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
Strider324
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1016
Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 8:12 pm
Location: Fort Worth

Re: Premarital Sex

Post #2

Post by Strider324 »

Paradigm wrote: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 do to her.

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?
As usual, the bible supports just about any position one would like to take.

Solomon was certainly not married to the dozens of concubines he dallied with, nor were any of the other ancient kings. I think it only became 'wrong' when someone discovered there was money to be made in demonizing normal human behavior.
8-)
"Do Good for Good is Good to do. Spurn Bribe of Heaven and Threat of Hell"
- The Kasidah of Haji abdu al-Yezdi

Angel

Re: Premarital Sex

Post #3

Post by Angel »

Paradigm wrote: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?
Your question depends on the type of sex. From my reading, the Israelites of biblical times only considered sexual intercourse to be sex. Some passages to refer to are ones like Genesis 4:1,Genesis 38:8-10, and 1 Corinthians 6:15-16. Assuming that I and others are correct in this view (which is perhaps why oral sex which would also include girl-girl sex aren't covered in the Bible), premarital oral sex and other non-intercourse sex acts would be permissible by biblical standards.

When it comes to premarital sexual intercourse, then I'd say that it is prohibited by God unless the 2 people involved have intent on getting married (Exodus 22:16).

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

Re: Premarital Sex

Post #4

Post by Paradigm »

Angel wrote:
Paradigm wrote: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?
Your question depends on the type of sex acts you're referring to. From my reading, all references to sex in the Bible have involved only acts of intercourse whether it be for procreation like in Genesis 4:1 and Genesis 38:8-10 or having sex with a prostitute like in 1 Corinthians 6:15-16. Assuming that I and others are correct in this view (which is perhaps why oral sex which would also include girl-girl sex aren't covered in the Bible), premarital oral sex and other non-intercourse sex acts would be permissible by biblical standards.

When it comes to premarital sexual intercourse, then I'd say that it is prohibited by God unless the 2 people involved have intent on getting married (Exodus 22:16).
Do you not believe that the Old Covenant laws were superseded by the New Covenant? What about wearing cotton/polyester shirts? What about breeding horses and donkeys to create mules? Are they immoral as well? Leviticus 19:19

It seems to me that the issue in Exodus 22:16 is not about sexual morality, or it would have been included in Leviticus 18. The issue is about money and property rights, not about sex. Back when women were property, they held a higher monetary value if they were virgins. Thus, a man who deflowered another man's property was robbing that man of a monetary asset.

One way to tell that the verse is not really about pre-marital sex is that it is virgin specific. Moreover it applies only to virgins not pledged to be married. If a virgin is pledged to be married, the father has already collected his money on the exchange.

Notably, if a man has premarital sex with a girl who is not a virgin, he faces no penalty. Or if he has premarital sex with a virgin who is pledged to be married, he faces no penalty. The verse is clearly not meant as an injunction against premarital sex in general, but rather as a property rights issue that is clearly no longer applicable, since we have done away with the "bride-price" altogether.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 18451
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 449 times
Been thanked: 708 times
Contact:

Re: Premarital Sex

Post #5

Post by JehovahsWitness »

Paradigm wrote:
Question for debate: Does the Bible prohibit premarital sex?

Fornication** basically means 'unlawful" sex, or sex that god does not approve of. From the Greek work "pornia"

The New Unger Bible Dictionary, 1988, p. 441, fornication"
Image

While this would include sex before marriage, but it also includes adultery, homosexuality, and bestiality. It is the willing stimulation of the genitals with lewd intent, involving two parties, and so the term also includes so-called "mutual masturbation". Some scholars believe that the term "pornea" included oral sex and anal sex even within marriage, but biblically "fornication" is never linked with any sex between spouses

WHAT LAW?

Christians were told by the Jerusalem council in the first century that this specific prohibitions from the MOSAIC LAW CODE applied to new converts. (see Acts 15:20). This law covered all kinds of sexual sin including consentual sex between adults that were NOT married.


Scriptural references:

Matt. 5:32; 19:9; John 8:41; Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25; Rom. 1:29; 1 Cor 5:1, 6:13, 18, 7:2; 10:8; 2 Cor 12:21; Gal 5:19; Eph 5:3; Col 3:5; 1 Thess. 4:3; Jude 1:7; Rev. 2:14, 20-21; 9:21; 14:8; 17:2,4).


RELATED POSTS

What is the biblical meaning of porneia (fornication/sexual immorality)?
viewtopic.php?p=403789#p403789

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

Is pedophilia prohibited in scripture?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 98#p956998

WHY does scripture prohibit sexual immorality?
viewtopic.php?p=1019649#p1019649

What bible principles are violated by anal or cunnilingus/oral sex?
viewtopic.php?p=1016856#p1016856
To learn more please go to other posts related to...

SEX, SIN and ...FORNICATION
Last edited by JehovahsWitness on Fri Dec 17, 2021 3:55 am, edited 4 times in total.

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

Re: Premarital Sex

Post #6

Post by Paradigm »

JehovahsWitness wrote:
Paradigm wrote:
Question for debate: Does the Bible prohibit premarital sex?

Fornication** basically means 'unlawful" sex, or sex that god does not approve of. From the Greek work "pornia"

The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary, 1988, p. 441, “fornication�:, “πο�νεία�:
Image
The definition you gave is exactly the same as the one I gave. Illicit sexual intercourse. If you look up the word "illicit" I believe you will find that it means "unlawful" "illegal" "not authorized" "not permitted" "prohibited" etc...

So if you want to find out if something is illegal or not, you look at the law right? In this case, we are looking at God's law. Where in God's law is premarital sex listed as being one of the prohibited sexual items.

Quoting passages that say you shouldn't commit pornea is like saying that it is illegal to commit a crime. Without a passage specifying which things are unlawful and which are not, the word pornea is worse than useless.

Please show a passage that specifically prohibits premarital sex. Showing a passage that prohibits prohibited sex isn't the same thing, and is in fact entirely redundant.

If the state of Oregon passes a law that says it is illegal to drink illegal energy drinks, does that mean that red bull is outlawed but Monster is ok? Without a law specifying which drinks are illegal and which are not, the law is useless.

The Old Testament provides a comprehensive and exhaustive list of prohibited sexual intercourse in Leviticus 18.

Having sex with your mom is pornea under Old Covenant law. Lev 18:7

Having sex with your sister is pornea under Old Covenant law Lev 18:9

This is how one determines whether a sex act qualifies as "unlawful" byu looking at the law and seeing if there is a law prohibiting a certain act.

What I am looking for is a verse that specifically prohibits pre-marital sex. I already know that there are plenty of redundant verses redundantly prohibiting prohibited things by saying redundantly that prohibited things are prohibited.
While this would include sex before marriage, but it also includes adultery, homosexuality, and bestiality. It is the willing stimulation of the genitals with lewd intent, involving two parties, and so the term also includes so-called "mutual masturbation". Some scholars believe that the term "pornea" included oral sex and anal sex even within marriage, but biblically "fornication" is never linked with any sex between spouses


http://www.preceptaustin.org/galatians_519-20.htm
I wasn't really asking for evidence that some random person who replied on Yahoo Mexico Respuestas thought that premarital sex was included on the list of prohibited sexual acts. I was looking for an actual verse from the Bible.
Scriptural references:

Matt. 5:32; 19:9; John 8:41; Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25; Rom. 1:29; 1 Cor 5:1, 6:13, 18, 7:2; 10:8; 2 Cor 12:21; Gal 5:19; Eph 5:3; Col 3:5; 1 Thess. 4:3; Jude 1:7; Rev. 2:14, 20-21; 9:21; 14:8; 17:2,4)
Here we go! Bible verses. Lets see if any of these mention premarital sex.
But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. - Matt 5:32
Ok, so everyone who divorces his wife except on the grounds of her engaging in unlawful sexual practices makes her commit a specific type of unlawful sexual practice specifically prohibited by Leviticus 18:20.

How does that tells us whether or not premarital sex is an unlawful sexual practice or a lawful sexual practice?

Matt 19:9 said the same thing as 5:32, John 8:41 uses the word pornea again with no mention of premarital sex.
but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood Acts 15:20
Ok, so people should abstain from things polluted by idols and from illegal sexual practices and from what has been strangles and from blood acts. Does that mean that it is a sin for a man to have sex with his wife, since that is an illegal sexual practice?
They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, Rom 1:29
Holy cow! You are right! That verse totally proves that premarital sex is an unlawful sexual prac- Oh, wait. No it doesn't. It doesn't mention premarital sex, postmarital sex, marital sex, any type of marriage, or any type of sex. It doesn't even use the word pornea that I can see.

Can you give me a verse that says "premarital sex is a type of pornea" or "pornea means premarital sex" or "having sex with someone who you aren't married to is bad" or "sex is only ok between married people"?

Giving me a million verses that redundantly say "Having illegal sex is illegal" is redundantly redundant.

Angel

Re: Premarital Sex

Post #7

Post by Angel »

Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote:
Paradigm wrote: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?
Your question depends on the type of sex acts you're referring to. From my reading, all references to sex in the Bible have involved only acts of intercourse whether it be for procreation like in Genesis 4:1 and Genesis 38:8-10 or having sex with a prostitute like in 1 Corinthians 6:15-16. Assuming that I and others are correct in this view (which is perhaps why oral sex which would also include girl-girl sex aren't covered in the Bible), premarital oral sex and other non-intercourse sex acts would be permissible by biblical standards.

When it comes to premarital sexual intercourse, then I'd say that it is prohibited by God unless the 2 people involved have intent on getting married (Exodus 22:16).
Do you not believe that the Old Covenant laws were superseded by the New Covenant? What about wearing cotton/polyester shirts? What about breeding horses and donkeys to create mules? Are they immoral as well? Leviticus 19:19
I know of no perfect view here but generally most Christians believe that only the Laws involving moral behavior apply today. The ceremonial laws, dietary laws, and the penalties/punishment for violating those laws don't apply to the Christian today.
Paradigm wrote: It seems to me that the issue in Exodus 22:16 is not about sexual morality, or it would have been included in Leviticus 18. The issue is about money and property rights, not about sex. Back when women were property, they held a higher monetary value if they were virgins. Thus, a man who deflowered another man's property was robbing that man of a monetary asset.
I don't believe the Bible is as categorically organized as you're trying to make it. Your view and others presume that the OT laws are grouped together by category, like all the sexual sins in one area of the Bible, and so on. For the most part, it is that way but not all the time. If I were to follow your logic of Exodus 22:16 being about property rights, then much of the passages surrounding Exodus 22:16 would have to follow the same category but we don't find that. Where Exodus 22:16 talks about a man having sex with a virgin, the very next verse talks about sorcerers, and the verse after that talks about bestiality. These verses have nothing in relation to property rights. Due to this precedent, I'd also have to say that Leviticus 18 is not necessarily the area where all sexual sins are covered nor does it have to be.
Paradigm wrote: One way to tell that the verse is not really about pre-marital sex is that it is virgin specific. Moreover it applies only to virgins not pledged to be married. If a virgin is pledged to be married, the father has already collected his money on the exchange.
I agree with you to an extent in that all wives were considered the property of their husbands but that doesn't mean that that's all Exodus 22:16 is about since it also talks about sex and a subsequent marriage. The reason why only 'virgins' is mentioned in Exodus 22:16 is because different rules would apply if it were not a virgin that a man slept with. All women were expected to remain virgins until they were married otherwise it was presumed that she belonged to another man or had premarital sex. And if a woman was found to not be a virgin at the time of her first marriage she was to be killed which further supports the view that pre-marital sexual intercourse is a sin (Deuteronomy 22:20-21). Keep in mind, a woman who's pledged to be married is synonymous with being a wife or belonging to a man already (see Deuteronomy 22:23-24 where a betrothed women is referred to as a wife). The only scenario left for a women to not be a virgin outside of marriage is if the woman was divorced or became a widow. But then if the women who fall under these categories start sleeping with men they don't intend to marry then in biblical times they are equivalent to a 'harlot' which is profane (Leviticus 19:29). The Hebrew word for harlot is ('zanah').
Paradigm wrote: Notably, if a man has premarital sex with a girl who is not a virgin, he faces no penalty.
If the man intends to stay with the woman and the woman the same and not go sleeping around with others then I'd agree with you. Otherwise, the women would just be like a harlot which can go with the penalty in (Deuteronomy 22:20-21
Paradigm wrote: Or if he has premarital sex with a virgin who is pledged to be married, he faces no penalty.
The Bible mentions to the contrary (Deuteronomy 22:23-24).
In those passages you have a betrothed woman and a man who sleeps with her being stoned as a prescribed punishment.
Paradigm wrote: The verse is clearly not meant as an injunction against premarital sex in general, but rather as a property rights issue that is clearly no longer applicable, since we have done away with the "bride-price" altogether.
I disagaree with your conclusion because of the above stated reasons.

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24973
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 183 times

Re: Premarital Sex

Post #8

Post by Goat »

Strider324 wrote:
Paradigm wrote: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 do to her.

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?
As usual, the bible supports just about any position one would like to take.

Solomon was certainly not married to the dozens of concubines he dallied with, nor were any of the other ancient kings. I think it only became 'wrong' when someone discovered there was money to be made in demonizing normal human behavior.
8-)
When it comes to Solomon, it is not so much a set of laws, but rather showing that even those in power had flaws, and despite their great flaws, they can also be great rulers.

Now, when it comes to pre-marital sex, the main thing is that Rabbi's have to marry virgins. The Cohen and the Levine blood lines are of particular interest to the Orthodox in specifically, and definitely even more so during the temple periods.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

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

Re: Premarital Sex

Post #9

Post by Paradigm »

I know of no perfect view here but generally most Christians believe that only the Laws involving moral behavior apply today. The ceremonial laws, dietary laws, and the penalties/punishment for violating those laws don't apply to the Christian today.


That seems like an odd view Given what Paul writes in Ephesians 2:13

"But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,"
I don't believe the Bible is as categorically organized as you're trying to make it. Your view and others presume that the OT laws are grouped together by category, like all the sexual sins in one area of the Bible, and so on. For the most part, it is that way but not all the time. If I were to follow your logic of Exodus 22:16 being about property rights, then much of the passages surrounding Exodus 22:16 would have to follow the same category but we don't find that. Where Exodus 22:16 talks about a man having sex with a virgin, the very next verse talks about sorcerers, and the verse after that talks about bestiality. These verses have nothing in relation to property rights. Due to this precedent, I'd also have to say that Leviticus 18 is not necessarily the area where all sexual sins are covered nor does it have to be.
Ok, let's look at Exodus 22 and see if we can find a property rights trend shall we?
“Whoever steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it must pay back five head of cattle for the ox and four sheep for the sheep.
2 “If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; 3 but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed.

“Anyone who steals must certainly make restitution, but if they have nothing, they must be sold to pay for their theft. 4 If the stolen animal is found alive in their possession—whether ox or donkey or sheep—they must pay back double.

5 “If anyone grazes their livestock in a field or vineyard and lets them stray and they graze in someone else’s field, the offender must make restitution from the best of their own field or vineyard.

6 “If a fire breaks out and spreads into thornbushes so that it burns shocks of grain or standing grain or the whole field, the one who started the fire must make restitution.

7 “If anyone gives a neighbor silver or goods for safekeeping and they are stolen from the neighbor’s house, the thief, if caught, must pay back double. 8 But if the thief is not found, the owner of the house must appear before the judges, and they must determine whether the owner of the house has laid hands on the other person’s property. 9 In all cases of illegal possession of an ox, a donkey, a sheep, a garment, or any other lost property about which somebody says, ‘This is mine,’ both parties are to bring their cases before the judges.[c] The one whom the judges declare[d] guilty must pay back double to the other.

10 “If anyone gives a donkey, an ox, a sheep or any other animal to their neighbor for safekeeping and it dies or is injured or is taken away while no one is looking, 11 the issue between them will be settled by the taking of an oath before the LORD that the neighbor did not lay hands on the other person’s property. The owner is to accept this, and no restitution is required. 12 But if the animal was stolen from the neighbor, restitution must be made to the owner. 13 If it was torn to pieces by a wild animal, the neighbor shall bring in the remains as evidence and shall not be required to pay for the torn animal.

14 “If anyone borrows an animal from their neighbor and it is injured or dies while the owner is not present, they must make restitution. 15 But if the owner is with the animal, the borrower will not have to pay. If the animal was hired, the money paid for the hire covers the loss.

16 “If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.
See the common thread here? This section is all about restitution for the loss of monetary assets. No mention is made in the section of sin offerings, stoning, or any other penalties associated with moral edicts. The penalties are all monetary restitution, as is associated with property rights issues. In the case of sleeping with a virgin, the bride-price is restitution for the loss of a monetary asset, and that is the only penalty.
Paradigm wrote: One way to tell that the verse is not really about pre-marital sex is that it is virgin specific. Moreover it applies only to virgins not pledged to be married. If a virgin is pledged to be married, the father has already collected his money on the exchange.
I agree with you to an extent in that all wives were considered the property of their husbands but that doesn't mean that that's all Exodus 22:16 is about since it also talks about sex and a subsequent marriage. The reason why only 'virgins' is mentioned in Exodus 22:16 is because different rules would apply if it were not a virgin that a man slept with. All women were expected to remain virgins until they were married otherwise it was presumed that she belonged to another man or had premarital sex. And if a woman was found to not be a virgin at the time of her first marriage she was to be killed which further supports the view that pre-marital sexual intercourse is a sin (Deuteronomy 22:20-21). Keep in mind, a woman who's pledged to be married is synonymous with being a wife or belonging to a man already (see Deuteronomy 22:23-24 where a betrothed women is referred to as a wife). The only scenario left for a women to not be a virgin outside of marriage is if the woman was divorced or became a widow. But then if the women who fall under these categories start sleeping with men they don't intend to marry then in biblical times they are equivalent to a 'harlot' which is profane (Leviticus 19:29). The Hebrew word for harlot is ('zanah').
The focus of the verse is on the bride-price being paid as restitution. Outside of a culture in which women are property with a monetary value, the verse is meaningless.

How would you even apply it today? My girlfriend doesn't have a bride-price. If I sleep with her, then what? I could cut her Dad a check for $0, but he doesn't have the authority today to give her to m as a wife. I could say "Hey baby, I guess since we had sex I am morally obligated to marry you." If she refuses this heartfelt proposal does that mean I am off the hook?

I think the very fact that the law mentions culture-specific things like "bride-prices" and Fathers exchanging their daughters as property should be a clue that it was not intended as an everlasting moral edict.
If the man intends to stay with the woman and the woman the same and not go sleeping around with others then I'd agree with you. Otherwise, the women would just be like a harlot which can go with the penalty in (Deuteronomy 22:20-21
Let's look at Deut 22:21 shall we?
She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house.
My girlfriend is not in Israel, and she has her own apartment. Clearly this does not apply to her.
Paradigm wrote: Or if he has premarital sex with a virgin who is pledged to be married, he faces no penalty.
The Bible mentions to the contrary (Deuteronomy 22:23-24).
In those passages you have a betrothed woman and a man who sleeps with her being stoned as a prescribed punishment.
You are correct about this. My mistake.
I disagaree with your conclusion because of the above stated reasons.
Good! Wouldn't be much of a debate forum if everyone agreed all the time. I look forward to your rebuttal. :D

Angel

Re: Premarital Sex

Post #10

Post by Angel »

Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote:I know of no perfect view here but generally most Christians believe that only the Laws involving moral behavior apply today. The ceremonial laws, dietary laws, and the penalties/punishment for violating those laws don't apply to the Christian today.


That seems like an odd view Given what Paul writes in Ephesians 2:13

"But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,"
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.
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: I don't believe the Bible is as categorically organized as you're trying to make it. Your view and others presume that the OT laws are grouped together by category, like all the sexual sins in one area of the Bible, and so on. For the most part, it is that way but not all the time. If I were to follow your logic of Exodus 22:16 being about property rights, then much of the passages surrounding Exodus 22:16 would have to follow the same category but we don't find that. Where Exodus 22:16 talks about a man having sex with a virgin, the very next verse talks about sorcerers, and the verse after that talks about bestiality. These verses have nothing in relation to property rights. Due to this precedent, I'd also have to say that Leviticus 18 is not necessarily the area where all sexual sins are covered nor does it have to be.
Ok, let's look at Exodus 22 and see if we can find a property rights trend shall we?
“Whoever steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it must pay back five head of cattle for the ox and four sheep for the sheep.
2 “If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; 3 but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed.

“Anyone who steals must certainly make restitution, but if they have nothing, they must be sold to pay for their theft. 4 If the stolen animal is found alive in their possession—whether ox or donkey or sheep—they must pay back double.

5 “If anyone grazes their livestock in a field or vineyard and lets them stray and they graze in someone else’s field, the offender must make restitution from the best of their own field or vineyard.

6 “If a fire breaks out and spreads into thornbushes so that it burns shocks of grain or standing grain or the whole field, the one who started the fire must make restitution.

7 “If anyone gives a neighbor silver or goods for safekeeping and they are stolen from the neighbor’s house, the thief, if caught, must pay back double. 8 But if the thief is not found, the owner of the house must appear before the judges, and they must determine whether the owner of the house has laid hands on the other person’s property. 9 In all cases of illegal possession of an ox, a donkey, a sheep, a garment, or any other lost property about which somebody says, ‘This is mine,’ both parties are to bring their cases before the judges.[c] The one whom the judges declare[d] guilty must pay back double to the other.

10 “If anyone gives a donkey, an ox, a sheep or any other animal to their neighbor for safekeeping and it dies or is injured or is taken away while no one is looking, 11 the issue between them will be settled by the taking of an oath before the LORD that the neighbor did not lay hands on the other person’s property. The owner is to accept this, and no restitution is required. 12 But if the animal was stolen from the neighbor, restitution must be made to the owner. 13 If it was torn to pieces by a wild animal, the neighbor shall bring in the remains as evidence and shall not be required to pay for the torn animal.

14 “If anyone borrows an animal from their neighbor and it is injured or dies while the owner is not present, they must make restitution. 15 But if the owner is with the animal, the borrower will not have to pay. If the animal was hired, the money paid for the hire covers the loss.

16 “If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.
See the common thread here? This section is all about restitution for the loss of monetary assets. No mention is made in the section of sin offerings, stoning, or any other penalties associated with moral edicts. The penalties are all monetary restitution, as is associated with property rights issues. In the case of sleeping with a virgin, the bride-price is restitution for the loss of a monetary asset, and that is the only penalty.
I see some commonality for the most part as I said in my post that you're responding to but it is not consistent. For instance, Exodus 22:17 talks about a sorcorer which has nothing to do with property. Exodus 22:18 talks about bestiality which has nothing to do with property rights. So it's really not as clear cut as you're trying to make it when you say that all of chapter 22 is meant for property rights and restitution. I only see that SOME of Exodus 22 is about property rights.

Focusing more on Exodus 22:16, women were like property but sex is also involved in this verse. Once SEX is involved then it changes up the ball game to morals on sexual behavior rather than just property rights. Exodus 22:16 is also compatible with Deuteronomy 22:28-29 where a man also has sex with a virgin and is required to pay the brides price and marry the woman. If different men end up sleeping with this woman outside of marriage, then by biblical standards she would be guilty of being a harlot, in effect.
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote:
Paradigm wrote: One way to tell that the verse is not really about pre-marital sex is that it is virgin specific. Moreover it applies only to virgins not pledged to be married. If a virgin is pledged to be married, the father has already collected his money on the exchange.
I agree with you to an extent in that all wives were considered the property of their husbands but that doesn't mean that that's all Exodus 22:16 is about since it also talks about sex and a subsequent marriage. The reason why only 'virgins' is mentioned in Exodus 22:16 is because different rules would apply if it were not a virgin that a man slept with. All women were expected to remain virgins until they were married otherwise it was presumed that she belonged to another man or had premarital sex. And if a woman was found to not be a virgin at the time of her first marriage she was to be killed which further supports the view that pre-marital sexual intercourse is a sin (Deuteronomy 22:20-21). Keep in mind, a woman who's pledged to be married is synonymous with being a wife or belonging to a man already (see Deuteronomy 22:23-24 where a betrothed women is referred to as a wife). The only scenario left for a women to not be a virgin outside of marriage is if the woman was divorced or became a widow. But then if the women who fall under these categories start sleeping with men they don't intend to marry then in biblical times they are equivalent to a 'harlot' which is profane (Leviticus 19:29). The Hebrew word for harlot is ('zanah').
The focus of the verse is on the bride-price being paid as restitution. Outside of a culture in which women are property with a monetary value, the verse is meaningless.
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.
Paradigm wrote:How would you even apply it today? My girlfriend doesn't have a bride-price. If I sleep with her, then what? I could cut her Dad a check for $0, but he doesn't have the authority today to give her to m as a wife. I could say "Hey baby, I guess since we had sex I am morally obligated to marry you." If she refuses this heartfelt proposal does that mean I am off the hook?
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.
Paradigm wrote: I think the very fact that the law mentions culture-specific things like "bride-prices" and Fathers exchanging their daughters as property should be a clue that it was not intended as an everlasting moral edict.
I don't see that it is a moral standard for a woman to marry only when her father gives her away. What happens if her father died which is something that could've happened in any culture and any time in history. 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.
Paradigm wrote:
Angel wrote: If the man intends to stay with the woman and the woman the same and not go sleeping around with others then I'd agree with you. Otherwise, the women would just be like a harlot which can go with the penalty in (Deuteronomy 22:20-21
Let's look at Deut 22:21 shall we?

She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house.

My girlfriend is not in Israel, and she has her own apartment. Clearly this does not apply to her.
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.

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?

Post Reply