I had a friend ask me an interesting question on Friday. I’m glad she asked me on Friday, it gave me the weekend to think about it. She asked me my opinion on pre-marital sex. My initial response required no thought at all: “No.” I directed her to passages in Scripture that talk about fornication. She asked me if I meant sex with a prostitute. I said fornication means sex outside of marriage. She told me she doesn’t think that’s a proper definition. Really? She explained her reasoning to me, but, basically, the term fornication comes from the Latin fornicare, which meant to have sex with a prostitute. If ‘fornication’ comes from this Latin word, then it is certainly possible that, at one time at least, fornication meant prostitution. I must admit, that’s a new one. I’ve heard lots of excuses, I mean reasons, not to believe what the Bible says, but I’ve never heard that one before. I have to consider, what did the word fornication mean in 1611? Interestingly enough, a quick trip to dictionary.com verified the current meaning, and the etymology, but also indicated that Easton’s Bible Dictionary said that, in Biblical usage, the term fornication means what the modern dictionary says, essentially, pre-marital sex. Is that right? I haven’t yet found a reason not to trust Easton’s, but, you never know. Of course, the idea that it is talking about prostitution certainly would tie in to the idea that the love of money is the root of all evil…Let’s consider other ways in which Scripture may address the topic. Pre-marital sex would be an act of lust, rather than love, wouldn’t it? Some might argue that point, but, just for the sake, let’s look at what the Scripture says about lust: In 1 John 2:15-16, we are told to love not the world, and it goes on to warn us about the lust of the flesh. In Galatians 5:16, it tells us that the flesh lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh. Further on, it even lists fornication as a work of the flesh (is that fornication as in buying a hooker?) Clearly, in our spirits, we would want to please God, but if the flesh is contrary to the spirit, then the flesh is going to get us into trouble if we let it have its way. Romans 8:1-13 talks extensively about flesh vs. spirit (particularly 8:6-9). In Matthew 5:28, Jesus expressly warns us that to look at a woman (or for a woman to look at a man—because Jesus is an equal-opportunity savior) in lust, is the same, in God’s eyes, as committing adultery. Wait, do you mean that if I look at a woman with the thought in mind that I would like to sleep with her that’s a serious sin, but if I actually sleep with her, maybe that’s okay with God (as long as I’m not giving her money)?
But, what if two people really feel strongly about each other, and want to take their relationship to a more intimate level? Then they should get married. That may sound a little melodramatic, but, honestly, if you want to take your relationship to the next level, the next level is marriage. If you respect your significant other, then show it. To everybody. Try not to treat marriage as a disposable thing, either. I know that has become common. Some people refuse to even consider marriage, because so many marriages end up in divorce. That is not how it should be, but it is a consequence of people not putting God first. But marriage is Biblical; there’s a reason why our grandparents referred to the alternative as ‘living in sin.’ Notice also that Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 7:37 that there are really two options: Get married, or stay a virgin.
Perhaps the best thing to do is to look at the Greek word that was translated as fornication. After all, it makes a lot less difference what the translators meant when they translated the Bible, as opposed to what the original authors meant when they wrote the Bible (or what God meant when He dictated the Bible). The Greek word is ‘porneia’ (which I’m guessing is the root word for pornography), and no, it does not mean sex with a prostitute, it means illicit sex (that is, with someone outside of marriage), or it means idolatry (in the sense that the church is the bride of Christ, and to dally with some other god or gods is ‘cheating’ on our beloved).
Posts
17 comments:
You are starting with a conclusion and making the evidence fit your conclusion, instead of the other way around.
You say: "Pre-marital sex would be an act of lust, rather than love, wouldn’t it?"
That is a false premise. The part of your argument that is based on this assumption is invalid, because you give no reasons to logically assume that any pre-marital sex is not love, but lust. If I have sex with my fiance on the day before we're married, it's lust, but the following day it's love? That doesn't make sense.
You also say: "The Greek word is ‘porneia’... and no, it does not mean sex with a prostitute, it means illicit sex (that is, with someone outside of marriage)..."
Look at the definition of illicit: "not legally permitted or authorized; unlicensed; unlawful"; "contrary to accepted morality". Not pre-marital. What you're basically saying here is that "sex that is considered wrong is wrong". Not only is that meaningless, but it only applies to pre-marital sex if you want it to.
Actually, I stated the conclusion first, and then brought out the facts to support it. As far as illicit sex only meaning pre-marital sex if I want it to, I'm open to suggestions: What would you consider illicit sex? Granted, pre-marital sex would not necessarily be considered 'contrary to accepted morality' in this day and age, but as little as fifty years ago, it was. Somehow I have a hard time believing that the leaders of the early church would have any heart-ache with labelling pre-marital sex as porneia, do you?
Actually, I stated the conclusion first, and then brought out the facts to support it.
That's sort of what I said. But it sounds like your mind was made up before you started your research, considering that the facts don't support your conclusion.
As far as illicit sex only meaning pre-marital sex if I want it to, I'm open to suggestions: What would you consider illicit sex?
I'm not sure what difference that makes here. If I can't think of anything to suggest, does pre-marital win by default? But just for laughs, here are some things that I would consider illicit: sex that hurts people who don't want to be hurt, and sex with children.
Somehow I have a hard time believing that the leaders of the early church would have any heart-ache with labelling pre-marital sex as porneia, do you?
I'm really not sure, so I won't guess. And I'm not sure it matters. Even if they did, this is not the first century. People don't get married off at 13, they suffer through high school wearing True Love Waits rings and develop unhealthy attitudes toward sex until they grow up, snap and have an affair with a 15 year old from their church. Ask me how I know.
The point is, you apparently set out to show that the Bible teaches against pre-marital sex, and you have not. You might as well say, "Somehow I have a hard time believing that the leaders of the early church would have any heart-ache with labelling jokes about werewolves as porneia" for all the evidence you've shown.
Really? I personally thought that 1 Corinthinas 7:37 was the nail in the coffin...
Ah, true. Paul seems to have definitely been against pre-marital sex. See my previous comment as to why I don't care.
I just want to clarify a couple of things.
1 Cor. 7:37, which you claim is the nail in the coffin, says, "But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing."
Was that a typo? I fail to see how that verse is relevant to this discussion. There are much better verses you could have cherry-picked from that chapter. The coffin hasn't even been built.
Second, I just reread 1 Cor. 7 a couple times (the whole chapter, not just one verse out of context). When Paul says things like "it is better to marry than to burn with passion", it's not at all clear whether he's talking about sex with prostitutes or with someone you love and are committed to but not married to. It also seems clear to me that Paul is going out of his way to tell us that that most of that chapter is his own opinion, most of which I happen not to agree with.
There are a few issues I think have yet to be mentioned here but need to be if this is to engage the relevant texts in a serious, academic way.
First, the saying about lust being equivalent to adultery is presumably worded that way for a reason. Looking lustfully is not equated with fornication, but adultery. Why might that be? This needs to be discussed.
Second, no one seems to have mentioned that concubinage was quite common in the time of both the Old Testament and the New Testament, and is never spoken of negatively. So is the emphasis nowadays on civil marriage and marriage certificates inevitably placing the discussion in terms that are alien to the historical and social contexts of these writings?
I resent that you dismiss all pre-marital sex as lust, especially when you provide no evidence that backs your claim.
I think you're trying to use semantics to prove or disprove a point, instead of using the true meaning behind the text.
Also, what is the definition of marriage? God recognizes my bond with my wife, and I'm sure he approves; we love each other very much and are loyal through and through.
I think it would benefit you greatly if you were to examine the definition of marriage.
Jason--I'm not sure what translation you are reading, but I can see why reading that, you don't see the relevence. In 1 Corinthians 7, the King James Version, it doesn't say anything about burning 'with passion' it simply says it is better to marry than to burn. Further, in verse 37, wait, let's give that a little context, verses 36-38, it says, "But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.
37.Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.
38.So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better." The options here are marriage or virginity. Of course, you have already dismissed this as Paul's opinion, so it doesn't really matter to you what the words say. I have to ask, though, so you really think that God would allow Paul to insert his own opinion into the Bible?
I'm looking at the NIV.
I have to ask, though, so you really think that God would allow Paul to insert his own opinion into the Bible?
Why else would he make this distinction:
v10: "And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord..."
v12: "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord..."
He spells out the fact that it's not God talking anymore, it's just Paul. So either it's his opinion, which God apparently allowed, or he's lying about it being his opinion, which God apparently allowed.
Do you really think God would allow Paul to take credit for His ideas in the Bible?
Professor McGrath--you make some good points. I have wondered myself why Jesus would equate lust with adultery, rather than fornication, particularly since the marital status of the person doing the lusting (or the person being lusted after) is not specified. My best guess is that it is because adultery is specifically mentioned in the ten commandments.
You are also quite correct about concubines being common in Biblical times, and never spoken about negatively. To be honest, that didn't even occur to me when I posted this. I won't pretend to understand the practice of concubinage (the explanation always given to me in Sunday School was, "That's just the way they did things back then."). As you point out, it's hard to place this discussion in terms that are not alien to the historical and social context of the writings. Most of us aren't even particularly famiar with them.
Thanks for your input.
Josiah--I'm sorry that you feel that way. To be honest, as you can see from the other responses, Jason has already taken me to task on the idea that pre-marital sex equals lust. To be honest, I probably should have at least worded that better. I do think that lust is one of the more prevelant forces that drives pre-marital sex, although I must admit it is not the only one. I do think that what Scripture says about lust helps give insight into what we should know about pre-marital sex. I promise you that I am not trying to use semantics to prove or disprove a point, it was my intention to get to the true meaning behind the text, and I'm sorry if I came across that way. Lastly, you make a very good point: What is the actual definition of marriage? Is it getting a license issued by some governmental agency, and then having a ceremony performed by some member of the clergy? I don't think it has to be, but I think trying to come up with a definition of marriage that we can all agree on is a daunting task, and I don't think that I will be attempting that in this lifetime.
Congratulations on your marriage, by the way, I hope you and yours have a long and happy future together.
Just a quick note about the question about Paul's opinions in Scripture:
In 2 Corinthians 11:17, Paul says "What I am saying I say not with the Lord's authority but as a fool" (RSV). It is literally that he is speaking as a fool and "not according to the Lord" in Greek.
How does your view of Scripture make sense of this? 1 Corinthians 7:12 is also worth considering in relation to this subject - Paul's point is to contrast his own view with something that derived from an express teaching of Jesus, but it still seems relevant to the subject.
In asserting that God would not allow Paul's opinion to be recorded in the Bible, are you perhaps imposing your own view of what Scripture "ought" to be on the Bible, rather than taking completely seriously what the Bible shows itself to be?
Professor McGrath, thanks for that insight. Take a look at Jason's comment below, also. This will require some thoughtful prayer. I certainly don't mean to impose my own views of what Scripture ought to be... At the same time, I believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, which leads to me believe that God at least approves of what Paul had to say. I have a feeling I'm not going to like your answer, but what do you believe that the Bible shows itself to be?
Jason- Very good point. I had never thought about it that way. As I told Professor McGrath above, though, it seems to me that God had to at least approve of wht Paul wrote, or it wouldn't be in there. Still, you are quite correct, God wouldn't let Paul take credit for something that ultimately came from God.
There sure are a lot of male opinions here. Let me perhaps bring some female thought into the discussion...
OOPS! It slipped my mind that I have no right to do so, according to Paul's "opinions". Well, I'll go for it anyway, since we all seem to be mostly-modern thinkers here.
One of my biggest, greatest, all-time hardest things to deal as a Christian female was that it seemed like every time I read more than two pages in the Bible I was forced to justify it with some sort of historical reference.("It was how the times were back then", "slavery was accepted as proper and practical in those days", "women had a different role in biblical times") Whether Christians are able to admit it or not, times have vastly changed and the Bible has not changed with them. If you are an American male, you can still apply ALMOST everything in the Bible directly to your life. However, if you are a female, you must adapt and change the words to fit the modern times, OR continue the traditional belief that you are inferior to men in multiple spiritual ways.
This applies to this Blog in the following way:
"Porneia" meant "sexual immorality" which included:
1) Sex during women's menstruation.
2) Adultery, which biblically was understood by the Hebrews to mean it was wrong for a married woman to have sex with another man since it violated her husbands property rights. It was never understood to be wrong for a married man since his wife had no such rights. The married man could have as many wives and concubines (breeders) as he wished as long as they were not married (another man's property). Nothing was ever documented to be wrong with singles sexuality. "Fornication" is a total mistranslation of Greek "porneia".
3) Pagan sex goddess prostitution. Porneia as used in I Cor 6-9, falsely translated in some bibles as fornication was actually the practice of the prostitutes in the Temples of Corinth selling their services as a part of pagan fertility goddess worship, which was what Paul was warning against. Not even specifically about prostitution (still legal and very popular in Israel today) but used as a pagan sexual goddess worship.
4) Pederasty - one of the worst of all sexual sins that took various forms: The practice of pederasty falls into three distinct styles. First is the relationship between an older man and a young child (usually a boy). Second is the practice of slave prostitutes. Third is that of the effeminate "call boy" or child prostitute. Other practices included a heterosexual male degrading another heterosexual male by anal intercourse after capturing them in battle. It had very little to do with homosexuality as we know it today.
Now, I don't know what your opinions on those above topics are, but I do know that "morals" are subjective, and CHANGE over time. Education, science, culture, relationships, politics; these are all things that CHANGE the moral opinions of a person. The key word here is CHANGE. You either accept that EVERY silly, outdated part of biblical culture still holds true, or you accept that it's POSSIBLE that Jesus is currently indifferent to consensual, loving, unselfish pre-marital sex these days.
Taisha—Thank you for your comment. My apologies for taking so long to respond to your post, but you gave me a lot to consider. May I ask your source as to the definition of Porneia that you provided? Please don’t take that as a challenge, I just would really like to know. I have checked a number of sources, and none of those sources go into anywhere near that kind of detail, although most of them insist that pre-marital sex is at least one of the things to which porneia can refer (I mentioned Easton’s Bible Dictionary in the original post, Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Terms defines porneia as adultery or fornication…). One of those sources suggests looking at context to get a better idea of what the term refers to in each instance. That’s what I should have done to start with.
Having said that, let’s move on: The term is used 29 times in the New Testament. Nine of those times are in the Book of Revelation, and I’m just not going to go there. The first verse that uses the term is Matthew 5:32, in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus said, “But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.” This particular verse has been the subject of much debate, even without looking at the Greek terms, because Jesus talks about the wife committing fornication, but then he says that if this woman gets divorced and then marries someone else, then she is committing adultery. Now, from the standard definition of fornication (i.e., pre-marital sex), how does a married woman commit fornication? One individual made the case that it can’t be talking about adultery, because Old Testament Law doesn’t specify divorce as a remedy for adultery, it commands death by stoning. Well, we know that Jesus didn’t approve of the stoning sentence, at least, not in the case of the woman that the Pharisees brought to Him in John 8. Let’s take a minute and look at the Law regarding divorce, and having one’s wife stoned: In Deuteronomy 24:1 it says: “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.” That’s pretty vague, and pretty harsh, but, let’s face it, not very much different from our courts today… But that really doesn’t help us understand Matthew 5:32, does it? Maybe if we look at stoning in the Old Testament: Leviticus 20:10-21 gets into a whole lot of stuff that I’d rather not talk about, but briefly, adultery (and, yes, as you pointed out earlier, specifically a man with someone else’s wife—no mention of a husband with a woman other than his wife), bestiality, incest, sex during menstruation… But the penalty for all of these things was death for both parties, the man and the woman (or the person and the animal). There is another passage that may shed some light: In Leviticus 22:13-21, it talks about a man trying to get out of his marriage by claiming that his wife was not a virgin when they got married. Of course, again, the penalty (for the woman) was death by stoning, if she was found guilty, but if she could provide evidence that the man was lying, then he would have to pay her father a hundred shekels, and he would not be allowed to divorce her, ever. Now, it would seem that Jesus is lessening the penalties here; what was considered good reason for divorce under the law, is no longer good enough, but what carried a death sentence under the law, is now grounds for divorce. In this light, is seems pretty clear, IMHO, that Jesus was using the term porneia as an either/or, whereas moicheuo would be specifically adultery, porneia could be adultery or fornication (or bestiality).
At this rate, it will take me days to go through the other nineteen. Let me say this, Jesus again uses the term in Matthew 15:19, but the context there doesn’t do much to help us understand what He meant by the term; it’s a list of sins (which also includes moicheuo, so I think it’s safe to assume that He didn’t mean adultery when He said porneia, but He may very well have meant actual fornication, and everything you mentioned, as well). The next time the term is used is in Matthew 19:9; here the Pharisees ask Jesus about what He said in Mathew 5:32, and He tells them that Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of people’s hearts, but also tells them that from the beginning it was not so. He reminds them that when God created Adam, He then created Eve to be Adam’s wife and those two became one flesh (notice that God didn’t create Eve to be Adam’s girlfriend, but neither did God give Adam 2 wives and 3 concubines). Mark 7:21 is the same list of sins as Matthew 15:19… In John 8:41, Jesus tells the Pharisees that they do the works of their father, and they bristle at that, and tell Jesus that they were not born of fornication… It seems clear to me that they thought Jesus was accusing them of being illegitimate offspring (which he wasn’t), but they responded by saying that were not born of fornication, that is, our parents were married when we were conceived, and then go on to claim God as their Father. I think that it is significant that they make no attempt to defend their mothers, as they would have if they thought Jesus were calling their mothers prostitutes… In the Book of Acts, the term is used three times: Acts 15:20, 15:29, and 21:25. All three times it is included in a list of things that the elders of the church have decided that it is important that the Gentiles know not to do. It’s actually a very short list, and, it would seem that it is probably intended to cover a wide range of sexual acts. Romans 1:29 lists porneia in a list of unrighteousness… 1 Corinthians 5:1 uses the term to describe what would seem to me to be a particularly disturbing form of incest, although Paul judiciously avoids mentioning any blood relation between the two parties involved. At the very least, this seems to be a special case; Paul seems to be surprised to even have to point out that this particular act is sin, even the Gentiles don’t do this. Twice in the next chapter, 6:13 and 6:18, the term is used, and it makes the point that the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body, and then states that a man that commits fornication sins against his own body; this fits with what you said, that Paul was talking about the pagan fertility goddess worship. In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul tells us that it is good for a man not to touch a woman, nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let each man have his own wife, and each wife have her own husband. Notice the one-on-one relationship, there. Paul is refereeing back to Jesus’ words that, in marriage, two people become one flesh. Now, was Paul being naïve? Did he think that if a man is married, that it would prevent him from committing the sort of sin that you listed above? One would hope that a married man would go out and pay for sex, but, let’s be honest about this, a lot of them do. To be honest, marriage won’t necessarily even prevent adultery (even if you define adultery as a man having sex with another man’s wife). Cripes, I’m only about half way through the list (not counting Revelation).
I think it’s clear, though, that porneia can mean a lot of things, but one of the things that it refers to is pre-marital sex. If I am mistaken about that, then I would certainly prefer to err on the side of caution.
Let me say something else: you mention that if two people are in a loving, unselfish relationship, and they decide to have sex, that you believe that God is okay with that. To be honest, that makes sense to me, but, let me remind you that our ways are not God’s ways, and our thoughts are not God thoughts (Isaiah 55:9). There is a way that seems right to man, but the end of that way is death (Proverbs 14:12). This is not a subject that should be left to personal opinion, yours or mine. Let me ask you something else: If there are two people in an unselfish loving relationship, why are they not getting married? Are we talking about two people that are trapped on a desert island with no minister to perform the ceremony, or are we talking about two people that just don’t think the government should have a say in who does, or does not, get married? I can sort of understand either situation, but I would have to say that two castaways on an island that love each other selflessly are probably already married in God’s eyes, anyway, and the other two people should probably just suck it up and get the marriage license, after all, the Bible also tells us to obey every ordinance of man (1 Peter 2:13)(with the obvious exception of when the laws of our government would cause us to violate the commandments of God—but, unless there are some pretty extenuating circumstances, I don’t think getting a marriage license qualifies). It also occurs to me that perhaps we are talking about two people that are afraid that after a few years of marriage, that they will find that they are no longer in love; after all, the divorce rate is awfully high. That’s a legitimate concern, but I would have to ask, if you aren’t in love deeply enough now to be sure that your love won’t fade, then are you really in love?
Thank you again for your comment, and, again, I apologize for taking so long to respond, and I also apologize for the length of the response, but I thought that this was important enough to spend some time thinking about, praying about, and doing some actual research (which I should have done to start with). I felt that you deserved a better response that what I could give "off-the-cuff."
Post a Comment