if I break it I bought it, and I must pay the full purchase price fo the damaged goods. Outside of a system in which women are property of men, the law is meaningless.
I don't see that it is a moral standard for a woman to marry only when her father gives her away.


That is because it isn't a moral standard. It is a cultural standard that is no longer applicable.
What happens if her father died which is something that could've happened in any culture and any time in history.


According to Exodus 22:16, nothing happens. If a girl is fatherless and on her own, then there is no one to pay a bride price to purchase her from. The guy has sex with her, and then continues the romance until its natural conclusion either in marriage or in separation.
As I mentioned before, just because we don't apply it in our culture does not determine if a law is still to be followed or not. We have legal gay marriage in some countries, but that doesn't mean that therefore God is okay with it or that his laws regarding same-sex sex acts aren't in effect now.
Ok, should Christians follow this law? It seems like it is a moral issue to me:

“If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free." Exodus 21:2-4
Israel is suppose to represent God's nation and people at that time as opposed to other nations. So when it happens in the midst of his people it would be equivalent to people in the church being promiscuous - they should know better and not live as people who aren't God's people. But nonetheless even to those outside of Israel and the body of believers or the church it is still a sin. God mentions in Deuteronomy to follow all of his laws and mentioned NOT following his laws as being a reason for the genoicde of the nations living in Canaan. If you want to argue that sexual morals in the OT only apply to the nation of Israel or Jews then you'd have to explain why the New Testament reinforces the idea of sexual morality in reference to the law (Romans 3:20 and Romans 7:7-8) and why is that given for BOTH Jews and Gentiles to follow once they become believers.
I will happily explain. The law is this: "In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you."

If you use people for your own sexual gratification instead of first seeking to gratify them, that is sexual immorality. Even if a married man uses his wife sexually for his own gratification instead of first concerning himself with her needs, it is still sexually immoral. When sexual activity is motivated by a desire to fulfill the sexual needs of others in the way that you would want them to fulfill your needs, then it is sexually moral.
Can you find me where in the Bible that there's sex not involving marriage or not leading up to a marriage, and to where God is okay with it?
Certainly. 2 Samuel 5:13:

"Meanwhile David took more concubines and wives from Jerusalem, after he came from Hebron; and more sons and daughters were born to David."


And while we are on the subject, God was not only ok with this next one, but according to His own Word, He in fact orchestrated it.

"Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun." - 2 Samuel 12:11

Reading comprehension quiz!

Who does the Bible say will raise up evil against David?

Who does the Bible say will take his wives before his eyes and give them to his neighbor so that he can lie with them in the sight o the sun?

Paradigm
Scholar
Posts: 446
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2011 7:36 pm

Re: Premarital Sex

Post #13

Post by Paradigm »

JehovahsWitness wrote:
  • * If a couple had concensual sex (the woman being single), the man had to pay the girls father a penelty of 50 silver shekels ($110) and they had to get married (Ex 22:16, 17)
First of all, the law did not require that they get married. The law allowed that the father might refuse to give the girl in marriage, and so long as the father still received his money, no law was broken.

Notably, it wasn't against the law for a man to have sex with an unbetrothed virgin, it was only against the law for him to not pay the bride-price.

No where does the law require that a man abstain from having sex with a virgin, the law only says that if you do have sex with a virign, you must pay the bride price. You may then keep the woman as your property unless the father objects, in which case you must still pay the bride-price.
*Adultery (sex with someone other than your marriage partner) carried the death penelty . (De 22:22-24; Ex 20:14)
Your definition of adultery contradicts your own previous 'logic'. If adultery is "sex with someone other than your marriage partner" then a man who has consensual sex with a virgin he is not married to is guilty of adultery and must be stoned to death. Why then would the law say that he must pay the bride-price and marry the girl if they both were going to be stoned to death anyway?

Obviously Exodus 22:16 was talking about something other than adultery. So adultery cannot be defined as having sex with someone you are not married to. The only Biblically consistent definition of adultery is "having sex with another man's wife."
CONCLUSION: No sexual intercourse outside of marriage (or engagement) was viewed as legal under the mosaic law and all such acts were punishable (although not necessarily with death).


Having sex with a virgin was legal so long as you paid the bride price to the father. Purchasing concubines and having sex with them even though you weren't married to them was permitted. 2 Samuel 5:13
Thus although the penelties were lifted for Christians, FORNICATION as expressed in all of the above "unlawful" (illicit) acts, remained something prohibited under the new Christian arrangement
Exodus 22:16 does not prohibit sex outside of marriage, it merely requires that sex outside of marriage with a virgin be accompanied with 50 silver sheckels.

Angel

Post #14

Post by Angel »

Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: My view is not odd if you factor in other verses that have to do with the subject of the Law. For instance, Romans 3:20 and Romans 7:7-8. These passages cumulatively explain that the Law is not void, and that we are not to sin. But then you have to ask yourself what is a 'sin' to begin with and Romans 3:20 along with Romans 7:7-8 explain that the Law is the knowledge of sin. So while a Christian may not offer burnt offerings to God but they are still not to commit adultery.
Adultery was prohibited by Jesus, and clearly aligns with the Matt 7:12, the Golden Maxim that sums up all law.

This is how you can tell if something is against moral law or not. You can fit it naturally into this sentence:

"You wouldn't want X to Y you, so don't Y X."

In which X is a person and Y is an action.

For example, in the case of adultery, "You wouldn't want [your spouse] to [cheat on] you, so don't [cheat on] [your spouse].

Or with murder "You wouldn't want [your co-worker] to [murder] you, so don't [murder] [your co-worker].

You can use this with theft, false testimony, covetousness, dishonoring mom and dad, etc... Now try fitting premarital sex naturally in there.
In Matthew 7:12, Jesus is assuming a moral character otherwise I shutter to think that he'd trust the judgement of some psychopath or a swinger. What Jesus said in Matthew 7:12 does not contradict Romans 3:20 and Romans 7:7-8. It still doesn't take away from the explicit statement that the LAW is the knowledge of sin or tells you what a sin is to begin with. And yes, adultery is unlawful and if you read the OT laws so would premarital sexual intercourse w/out the intentions to marry, as well.
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: I disagree and you're presupposing that all of Exodus chapter 22 has to do with property rights and I've shown it doesn't. Exodus 22:16 also talks about sex with a virgin and marriage.
No, I am observing that every item in Exodus 22:1-16 shares an identical pattern of identifying an action that causes a loss of some monetary asset, and prescribes some kind of tangible economic restitution to recompense the loss. Verse 16 follows this pattern to a tea, just as the 15 before it did. Exodus 22:17 is the first verse not to follow this pattern, so Exodus 22:17 is naturally the beginning of a new thought. Exodus 22:1-16 are all about property rights and restitution.
I'm still not convinced and I'll explain why. If all the laws are grouped together categorically then what does killing a sorcerer (Exodus 22:17) have to do with bestiality (Exodus 22:18). Both of these actions are in the same section that you're saying is categorically organized but yet they aren't categorically compatible with property rights or even with anything else since one is a sexual sin and the other perhaps is idolatry. I also don't see why couldn't sexual morals apply along with property rights, as well. Everyone at that time had to pay a bride price but the morals on sexuality would still be relevant (like adultery) and so would premarital sex. So perhaps it may be due to both property rights and morals involving sexuality.
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: I put a distinction between what the Bible says which is what this thread is centered on compared to how our cultural customs are today. Just because we don't apply some biblical standard today does not mean it's no longer meant to be followed. I'm aware of the fact that in many Western Countries, there aren't any bride prices and perhaps that's not even a mandate if the woman lives outside her parent's house and/or there's no request for bride price.

If you sleep with your girlfriend and she has no intentions on marrying you then going by biblical standards should be would be a harlot or engaging in whoredom. She may not have a bride-price but at least the sexual aspect and marriage can be practically followed but it's just that you and your girl apparently don't care to follow it.
If she doesn't have a bride price, then a law requiring that a bride price be paid is entirely inapplicable. Trying to twist the law into some kind of onus to propose isn't biblical. The law says if I break it I bought it, and I must pay the full purchase price fo the damaged goods. Outside of a system in which women are property of men, the law is meaningless.
No, not entirely. You just can't apply the law fully like if the girl is not living with her father or does not want or have a bride price, etc. However, I don't see why one couldn't apply the morals on sex, particularly not to engage in adultery and premarital sexual intercourse. Even the New Testament speaks about avoiding sexual immorality, and that's written for GENTILES as well, those outside of the Jewish culture. Sexual immorality would be all of the sex acts that God sees as being immoral, and how do you know what's moral from immoral? Romans 3:20 mentions the Law of God.
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: I don't see that it is a moral standard for a woman to marry only when her father gives her away.


That is because it isn't a moral standard. It is a cultural standard that is no longer applicable.
Moral standards aren't necessarily different from cultural standards. Cultures do have morals. I mentioned a father giving away his daughter to marry as not applying because it's not a moral standard for an adolescence or someone of an old enough age who can support themselves to remain under their father's care. So that creates the potential that a teenager or someone 16, 17, 18 years to leave the household before marriage.
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: What happens if her father died which is something that could've happened in any culture and any time in history.


According to Exodus 22:16, nothing happens. If a girl is fatherless and on her own, then there is no one to pay a bride price to purchase her from. The guy has sex with her, and then continues the romance until its natural conclusion either in marriage or in separation.
Well Exodus 22:16 does not say 'nothing' happens. The passage also mentions to marry the woman. While you can't give a bride price to a DEAD father but you can still MARRY the woman who's still alive.
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: As I mentioned before, just because we don't apply it in our culture does not determine if a law is still to be followed or not. We have legal gay marriage in some countries, but that doesn't mean that therefore God is okay with it or that his laws regarding same-sex sex acts aren't in effect now.
Ok, should Christians follow this law? It seems like it is a moral issue to me:

“If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free." Exodus 21:2-4
Well, by process of elimination if the ceremonial laws, dietary laws, and the penalties don't apply, then we have left laws that have to do with moral behavior. What you mentioned doesn't fit ceremonial, dietary, or punishments, so for now I'd say it is likely a law that applies today if someone owned slaves. The New Testament does mention about slave owning and it also talks about sexual immorality in general (but you can pick up the specifics in the Law - Romans 3:20).
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: Israel is suppose to represent God's nation and people at that time as opposed to other nations. So when it happens in the midst of his people it would be equivalent to people in the church being promiscuous - they should know better and not live as people who aren't God's people. But nonetheless even to those outside of Israel and the body of believers or the church it is still a sin. God mentions in Deuteronomy to follow all of his laws and mentioned NOT following his laws as being a reason for the genoicde of the nations living in Canaan. If you want to argue that sexual morals in the OT only apply to the nation of Israel or Jews then you'd have to explain why the New Testament reinforces the idea of sexual morality in reference to the law (Romans 3:20 and Romans 7:7-8) and why is that given for BOTH Jews and Gentiles to follow once they become believers.
I will happily explain. The law is this: "In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you."
Going by how you explained this verse would lead to moral relativism rather than morals based on the Law. Jesus is assuming that those he's addressing want to follow the laws of God. Otherwise, trying saying what you said to a swinger w/out being in conflict with the laws on adultery. I'll mention again, the NT mentions that the LAW is the knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20) and the NT mentions to not be sexually immoral. What is moral and immoral sex? Look to the law where you'll also find out about premarital sex.
Paradigm wrote: If you use people for your own sexual gratification instead of first seeking to gratify them, that is sexual immorality. Even if a married man uses his wife sexually for his own gratification instead of first concerning himself with her needs, it is still sexually immoral. When sexual activity is motivated by a desire to fulfill the sexual needs of others in the way that you would want them to fulfill your needs, then it is sexually moral.
I don't see how what you said goes with biblical morals.
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: Can you find me where in the Bible that there's sex not involving marriage or not leading up to a marriage, and to where God is okay with it?
Certainly. 2 Samuel 5:13:

"Meanwhile David took more concubines and wives from Jerusalem, after he came from Hebron; and more sons and daughters were born to David."
Concubines still belong to the man and his only so in effect it is a marriage, although an informal one - was common with those of high rank and who engaged in polygamy. Here are some references for my statement:
Look at Deuteronomy 22:23-24 where an 'unmarried' woman still in effect has the status of being a wife. The betrothed woman in Deut. 22:23 is referred to a wife in Deut. 22:24.

For more on concubines you can also refer to this short article on concubines in ancient Israel..Pilegesh

Even modern English language dictionaries factor this in:
Concubine: (among polygamous peoples) a secondary wife, usually of inferior rank.

I provide more reasons further down.
Paradigm wrote: And while we are on the subject, God was not only ok with this next one, but according to His own Word, He in fact orchestrated it.
Concubines have the status of being a wife, as well. They're just not formally known as one.
Paradigm wrote: And while we are on the subject, God was not only ok with this next one, but according to His own Word, He in fact orchestrated it.

"Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun." - 2 Samuel 12:11

Reading comprehension quiz!

Who does the Bible say will raise up evil against David?

Who does the Bible say will take his wives before his eyes and give them to his neighbor so that he can lie with them in the sight o the sun?
Your 1st question:
Evil has more than one meaning and it can also mean calamity and that's in a non-moral sense. And God allowed other nations to give King David trouble, like the Phillistines who also stole the Ark. And that calamity or evil seems to be in response to King David's lust for a MARRIED woman (2 Samuel 11) which is adultery and the subsequent conspiring to have her husband killed so he could take the woman to be his wife.

Your 2nd question:
Ironically, what's mentioned in 2 Samuel 12:11 plays out in 2 Samuel 16:20-23. Notice also that 2 Samuel 12:11 refers to David's wives while 2 Samuel 16:20-23 mentions CONCUBINES which further supports my point that concubines were wives, although in an informal sense. 2 Samuel 16:20-23 clearly mentions Absalom sleeping with his father's (Absalom's father is David) wives or concubines in daylight for all to see.

Paradigm
Scholar
Posts: 446
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2011 7:36 pm

Post #15

Post by Paradigm »

In Matthew 7:12, Jesus is assuming a moral character otherwise I shutter to think that he'd trust the judgement of some psychopath or a swinger.


The Golden Maxim is self-correcting, in that it must be applied to others in the manner that you would want it applied to yourself. If you would want the rule applied to you in a way that is considerate of your boundaries/needs/wishes, then you must apply the rule in way that is considerate of others boundaries/needs/wishes.

For example, if a psychopath wants to be raped by someone, it isn't an excuse for them to rape someone, because in the application of the rule, they must consider that the other person does not want to be raped, and thus applying the rule without consideration to their wants contradicts the rule, since the psychopath would want it to be applied with consideration to their wants.

What Jesus said in Matthew 7:12 does not contradict Romans 3:20 and Romans 7:7-8. It still doesn't take away from the explicit statement that the LAW is the knowledge of sin or tells you what a sin is to begin with.


No it doesn't contradict Romans 3:31 or 6:15, it confirms them.

According to Jesus, they law is defined as "In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you."

According to Romans 3:31, doing to others as you would have them do to you is not made void through faith, on the contrary, it is established through faith.

According to Romans 6:15 being under grace instead of under law is no reason to stop tratin people as you want to be treated.
And yes, adultery is unlawful and if you read the OT laws so would premarital sexual intercourse w/out the intentions to marry, as well.
No, if you read the OT laws, it is entirely lawful to have sex with a virgin whose father you know will not give her to you, so long as you pay him the bride price. No intention to marry is required.

On the other hand, there are some things that the OT law requires:

If you read the OT laws, it is also a sin to menstruate, and requires a sin offering. - Leviticus 15:29-30

If you read the OT laws, it is also a sin not to wear tassels on the corners of your clothes Deut 22:12

It is also a sin to wear cotton/polyester shirts. Lev 19:19

Where can it be shown that these laws no longer apply?
No, not entirely. You just can't apply the law fully like if the girl is not living with her father or does not want or have a bride price, etc. However, I don't see why one couldn't apply the morals on sex, particularly not to engage in adultery and premarital sexual intercourse. Even the New Testament speaks about avoiding sexual immorality, and that's written for GENTILES as well, those outside of the Jewish culture. Sexual immorality would be all of the sex acts that God sees as being immoral, and how do you know what's moral from immoral? Romans 3:20 mentions the Law of God.
It isn't about morals, aside from the moral obligation to provide restitution to someone whose assets you have depleted. If it were about marriage, there would be no caveat requiring that the marriage be allowed by the father. It would just say, "A man who has sex with an unmarried woman must marry her. He must also pay her father any applicable bride-price."

We find that the reverse is true. The bride price is the mandatory part of the law, not the marriage. The marriage can be avoided, but restitution must still be made.
Moral standards aren't necessarily different from cultural standards. Cultures do have morals. I mentioned a father giving away his daughter to marry as not applying because it's not a moral standard for an adolescence or someone of an old enough age who can support themselves to remain under their father's care. So that creates the potential that a teenager or someone 16, 17, 18 years to leave the household before marriage.
Ok, but if they aren't under their fathers care, then they can no longer be purchased from him. He is no longer involved in "allowing" them to marry. There is no bride-price to be paid.

A father who is dead is guaranteed to refuse to crawl out of his grave and give his daughter away, so the guy doesn't have to marry the girl, and there is no father to pay the bride price to, so Exodus 22:16 is as applicable as him as Exodus 21:2-4 is to someone who doesn't own slaves.

The moral thing to do when involved with a girl who is not owned by her father is not to look for ancient rules about restitution and bride-prices. The moral thing to do is to follow Matt 7:12 and consider how you would wish to be treated, were you in the girls position. Would you want to be married? Is she ready to be married? Are you ready to be married? Would you want to be rushed into a marriage that you weren't ready for? Can you provide the sort of life for her that she would want? Will she be happier in the long run with someone else? These are moral things to consider.

Exodus 22:16 doesn't negate Matt 7:12. Marrying someone is only ever moral if you would want to be married in their position.
Well Exodus 22:16 does not say 'nothing' happens. The passage also mentions to marry the woman. While you can't give a bride price to a DEAD father but you can still MARRY the woman who's still alive.
Well, according to Exodus 22:16, if her dead father refuses come come back to life and let her marry, then the marriage is no longer required.
Well, by process of elimination if the ceremonial laws, dietary laws, and the penalties don't apply, then we have left laws that have to do with moral behavior. What you mentioned doesn't fit ceremonial, dietary, or punishments, so for now I'd say it is likely a law that applies today if someone owned slaves.


Just as this law is only applicable IF someone owns slaves, Exodus 22:16 is only applicable IF there is a bride-price to be paid.
Going by how you explained this verse would lead to moral relativism rather than morals based on the Law.


Yep. Jesus was a moral relativist. Look at Matt 7:2 where he talks about how judgement works, does it say you will be judged according to a hard and fast biblical standard that applies the same to everyone? Or does it say that how you are judged is relative to how you judge others, and that the measure used will be relative to the measure you use?

Matt 7:12 is a morally relative rule. It doesn't say, "In everything do to others a directed by the letter of the Pentateuch." It says that what do do to others should be relative to what you would want them to do to you.
Jesus is assuming that those he's addressing want to follow the laws of God.


And he is telling them what the law of God is. That is why He says "This IS the law and the prophets."
Otherwise, trying saying what you said to a swinger w/out being in conflict with the laws on adultery.
Adultery is about betrayal. Swingers don't want to be betrayed. No one wants to be betrayed.
I'll mention again, the NT mentions that the LAW is the knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20) and the NT mentions to not be sexually immoral.


And since Matt 7:12 is the law (Jesus specifically says "for this IS the law and the prophets) Matt 7:12 is the knowledge o sin.
What is moral and immoral sex? Look to the law where you'll also find out about premarital sex.
The only verse you're basing this on is Exodus 22:16, which does not say that premarital sex i immoral. It says that not paying the bride-price for a VIRGIN you have sex with is immoral. Where is it ever written that having sex with a widow is immoral? It doesn't talk about having sex with widows, because there is no bride-price to be paid for widows. No restitution to be made to the widow's father.

To answer the question of what is moral and immoral sex, look at the LAW, which can be found in Matt 7:12.

You could also look at Romans 13:8-10, where the law is restated.

I don't see how what you said goes with biblical morals.
Let me break it down for you. The BIBLE says in Matt 7:12 that to do to others as you would have them do to you IS THE LAW. Accordingly, treating your sexual partners as you wish to be treated is moral. Treating them as tools to be used for your own gratification is not.
Concubines still belong to the man and his only so in effect it is a marriage, although an informal one - was common with those of high rank and who engaged in polygamy. Here are some references for my statement:
Look at Deuteronomy 22:23-24 where an 'unmarried' woman still in effect has the status of being a wife. The betrothed woman in Deut. 22:23 is referred to a wife in Deut. 22:24.
If concubines were wives, why are concubines and wives differentiated when it says that David took more wives and concubines?


Paradigm wrote: And while we are on the subject, God was not only ok with this next one, but according to His own Word, He in fact orchestrated it.

"Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun." - 2 Samuel 12:11

Reading comprehension quiz!

Who does the Bible say will raise up evil against David?

Who does the Bible say will take his wives before his eyes and give them to his neighbor so that he can lie with them in the sight o the sun?
Your 1st question:
Evil has more than one meaning and it can also mean calamity and that's in a non-moral sense. And God allowed other nations to give King David trouble, like the Phillistines who also stole the Ark. And that calamity or evil seems to be in response to King David's lust for a MARRIED woman (2 Samuel 11) which is adultery and the subsequent conspiring to have her husband killed so he could take the woman to be his wife.
Ok, but the question was who? Who decided to punish David for his adultery an murder by having his wives taken sexually? God said that HE would raise up evil (calamity) against David. God takes credit for orchestrating the subsequent rooftop sex scene with Absalom.
Your 2nd question:
Ironically, what's mentioned in 2 Samuel 12:11 plays out in 2 Samuel 16:20-23. Notice also that 2 Samuel 12:11 refers to David's wives while 2 Samuel 16:20-23 mentions CONCUBINES which further supports my point that concubines were wives, although in an informal sense. 2 Samuel 16:20-23 clearly mentions Absalom sleeping with his father's (Absalom's father is David) wives or concubines in daylight for all to see.
Alright, ignoring the whole concubine issue for the moment. Absalom was not married to David's wives/concubines. Absalom had sex with them. God not only was ok with this, it was God's idea to begin with. God thought it would be an appropriate way to punish David for his adultery and murder against Uriah.

"I(God) will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun."

God took Davids wives, and gave them to Absalom, who was not married to them, so that he could have sex with them as a means o punishing David.

Angel

Post #16

Post by Angel »

Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote:In Matthew 7:12, Jesus is assuming a moral character otherwise I shutter to think that he'd trust the judgement of some psychopath or a swinger.

The Golden Maxim is self-correcting, in that it must be applied to others in the manner that you would want it applied to yourself. If you would want the rule applied to you in a way that is considerate of your boundaries/needs/wishes, then you must apply the rule in way that is considerate of others boundaries/needs/wishes.
For example, if a psychopath wants to be raped by someone, it isn't an excuse for them to rape someone, because in the application of the rule, they must consider that the other person does not want to be raped, and thus applying the rule without consideration to their wants contradicts the rule, since the psychopath would want it to be applied with consideration to their wants.
So if a swinger wishes for someone to screw his wife and another man wants the same by your logic that would be okay. The problem is that's adultery and that's where your view Jesus's Golden Rule fails. To apply the Golden Rule would have to involve acts that are compatible to God's laws and adultery is not one of them along with all of the other inconsistencies your logic would lead to.

If you factor in all of Jesus' message throughout the New Testament then you'll find that Golden Rule would have to presuppose and underlying moral system, i.e. God's laws since Jesus mentions to not sin. We know what sins are by going by the Law (Romans 3:20 and Romans 7:7-8)
Paradigm wrote: No it doesn't contradict Romans 3:31 or 6:15, it confirms them.

According to Jesus, they law is defined as "In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you."

According to Romans 3:31, doing to others as you would have them do to you is not made void through faith, on the contrary, it is established through faith.

According to Romans 6:15 being under grace instead of under law is no reason to stop tratin people as you want to be treated.
Wrong. The Golden Rule 'sums' up the law, it's not the Law itself. So if we break down what makes up the 'sum', we find all of the individual parts that add up to it, those parts are all of the commandments of God. We find a similar pattern to the Golden Rule in Romans 13:8-10. Notice how Paul breaks down the parts that make up the sum in vs. 9 and notice how the parts are part of God's laws and not just any law or morals.

Also, factor in that Jesus was speaking to potential BELIEVERS who would follow ALL of his message. So if we put the Golden Rule in Matthew 7:12 together with the rest of Jesus' message, like to not sin, the laws are the knowledge of sin, etc, then it's reasonable to conclude that Golden Rule presupposes or is relative to God's moral laws.

Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: And yes, adultery is unlawful and if you read the OT laws so would premarital sexual intercourse w/out the intentions to marry, as well.
No, if you read the OT laws, it is entirely lawful to have sex with a virgin whose father you know will not give her to you, so long as you pay him the bride price. No intention to marry is required.
Exodus 22:16-17 mentions that if you have sex with an unbetrothed virgin then as the verses say, "she shall be his wife". So it's clear that marriage is expected from the act of sex. You bring up what the father wants but in this case I'd say it's not up to him because the guy still has to pay the bride price which gets him the bride. Also refer to Deuteronomy 22:28-29 where we find no father's consent for a guy to pay for the bride price to get his daughter as a wife. You'd think that the father would definitely interject more to his daughter marrying a RAPIST rather than a man who only SEDUCES women, but yet we don't even see the father's interjection even playing a slight role in the Deuteronomy passage. In both verses, the guy's course of action or punishment to follow after premarital sexual intercourse is to pay the bride's price and go on with the marriage.

Paradigm wrote: On the other hand, there are some things that the OT law requires:
If you read the OT laws, it is also a sin to menstruate, and requires a sin offering. - Leviticus 15:29-30
If you read the OT laws, it is also a sin not to wear tassels on the corners of your clothes Deut 22:12
It is also a sin to wear cotton/polyester shirts. Lev 19:19
Where can it be shown that these laws no longer apply?
I'd say none of them although none of these speak to behavior like sexual morality, especially premarital sex. The New Testament also reinforces the idea of sexual morality and those laws are explained further in the OT.
I've found these verses to be relevant when it comes to clean/unclean laws, dietary laws, ceremonial laws, and special days to observe:
Matthew 15:1-16, Romans 14:20, Hebrews 9:14, Hebrews 10:1-18, and Colossians 2:16-17
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: No, not entirely. You just can't apply the law fully like if the girl is not living with her father or does not want or have a bride price, etc. However, I don't see why one couldn't apply the morals on sex, particularly not to engage in adultery and premarital sexual intercourse. Even the New Testament speaks about avoiding sexual immorality, and that's written for GENTILES as well, those outside of the Jewish culture. Sexual immorality would be all of the sex acts that God sees as being immoral, and how do you know what's moral from immoral? Romans 3:20 mentions the Law of God.
It isn't about morals, aside from the moral obligation to provide restitution to someone whose assets you have depleted. If it were about marriage, there would be no caveat requiring that the marriage be allowed by the father. It would just say, "A man who has sex with an unmarried woman must marry her. He must also pay her father any applicable bride-price."
We find that the reverse is true. The bride price is the mandatory part of the law, not the marriage. The marriage can be avoided, but restitution must still be made.
Yes, it was common for a man to seek the father's consent to marry his daughter and that's assuming that his daughter was obedient to him. But if she's having sex and without marriage then that common practice of a father's approval begins to fall apart. In Exodus 22:16 the bride price must still be paid and that is what gets you the wife and you find the parallel to this in Deuteronomy 22:28-29. Also, remember a woman was expected to remain a virgin until marriage or at least being betrothed, otherwise she was a whore to biblical standards or doing evil. I'll post a passage that supports this:

Deuteronomy 22:20-21
20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.

So not being a virgin due to premarital sexual intercourse is a sin.
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: Moral standards aren't necessarily different from cultural standards. Cultures do have morals. I mentioned a father giving away his daughter to marry as not applying because it's not a moral standard for an adolescence or someone of an old enough age who can support themselves to remain under their father's care. So that creates the potential that a teenager or someone 16, 17, 18 years to leave the household before marriage.
Ok, but if they aren't under their fathers care, then they can no longer be purchased from him. He is no longer involved in "allowing" them to marry. There is no bride-price to be paid.
A father who is dead is guaranteed to refuse to crawl out of his grave and give his daughter away, so the guy doesn't have to marry the girl, and there is no father to pay the bride price to, so Exodus 22:16 is as applicable as him as Exodus 21:2-4 is to someone who doesn't own slaves.
I disagree because the fathers approval is not relevant in this case because the woman has already gone beyond her father's authority by having sex which requires marriage. Again, refer to Deuteronomy 22:20-21 where sex outside of marriage is mentioned as being evil and a sin (Deut. 22:20-21) UNLESS the woman stayed with the same guy she had sex with. (Exodus 22:16 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
Paradigm wrote: The moral thing to do when involved with a girl who is not owned by her father is not to look for ancient rules about restitution and bride-prices. The moral thing to do is to follow Matt 7:12 and consider how you would wish to be treated, were you in the girls position. Would you want to be married? Is she ready to be married? Are you ready to be married? Would you want to be rushed into a marriage that you weren't ready for? Can you provide the sort of life for her that she would want? Will she be happier in the long run with someone else? These are moral things to consider.
Exodus 22:16 doesn't negate Matt 7:12. Marrying someone is only ever moral if you would want to be married in their position.
The moral thing to do biblically-speaking is to follow the rules that involve sex and marriage. Matthew 7:12 presupposes the Laws in the OT and read further into Jesus' message you also see that he mentions not to sin. I also brought up other points earlier in this post regarding your moral relativistic interpretation of Matthew 7:12. The law is clear cut, if you don't want to marry a girl, stay out of sexual intercourse with her. BUT...Here's a way you can get out of that in a sense.. and doing another sin. You or the girl can just have sex with another person or commit adultery and then both you and the girl would be free to remarry another person. Oh, and don't forget to ask for forgiveness and repent.
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: Well Exodus 22:16 does not say 'nothing' happens. The passage also mentions to marry the woman. While you can't give a bride price to a DEAD father but you can still MARRY the woman who's still alive.
Well, according to Exodus 22:16, if her dead father refuses come come back to life and let her marry, then the marriage is no longer required.
Following your logic a girl who's father is dead could not get married since her father isn't around to give consent. I disagree with that of course, especially if you factor in Deuteronomy 22:28-29.
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: Well, by process of elimination if the ceremonial laws, dietary laws, and the penalties don't apply, then we have left laws that have to do with moral behavior. What you mentioned doesn't fit ceremonial, dietary, or punishments, so for now I'd say it is likely a law that applies today if someone owned slaves.

Just as this law is only applicable IF someone owns slaves, Exodus 22:16 is only applicable IF there is a bride-price to be paid.
Both laws are still in effect, so I'm not seeing how your point takes away from my view on Exodus 22:16.
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: Going by how you explained this verse would lead to moral relativism rather than morals based on the Law.

Yep. Jesus was a moral relativist. Look at Matt 7:2 where he talks about how judgement works, does it say you will be judged according to a hard and fast biblical standard that applies the same to everyone? Or does it say that how you are judged is relative to how you judge others, and that the measure used will be relative to the measure you use?
Jesus was not a moral relativist since his message was not to sin and that the law was the knowledge of sin. If anything, his Golden Rule in Matthew 7:12 was relative to the Law or in other words, he was presupposing that the underlying moral standard of a BELIEVER who followed his message and God's laws.
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote:
Paradigm wrote:
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: Matt 7:12 is a morally relative rule. It doesn't say, "In everything do to others a directed by the letter of the Pentateuch." It says that what do do to others should be relative to what you would want them to do to you.
Jesus is assuming that those he's addressing want to follow the laws of God.

And he is telling them what the law of God is. That is why He says "This IS the law and the prophets."
Otherwise, trying saying what you said to a swinger w/out being in conflict with the laws on adultery.
Adultery is about betrayal. Swingers don't want to be betrayed. No one wants to be betrayed.


The points you make here I've already covered in my first 2 responses in this post.
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: I'll mention again, the NT mentions that the LAW is the knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20) and the NT mentions to not be sexually immoral.

And since Matt 7:12 is the law (Jesus specifically says "for this IS the law and the prophets) Matt 7:12 is the knowledge o sin.
I already covered this earlier in this post so there's no need to say the same thing again.
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: What is moral and immoral sex? Look to the law where you'll also find out about premarital sex.
The only verse you're basing this on is Exodus 22:16, which does not say that premarital sex i immoral. It says that not paying the bride-price for a VIRGIN you have sex with is immoral. Where is it ever written that having sex with a widow is immoral? It doesn't talk about having sex with widows, because there is no bride-price to be paid for widows. No restitution to be made to the widow's father.
Earlier in this post, I explained why Exodus 22:16 and other verses indicating that premarital sexual intercourse is a sin.

The laws regarding widows having premarital sexual intercourse would fall under harlotry (Leviticus 19:29). Harlotry by anyone can cause the whole land to be filled with 'wickedness'.
Paradigm wrote: To answer the question of what is moral and immoral sex, look at the LAW, which can be found in Matt 7:12.
You could also look at Romans 13:8-10, where the law is restated.
I already covered this issue in the first 2 responses in this post. I even used the same passage you refer to in Romans 13.
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: I don't see how what you said goes with biblical morals.
Let me break it down for you. The BIBLE says in Matt 7:12 that to do to others as you would have them do to you IS THE LAW. Accordingly, treating your sexual partners as you wish to be treated is moral. Treating them as tools to be used for your own gratification is not.
This says nothing about premarital sex but as long as it's in line with the Law in the OT, then premarital sex would be one of those moral guidelines the person is presumed to be going by. I've also responded to your view on Matthew 7:12 and many other places in this post.
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: Concubines still belong to the man and his only so in effect it is a marriage, although an informal one - was common with those of high rank and who engaged in polygamy. Here are some references for my statement:
Look at Deuteronomy 22:23-24 where an 'unmarried' woman still in effect has the status of being a wife. The betrothed woman in Deut. 22:23 is referred to a wife in Deut. 22:24.
If concubines were wives, why are concubines and wives differentiated when it says that David took more wives and concubines?
They are formal wives and informal (secondary or lower rank) wives. The lower ranking wives are usually just referred to as concubines and they also belong to the man. I listed 2 other sources here which you left out of your quoting of my post so I'll repost them again.

From pg. 2, post #14 of this thread:
For more on concubines you can also refer to this short article on concubines in ancient Israel..Pilegesh

Even modern English language dictionaries factor this in:
Concubine: (among polygamous peoples) a secondary wife, usually of inferior rank.

Also 2 Samuel 12:11 plays out in 2 Samuel 16:20-23. In 2 Samuel 12:11 the women are referred to as David's 'wives' but notice how they are called 'concubines' in 2 Samuel 16:20-23, where 2 Samuel 12:11 is played out. That further supports that concubines are wives are the same, the only difference is rank.
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote:
Paradigm wrote: And while we are on the subject, God was not only ok with this next one, but according to His own Word, He in fact orchestrated it.
"Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun." - 2 Samuel 12:11
Reading comprehension quiz!
Who does the Bible say will raise up evil against David?
Who does the Bible say will take his wives before his eyes and give them to his neighbor so that he can lie with them in the sight o the sun?
Your 1st question:
Evil has more than one meaning and it can also mean calamity and that's in a non-moral sense. And God allowed other nations to give King David trouble, like the Phillistines who also stole the Ark. And that calamity or evil seems to be in response to King David's lust for a MARRIED woman (2 Samuel 11) which is adultery and the subsequent conspiring to have her husband killed so he could take the woman to be his wife.
Ok, but the question was who? Who decided to punish David for his adultery an murder by having his wives taken sexually? God said that HE would raise up evil (calamity) against David. God takes credit for orchestrating the subsequent rooftop sex scene with Absalom.
I know you're referring to what God told David through a prophet in 2 Samuel 12:11. If you read how it played out in 2 Samuel 16:20-23 we find that Absalom was following the advice of someone other than God. Perhaps 2 Samuel 12:11 is a figurative for God 'allowing' something but I'm not sure. What's I am sure about is how what God said played out and it was from Absalom getting advice from a friend and it was done to spite his father (King David).
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: Your 2nd question:
Ironically, what's mentioned in 2 Samuel 12:11 plays out in 2 Samuel 16:20-23. Notice also that 2 Samuel 12:11 refers to David's wives while 2 Samuel 16:20-23 mentions CONCUBINES which further supports my point that concubines were wives, although in an informal sense. 2 Samuel 16:20-23 clearly mentions Absalom sleeping with his father's (Absalom's father is David) wives or concubines in daylight for all to see.
Alright, ignoring the whole concubine issue for the moment. Absalom was not married to David's wives/concubines. Absalom had sex with them. God not only was ok with this, it was God's idea to begin with. God thought it would be an appropriate way to punish David for his adultery and murder against Uriah.
"I(God) will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun."
God took Davids wives, and gave them to Absalom, who was not married to them, so that he could have sex with them as a means o punishing David.
If you read how what God said in 2 Samuel 12:11 literally played out in 2 Samuel 16:20-23 then you'll what prompted Absalom to sleep with his fathers concubines. Had God actually been directly involved then he would've broken his own rules (Leviticus 20:11).

Paradigm
Scholar
Posts: 446
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2011 7:36 pm

Post #17

Post by Paradigm »

So if a swinger wishes for someone to screw his wife and another man wants the same by your logic that would be okay. The problem is that's adultery and that's where your view Jesus's Golden Rule fails. To apply the Golden Rule would have to involve acts that are compatible to God's laws and adultery is not one of them along with all of the other inconsistencies your logic would lead to.
Adultery is a betrayal that occurs secretly behind someone's back. Swinging is different from adultery. The aspect of adultery that makes it a sin is the betrayal aspect, not the sex aspect. Adultery can occur with no sex involved. It cannot occur without betrayal involved.

Love is the fulfillment of he law. As long as everyone is playing nice, what happens between consenting adults is just good clean fun. Sin only occurs when you hurt someone else because you care more about your own needs than you do about theirs.

What other inconsistencies do you imagine?
Wrong. The Golden Rule 'sums' up the law, it's not the Law itself.
No, you are wrong. The Golden Rule IS the law itself. The Greek word you are looking for in Matt 7:12 is �στιν, look it up. "Sums up" was a liberty taken by the New International Version translators. ESV, KJV, ASB, an most others say "for this IS the law and the prophets.
So if we break down what makes up the 'sum', we find all of the individual parts that add up to it, those parts are all of the commandments of God.
First of all, the word "sum" does not appear in the original Greek. Secondly, even if it did, Jesus is clearly saying that if you added up all of God's law, it would amount to treating people like you want to be treated. So in evaluating the correct application of the law, if it results in you treating people as you want to be treated, you added the law up correctly, if it doesn't, then you interpreted the law wrong, since the total didn't add up.
Also, factor in that Jesus was speaking to potential BELIEVERS who would follow ALL of his message. So if we put the Golden Rule in Matthew 7:12 together with the rest of Jesus' message, like to not sin, the laws are the knowledge of sin, etc, then it's reasonable to conclude that Golden Rule presupposes or is relative to God's moral laws.
No, we don't find that the Golden rule is relative to anything other than what you would have others do to you. If you think that in some things it is wrong to do to others as you would have them do to you, then you must think Jesus was either lying, wrong or both when he said that in everything you should do to others as you would have them do to you.
Exodus 22:16-17 mentions that if you have sex with an unbetrothed virgin then as the verses say, "she shall be his wife". So it's clear that marriage is expected from the act of sex. You bring up what the father wants but in this case I'd say it's not up to him
You would be wrong. "If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins." Exodus 22:17
I'd say none of them although none of these speak to behavior like sexual morality, especially premarital sex. The New Testament also reinforces the idea of sexual morality and those laws are explained further in the OT.
I've found these verses to be relevant when it comes to clean/unclean laws, dietary laws, ceremonial laws, and special days to observe:
Matthew 15:1-16, Romans 14:20, Hebrews 9:14, Hebrews 10:1-18, and Colossians 2:16-17
Where in any of those verses does it say that it is no longer a sin to menstruate?
So not being a virgin due to premarital sexual intercourse is a sin.
If a man strikes a bargain with another man to sell him a virgin, and the guy finds out on the honeymoon, that he got duped, that is where the problem is. The woman's body wasn't hers to give away. It belonged to her owner, and by having sex, she robbed him of a monetary asset. This is why it speciifies "while still in her father's house."

Post an example for women not "still in their father's house."
The moral thing to do biblically-speaking is to follow the rules that involve sex and marriage. Matthew 7:12 presupposes the Laws in the OT and read further into Jesus' message you also see that he mentions not to sin.
Ok, yeah, I see it now, Jesus was obviously telling women not to menstruate. [/sarcasm]

Show me one passage where Jesus talks about any of these arbitrary OT laws as something important. He talks about murder, theft, adultery, false witness, honoring your mom and dad, loving God with all your heart, and loving your neighbor as yourself, That is the complete list as far as I know. Jesus was concerned only with people treating each other as they wish to be treated, with love, however that love plays out.

Let me share with you a little story about Jesus and silly OT laws:

"One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and his disciples began to pick some heads of grain, rub them in their hands and eat the kernels. [2] Some of the Pharisees asked, "Why are you doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?"

[3] Jesus answered them, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? [4] He entered the house of God, and taking the consecrated bread, he ate what is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions." - Luke 6:1-11

What do you suppose the point of Jesus' story was? Was he telling everyone how important it was to follow the OT law that required that no one gather food on the Sabbath? Or did he instead tell a story of how David ate bread that he was not allowed to eat according to OT law, and yet remained blameless?

What is the moral of the story?

Following your logic a girl who's father is dead could not get married since her father isn't around to give consent. I disagree with that of course, especially if you factor in Deuteronomy 22:28-29.
A girl without a father can marry without being purchased, but a law that requires hat she be purchased from her father is no longer applicable to her. It is now her decision whether she wants to marry or not.
Both laws are still in effect, so I'm not seeing how your point takes away from my view on Exodus 22:16.
You don't follow part of slave laws by laying off employees every seven years, since you don't have any slaves to set free. You don't follow part of slave laws by letting go of an employee if hey lose an eye.

My point is that obeying the law is a binary thing. You can't obey a law partway and call it good. A law that is applicable, you obey fully. A law that is not applicable you disregard. In the absence of a bride price, laws about bride prices are inapplicable. They aren't partly-applicable.
Jesus was not a moral relativist since his message was not to sin and that the law was the knowledge of sin.
Where does Jesus define what the law is? Show me a verse in which Jesus says "The five books of the Pentateuch are the Law."

I can show you a verse in which Jesus gives an easy to follow rule that can be applied in every situation. In fact Jesus even commands that it be applied in every situation. He then goes on to say that this rule "IS the law and the Prophets."

If the five books of the Pentateuch are the Law, then why did Jesus break the law by touching a leper immediately upon coming down from the mount? Why did he allow his disciples to gather food on the Sabbath when gathering food is one of the items specifically prohibited on the Sabbath? Why did Jesus break the Sabbath law himself by healing a crippled hand?

Jesus didn't care about what the "Law" (Pentateuch) said about working on the Sabbath.

This is what he said: ""I ask you, which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to destroy it?"

Doing good is a good thing to do, and is not well defined by looking at OT tradition. Otherwise, refraining from healing on the Sabbath would be "doing good."

The 'law' of the new covenant can not be found written down anywhere, for it is written only on our hearts. Jeremiah 31:33

It is written on the hearts of those who have them that marriage should be entered into out of love, and not out of some misplaced sense of obligation to ancient middle eastern traditions. It should be entered into with due consideration to how it will effect the person you are marrying, and should be an arrangement that will lead to happiness for both people. It should not be rushed into because "the Bible said so."
I know you're referring to what God told David through a prophet in 2 Samuel 12:11. If you read how it played out in 2 Samuel 16:20-23 we find that Absalom was following the advice of someone other than God.
Riiiight, because God neeeever uses other people to accomplish His goals. :roll:

Clearly the advice Absalom received was some sneaky impromptu prophecy from God, since God told David ahead of time the HE personally was orchestrating events in order to take away Davids wives and given them to someone else and make them have sex in the view of the sun. He orchestrated it, made sure to take credit for orchestrating it, and let David know ahead of time that he was going to orchestrate it.

What part of "I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun" is unclear?

If God says "I will do X" and then later, X happens any reasonable reading can only lead to the conclusion that God did X just like he said he would.

Angel

Post #18

Post by Angel »

Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: So if a swinger wishes for someone to screw his wife and another man wants the same by your logic that would be okay. The problem is that's adultery and that's where your view Jesus's Golden Rule fails. To apply the Golden Rule would have to involve acts that are compatible to God's laws and adultery is not one of them along with all of the other inconsistencies your logic would lead to.
Adultery is a betrayal that occurs secretly behind someone's back. Swinging is different from adultery. The aspect of adultery that makes it a sin is the betrayal aspect, not the sex aspect. Adultery can occur with no sex involved. It cannot occur without betrayal involved.
Adultery is sex with a woman who is 'married' according to the Bible. The passages that speak to adultery do not specify any conditions to where sleeping with a 'married' woman is allowed. Swinging would be a disregard to biblical morals.

Please provide scriptural evidence for your claim that adultery or sleeping with another man's wife is allowed as you mentioned.
Paradigm wrote: Love is the fulfillment of he law. As long as everyone is playing nice, what happens between consenting adults is just good clean fun. Sin only occurs when you hurt someone else because you care more about your own needs than you do about theirs.
What other inconsistencies do you imagine?
Wrong again. Love is not simply about everyone playing nice, it also is about NOT doing 'evil' or sinning. That presupposes a moral standard (or good and evil) and in the Bible that is God's laws (Romans 3:20). Also refer to Romans 12:9 which shows love does 'good' and hates 'evil'. What you're giving me is vague and meaningless unless you define what good and evil standards are.
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: Wrong. The Golden Rule 'sums' up the law, it's not the Law itself.
No, you are wrong. The Golden Rule IS the law itself. The Greek word you are looking for in Matt 7:12 is �στιν, look it up. "Sums up" was a liberty taken by the New International Version translators. ESV, KJV, ASB, an most others say "for this IS the law and the prophets.


Even if it mentions the word 'IS", my point is still valid. The Golden Rule is very general, but if you factor in ALL of Jesus' teachings then you'd see that Jesus is presupposing a moral commandments of God. If Jesus left the Golden Rule for everyone to interpret and judge for themselves on how to act then I'm not sure why would he go through the task of explaining morals about marriage, adultery, sexual immorality, etc. All of these serves as a context to Jesus' teachings so you're essentially taking verses out of context (or at least by how you're explaining it) or simply ignoring Jesus' teachings. Context does not necessarily about the verse before and after Matthew 7:12, it can be the whole body of jesus' teachings which is throughout the NT.

Also, did you read Romans 13:8-10 which follows the same pattern as how Jesus referenced the Golden Rule. Love IS the fulfillment of the Law and we see Paul elaborates further in saying:
Romans 13:9
9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,� “You shall not murder,� “You shall not steal,� “You shall not covet,�[a] and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.. therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
So how do you actually 'fulfill' or carry out the law or how do you love? Paul explains in vs. 9 by not stealing, not coveting, etc or basically by following God's commandments.
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote:
So if we break down what makes up the 'sum', we find all of the individual parts that add up to it, those parts are all of the commandments of God.
First of all, the word "sum" does not appear in the original Greek. Secondly, even if it did, Jesus is clearly saying that if you added up all of God's law, it would amount to treating people like you want to be treated. So in evaluating the correct application of the law, if it results in you treating people as you want to be treated, you added the law up correctly, if it doesn't, then you interpreted the law wrong, since the total didn't add up.
Presuming that the usage of the words, "sums it up" is more accurate than just using the word "is", then your point is still lacking here. The parts that you'd be adding up are the individual moral commands of God. So when you put the Golden Rule into practice it would reflect the parts that make it up. Therefore, the acts you do has to reflect the Law.
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: Also, factor in that Jesus was speaking to potential BELIEVERS who would follow ALL of his message. So if we put the Golden Rule in Matthew 7:12 together with the rest of Jesus' message, like to not sin, the laws are the knowledge of sin, etc, then it's reasonable to conclude that Golden Rule presupposes or is relative to God's moral laws.
No, we don't find that the Golden rule is relative to anything other than what you would have others do to you. If you think that in some things it is wrong to do to others as you would have them do to you, then you must think Jesus was either lying, wrong or both when he said that in everything you should do to others as you would have them do to you.
Again, this presupposes a moral standard. The things that I would think that would be wrong to do are what's classified as wrong in the laws of God. The good things that I'd want people to do for me are the things that are classified as being good or at least not in conflict with God's moral laws. So following the Golden Rule would mean that you're carrying out the Law, but my point of disagreement with you is that what you carry out should not be in conflict with the law otherwise, you're not carrying out the law. You're adding extra parts that are not part of the
sum and when you do that you'll get a different sum or a different Golden Rule.
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: Exodus 22:16-17 mentions that if you have sex with an unbetrothed virgin then as the verses say, "she shall be his wife". So it's clear that marriage is expected from the act of sex. You bring up what the father wants but in this case I'd say it's not up to him
You would be wrong. "If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins." Exodus 22:17
So lets say even if you did have to pay only a bride price but for some reason you still don't get the girl, well having to pay the bride price is still a penalty. If premarital sex was morally right, why would someone have to pay a penalty for doing right? You'd say because of property damage (or ruining the girls virginity) but it would still be wrong to do, especially when it's done on purpose. For some wrongs a penalty may just be a sin offering or it's not always death. NOw this is all hypothetical presuming your view is right but I still don't agree that you're right. I mentioned this point in my very last post to you but you left it out so I'll mention it again.

From pg. 2, post #16 of this thread I mentioned,
Remember a woman was expected to remain a virgin until marriage or until she's betrothed, otherwise she was a whore going by biblical standards or doing evil. I'll post a passage that supports this:

Deuteronomy 22:20-21
20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.

So not being a virgin due to premarital sexual intercourse is a sin. So either the girl marries or she dies.
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: So not being a virgin due to premarital sexual intercourse is a sin.
If a man strikes a bargain with another man to sell him a virgin, and the guy finds out on the honeymoon, that he got duped, that is where the problem is. The woman's body wasn't hers to give away. It belonged to her owner, and by having sex, she robbed him of a monetary asset. This is why it speciifies "while still in her father's house."

Post an example for women not "still in their father's house."
Deuteronomy 22:20-21 wasn't about getting duped, the verse clearly mentions it's because the girl was PROMISCUOUS or a harlot. In her father's house just implies she wasn't given away yet to a man as it was common for a woman to marry based on her dad's approval (w/ some exceptions if dad's dead, etc.).

You mention for me to post an example so I'd say Leviticus 19:29 would apply to your request. The passage is about how harlotry is wickedness and how it could corrupt the land. Now the passage in Leviticus 19:29 does mention about the father but you don't need the father to make his daughter to engage in harlotry because it's the harlotry that's wrong and that would pollute the land. And yes, a woman can commit harlotry on her own w/out her father being around and it would still corrupt the land.

Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: I'd say none of them although none of these speak to behavior like sexual morality, especially premarital sex. The New Testament also reinforces the idea of sexual morality and those laws are explained further in the OT.
I've found these verses to be relevant when it comes to clean/unclean laws, dietary laws, ceremonial laws, and special days to observe:
Matthew 15:1-16, Romans 14:20, Hebrews 9:14, Hebrews 10:1-18, and Colossians 2:16-17
Where in any of those verses does it say that it is no longer a sin to menstruate?
Menstration would fall under the laws that have to do with clean and uncleanliness (Leviticus 15:19 and Leviticus 12:2). Also, it seems that the laws on clean/unclean were also made for ceremonial purposes (Leviticus 5:2-6). So from the passages I mentioned in my comment you quoted me from, I'd say that Matthew 15:1-16 esp. vss. 16-20 deal with Jesus saying how cleanliness and uncleanliness don't apply today.
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: The moral thing to do biblically-speaking is to follow the rules that involve sex and marriage. Matthew 7:12 presupposes the Laws in the OT and read further into Jesus' message you also see that he mentions not to sin.
Ok, yeah, I see it now, Jesus was obviously telling women not to menstruate. [/sarcasm]

Show me one passage where Jesus talks about any of these arbitrary OT laws as something important. He talks about murder, theft, adultery, false witness, honoring your mom and dad, loving God with all your heart, and loving your neighbor as yourself, That is the complete list as far as I know. Jesus was concerned only with people treating each other as they wish to be treated, with love, however that love plays out.
That is not a full list. For example, in Matthew 15:19 Jesus talks about sexual immorality, etc. In other places he teaches about adultery. Jesus pretty much mentions to NOT sin, period so those would include all of the Laws in the OT that are still for Christians to do or really avoid doing if it's a sin. Also, the NT, not just Gospels, are part of Jesus' message as well (e.g. Galatians 1:11-12).
Paradigm wrote: Let me share with you a little story about Jesus and silly OT laws:

"One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and his disciples began to pick some heads of grain, rub them in their hands and eat the kernels. [2] Some of the Pharisees asked, "Why are you doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?"

[3] Jesus answered them, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? [4] He entered the house of God, and taking the consecrated bread, he ate what is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions." - Luke 6:1-11

What do you suppose the point of Jesus' story was? Was he telling everyone how important it was to follow the OT law that required that no one gather food on the Sabbath? Or did he instead tell a story of how David ate bread that he was not allowed to eat according to OT law, and yet remained blameless?

What is the moral of the story?
I'm not sure but that doesn't take away from Jesus or his apostles preaching to NOT engage in sexual immorality or for that matter any law that involved moral conduct as opposed to ceremonial laws or observing special days. Unless you can show me where Jesus violated any of the morals on sexuality or told people they can bypass them which would be contrary to 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 18.
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: Following your logic a girl who's father is dead could not get married since her father isn't around to give consent. I disagree with that of course, especially if you factor in Deuteronomy 22:28-29.
A girl without a father can marry without being purchased, but a law that requires hat she be purchased from her father is no longer applicable to her. It is now her decision whether she wants to marry or not.
I already covered this point earlier using passages like Deuteronomy 22:20-21, but I'll also add Deuteronomy 22:28-29. Please read that last passage before mentioning the consent of a father or woman for marriage when it comes to premarital sexual intercourse.
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: Both laws are still in effect, so I'm not seeing how your point takes away from my view on Exodus 22:16.
You don't follow part of slave laws by laying off employees every seven years, since you don't have any slaves to set free. You don't follow part of slave laws by letting go of an employee if hey lose an eye.

My point is that obeying the law is a binary thing. You can't obey a law partway and call it good. A law that is applicable, you obey fully. A law that is not applicable you disregard. In the absence of a bride price, laws about bride prices are inapplicable. They aren't partly-applicable.
It is partly applicable due to uncontrollable circumstance and not by choice. For instance, if a father dies that does not mean that his daughter can't marry just because he's not around to give her away. But the guy can still keep his pants on or if he doesn't then he can still marry the girl otherwise the girl would be guilty of being a harlot if she continued in premarital sexual intercourse.
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: Jesus was not a moral relativist since his message was not to sin and that the law was the knowledge of sin.
Where does Jesus define what the law is? Show me a verse in which Jesus says "The five books of the Pentateuch are the Law."

I can show you a verse in which Jesus gives an easy to follow rule that can be applied in every situation. In fact Jesus even commands that it be applied in every situation. He then goes on to say that this rule "IS the law and the Prophets."

If the five books of the Pentateuch are the Law, then why did Jesus break the law by touching a leper immediately upon coming down from the mount? Why did he allow his disciples to gather food on the Sabbath when gathering food is one of the items specifically prohibited on the Sabbath? Why did Jesus break the Sabbath law himself by healing a crippled hand?

Jesus didn't care about what the "Law" (Pentateuch) said about working on the Sabbath.
Are you not aware that all of the NT represents Jesus' message unless its specified as being an opinion. The NT is either Jesus himself speaking or his apostles speaking what they were taught from Jesus or revealed from Jesus (e.g. Galatians 1:11-12)..

The only thing I can say about Jesus not following all of the laws is that some of the laws he considered unnecessary. Instead of sacrifices from priests, Jesus was our sacrifice and priest. I believe the logic for Jesus deeming SOME laws inapplicable has to do with a similar logic in the previous sentence. But what Jesus does not violate or say doesn't apply are the laws on sexuality, etc.
Paradigm wrote: The 'law' of the new covenant can not be found written down anywhere, for it is written only on our hearts. Jeremiah 31:33

It is written on the hearts of those who have them that marriage should be entered into out of love, and not out of some misplaced sense of obligation to ancient middle eastern traditions. It should be entered into with due consideration to how it will effect the person you are marrying, and should be an arrangement that will lead to happiness for both people. It should not be rushed into because "the Bible said so."
Jeremiah 31:33 does not mention that the Law can not be found to be written anywhere. It is written somewhere if you open your bible to the 1st 5 books and if you don't add words in the passage you're referring to. So not only is the law written by Moses but it's also written on our hearts so it's written in BOTH places. Writing the law in our hearts is 'figurative' and does not eliminate the law written on stone in every way because you still can't be sexually immoral, can't lie, can't engage in idolatry, etc. Keep in mind, Jeremiah was referring to BELIEVERS who would accept and abide by God and his new covenant. And believers moral standards would be derived from God and not just anything that fancies their mind.
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: I know you're referring to what God told David through a prophet in 2 Samuel 12:11. If you read how it played out in 2 Samuel 16:20-23 we find that Absalom was following the advice of someone other than God.
Riiiight, because God neeeever uses other people to accomplish His goals. :roll:

Clearly the advice Absalom received was some sneaky impromptu prophecy from God, since God told David ahead of time the HE personally was orchestrating events in order to take away Davids wives and given them to someone else and make them have sex in the view of the sun. He orchestrated it, made sure to take credit for orchestrating it, and let David know ahead of time that he was going to orchestrate it.
Can you show me where and how God was involved with Absalom sleeping with David's concubines? There's clearly some figurative language at play here because God did not literally grab David's concubines and physically hand them over to Absalom especially if you read how that event took place. The passages in 2 Samuel 12 could just mean God allowing it to happen. Either way, doesn't change the fact that concubines were secondary wives and that sleeping with your father's wife was clearly a sin.
Paradigm wrote: What part of "I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun" is unclear?

If God says "I will do X" and then later, X happens any reasonable reading can only lead to the conclusion that God did X just like he said he would.
I know what God is said to have said but if you continue reading you'd see that he did not follow through with what he said. Absalom slept with David's concubines based on advice from a man. There's no mention of God in that event or God causing it.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 18068
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 430 times
Been thanked: 649 times
Contact:

Re: Premarital Sex

Post #19

Post by JehovahsWitness »

Paradigm wrote: Purchasing concubines and having sex with them even though you weren't married to them was permitted. 2 Samuel 5:13
#QUESTION Does the Hebrew tradition of concubines equate to a toleration of sex outside of marriage under the Mosaic law?

Marriage has been defined as:
  • "a relation of one or more men to one or more women that is recognised by custom or law" - The Future of Marriage in Western Civilization (1936), Westermarck, Edvard, p. 3.

    The anthropological handbook Notes and Queries defined marriage as "a union between a man and a woman such that children born to the woman are the recognized legitimate offspring of both partners." Royal Anthropological Institute. 1951. pp. , p. 110.
Under both definitions, Hebrew concubinal sexual intercourse was sex WITHIN a marital arrangement. The Jewish Encyclopedia's entry under "pilegesh" (concubine) comments:

[A concubine] enjoyed the same rights in the house as the legitimate wife. [...] The concubine commanded the same respect and inviolability as the wife ..."
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... z1W499QkkT

Although concubines did not have all the rights in the household that the regular wife had the bible encylopedia Insight on the scriptures Vol I, p. 495 comments "among the Hebrews a concubine occupied a position in the nature of a secondary wife and was sometimes spoken of as a wife." and the Jewish Virtual library entry under "concubine" explains "Her spouse was called the son-inlaw (ḥatan) of her father, who was the father-in-law (ḥoten). Therefore, the concubinage relationship could partake of many aspects of regular marriage."
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... h=Pilegesh

CONCLUSION Given the definition of "marriage" legislation regarding treatment of concubines did not equate to legally tolerating sex 'outside' of marriage but rather a toleration of polygamy. A concubine had a legal status; her position was not a matter of fornication or adultery. Under the Law, if a man’s firstborn son was the son of his concubine, this son would be the one to receive the firstborn’s inheritance.—De 21:15-17

The Christian sciptures indicate that the above arrangement of allowing a man more than one wife was not to be continued under the Christian system.

Paradigm
Scholar
Posts: 446
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2011 7:36 pm

Re: Premarital Sex

Post #20

Post by Paradigm »

JehovahsWitness wrote:
Paradigm wrote: Purchasing concubines and having sex with them even though you weren't married to them was permitted. 2 Samuel 5:13
#QUESTION Does the Hebrew tradition of concubines equate to a toleration of sex outside of marriage under the Mosaic law?

Marriage has been defined as:
  • "a relation of one or more men to one or more women that is recognised by custom or law" - The Future of Marriage in Western Civilization (1936), Westermarck, Edvard, p. 3.

    The anthropological handbook Notes and Queries defined marriage as "a union between a man and a woman such that children born to the woman are the recognized legitimate offspring of both partners." Royal Anthropological Institute. 1951. pp. , p. 110.
Under both definitions, Hebrew concubinal sexual intercourse was sex WITHIN a marital arrangement. The Jewish Encyclopedia's entry under "pilegesh" (concubine) comments:

[A concubine] enjoyed the same rights in the house as the legitimate wife. [...] The concubine commanded the same respect and inviolability as the wife ..."
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... z1W499QkkT

Although concubines did not have all the rights in the household that the regular wife had the bible encylopedia Insight on the scriptures Vol I, p. 495 comments "among the Hebrews a concubine occupied a position in the nature of a secondary wife and was sometimes spoken of as a wife." and the Jewish Virtual library entry under "concubine" explains "Her spouse was called the son-inlaw (ḥatan) of her father, who was the father-in-law (ḥoten). Therefore, the concubinage relationship could partake of many aspects of regular marriage."
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... h=Pilegesh

CONCLUSION Given the definition of "marriage" legislation regarding treatment of concubines did not equate to legally tolerating sex 'outside' of marriage but rather a toleration of polygamy. A concubine had a legal status; her position was not a matter of fornication or adultery. Under the Law, if a man’s firstborn son was the son of his concubine, this son would be the one to receive the firstborn’s inheritance.—De 21:15-17
Ah. Well, in our 21st century society, friends with benefits is "a relation of one or more men to one or more women that is recognised by custom"

Ergo, friends with benefits is a marriage by definition #1.

If a man has sex with a girl and she gets pregnant, both parents are equally eligable to apply for custody rights, either can be required to pay child support, etc... so friends with benefits fits definition #2 as well.

Certainly my relationship with my girlfriend is recognized as a relationship by custom, and were we to have children, we would both be acknowledged by custom and law as parents. Ergo, we are 'married,' regardless of a lack of ceremony, white dress, cake or rings according to your definition.

The Christian sciptures indicate that the above arrangement of allowing a man more than one wife was not to be continued under the Christian system.
Please quote the verses for this.

Post Reply