Board index ‹ Sex

[Ostrich]

This assertion rests on the definition of "fornication", it's translation, and how it's definition to include premarital sex has been expanded by clergy.

The Greek words "pornea" (often translated "fornication") and akatharsia (often translated "uncleanness") are key terms used to refer to sexual sins in the Christian Scriptures (New Testament). They appear dozens of times, particularly in the writings attributed to Paul, who concentrated a great deal on sexual sins. Unfortunately, diverse Christian groups have very different definitions of these words.
- Religious liberals tend to define the terms narrowly and precisely.
- Religious conservatives often define the words to include a wide assortment of sexual activities, when practiced within a wide range of types of relationships.

By simply defining the words in a narrow or wide sense, religious liberals and conservatives can totally change the meaning of the Bible. Most conservative Christian churches have greatly expanded the English term "fornication." It is to them a catch-all term that includes "premarital sex, orgies, masturbation, oral sex, fetishes, anything to do with pornography, 'improper' thoughts about the opposite sex, homosexuality, and just about any other sexual sin you could think of."

Strong's Concordance gives meanings to Greek and Hebrew words found in the Bible. It describes "pornea," as having a somewhat broader usage in Biblical times, compared to today. When used literally, it includes three activities: prostitution, adultery and incest.

So if 2 single, unrelated, unmarried adults were to freely have sex, it would not violate prostitution, adultery, or incest.

[jimwalton]

I see what you're getting at, and you're basing it on technicalities. You may be right, but I don't think so. We can talk.

What you say is true about adultery being defined as someone married having sex with someone to whom he or she is not married—sexual activity outside of marriage by those who are married. The focus of Ex. 20.14, for instance, is to protect the sanctity of the home and the dignity and purity of the marriage state. The focus is on paternity more than on sexual ethics (though, to be honest, it's difficult to identify in the OT or in other ancient Near Eastern literature a well-developed system of sexual ethics. The overriding concerns about sex were primarily social, more so than ethical.). In a broader sense, though, it possibly touches on the dignity of human beings, depending on how one reads it. Proverbs 5.3-23; 6.24-35; 7.5-27 reinforce both the ideas of the wrongness of adultery, but also the dangers of sex outside of marriage. Though, you are right, no explicit command.

When we get to Jesus, though, we read that he ups the ante. He explicitly forbids (Mk. 7.21-23) sexual immorality (πορνεῖαι, porneiai—as distinct from adultery), adultery (μοιχεῖαι—of the married), and lewdness (ἀσέλγεια, aselgeia). We have to look at those, as you did.

πορνεῖαι (porneiai). The steady meaning of this term in Greek literature is prostitution, but Paul uses it even in cases there there is no payment for sex. In the Greco-Roman world, it is unlikely that it ruled out all consensual extramarital sex, but generally meant sex bought by the act with no further obligation (prostitution). The Greeks and Romans reviled women who had more than one sexual partner, but endured the men who did so (except for adultery). Paul's writings signaled a vast change by incriminating both men and women who behaved "like whores".

Looking a little deeper, though, for the polytheists of Greece and Rome, a "porne" was a normally a slave whore, the sex toy of the owner. Some had to parade naked in public places. Greek vase paintings who men beating them, evidently for fun. This was the institution behind the word, which, when it doesn't mean sex for hire, it probably emphasizes brutality. For the polytheists, the essence of porneia was treating another human being as a thing (back to Ex. 20.14)—touching back to the idea of the dignity of a human being.

Adultery (μοιχεῖαι) has already been touched on.

Lewdness (ἀσέλγεια) means "license; licentiousness; sensuality; lewdness; lasciviousness; wantonness; debauchery; unrestrained sexual instinct; open flaunting." In the day it meant irresponsibility, sexual or otherwise. Sarah Ruden writes, "Any Greek or Roman (or inhabitant of a Greek or Roman city) of Paul's time who set himself against his own arousal would have gone insane, because no one could escape the sexual stimulation in this social and outdoor culture. There is no evidence that Paul beat his head against this culture by going further than to preach that overwhelming lust could be channeled in marriage (1 Cor. 7.1-8). He does not suggest that either God or man can defeat the urge itself. Irresponsible follow-through has to be the idea here." The word carries the special sense of sexual excess. Jesus and Paul didn't have anything against sex or sexual desire per se, but they did seem to object, as does Proverbs, to the evil manifested in exploitative or promiscuous sex. According to Jesus, not just the physical act but also the thoughts of illicit sex were sin.

By the time we get to 1 Corinthians 6.17-19; Eph. 5.3, Paul enlarges these thoughts about sexual ethics and says that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit—the very habitation of very God. And, as we know, the Temple of Jerusalem was not like the other temples of their contemporaries—places for ritual and cultic sex. Those were considered sacrilege in the Temple, and our bodies, like the Temple, are not meant for profanations like this.

Again, the word Paul uses is porneia, and this is the context of his "temple" text. Porneia has no place. It and the kingdom of God are incompatible. The community needs to steer clear of sexual sin. Paul's point is not just in the terms but in all of what he says. The way of purity is what is in mind. Just as nothing improper entered the temple (and certainly no illicit sex), so also anything notion of disorderliness, misconduct, undisciplined attitudes and behaviors hereto be kept away from our bodies. Paul consistently links lewdness (ἀσέλγεια) with impurity (and therefore to be kept out of God's "temple". A large part of what makes sexual misbehavior "impure", even sex between consenting single adults, is its lack of restraint. People in God's kingdom are to be defined by self-control and purity, not lust and freewheeling. James Brownson says, "The NT expects Christians to conform their internal dispositions, as well as their external behaviors, to this gracious order empowered by the Holy Spirit through our union with Christ. The failure to do so is 'impurity,' a disordered life where things are not in their proper places. Paul’s reference to sexual misbehavior with the term 'impurity' must be understood in this larger context."

The biblical concept extends beyond the technical definitions of terminology. 1 Thessalonians 4.3-7 links the two concepts explicitly: Stay sanctified, avoid sexual immorality. It's quite fair to say that sexual immorality, in the most general and broadest sense possible, is irreconcilable with a godly life.

Hebrews 13.4 completes the picture. Craig Keener writes, "The 'marriage bed' was an idiom for intercourse. Male sexual immorality was rife in Graeco-Roman society, which also accepted prostitution; pedophilia, homosexual intercourse, and sex with female slaves were common in Greek practices until a man was old enough for marriage." All was included in the prohibition. Marriage should be your first experience of intercourse.

[Ostrich]

You're only interpreting vague notions. You have no explicit verse that forbids it.

[jimwalton]

Hmm. That makes me wonder if you read what I wrote. I acknowledged that there is no explicit technical term that you seem to be looking for. But what I wrote is anything but vague notions. We have to accept not just what it says, but what it means—both the letter of the law and the spirit of it, so to speak. If you are going to argue that premarital sex between two consenting adults is not forbidden by the Bible, you have to justify that in the context of what the Bible means by purity, separation, holiness, righteousness, morality, and what Jesus intended when he said that the thoughts and desires behind our actions are as much a part of our ethical standard as the actions themselves (Mt. 5.27-30). He connects sexual desire with relationship. He implies that our sexual relationships are not to be motivated by self-satisfaction, lust, treating people as sexual things, lack of self-control, or our own sexual desires. That's more where our conversation lies than in explicit terminology. So I'll be pleased to read what you have to say, and we can discuss it.

[Ostrich]

If, as you claim, we must accept what it not only says but what the bible means, then Jesus is saying that God not only punishes you for your actions, but for your thoughts as well. This presents a much larger problem. Because it implies that God judges us by our thoughts and desires the same as our conscious choices. This presents a problem of God being a just God. How can we be punished justly for desires that we don't control, and that God himself placed in us?? If Jesus connects sin and morality with sexual desire, but it is God who endowed us with that desire, how can we be justly punished for it?

Once we begin down the path away from explicit terminology and towards interpretation we open up a thousand doors of possibility of meaning. For you claim he implies one thing about sexual relationships. But if all of those things can be met outside of marriage, then it's still acceptable, by my interpretation. I can also use my power of interpretation to claim that Priests of the Church for centuries profit from restricted sex before marriage. As they charge for church marriages (still do). This is an aside to the biblical text itself. Which I suggest we stick to. So again, the bible explicitly states what types of sex are forbidden. But when one type isn't listed, it's only through the stretches of interpretation to we somewhat, almost, partly, maybe get there, a little.

[jimwalton]

> Jesus is saying that God not only punishes you for your actions, but for your thoughts as well.

You're right that Jesus is saying that. For Jesus, we are unified beings, and our thoughts and attitudes matter just as much as our actions. Otherwise he would be endorsing hypocrisy. Or possibly even what some of the Greek philosophers taught, (1) that all that matters is our minds, so we can do what we want with our bodies, or (2) all that matters is our bodies, so it doesn't matter what we do with our minds. Jesus considers this kind of petty separation, well, petty and unreal. If our actions are corrupt, that comes from corrupt thoughts and corrupt attitudes. So Jesus deals with the whole person and wants equilibrium and consistency.

> How can we be punished justly for desires that we don't control

Well, I understand that you may believe this, but I'm pretty sure you have no proof for it. It sounds like a philosophical presupposition. Who says you can't control your desires? I'll bet you control them all the time, or you'd probably pretty quickly know yourself as a petty thief (or a felon), a sexual abuser, and guilty of assault. Self-control is no mystery, and the Bible teaches us to control our actions, our desires, and our thoughts. We can't control what pops into our heads, but we can control what we do with them. We can't necessarily prevent a desire from surfacing, but we can most certainly control whether we keep thinking about, what attitudes it creates in us, and what behavior emerges. I know for a fact that I can change my attitude about things, and that I can even train my mind to favor or discourage specific desires. Therefore God is justified in judging us for what we do with the desires and thoughts that arise.

> the desires...that God himself placed in us

The Bible says that desire is a gift from God, and that sin in us has taken those good things and twisted them into something they were never intended to be or do. It's like inventing a baseball bat for, uh, baseball, and then someone using it to cave someone else's head in. Don't blame Louisville for that death—that's not what the bat was made for.

> Once we begin down the path away from explicit terminology and towards interpretation we open up a thousand doors of possibility of meaning.

You're right (sort of, in theory), but that doesn't mean we can go anywhere with it. We have to interpret responsibly and logically, taking into account the context and purpose of the writer, what he meant by what he said, and how it was understood by the original readers. So it's not really a thousand doors, it's more like a few. I am claiming that the message of the Bible is purity, righteousness, morality, separation and holiness, and that those underwriting principles direct us to interpret the words as forbidding premarital sex. And since those 5 characteristics truly are the message of the Bible, the burden of proof is on you to show otherwise.

> the bible explicitly states what types of sex are forbidden. But when one type isn't listed, it's only through the stretches of interpretation to we somewhat, almost, partly, maybe get there, a little.

See, I don't think it's from stretches of interpretation. I think it's more likely that you want to find justification for premarital sex. Since the Bible forbids all sorts of sexual immorality, all forms of fornication, all expressions of illicit sex, and instructs us above all else to be holy and pure, to me the weight of interpretation is: if I'm going to err, I'll err on the side of abstinence. You've chosen to err on the side of indulgence. I think you're greatly mistaken, but all of us will stand before God and give account of not only what we chose to do, but why we chose to do it.

[Ostrich]

> So Jesus deals with the whole person and wants equilibrium and consistency.

No longer are we only responsible for what we can control—our actions. Suddenly, our very thoughts and feelings condemn us.
We believe something according to how plausible it seems to us. We can’t choose to believe things that don’t seem plausible to us. But can you choose, right now, to believe you have a third hand? The Jesus of much Christian orthodoxy condemns people to hell for having the wrong beliefs. Which again, we don't seem able to control.

> We can't control what pops into our heads, but we can control what we do with them

You've just admitted that we can't control our desires or thoughts (what pops into our heads) but what we DO with them (our actions). So again, you're clearly agreeing that we are being punished and judged for things we cannot control.

Louisville Slugger is not blamed because they do not claim omniscience! The Bible-God and Jesus do.

> We have to interpret responsibly and logically.

That would mean questioning that it's even possible for someone to die and come back from the dead. Logically and reasonably, there are a thousand other explanations for this, none of which being the one we are told is the answer.

> I think it's more likely that you want to find justification for premarital sex.

This is just the tired old argument "you just want to sin". And you're wrong. I support Homosexuality in our society. I'm straight. but I do not deny that the Bible clearly denounces it as an abomination. The problem the bible has, in that it also denounces shellfish as an abomination, and prescribes stoning your disobedient children. If one is to follow the suggestions of the bible, one must not cherry pick.

Lastly, it is a clear act of cherry picking to claim that the bible only supports purity, righteousness, morality, separation and holiness. The biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah has it that the men of the city of Sodom wanted to rape Lot's male guests.

Being the kind and loving father that he was, he offered his daughters for the mob to rape instead — and he lied about their sexual history to encourage the crowd to take them. Thankfully for the daughters, the mob wasn't interested.

However, although his daughters escaped this time, later they were to be not so lucky. After escaping from Sodom, the daughters engage in an incestual threesome with their father, and he gets them both pregnant. And THIS is the example God chose as moral in the city?!?!?! Try again.

So,I'm trying to be objective. The bible clearly and explicitly forbids things it wants us to know are immoral. And I agree "all" forms of fornication are included. But my argument again, is that premarital sex is not included in that biblical definition, isn't mentioned explicitly, and it is only much later that it is included in that definition.

[jimwalton]

Wow, lots to clear up here.

> No longer are we only responsible for what we can control- our actions. Suddenly, our very thoughts and feelings condemn us.

Obviously we're not going to agree here. I said quite clearly that I'm able to control my thoughts and my feelings, my attitudes and my behavior, and I don't think I'm unusual that way. Self-control is always possible. And then your immediate response it, "So God uses the things we can't control, like our thoughts and feelings, to condemn us!" No he doesn't, because we are able to control these things.

> We believe something according to how plausible it seems to us.

That's correct, and among the plausible choices we choose what to believe. Among the choices that have either evidentiary support or emotional appeal, we choose what to believe.

> The Jesus of much Christian orthodoxy condemns people to hell for having the wrong beliefs. Which again, we don't seem able to control.

We can control our beliefs. Christian orthodoxy is a reasonable choice among plausible alternatives. We all have control in that sphere.

> You've just admitted that we can't control our desires or thoughts (what pops into our heads) but what we DO with them (our actions). So again, you're clearly agreeing that we are being punished and judged for things we cannot control.

Of course we can't prevent all thoughts from popping into our heads, but once they're in our head, we have control. And that's what the Bible asks of us and God will judge us for what we did with it, whether as a thought, attitude, feeling, or action.

> That would mean questioning that it's even possible for someone to die and come back from the dead.

That accords quite well with the Gospel accounts. it was difficult for them to believe because they considered it to be both implausible and impossible. It was only the physical evidence that swayed them to believe something they regarded as impossible.

> one must not cherry pick.

I agree. Cherry-picking is bad exegesis and lousy interpretation. That's why I don't do it either.

> The biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah

The Bible supports purity, righteousness, morality, separation, and holiness. There is no biblical approval of what Lot did (or more accurately, offered to do) to his daughters. There is no approval of his lie either. The whole scene is just a dark gash of immorality. It was reprehensible. But then it was the daughters that raped their father, not vice versa, and there is no biblical approval of that, either.

Just so you know, this is not the example God chose as moral in the city, so I don't need to try again. There is never any claim by the Bible that Lot was acting morally in this situation.

> is that premarital sex is not included in that biblical definition, isn't mentioned explicitly, and it is only much later that it is included in that definition.

I just want to add a few comments to this discussion.

Robert Walton, in "Eternal Values for a Valueless Age," wrote: "Pre-marital sex is not treated with the same severity in the OT law as was adultery. While adultery was a capital offense (Lev. 20.10), premarital sex was punished by marriage without the possibility of divorce (Ex. 22.16-17; Dt. 22.28-29). Premarital sex was not subject to capital punishment because it did not, like adultery, involve the violation of the vow taken before God, but it was still a punishable offense, and therefore clearly pictured as wrong. In fact, the expectation that a woman would be a virgin when she married was so strong that one who deceived her prospective husband in this matter was subject to capital punishment (Dt. 22.13-21)—a penalty that Joseph wished to spare Mary when he suspected her of premarital sex (Mt. 1.19)."

And in Walton, Matthews, & Chavalas, "The IVP Bible Background Commentary": "Premarital sex was discouraged for several reasons: (1) it usurped the authority of the father to arrange the marriage contract, (2) it diminished the potential value of the bride price, and (3) it prevented the husband from being assured that his first child was indeed his offspring. This law regulated illicit premarital sex by imposing a forced marriage on the culprit and/or a fine equal to the bride price for a virgin. In this way the father would be spared the embarrassment and loss of revenue when negotiating a contract for a daughter who is no longer a virgin."

[Ostrich]

> I said quite clearly that I'm able to control my thoughts and my feelings, my attitudes and my behavior,

Not your desires. Your desires are instinctual. The rest are conscious actions. Which I agree with.

> We can control our beliefs.

Then I want you to believe that Leprechauns exist and so do Pots of gold. can you control your beliefs now? Also I want you to believe that you can regrow your fingers if chopped off. Can you control that belief? If you say those things aren't "plausible", then this also applies to individual perspectives on Christianity. If not enough information is available to make Christianity plausible, how can one be justly punished for not believing?

> It was only the physical evidence that swayed them to believe something they regarded as impossible.

We do not have the same access to the physical evidence. In fact, it can be argued that the Gospel authors weren't actual witnesses to that evidence either.

> There is no biblical approval of what Lot did (or more accurately, offered to do) to his daughters.

He was the ONLY one spared from God's wrath of destruction. That's a pretty good endorsement there.

> Premarital sex was discouraged for several reasons: (1) it usurped the authority of the father to arrange the marriage contract, (2) it diminished the potential value of the bride price, and (3) it prevented the husband from being assured that his first child was indeed his offspring. This law regulated illicit premarital sex by imposing a forced marriage on the culprit and/or a fine equal to the bride price for a virgin. In this way the father would be spared the embarrassment and loss of revenue when negotiating a contract for a daughter who is no longer a virgin."

I love this answer! You spoke earlier about not cherry picking. But let's look at your choice of justification as to why premarital sex was discouraged THEN: The Bride was a property, with a price. Her value was diminished if not a virgin, for the reasons you stated. Now, if you are to claim that the same morality is to be applied to people of TODAY's society, you must also prescribe the reason WHY the behavior makes sense. Women are property, and must be paid for by the father/husband. If you don't believe this, but still ascribe to premarital sex being a "sin", you're either cherry picking, or contradicting . If there is no modern reason for abstaining from premarital sex other than "The Bible says it's a sin", but the justification for why it was a sin does not a apply, where do we go next?

[jimwalton]

> Not your desires. Your desires are instinctual.

I understand that this is your opinion. Of course desires are natural to us, and some are even necessary for survival (the desire to eat, for instance). But the desires you're talking about are an act of sex outside of the social construct of marriage, and since we're talking about social constructs imposed on humanity, then it's those kinds of desires we can say are controllable, because if they weren't, we would see sexual havoc everywhere, every day. Sexual desires are truly controllable. Let's keep this conversation in context.

> Then I want you to believe that Leprechauns exist and so do Pots of gold.

Then you missed what I said. Here it is again for you: "...among the plausible choices we choose what to believe. Among the choices that have either evidentiary support or emotional appeal, we choose what to believe."

> this also applies to individual perspectives on Christianity

This is why we weigh the evidences in support or contrary to Christianity. We can choose what we believe based on plausibility.

> If not enough information is available to make Christianity plausible, how can one be justly punished for not believing?

There clearly is, and that's the point. You get to weigh evidences, consider alternatives, and choose what to believe.

> We do not have the same access to the physical evidence. In fact, it can be argued that the Gospel authors weren't actual witnesses to that evidence either.

You're right that we don't have access to the same physical evidences. In this instance it's like a cold case that detectives have to deal with. The immediate physical evidences are in the past, but that doesn't mean the case isn't solvable by evaluating what we do have.

> In fact, it can be argued that the Gospel authors weren't actual witnesses to that evidence either.

It has quite often been argued that, but it's a weak argument with not much substance. I've had that discussion many times.

> He was the ONLY one spared from God's wrath of destruction. That's a pretty good endorsement there.

It's an endorsement of who he was (the nephew of Abraham), but not an endorsement of any sort of his immorality while living in Sodom, his lack of godly leadership, his poor parenting, his immoral decision to offer up his daughters for rape, or his drunkenness and rape by his daughters. We have to be discerning and discriminating, here, you know. Just because you buy a bushel of apples doesn't mean there aren't some rotten ones in there.

> I love this answer! You spoke earlier about not cherry picking.

> The Bride was a property, with a price.

No she wasn't. She was an economic entity in the home, able to generate income and contribute to survival. The bride price was a recognition of her economic value, not a statement of her being property.

> Her value was diminished if not a virgin, for the reasons you stated.

Right, not because she was property, but for inheritance reasons. The husband wanted to make sure the offspring were his so there would be no competing claims on his estate.

So I am neither cherry picking or contradicting. Women are not property, but valued as human beings. They have dignity as humans and economic value for the family unit. They are an integral part of the family unit as far as survival and lineage. You've jumped to quite the wrong conclusion!