Is all premarital sex actually prohibited in the Bible?

Debating issues regarding sexuality

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
pyrite
Student
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 5:10 pm

Post #31

Post by pyrite »

micatala wrote:
pyrite wrote:
micatala wrote:if one is acting in faith, one is not necessarily sinning. If one is acting against your faith, then you are sinning no matter what you do
this is very true..
i'm not sure whether paul's statement 'all things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial' (1 Cor 10:23) and its surrounding chapter have come into this thread, but they should! another thing we may need to consider is if premarital sex will hurt or offend other people we are close to (eg christian family), or cause them to stumble against their own beliefs. it is our responsibility to honor the convictions of our close ones, and as soon as your sex becomes public and offends them, there's an opportunity for you to cause them to stumble against their own convictions, which is highly discouraged in scripture.
I think this is a valid point. As noted in Romans 14, we should act for the benefit of our brothers. However, it seems to me we also have to consider the possibility of becoming 'hostage' to other people's over-active tendencies to be offended.

For example, if person A marries person B who is of another faith, it might cause members of person A's family to quarrel with each other, be offended, or even leave the church or the faith. Should A and B allow what they feel is their God-ordained love to be held hostage to this potential situation? They can certainly attempt to be as diplomatic, discrete, and understanding as possible, but it is not likely they would long be able to hide their intentions, or their marriage if they end up, for example, eloping.

I would certainly agree that those engaging in pre-marital sex are, at a minimum, obliged to act very discretely so as to avoid creating a temptation for others who for whom such action would prove harmful (because of lack of maturity, inability to distinguish between love and lust, etc.)
agreed on all counts :)

youngborean
Sage
Posts: 800
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:28 pm

Post #32

Post by youngborean »

Confused wrote:
youngborean wrote:I don't think premarital sex is forbidden in the bible. But it is clear that the intention after extra-marital sex is that the man needs to fully persue the possiblity of marriage with that woman.

Deu 22:28 If a man find a damsel [that is] a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
Deu 22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

and
Exd 22:16 ¶ And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
Exd 22:17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins

I think that the basic scriptural premise is that it is not proper or respectful to have premarital sex, but it is not a sin punishable by death. The outcome should always be that the man seeks to make good by her. There is responsibility for the action in other words.
But this is just your interpretation, correct? I read the scripture you have listed, and listed it earlier in the thread and while it might appear to suggest one should marry if they have sex, it does say that if they don't , the man can pay a virgin price and it is ok. But there isn't anything that condemns it per se, or makes it a sin right?
Well I would say that the negation of a positive commandment (to pay the price) would be considered a sin. So it is really the intention that is the issue and where the idea of sin comes in. The easiest way to avoid sinning in the intention is to avoid the act of premaritial sex all together. But there is nothing in the OT that outwardly forbids the act it self, but the act requires retribution. It is not specifically called a sin to hurt people physically but there is retribution (eye for eye, eg) required. But I would say it is extremely difficult let good intentions outweight the desires of the flesh.

User avatar
Confused
Site Supporter
Posts: 7308
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 5:55 am
Location: Alaska

Post #33

Post by Confused »

youngborean wrote:
Confused wrote:
youngborean wrote:I don't think premarital sex is forbidden in the bible. But it is clear that the intention after extra-marital sex is that the man needs to fully persue the possiblity of marriage with that woman.

Deu 22:28 If a man find a damsel [that is] a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
Deu 22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

and
Exd 22:16 ¶ And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
Exd 22:17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins

I think that the basic scriptural premise is that it is not proper or respectful to have premarital sex, but it is not a sin punishable by death. The outcome should always be that the man seeks to make good by her. There is responsibility for the action in other words.
But this is just your interpretation, correct? I read the scripture you have listed, and listed it earlier in the thread and while it might appear to suggest one should marry if they have sex, it does say that if they don't , the man can pay a virgin price and it is ok. But there isn't anything that condemns it per se, or makes it a sin right?
Well I would say that the negation of a positive commandment (to pay the price) would be considered a sin. So it is really the intention that is the issue and where the idea of sin comes in. The easiest way to avoid sinning in the intention is to avoid the act of premaritial sex all together. But there is nothing in the OT that outwardly forbids the act it self, but the act requires retribution. It is not specifically called a sin to hurt people physically but there is retribution (eye for eye, eg) required. But I would say it is extremely difficult let good intentions outweight the desires of the flesh.
Prostitution was practiced in both the OT and NT. Is there any reference to a penance being paid for either a) being a prostitute or b) using a prostitute. I ask this out of ignorance, not challenge. I have looked at some of the most popular books but found nothing addressing this. I admit, I avoided Leviticus. And will continue to do so. So would these prostitutes be sinning or those using these prostitutes (those not betrothed nor married) be sinning. Perhaps sinning is right, are they doing something that requires retribution and if so, what would it be?
What we do for ourselves dies with us,
What we do for others and the world remains
and is immortal.

-Albert Pine
Never be bullied into silence.
Never allow yourself to be made a victim.
Accept no one persons definition of your life; define yourself.

-Harvey Fierstein

youngborean
Sage
Posts: 800
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:28 pm

Post #34

Post by youngborean »

Well the idea in that culture seemed to be if you weren't a virgin, you were a harlot. There really wasn't an in between. This is an example of some of the stronger language in reference to those ideas.

Deu 23:17 ¶ There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.
Deu 23:18 Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God.

User avatar
Confused
Site Supporter
Posts: 7308
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 5:55 am
Location: Alaska

Post #35

Post by Confused »

youngborean wrote:Well the idea in that culture seemed to be if you weren't a virgin, you were a harlot. There really wasn't an in between. This is an example of some of the stronger language in reference to those ideas.

Deu 23:17 ¶ There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.
Deu 23:18 Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God.
Yes in regards to the OT, the general concept was to condemn the "whore" per se. But in the NT does Christ not preach forgiveness to help those sinners (including whores) find a path back to God? So in regards to the OT, the harlot can never be married in the eyes of God because of her immorality, right. Christ doesn't change this opinion in the NT. But it would assume that if Christ came for the sinners, then prehaps he came for the harlots. Either way, He never condones nor condemns premarital sex. So based on the OT, must we still consider anyone who has sex before marriage a harlot? If so, is it a sin?
What we do for ourselves dies with us,
What we do for others and the world remains
and is immortal.

-Albert Pine
Never be bullied into silence.
Never allow yourself to be made a victim.
Accept no one persons definition of your life; define yourself.

-Harvey Fierstein

User avatar
micatala
Site Supporter
Posts: 8338
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:04 pm

Post #36

Post by micatala »

youngborean wrote:Well the idea in that culture seemed to be if you weren't a virgin, you were a harlot. There really wasn't an in between. This is an example of some of the stronger language in reference to those ideas.

Deu 23:17 ¶ There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.
Deu 23:18 Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God.
I find it interesting that whores are in some way being equated with sodomites. I am assuming some translations would give the latter term as 'homosexuals'. I wonder what the original Hebrew term actually meant in their context. Was there a connotation of idolatry, for instance?

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24717
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Post #37

Post by Goat »

micatala wrote:
youngborean wrote:Well the idea in that culture seemed to be if you weren't a virgin, you were a harlot. There really wasn't an in between. This is an example of some of the stronger language in reference to those ideas.

Deu 23:17 ¶ There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.
Deu 23:18 Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God.
I find it interesting that whores are in some way being equated with sodomites. I am assuming some translations would give the latter term as 'homosexuals'. I wonder what the original Hebrew term actually meant in their context. Was there a connotation of idolatry, for instance?
This particular one was a prohibition against the Jews to be a 'cult prostitute'. In many other religions locally, there was prostitution in the temples as a form of worship. (I am sure you have heard the term 'Temple handmaiden' before). This was a prohibition aimed at that practice (such as Asherea did). It was a prohibition what was allowed in the temple. It also served as a way to seperate the Jews from trying to follow other religions too. The word 'aobmination' is hebrew 'tovah' which means 'ritualistically unclean'.

youngborean
Sage
Posts: 800
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:28 pm

Post #38

Post by youngborean »

Confused wrote:
youngborean wrote:Well the idea in that culture seemed to be if you weren't a virgin, you were a harlot. There really wasn't an in between. This is an example of some of the stronger language in reference to those ideas.

Deu 23:17 ¶ There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.
Deu 23:18 Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God.
Yes in regards to the OT, the general concept was to condemn the "whore" per se. But in the NT does Christ not preach forgiveness to help those sinners (including whores) find a path back to God? So in regards to the OT, the harlot can never be married in the eyes of God because of her immorality, right. Christ doesn't change this opinion in the NT. But it would assume that if Christ came for the sinners, then prehaps he came for the harlots. Either way, He never condones nor condemns premarital sex. So based on the OT, must we still consider anyone who has sex before marriage a harlot? If so, is it a sin?
It is my belief that Christ pointed out that all have sinned under the standard of the OT. And that repentance is the only way back. David was guilty of adultery and murder and should have been put to death according to the law. But was spared because of repentance, perhaps this idea was always there, but Jesus made it his central ministry. Saying, "I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." This isn't to say sinning is good, but that sinners can repent.

User avatar
micatala
Site Supporter
Posts: 8338
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:04 pm

Post #39

Post by micatala »

goat wrote:
micatala wrote:
youngborean wrote:Well the idea in that culture seemed to be if you weren't a virgin, you were a harlot. There really wasn't an in between. This is an example of some of the stronger language in reference to those ideas.

Deu 23:17 ¶ There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.
Deu 23:18 Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God.
I find it interesting that whores are in some way being equated with sodomites. I am assuming some translations would give the latter term as 'homosexuals'. I wonder what the original Hebrew term actually meant in their context. Was there a connotation of idolatry, for instance?
This particular one was a prohibition against the Jews to be a 'cult prostitute'. In many other religions locally, there was prostitution in the temples as a form of worship. (I am sure you have heard the term 'Temple handmaiden' before). This was a prohibition aimed at that practice (such as Asherea did). It was a prohibition what was allowed in the temple. It also served as a way to seperate the Jews from trying to follow other religions too. The word 'aobmination' is hebrew 'tovah' which means 'ritualistically unclean'.
I am really glad we have someone around who knows a little Hebrew. :)
I am learning some very interesting things.

Would 'tovah' also be the word used in Leviticus regarding several of the other sexual sins?

The word abomination has taken on a connotation more of 'something God really really hates' in evangelical circles. It is portrayed as the most vehement rejection possible, something against the very nature of God.

This seems to me to be a little bit different than 'ritualistically unclean.'
youngborean wrote: It is my belief that Christ pointed out that all have sinned under the standard of the OT. And that repentance is the only way back. David was guilty of adultery and murder and should have been put to death according to the law. But was spared because of repentance, perhaps this idea was always there, but Jesus made it his central ministry. Saying, "I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." This isn't to say sinning is good, but that sinners can repent.
I would agree.

With some sins, however, there is a problem regarding what repentence means and if repentance is even possible.

Repenting from premarital sex would, it seems to me, mean to stop doing it, and more so, to even refrain from situations of temptation. Does getting married count as repentance? Is all forgiven once the marriage vows are taken?

Elsewhere in the forum the issue of divorce and remarriage has come up. If a divorced person has remarried, would not repenting mean leaving the new spouse and returning to the old?

Regarding homosexuality, my view is that asking a homosexual to 'repent' from being a homosexual makes about as much sense asking a heterosexual to repent from being a heterosexual.

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24717
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Post #40

Post by Goat »

micatala wrote:
goat wrote:
micatala wrote:
youngborean wrote:Well the idea in that culture seemed to be if you weren't a virgin, you were a harlot. There really wasn't an in between. This is an example of some of the stronger language in reference to those ideas.

Deu 23:17 ¶ There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.
Deu 23:18 Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God.
I find it interesting that whores are in some way being equated with sodomites. I am assuming some translations would give the latter term as 'homosexuals'. I wonder what the original Hebrew term actually meant in their context. Was there a connotation of idolatry, for instance?
This particular one was a prohibition against the Jews to be a 'cult prostitute'. In many other religions locally, there was prostitution in the temples as a form of worship. (I am sure you have heard the term 'Temple handmaiden' before). This was a prohibition aimed at that practice (such as Asherea did). It was a prohibition what was allowed in the temple. It also served as a way to seperate the Jews from trying to follow other religions too. The word 'aobmination' is hebrew 'tovah' which means 'ritualistically unclean'.
I am really glad we have someone around who knows a little Hebrew. :)
I am learning some very interesting things.

Would 'tovah' also be the word used in Leviticus regarding several of the other sexual sins?

The word abomination has taken on a connotation more of 'something God really really hates' in evangelical circles. It is portrayed as the most vehement rejection possible, something against the very nature of God.

This seems to me to be a little bit different than 'ritualistically unclean.'
youngborean wrote: It is my belief that Christ pointed out that all have sinned under the standard of the OT. And that repentance is the only way back. David was guilty of adultery and murder and should have been put to death according to the law. But was spared because of repentance, perhaps this idea was always there, but Jesus made it his central ministry. Saying, "I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." This isn't to say sinning is good, but that sinners can repent.
I would agree.

With some sins, however, there is a problem regarding what repentence means and if repentance is even possible.

Repenting from premarital sex would, it seems to me, mean to stop doing it, and more so, to even refrain from situations of temptation. Does getting married count as repentance? Is all forgiven once the marriage vows are taken?

Elsewhere in the forum the issue of divorce and remarriage has come up. If a divorced person has remarried, would not repenting mean leaving the new spouse and returning to the old?

Regarding homosexuality, my view is that asking a homosexual to 'repent' from being a homosexual makes about as much sense asking a heterosexual to repent from being a heterosexual.
Yes, tovah is used in regard to a lot of sins. For the most part, leviticus is dealing with restrictions in reguards to the temple, and for the priests. Mind you, that doesn't mean that Judaism doesn't say that homosexual acts are wrong. THere is the whole thing about sex where the orthodox at least feel it should end in at least the potential for reproduction.. (which I personally think is out dated). However, 'TOVAH' is used for cleanlyiness and is more concerned with being able to enter the temple than anything else.

Post Reply