Is Premarital Sex a Sin? Bible Scholars Respond | Seedbed

The Seedbed Blog

Is Premarital Sex a Sin? Bible Scholars Respond

 In a recent thread on Facebook, Dr. Jerry Walls posted a discussion on the topic of premarital sex and the Bible. As expected, it got a lot of attention, but the comments that followed revealed a lack of understanding in the way of biblical marriage. The responses here from professors of Biblical Studies provide some important notes on the biblical texts and their world that serve as as a foundation for a biblical theology of sexuality and marriage. Some are to the point while others provide rich contextual insight into the texts that often get attention.

Dr. Jerry Walls:

Recently, one of my students raised some fascinating questions that more and more people today seem to be asking, namely, “Is premarital sex a sin, and whether the Bible is really clear on the matter. Here is how he posed the question:

Student:

“I will qualify this to say that my girlfriend and I aren’t doing anything; however, we were both fairly surprised to discover that the “sex in marriage only” thing is not really there. Everyone talks about it, but I have as of yet been unable to find it. It’s a particular area of interest for me, because if the popular Christian notion of abstinence is wrong, we have been mentally and emotionally abusing quite literally millions of people.

In the Old Testament, sex before marriage leads to marriage (Exodus 22:16). In the New Testament, we mistranslate the word porneos as “fornication,” which we take to mean sex before marriage, whereas this is clearly not the case. The Bible uses the same word talking about reasons for leaving a marriage, which sex with a woman besides your wife is clearly not premarital sex.

Most sites and sources I have found say that verses prohibiting “sexual immorality” are talking about sex before marriage, but the argument here is circular. What is sexual immorality? Sex before marriage. Why is sex before marriage immoral? Because the Bible prohibits sexual immorality. My aim is not to say that we should all just go off and have sex with whomever we please, but the supposed Biblical prescription simply isn’t there, and I’ve done a good deal of research and asked some very knowledgeable people.”

Dr. Ben Witherington III responds:

As ought to be clear from 1 Cor. 7, virginity in a woman was highly valued before marriage. In that text she is called both the betrothed and a virgin. In early Jewish law if you had sex with a woman you were considered married to her or you had shamed her. See the story of Mary and Joseph. Porneia can refer to all sorts of sexual sin including deflowering a virgin. What that whole discussion by your student ignores is: firstly, there was no dating or physical intimacy prior to an arranged marriage in the vast majority of cases. The notion of dating doesn’t exist in Jesus and Paul’s world. Second, honor and shame cultures placed a high value on sexual purity. Notice how prostitutes were stigmatized. Women were mainly blamed for sexual immorality. Finally Jesus gave his disciples two choices in Mt. 19—fidelity in heterosexual marriage or being a eunuch! This means no sex outside marriage.

Dr. Bill Arnold responds:

For the Old Testament side of things, it’s interesting that the only text your student interlocutor mentions is the Book of the Covenant stipulation that a man who seduces a virgin should pay her bride-price and make her his wife (Exod 22:16). What the student fails to observe is that the premise of this legal stipulation is that the man has, in fact, gotten the process reversed. He should have negotiated the bride-price, then married her, then had intercourse. The point of the law, as with many other laws in the Book of the Covenant, is that he has willfully done something wrong and must now make amends. The text the student is citing in your discussion actually supports your position, and not his.

Also, although perhaps not directly related to the question of premarital sex, the single most neglected datum from the OT related to marriage is Gen. 2:24-25. I never thought in my wildest dreams that this text would become controversial in our day, but it elevates the idea of heterogeneous marriage between one male and one female, regardless of how we conceptualize a state-defined and sanctioned certificate of marriage. The biblical concept is clear enough.

Dr. Lawson Stone responds:

The student’s claim that in the Old Testament it appears that, rather than sex being confined to marriage, it “leads to” marriage involves a number of errors, misinterpretations, and blind spots resulting from not hearing the OT in its own setting and voice.

 The fact in the OT is that a marriage was seen as naturally being “real” when sexual intercourse took place because sexual intercourse is the actual physical and emotional uniting of the man and woman. This is the origin of the tradition in the Roman Catholic church that a wedding not followed by sexual intercourse, i.e. not “consummated,” is incomplete and may be annulled. But this proposition is not reversible, that one can have sex and consider oneself married! The union created by sexual intercourse is real, and happens regardless of one’s legal state or even feelings of intimacy. This is why St. Paul warns that sex even with a prostitute still fuses the “john” to the prostitute as one flesh, and for a believer, implicates the Holy Spirit in an unholy union. The Bible sees sexual union as the vital core of marriage, but this in no way implies that no concern existed for making sure such a union was lawful, sanctioned and blessed by God.

The importance of marriage as a social, spiritual and public covenant or contract is pervasive in the Bible, especially the OT. The world of the OT was a patriarchal society based on land and agricultural production. In such societies, and definitely in the world of the OT, the title to the land follows the male line of descent. In such cultures it is unthinkable that they would be indifferent to being as certain as possible who the father of a child was. This is the economic basis (there are other bases, of course) for demanding a woman be a virgin when she marries, since her children have the legal right to inherit the family property only if they are of her husband’s descent, or are adopted or otherwise claimed by the husband. Likewise, a man who sired children outside of marriage created a confusing legal situation regarding land title and inheritance. In the OT, the land as the promised gift of Yahweh is the concrete center, the focus of God’s revelation and Israel’s faith. Given that in the OT the land was promised to Israel by Yahweh in perpetuity, and that this promise would be negated if through improper marriage or begetting, the land ended up in the wrong hands, the OT writers clearly would not sanction sexual activity except in the confines of a public, exclusive, permanent covenant between the man and woman: marriage. This reality does not allow us to say that, since we are not a patriarchal and agricultural society, that we may dispense with the importance of a public covenant of marriage. Rather, it rebuts the claim that the OT does not insist on marriage before sex, and it provides the human context out of which the OT demand for faithfulness in marriage and celibacy outside it emerged.

 The key point, here, is not just the agricultural or economic one, but the fact that sexual activity exists in a total weave of life, relationships, economics and community. Marriage recognizes this. Moderns, however, only think of sex individualistically as an act of pleasurable intimacy between the man and woman. They have no notion of sex as an act embedded in the social matrix, economic life, and trans-generational history of their community, to which they are accountable for all their actions.

The idea that extramarital sex is fine is only imaginable in the post-sexual revolution world of not just easy contraception and abortion, but a world in which no particular significance for society as a whole attaches to sex. In modern life, we don’t really have “intercourse” in the full sense of that word–we just copulate. Thus despite being a sexually saturated society, modern or post-modern life remains starkly devoid of sexual satisfaction. The nature of marriage as a covenant in the OT uniting a man and woman, in the context of family, community and God, calls for public recognition. Unlike the privatistic piety of contemporary life, biblical faith was communal and public. A covenant in the Bible whether with God or between human parties, always assumes a prior history among the parties, a clear set of expectations in the relationship to be consecrated, and always culminates in a vow which is witnessed by the community. Given that the NT sees marriage between a man and woman as exactly analogous to the relationship between Yahweh and Israel, and then, Christ and the Church, abruptly withdrawing marriage from the realm of public covenant making rips up the fabric of the biblical revelation.

Exegetically, the appeal to Exodus 22:16, suggesting that sex “leads to marriage” rather than coming after, and thus not posing a barrier to a man and woman committed to each other exclusively, but not united by a marriage covenant, to have a sexual relationship is a strained and perverse reading of that passage. Exodus 22:16 can’t be interpreted as friendly to premarital sex merely because it only demands marriage or, alternatively, levies a fine on a man who has sex with a virgin before marriage. The Hebrew term translated “seduce” (NASB) is crucial. The Hebrew פתה patah means “entice, seduce, persuade with hypocritical appeal, take (someone) for a fool, persuade by flattery, etc.” and the related noun is the word often used for the (morally censured) fool in Proverbs. If sex prior to marriage was legitimate, the law certainly would not describe it with a Hebrew term uniformly used for illicit persuasion. So this was not just a guy and girl or an engaged couple who naturally consummated their relationship on the way to getting married. The text notes that the man “made a fool” of the girl. Nothing good there. This is why the law also provides for the possibility that her father will not allow the man to marry her, since he evidently does not constitute a suitable mate.

 A second point on Exodus 22:16 is the penalty. Penalties mark violated realms. The man of Exodus 22:16 has in fact seized a privilege to which he was not legally entitled, took what was not legally his. He must therefore either marry the woman or, if the (wise!) father doesn’t want to marry his daughter off to a man who “made a fool” of his daughter, a monetary penalty is levied. Clearly this text has no idea of justifying or legitimizing any kind of sexual intercourse prior to marriage, but is a sanction enforcing marriage as the only setting for sexual union.

 For what it is worth, I have for 35+ years informally looked for solid evidence of any culture that does not regulate sexual behavior in terms of marriage, and so far have not found one unless you count late 20th century USA. If one exists I would like to know about it. Margaret Mead’s Coming of Age in Samoa famously tried to claim this in one culture, but her research was subsequently overturned. 

It is true, and important, to recognize, that fornication is not punished as severely as adultery in the OT. However, we cannot conclude from this that fornication is somehow “okay” but adultery is wrong. Even though a less heinous offense, it clearly remains a serious sin.

Christians today, as heirs of a shallow, “cheap-grace” piety, have trouble with the idea of a scale of moral offense. We often hear the claim that some sin, usually not sexual, is “just as bad” as some sexual sin, and conversely, that sexual sin must be no worse than, say, breaking the speed limit. They tend to think all “sins” are the same, and assert a false moral equivalence among things thought to be sin. Thus, the church’s emphasis on sexual sin appears selective, harsh and hypocritical. This view, however, is based on a skewed reading of some of Jesus’ statements in the Sermon on the Mount in which he probes the motives of various acts, showing how one might avoid a technical infraction but still possess the unclean motivation that drives the act. This is not to assert moral equivalence between “thinking it” and “doing it.” This false equation of sins actually mirrors and distorts another truth.  Theologically, there are no degrees of “lostness.” Scripture clearly divides between life and death, following Christ and not following Christ, a narrow way and a broad way. We also rightly assert the futility of works to attain justification, thus all deeds are equally ineffective in securing our salvation. That fact, however, does not in any way imply that there are therefore no degrees of moral offensiveness or harm in different sins. Scripture and plain reason show that different sinful actions cause differing levels of harm. The fact that adultery draws the death penalty and fornication does not still doesn’t change the fact that it’s seen as a very serious sin. The very existence of the Ten Commandments, separating out a set of offenses from the other hundreds of laws and prohibitions we find in the Bible, implies gradations of harm and offense.

But why would sexual sin occupy such a central place in biblical ethics? This point is most fundamental: in scripture, sexual identity and conduct is wired directly into the central reality of human existence in the image of God. The text of Genesis 1 gives us no explicit explanation of what the “image of God” actually means, beyond the definitions of the terms employed and the fact that in one verse, the author uses the Hebrew device of parallelism  to elaborate on the statement, “in the image of God created he him (Adam)” with the statement, “male and female created he them.” By paralleling “image of God” with “male and female” and by using the word “create” twice (which is not used often in Genesis 1, by the way) the writer exalts human sexuality to a central place in human nature and links it to humanity being in God’s image. Thus sexuality unites humans both to the animal world in its reproductive function, but it also points to the uniqueness of humans, since for us, sexuality is tied to our being in God’s image (unlike the animals). This declares human sexuality to be sacred territory.

Likewise, in Genesis 2, while the animals presumably were made with sexual natures for reproduction, the whole story stresses the peculiarity of human sexual differentiation, involving a kind of dialectic of sameness and difference, a “helping/saving” relationship. Tellingly, Genesis 2 makes no mention of reproduction in connection with human sexuality. The stress falls entirely on partnership and intimacy. Most important for the discussion of premarital sex, Genesis 2 serves in the Bible as the foundation text for marriage, what we call an “etiology.” The woman is “presented” to the man, who declares her unique fitness for him, (“bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh”). The inspired author then declares the sequence of a man leaving father and mother, clinging to his wife, and the two becoming one flesh. Vital to this verse is realizing that “cleaving” or “clinging” does not refer to sexual intercourse. A survey of the occurrences of this word reveals that, when used of personal relationships, refers to a commitment that forges a relationship that is virtually one of kinship. It can refer to any such committed personal relationship, whether with other humans or even with Go., So the sequence is one of a man separating from his family, forging a “virtual kinship” bond with the woman, and then they two become one flesh in sexual union. The most natural implication of this text is that sexual union follows a clear act of dedication that involves families (“father and mother”) and which forges a new kinship-like bond. To assert that sexual union apart from a public demonstration and pledge of unbreakable loyalty is to make a hash of this central passage in the biblical presentation of marriage.

This is why the Bible treats sexual sin as qualitatively different from other sins. Sexual sin alone is used as a metaphor for idolatry/apostasy. No other sin is regularly used in that way. Just as apostasy/idolatry tear at the core fabric of humans in relationship with God, so sexual sin tears at the very fabric of human intra-/inter-personal relating. Not even oppression of the poor, horrible sin that it is, is used as a metaphor for apostasy, but sexual sin is.

One powerful illustration of this centrality of sexuality is in the “holiness code” of Leviticus. Most people find Leviticus 19:1-20:9 to be a very lofty moral statement. It contains some of the most elevated ethical teaching in the entire OT, including the “second” commandment. But it is bracketed both fore and aft with a series of forbidden sexual relations. Lev. 18:1-30 speaks of prohibited sexual relations as the cause of the land “vomiting them out.” Then at the other end of the holiness code is Leviticus 20:10-21 we find yet another such series. The point there is that the social and personal integrity called for in Lev 19:1-20:9 is not possible if sexual integrity does not exist. Sexuality as the strategic entry into the most intimate center of human truthfulness and fidelity.

Somewhere in a discussion about these matters, someone protested that this was “the ‘least sexy’ conversation” about sex that they had ever participated in. This remark seemed to me emblematic of the whole problem. Sexuality divorced from every other reality than the most obvious ones of attraction and pleasure. After much thought, I replied:   Sex is about SO much more than “sexy.” Sex is about helping your wife recover for months from a very difficult delivery of a baby you sort of had something to do with; sex is about loving the wrinkles and grey hair or thinning hair. Sex is about sitting by the bed wishing you could be the one suffering instead of them. Sex is about still feeling off balance when you have to go without your wedding band for some reason. It’s about staying together through times when you don’t feel in love, don’t feel dedicated, don’t feel “committed” but remember that before God and his church you made a promise, a covenant, and you’ll honor it–and discovering that those who keep faith with that formal, so-called legalistic boundary enter a garden of joy known only to those who surrender. “Sexy” in our culture is a sad, pale cartoon made up of too much cleavage, too little self-respect, too much butt-crack and too many tramp-stamps, and over-tight clothes. “Sexy” testifies to our emptiness, a hunger, but not real desire. Lots of energy, but is it really passion? Lots of smoke, but not a fire to light your life, warm your soul and nourish your heart. The eyes of the goddess are painted, but the eye-holes are empty. The courtesan looks alluring, but the heart is stone-cold. As long as we keep chasing “sexy” we’ll never find the real thing. Instead, we get Madonna and Lady Gaga. And we deserve them.

Used by permission.

Dr. Jerry Walls, Ph.D., Notre Dame. Author, speaker, and professor of Philosophy.

Dr. Ben Witherington III, Ph.D., University of Durham in England. Author, speaker, and professor of New Testament and Biblical Studies.

Dr. Bill Arnold, Ph.D., Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion. Author, speaker, and professor of Old testament and Biblical Studies.

Dr. Lawson Stone, Ph.D., Yale University. Author, speaker, and professor of Old testament and Biblical Studies.

Seedbed

Seedbed

Seedbed sows the whole gospel into the whole world by uniting voices around a shared vision and publishing resources that awaken the Wesleyan movement for the 21st century church
  • XNTP

    I have a great respect for the Bible, and have studied as much of the Biblical evidence I’ve been able to find on this subject because I really wanted to know the answers. I have analyzed and analyzed what I can of original language evidence supposedly making a case against premarital sex, and at this point have thoroughly satisfied myself that there is no such case to be made. I do not know Greek nor Hebrew with native fluency, but I do have access to the Gold edition of LOGOS software and I have also consulted with many people who I believed should be highly knowledgeable with unbelievably disappointing results. After studying for years about this subject, I have decided that there is not a case to be made against premarital sex in the Bible, and that those who think that there is are either not giving their best arguments or else are not giving this subject sufficient study if they believe that it is an easy matter from Biblical evidence alone to show premarital sex to be wrong.

    7 points to consider which my study has turned up:

    1) Consensual premarital sex among non-engaged people is mentioned in
    scripture in Exodus 22:16-17. So we can say that the Bible is not silent
    on this issue though it mentions this neutrally: The fact that a man who did this had to pay the “bride price” whether he had premarital sex strongly suggests to me that this was not a “fine.” (Though this legislation suggests that the wrong doing that is meant to be addressed is that of ensuring that the father wasn’t cheated out of this “bride price.”)

    Perhaps I should just post this on the off chance someone might wish to debate this point first before I continue….
    To be perfectly clear my position (as of this moment) is that the Bible makes no declaration forbidding premarital sex whatsoever in and of itself where both couples are UN-betrothed, and UN-married and the principle of love—loving your neighbor as yourself is followed. One consequence of this position is that the burden of proof neccesarily falls on those who say that the Bible DOES forbid premarital sex (in either in an explicit direct declaration or in an implicit principle). Nevertheless I offer two scriptural passages in support of my view in order to follow the Biblical and honorable principle of allowing everything to be established by multiple witnesses as follows. Romans 13:8,9,10 in the New International Version says:Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellow-man has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” “Do not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one rule: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. James 2:8 says: If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right.

    As I’ve just stated it, I don’t think anyone is able to show that premarital sex is wrong without showing how it violate this love principle, and that then degrades into a discussion about the logistics of treating your neighbor the way you would like to be treated and still being consistent with this “law of love” rather than being a Biblical study. Certainly there are couples who believe that they are operating according to this love principle while still engaging in premarital sexual relations.

    • Lynn

      XNTP thanks for your post. I came across this year-old discussion because I’ve been asking similar questions–does the Bible really forbid pre-marital sex?–and have found all the interpretations in support of no-premarital-sex to be sorely lacking, and very much argued from the vantage point of imposing modern-day cultural norms on the ancient Hebrew culture.
      All the OT passages seem to do more with misrepresentation, and therefore exacting a higher bride-price than is warranted (in the case of a woman marrying a man and AFTER the fact being discovered to be a virgin); or her father being cheated of a fair bride-price (in the case of a man raping a woman or seducing and sleeping with a woman and refusing to marry her, thereby making it impossible for her father to get a high bride price from anyone else). In other words, what’s condemned is CHEATING / UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES.
      The fact that virginity was highly valued in ancient Hebrew culture doesn’t equate to God telling us in 21st century culture that premarital sex is wrong. Virginity was valued because it exacted a higher price for the woman, for heaven’s sake. We don’t sell women in our culture. God’s condemnation was against cheating someone out of money owed them, not against premarital sex. He remains mute on that matter itself–just as he remains mute on polygamy, not condemning it, but yet establishing some guidelines around it that would make sense for the culture in which the ancient Hebrews lived. (And all the people who espouse the “one flesh” argument ought to consider how God’s acceptance of polygamy in the OT squares–or not– with their argument.)
      Likewise, 1 Corinthians seems to have been unfairly divorced from cultural context. When Paul talks about it being better to marry than burn with passion, etc etc, he already set the stage, earlier in his letter, regarding just what kind of sexual immorality was taking place. Hint: it wasn’t commonplace premarital sex.
      Like you, so far I can simply find nothing at all that forbids all premarital sex in the Bible. I can find plenty of Biblical evidence that God wants us to love each other and treat each other fairly and kindly–so certainly this would suggest that, for example, pre-marital sex in which one partner is simply using the other while the other is emotionally attached is wrong. But I see nothing condemning responsible, in-a-loving-relationship, mutual and consentual pre-marital sex. Nothing.

      • XNTP

        Okay this is my “Ultra-Short” Bible Study summary…
        Biblical Position on Premarital Sex and Extramarital Sex not Considered to be Adultery
        1)
        Consensual premarital sex among non-engaged people is mentioned in
        scripture in Exodus 22:16-17. So we can say that the Bible is not silent
        on this issue. Though it is mentioned in a neutral
        context… meaning that the evidence suggesting that it is bad and the
        evidence suggesting that it is not bad is about the same. There are
        other verses in which possible premarital sex takes place but this text is
        significant because this is the only legislation relating to this
        subject that is from God which is in the Bible.

        2) By the above text it would seem that
        premarital sex is not adultery since adultery was punishable by death
        according to Leviticus 20:10, whereas the Exodus 22:16-17 passage says
        only that the man would be given the woman if the father didn’t refuse.
        Implying marriage rather than death. More could be said about this. For
        example, in Deuteronomy 22:22-24 it is said that the man in this story
        is put to death “because he violated another man’s wife” and
        the story in Genesis 20:3-7 mentions that a key issue was the marital
        status of the taken woman which is significant since Abimelech king of
        Gerar in Genesis 26:9-10 says “One of the men might well have slept with
        your wife, and you would have brought guilt upon us.”
        implying that marital status was what brought potential guilt rather
        than the extramarital sex. Some
        people see the money paid to the father of the girl in Exodus 22:16-17
        to be a fine and therefore a penalty. That seems untenable to me because
        it was the same money that a man would have had to pay anyway if he
        married the girl. This legislation rather seems to be about protecting
        the father’s right to the “bride-price” for virgins.

        3) Back in Exodus 22:16-17 an
        easy point to miss the significance of is that the father could
        “absolutely refuse” In Hebrew it just uses the word for
        refuse twice. Of course if he said yes then this would have just
        been a case of legislation about premarital sex in the Bible. It seems
        reasonable that the father was then encouraged to
        acquiesce (unless he felt very strongly) to allow his daughter
        to be given away to her lover. However, if he decided differently, he
        could say no. If he did say no, this would be an example of extramarital
        sex that would not have necessarily resulted in marriage. Logically then we can
        conclude that sex can’t equal marriage biblically.

        4) There
        are no original language words meaning specifically “Premarital Sex”
        nor are there passages even calling it sin or otherwise condemning it.
        Common
        ideas relating to premarital sex being wrong are generally related to
        passages in the New Testament which say in the KJV that “fornication” is
        wrong. One example of such a list is Galatians 5:19-21. Many people use
        the english word “fornication” to refer to sex among unmarried people,
        but the problem here is that every passage in the KJV that uses the word
        fornication is derived from a porneia related greek word. Most lexicons
        indicate in one way or another that this is a very broad meaning word.
        Since all words in greek that start with “porn” relate to sex and a
        similar sounding word “ponreia” meant “evil”, it follows that “porniea”
        could have come to mean “sexual sin” in the same way that people that
        speak english can say made up words like “sextivities” to refer to
        sexual activities. Clearly then if we are going to establish sex outside
        marriage as wrong from the Bible we would have to make sure to use
        passages that actually say this and to be careful of words which mean
        “sexual sin” by definition. To be more specific and make my point
        better, the NIV translates 5 Greek words (roots) in the New Testament as
        “sexual immorality” which is basically the equivalent of “fornication”
        in the King James Version. To get a sense of what sort of studying is
        involved with analyzing each similar expression let’s just look at just
        “sexual immorality” in this one version (NIV). The G/K numbers (like
        Strong’s numbers but nonequivalent) are 4518, 4519, 174, 3130, and 1745
        which are respectively: porneia, porneuo, akatharsia, koite, and
        ekporneuo. Using the greek lexicon in my “STRONGEST NIV exhaustive
        concordance” gives me the following definitions: ekporneuo “to engage in
        sexual immorality”; koite “(marriage) bed; conception; sexual
        immorality”; akatharsia “impurity, a state of moral filthiness,
        especially in relation to sexual sin”; porneuo “to commit sexual
        immorality of any kind, adultery”; porneia “sexual immorality,
        fornication, marital unfaithfulness, prostitution, adultery, a generic
        term for sexual sin of any kind”—and the only one of these words which
        this lexicon connects to “fornication” is porneia which it also says
        can mean “a generic term for sexual sin of any kind.” This doesn’t seem
        to be very useful since arguments based on the condemnation of things
        called sin by definition are circular, and so it has been for every
        phrase I’ve looked at that seem remotely potentially related to this
        subject in many versions! Being that the words discovered in this way
        typically can include ANY sexual sin, the point I’m trying to make here
        is that what I’ve found is that no Greek word used in the
        condemnation of sexual sin in the New Testament is narrowly defined
        enough, to specifically condemn premarital sex. As far as the Old
        Testament goes, the only hit I have for “sexual immorality” in the NIV
        is Numbers 25:1 in which Hebrew G/K number 2388 is the basis for the
        translation “sexual immorality.” The lexicon entry for 2388 is zana and
        is as follows: [Q] to be, become a prostitute; to be sexually immoral,
        be promiscuous, commit adultery; [Pu] to be solicited for prostitution;
        [H] to make a prostitute, to turn to prostitution. This seems to me to
        be yet another murky word not specific enough for having much bearing on
        this study. In my experience a large number of discourses about
        premarital sex being wrong Biblically use texts which in the KJV say
        “fornication” is wrong, or in the NIV speak of “sexual immorality” in a
        context suggesting it is wrong. We have just looked at all of the
        original word definitions given in all of the other verses in the whole
        NIV Bible which have “sexual immorality” in them and as we could see,
        the most specific words we could find were basically equivalent to
        something meaning “sexual sin” by definition. What I have given above
        (and below) is obviously not a complete study, but rather an example of a
        subset of a much more thorough work carefully done covering every verse
        in the Bible in multiple translations which had (in English) language
        which seemed relevant to this study, which was then analyzed in the
        original language by means of LOGOS (Gold edition) software and other
        hard copy resources to which my Bible study partner and I had ready
        access. I never consider a Bible study complete until I’ve looked at
        every verse which could possibly have a bearing on the study in the
        original language(s). So the bottom line is: after looking at every
        sex-related story in the Bible (giving extra attention to those stories
        relating to instances of possible premarital sex) and then analyzing the
        original language words under-girding them, I’ve found what you no
        doubt can clearly see from the exhaustive but cursory study of this one
        phrase we just did that all of these words on their own do not identify
        the situation I’m trying to identify so further contextual non-word
        studies are needed to decide whether or not the Bible condemns
        premarital sex explicitly in either a given scenario or phrases, or
        implicitly in some given principle. Or as I have now come to fully
        expect not at all. Having looked, I have not found such.

        There is
        probably one more thing I should mention while I’m on the topic of
        “porneia.” One common argument used to say that porneia includes
        premarital sex is that because 1 Corinthians 7:2,8,9 tells us “…
        since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual
        relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband…
        8 Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But
        if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better
        to marry than to burn with passion” that therefore sex outside marriage
        is considered Biblically unacceptable due to Paul specifically saying
        that to avoid sexual sin and/or to avoid burning with passion one should
        get married! The issue with this is that exegetically we have to
        understand both that Paul is talking to Corinthians who have been proud of their Leviticus 18 non-compliant sexual relationships (I mean really!
        Check out 1 Corinthians chapter 5!!), and furthermore, as I understand
        it, from basically everywhere in Corinth you could see and have the
        potential sexual temptations relating to the idolatrous shrine
        prostitutes which would invite sex wild worshipers from all over the
        city to the famous temple of Aphrodite on the summit of
        Acrocorinth which if memory serves is visible from from almost anywhere
        in the city. Having sex with any of the 1000 cult prostitutes in worship
        of their idols would certainly have been literally breaking the
        commandment against idolatry. From this it is more than understandable
        that in the whole city of Corinth being married would have helped a
        christian couple to stave off the prostitutes and keep the couple from
        breaking the commandment which says to not worship nor bow down to
        idols! To say this requires premarital sex to be referred to here seems
        highly speculative at best.

        5) We could maybe save ourselves
        study by simply saying that since Matthew 5:28 condemns even looking at a
        woman lustfully—and calling such looks as “adultery of the heart”
        that it follows that a man couldn’t actually get as far as having sex
        with her without committing this sin, but there are still two problems
        with this argument. The first is that as it reads a man can’t even look
        at his own wife without committing this sin, and yet we know
        the Bible teaches in Hebrews 13:4 that marriage is honorable. So the
        only way this passage makes sense is to restrict its domain of
        applicability to a point that is not given in the context of the
        passage. Another reason for not taking this passage in a stricter way
        then the rest of the Bible is that only 11 verses earlier Jesus says He
        did not come to change the law but to fulfill it. The second issue with
        this verse is that it is not a biblically sound practice to base a
        position from a single text. This is a one of a kind verse, and the
        Bible tells us in multiple places (Deuteronomy 19:15, John 8:17, and 2
        Corinthians 13:1) that we need to establish everything with multiple
        witnesses. Matthew 5:28 initially looks promising, but fails to clearly connect premarital sex with adultery.

        6) Every other passage in the Bible that speak
        about incidents of possible premarital sex which seem to lend support to
        the idea that premarital sex is wrong are passages which contain other
        wrong acts and inspection suggests the premarital sex itself was not
        wrong. For example see Deut. 22. One point about many of these passages
        (and I can say this for all other
        passages I’ve found in the Bible) is that they don’t say there is
        anything wrong with having sex with an unmarried woman but these
        passages do say that it is wrong for a man to have sex with a married
        woman that was not their own wife. Also the word for adultery itself in
        Hebrew is helpful for understanding what is meant by adultery. The root
        word is Na-Ap. Which if you take the syllables separately mean something
        like “pleading face” the second word is possibly actually “nose” but saying
        “nose” in Hebrew allows the word to take on idiomatic significance. For
        example “hot of nose” refers to being angry, “long of nose” means being
        patient, and I believe that “pleading nose” refers directly to the
        sorrow that being unfaithful causes the person that has been hurt by it.

        7)
        There is a case in which extramarital sex or else polygamy is even
        potentially encouraged in scripture in some cases: specifically in the scenario
        where a brother in law would raise children for his dead brother if he
        had died without having any. He would have sex with his brother’s widow.
        there was an out for this, but the legislation seems to discourage the
        brother from refusing to impregnate his brother’s wife.

        • XNTP

          I meant to highlight the main ideas of each point but my “bolding” didn’t come through when I attempted to copy and paste. So the main ideas are as follows:
          actually I don’t have time to do this now…I’ll plan on posting this later.

        • Corey Lennox

          Hey, I’m wondering about the 2nd part of that 1 Cor 7 verse. The engaged are burning with passion for each other, not for temple prostitutes or anything like that, yet it’s still called wrong. So this would lead me to believe it’s pre-marital sex, not idolatry, that’s being addressed. I’d love to hear back from you!

          • XNTP

            The problem is partly that even though the Bible goes into very explicit detail of who you are or are not supposed to have sex with (in Leviticus 18) there is really no blanket condemnation elsewhere in the Bible of premarital sex. Because we don’t have any declaration of it being wrong from Biblical sources, and our modern Christian culture has such a strong bias toward believing it is wrong, it is hard for most people to read this text for what it is actually saying while discerning what it is not saying.
            So let’s look at this more carefully. Paul says in 1 Cor, 7:9 “… if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” In trying to view this whole passage in context and from the most unbiased position possible, I make the following observations:
            1) Paul seems to be suggesting marriage as a solution for avoiding some sin which people would make who would otherwise be “burning with passion” to a class of people who did not have good self-control—though in all fairness he says rather the choice of being married is a BETTER choice than burning with passion; however verse 5 I believe supports the “avoiding sin” hypothesis.
            2) Paul says in verse 10 “To the married I give this command (not I but the Lord)” and yet both verse 12 and verse 8 makes a case for verse 9 being his opinion/advice under the circumstances and NOT a specific command by the Lord.
            3) We might reasonably take 1 Cor 7:9 to be a support to believe that Premarital Sex could be biblically wrong if there was good support for enough of the following:
            a) Premarital Sex being already established as wrong (in principle or in some other explicitly stated Biblical passage or passages)—yet we don’t seem to have a strong case for this.
            b) Weightier evidence of Paul here giving clear direction from God as opposed to the evidence of him giving his own council as him saying in verse 8 “I say:” seems to suggest. I don’t see this either.
            c) Paul saying explicitly that this is not advice (It sounds like advice to me).
            d) Paul saying explicitly that he is giving this advice/command/council (or whatever it is) to avoid sin. I believe actually that he was but him saying this explicitly would make the evidence stronger.
            e) A lack of another possible explanation for what “sin” Paul could have meant for horny singles lacking in self-control to avoid by marrying. (I agree with you by the way that he was probably NOT meaning to refer to passion for temple prostitutes specifically, though whoever it was I believe would have to have been someone whom it have been not a good idea to be “lusting heavily” after and other options condemned in the Bible and even in 1 Corinthians abound).
            f) A statement saying that Paul’s solution to the problem of burning with passion is the only possible morally right solution (I say this because of my belief that there are other scriptures which give us partial information in one place and then more complete information elsewhere). Certainly I don’t see this either.
            g) A lack of counter evidence for premarital sex being possibly wrong Biblically. In other words a lack of verses that interfere with or seem to make a compelling case against the idea that premarital sex could be wrong whether explicitly condemned in the Bible or not. It takes a long study to deeply explain sources but for 2 passages that seem to make this sort of case consider that Romans 13:8-10 makes a case for the commandments given being fulfilled in love—and specifically the command to love your neighbor as yourself. Assuming this true consider now James 2:8 which says : If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right.
            Now in keeping with that I think to myself, can I have premarital sex and still be loving my neighbor as myself? Well, I am sure of it and so in the absence of clear Scriptural evidence to the contrary I would say I’m safe having premarital sex if it is loving (this has to be carefully considered because someone might think any consensual sex is loving but adultery is unloving to someone so an intrinsically loving thing could be actually done in such a way as to be unloving to someone else and that I believe I have good cause to say that would be sin.
            One last thought:
            One might ask how can I know that I’m doing the right “loving” thing? Matthew 5-7 I believe to be pretty much Jesus’ exposition of the “law of love” principle, and Jesus ties this to treating others the way we would like to be treated in their place. Matt 7:12 says “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. In this passage “sums up” is the greek word “ini” which means “is the same as” or “is” (at least in Modern Greek). The other evidence is Mica 6:8 says that “God has shown you O man what is good”, Romans 1-2 tell us that God reveals himself through nature so that mankind is without excuse, and Deut. 29:29 says that the secret things belong to God but those things which are revealed belong to us and our children that we may do all of the things of the law. So that means as I understand it, that the Bible and nature reveal everything we need for understanding how to do all of the words of the law. Now if I believe that the Bible doesn’t contradict itself and also that it is saying here that premarital sex is wrong and also that we all know what is good and loving, and I can’t see how premarital sex is unloving then I need to logically revise my understanding in one of these 3 areas!

      • XNTP

        My main points abbreviated—since the bolding didn’t come through:

        1) The Bible isn’t silent on this issue.

        2) Premarital Sex is not adultery.

        3) Sex can’t equal marriage Biblically.

        4) There are no original language words meaning specifically “Premarital Sex”
        nor are there passages even calling it sin or otherwise condemning it.

        5) Matthew 5:28 initially looks promising, but fails to clearly connect premarital sex with adultery.

        6) Every other passage in the Bible that speak
        about incidents of possible premarital sex which seem to lend support to
        the idea that premarital sex is wrong are passages which contain other
        wrong acts and inspection suggests the premarital sex itself was not
        wrong.

        7) There is a case in which extramarital sex or else polygamy is even
        potentially encouraged in scripture in some cases.

        Okay, there you have it—the highlights of my “Ultra-Short” Bible Study Summary.

        • inkaboutit

          From Inkaboutit4u com

          Matt 5:28 is greatly misunderstood by most. They all take it
          out of correct context and come up with wrong conclusions.

          When ever you study Jesus words in the Bible you have to
          apply Luke 10:21 and Mark 4:10 if you do not you are taking his words out of
          context. So many time his words are taken out of context and create wrong conclusions.
          Jesus intentional mislead his enemies so they would NOT come to the truth. He
          would do a ”one-up man ship” type of thing to mislead them on purpose. They thought
          they were good enough to work their way to heaven so he would up the antie on
          them. These are NOT for Christian but only for Jesus enemies. Matt 5:28 is one of those verses which is NOT
          for Christian, but only for Jesus enemies. Rom 12:2 “Rightly divide the word of
          God” Divide what is to Jesus enemies
          and what is to Jews only and what is to Christians under the new age of Grace a
          New creation just like Adam and Eve are a New creation before they sin against
          God.

          Luke 10:21

          21 Then Jesus was filled with the
          joy of the Holy Spirit and said, “O Father, Lord of heaven and earth,
          thank you for hiding the truth
          from those who think themselves so wise and clever, and for revealing it to the
          childlike. Yes, Father, it pleased you to do it this way.

          Mark 4:10

          10 Later,
          when Jesus was alone with the twelve disciples and with the others who were
          gathered around, they asked him, “What do your stories mean?” 11 He replied, “You are
          permitted to understand the
          secret about the Kingdom of God.

          But I am using these stories to conceal everything about it from
          outsiders, 12 so that the Scriptures might
          be fulfilled: ‘They see what I do, but they don’t perceive its meaning. They hear
          my words, but they don’t understand. So
          they will NOT turn from their sins and be forgiven.’
          13 “But if you can’t
          understand this story, how will you understand all the others I am going to
          tell?

      • inkaboutit

        from inkaboutit4u com

        God is not mute on sex and not mute on polygamy. God is
        pro-sexual freedom and pro-polygamy and pro-nudist.

        First fornication does NOT
        = “pre-marital sex” wrong definition. It mean they were misusing their God
        given sexual freedom to join in the worship of a pagan fertility god. This was
        a misuse of their God given sexual freedom that God gave to all creation at
        creation. Compare 1 Cor 10:8 use the word fornication and it is defined in Nu
        25: 1-9. As joining in the pagan worship of a fertility god sex orgy in worship
        to the pagan fertility god.

        God is very pro-polygamy.

        This was and is a big part of the sexual freedom he gave to all creation
        at creation. Compare 2 Sam 12:8 and SOS 6:8 Both King David and King Solomon
        knew they both could have “unlimited virgins” available to them. This is true
        for all creation all times. The only acceptation to this was Gen 3:16
        punishment to Eve. Eve was punished and a new chain of command for only Eve to
        have Adam authority over Eve. All creation was given sexual freedom at creation
        by God himself. Men still have this sexual freedom as well as all creation.

        2 Samuel 12:8

        8 I gave you his house and his wives
        and the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. And if that had not been enough, I would
        have given you much, much more. (unlimited amount of virgins available to him
        freedom given by God to all creation at creation.) God is very pro-polygamy.

        Song of Solomon 6:8

        8 There may be sixty wives, all
        queens, and eighty concubines and unnumbered virgins available to me. (unlimited
        amount of virgins available to him freedom given by God to all creation at
        creation.) God is very pro-polygamy.

        Nu 31 God command to give 32,000 virgins to the Hebrews
        as concubines, (they can be sexual servant if they want them to be.)

        Nu 31 16 “These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and
        caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are
        the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD’s people. 17 Now kill all
        the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. 18 Only the young
        girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

        Nu 31 35 and 32,000 young girls

        Nu 31 47 All this was
        done just as the LORD had commanded Moses.

        This clearly shows God promoting polygamy and sexual freedom he
        gave to all creation at creation.

  • Lololo

    When Calvin was setting up his theocracy in Geneva, he wanted to ban premarital sex, but became frustrated when he realized there was no scriptural support for his position.

    While the Bible has support *for* premarital sex (the entire book of Song of Solomon, for example) the only concern in the OT is stealing the brideprice from the girl’s father, which is worth $0 today.

    • XNTP

      That is interesting.

    • NoWay

      Wrong! Solomon refers to the woman of the Song as his SPOUSE five times in Sgs 4 and once in Sgs 5. The same Hebrew word is translated as BRIDE three times in Isaiah, five times in Jeremiah, twice in Hosea and once in Joel.
      Oopsy daisy! Get a concordance before you open your yap buddy, try blb.org!

      • inkaboutit

        from inkaboutit4u com

        Yes but this does not mean they are married.

        Many times a person who
        wants a girl to marry him may call her “his wife” to get a reaction from her. This
        Does not mean they are married.

        In fact they are NOT married. In SOS 8:10 she is still a
        virgin, meaning she is NOT married. Jewish Married women are NOT virgins, they
        have sex in the middle of their wedding day to prove they were a virgin on the
        wedding day. The broken hymen cause blood on the bed sheets and they are given
        to the parents in proof their daughter was a virgin and was sold at a virgin
        price correctly. She is still a virgin at the end of SOS. They were not
        married. It is a married man Solomon enjoying nude dates with oral sex and more
        in likely anal sex but no vagina sex because Jewish girl do not want to break
        their hymen. To do this they were quick to have oral sex and anal sex but no
        vagina sex. This way a male may be will to paid a lot of money for her to marry
        her but she still is a virgin.

        • inkaboutit

          Song of Solomon 8:10 NLT “I am chaste, and I
          am now full breasted. And my lover is content with me.

          Song of Solomon 8:10 MSG Dear brothers, I’m a
          walled-in virgin still, but my breasts are full – And when my lover sees me, he
          knows he’ll soon be satisfied.

  • Noelle Adrian Marcelo

    Hello. The Bible and religion is not synonymous. ^^

  • Guest

    I never understand this huge either/or position that people make. You can be a person who has pre-marital sex, and still have sexual values and respect and love for your partner. Pre-marital sex does not make you a selfish, “slutty” and irresponsible human being. If anything, it shows a lack of faith in humanity if you believe that a person must have only one partner in their whole life, or they will fall into a meaningless sex-filled pit.

  • Pingback: Top Posts on Family & Relationships - Seedbed

  • A rational person

    I’m tired of looking at these posts by you. You’re insulting a lot of people, pal. You’re ignorant in your remarks that all Christianity is is just a bunch of stupid goat farmers believing in a invisible man in the sky. Is that what God and the writers of the Bible boil down to for you? You’re obviously a hardcore atheist, so what exactly are you doing here, anyway? Are you so arrogant that not only do you have to deny God, but you also have to mock and attempt to disprove the people who believe in him? I’m tired of people like you. Christians don’t believe what they believe because they just blindly cling to a book. There are a million ration arguments as to why God exists. People didn’t just come to that conclusion because they felt like it. You either believe one of two things:
    1. All that exists in this universe was created by the mystery that is God.
    2. All that exists in this universe came from nothing.
    That means that there was absolutely nothing, then there was an explosion that made everything, then a pool of water made life from absolutely no life, then bacteria turned into a lizard, then a lizard crawled up on land, which turned into birds, which turned into primates, which turned into humans, all while making a bunch of other species that are all related. And the only explanation as to why we exist is because we came from bacteria that were brought to life for no reason and waited a REALLY long time for “evolution”. Now, how is that any more ridiculous than a belief in God? There’s a reason why evolution is still only a theory. There’s no direct correlation in the so-called “evolutionary chain”. “Missing links” are only called missing because they’re not there. If evolution was real and everyone went through a million different stages in evolution, then where are the bones of half-fish, half-birds? Or half reptiles, half-primates? It makes no sense! And you’re telling me that the idea of God sounds even more ridiculous than nothing existing and then suddenly everything existed for no reason at all?! And you have the balls to call Christians ignorant. Yet evolution is taught in schools like it’s cold, hard fact.

    • LoudGuitr

      Perhaps if you understood the concept of evolution, you’d have a more intelligent comment. Yes, it is a theory, much as the theory that germs cause disease or the theory of gravity. Theory does not mean unproven idea. It merely is the word that scientists give to an explanation of the world around us. In the scientific community, there is no debate. Your small, superstitious mind is probably capable of being educated. Surrender to reason. There is no constructive use for the invisible man and his zombie son. It is nonsense. Peace.

  • Jcb

    Even as a Christian I have to laugh at JesusisAlive’s comments toward Loudguitr. This whole thread is about how premarital sex is not explicitly defined as sin within the Bible, say as, for example adultery or murder is. Whether or not you like it, Loudguitr possesses the same ability to differentiate from right and wrong that you do (from a biblical perspective). It is not contingent on being a Christian to tell the difference and being a Christian does not make one an authority! You have not provided any biblical evidence contrary to the thread and fail to support your opinion. And to claim special knowledge on how God will judge Loudguitr is just presumptive arrogance. What makes me laugh (in a sad way actually) is just how unchristian many “Chistians” are. The presumptive ness of your post actually expresses a wishful desire for bad to fall upon Loudguitr because he possesses an opinion and lifestyle different from yours. And that is ashame. Do you have any biblical references to support your view?

    • LoudGuitr

      Thoughtful post. Thanks for the reasonable response.

  • Jcb

    The fallacy of your argument regarding right and wrong is that according to Christian belief, he possesses the ability to differentiate from right and wrong because of Adam and Eve and the Fruit of the Tree gave him that ability (along with original sin). Although the ability, according to Christian belief, derives from God, he doesn’t actually have to believe in a Creator to possess the ability to tell the difference (otherwise, how is he supposed to exercise his free will and believe in God?). I don’t know where this Christian exclusive determinant came from as I never heard it growing up in Christian school. It must be something new in apologetics.

  • Jake

    The Bible may very well be the written word of God, but the problem inherent in the bible is that it was written by humans. Therefore fundamentally flawed, and used relentlessly as a tool of oppression (women for the last two thousand years), re-written again and again by other humans to self suit political and socioeconomic wants. God is great, the Holy Spirtt is great, Jesus is great. Man of man and women likewise are not great. The fact is that for whatever reason, God, Jesus, Moses, and the Men who compiled the Bible, forgot to specifically list pre-marital sex as a sin in and of itself. Which implies that two “FREE” (meaning not owned by another himan) humans man and woman (or to be biblically accurate man and as many unrelated of age women as you can find & affored) can have consensual sex outside of a marriage and it is honestly no ones business but their own.

    Don’t forget to mention that many acts that are considered sins didn’t get listed as sins until the Catholic church started selling pardons. (dark ages/ plague years) And looked for more and more ways to make money.

  • Adrienne

    I’m a Christian who waited until I was 22 to have sex for the first time. I believe in the Gospel and attend church regularly, but I don’t believe that sex between two consenting and loving adults is necessarily wrong. The church is losing many younger people who think premarital sex is beneficial and even necessary.

    • Mitch

      The church’s aim is not to get as many people as it possibly can (although that is an added benefit). The church should not change its doctrine just so younger people will start going to church again. What would be the point in going to church if you are going to learn what YOU want to learn, not what the Bible teaches. Also, not to condemn you, but notice that you said “I don’t believe…”. A Christians opinion should first and foremost be based on the Bible, not what YOU believe. I hope I didn’t offend you Adrienned. :)

    • inkaboutit

      Inkaboutit4u com

      Pre-martial sex is NOT fornication at all. That is a wrong definition and don’t not even fit in the Bible at all. Compare 1 Cor 12:8 which used the word fornication, to Nu 25: 1-9 which define the word in detail and does fit in the Bible on 98% for the word fornication the other 2% is wrong word being used or lazy translations . It does not mean “pre-martial
      sex at all. Wrong definition.

      • inkaboutit

        from inkaboutit4u com
        correction 1 Cor 10:8 NOT 1 Cor 12:8

    • Tom Ubl

      ……and while waiting did you not have some funzy with yourself? I applaud you for the wait as I am sure it was with the intent of purity, wanting to make it special, etc., but as you, consensual sex that seeks to express caring and appreciation for your partner seems not be on the no no list.

      You know how sexed up us men can get. Well I decided to give my faith a full run for the money. I looked at the attributes of love in 1 cor 13 and meditate on them daily. I then asked myself, what are the tenants of faith, the tool box so to speak:

      Reading the Bible, praying, supplicating, fasting, congregating, meditating, helping and the big daddy abstaining. When I refer to abstaining it meant refraining from dropping any seed to include self gratification and engaging others.

      The result was for 31 days I had an amazing enlightened spiritual awareness. There is no doubt that my walk almost sensed inter-dimensional elements presenting. I also noticed women were aware of it on some other level. Maybe abstinence increased pheromone output, no idea. Well my body, my temple, at day 31 started to ooze out, without any stimulation, enough (half ounce) semen to make a noticeable amount in my shorts, fortunately I was at home. When I had a bowel movement, it would discharge. I never had a problem with prostate, ever, psa testing always .5 or under. My urine would start and stop, etc., and I sense I was doing my prostate harm.

      Needless to say this sacrifice of self to God was doing my temple, provided by God, harm. I took care of business, ejaculated and things returned to normal. In fairness, my spiritual awareness receded as well. Words of knowledge and very precise discernment faded. If I cold live a life of abstinence without damaging myself I would. It was tough the first few days and I am high sexed. The Bible also references not to spill ones seed on the ground. Well it needs to go somewhere!

  • Adrian

    Premarital sex is well known amongst the latest generation of teenagers and young adults. I mean it just seems like sex is part of everything and it feels as if it “has” to be done before marriage. It brings great pleasure to us(the body), but not to God. There’s one thing that just “definitely” overrides everything about premarital sex as being right or wrong. I mean it’s definitely wrong. The answer to all of that is, well, premarital sex is fornication and fornication is part of the Ten Commandments as we all know God wants us to keep if we truly serve him. So to argue whether it’s good or bad or how bad or good it is, well it’s pretty much is in vain. I’ve tried to argue myself that ” If God already knows your future, and he knows who you’re going to be with through marriage and other trials and you perhaps have premarital sex with the one you’re going to marry, would it make that less sinful?” I thought it would but you can’t reverse what God has said to be wrong in his eyes. No matter how hard you try you just have to accept that and hopefully turn your life around. Trust me, It feels right. But that’s what the Devil is here for. To comfort you through evil to make sure you feel right to make it easier to tempt you next time so you most likely do it over and over with less guilt and then it becomes a habit and a pit-hole, only God himself can save you from. Premarital sex is hard to control and it’s definitely hard not do before marriage, as am I’m already one who’s figuring that out. But truly those who believe in forgiveness and mercy, hopefully one day with us all, we will be saved in the Holy Spirit.

    • Nolan

      Couldn’t have said it better myself. The world needs more people like you. God Bless!

      • Tom Ubl

        The Word, which word? NIV, NAS bastardized by the editing by two masons. King James, a commissioned work by the church with church controls and profits in mind. Geneva, which one? Septuagint, Greek is the most exacting language after all? Hebrew? That’s it we will all learn to learn Hebrew and break out a Torah scroll, really?

        Unfortunately, there are three forms of Hebrew, block (which you see today with a vowel system that is most recent), before block mid Hebrew, and the SOURCE ORIGIN OF PALEO HEBREW………which was derived from the Phoenicians as block was from the Assyrians and Aramaic.

        Maybe this big huge “Babble On” committed by everyone in the blogs above and comments section would best be served if we decided what set of text you want to digress upon.

    • Tom Ubl

      You are inserting your own reasoning into an area that demands biblical citation by chapter and verse. Your post includes many instances of “I mean.” Respectfully, I do not care about what you mean. You misquoted the 10 commandments. Much of what is contained in the initial student premise (see above), the great theological scholars, who often, as you, insert opinion that is not backed, fail to frame the argument and often blur the lines. Superimposition of societal notions over God’s intent and design is damaging.

      Let us assume that premarital sex between non virgins of opposite sex of legal age is not a biblical violation. Ever wonder how much crime and deceit comes from misplaced sexual energy that SHALL, not will or may, manifest in other ways? Peter was very clear when he came back down from the Council of Jerusalem with Paul to the church at Antioch on what would serve the gentiles well.

      Sexual immorality is clear and is centered around homosexuality, bestiality and various acts of incest or relations with family with a few citations regarding intercourse during menstruation, etc.

      Eliminate the virginity premise. Eliminate giving in marriage (adultery), which in my mind are both very clearly a violation of the Word.

      Frame the argument with the following premise:
      1) 18 year old or older female who is not a virgin.
      2) 18 year old or older male who is not a virgin.
      3) Neither are married or have been married.
      4) They love each other as defined by 1 cor 13.
      5) They engage in sexual intercourse, not out of self centered passion to feed their own needs to get off, but to intimately communicate the love they have for each other.

      I challenge you to show me one tiddle of scripture that calls this foul.

  • Pingback: Wednesday Link List | Thinking Out Loud

  • nicki

    This scares me I’m 30 & still waiting. That sounds like a raw deal. It is worse than the priest in Malachi saying that God only bless the wicked what is the point of being good except for a women I sex not riches.

  • The law

    Fornication – Consentual or voluntary sexual intercourse between two unmarried persons, or two persons not married to each other. (Source; Merriam-Webster’s dictionary)

    • Inkaboutit

      from Inkaboutit4ucom

      Fornication has the wrong definition. If you look up every verse using the word
      fornication and study the context of each you will discover that 98% of them
      are directly connected to using your God given sexual freedom that God gave to
      all creation at creation is being misused by using this sexual freedom to join
      in the pagan worship of the fertility pagan god in hope of getting blessed by
      this pagan fertility pagan god to get better crops and more fertile animal to
      make more money.

      Compare 1 Cor 10:8 and Nu 25: 1-9 1 Cor 10:8 uses the word
      fornication and Nu 25: 1-9 defines the word in detail. This is the correct definition
      of the word fornication. If you apply this definition to every time you see the
      word fornication 98% it is the case. The other 2% is either lazy translation
      work or just using the wrong word.

      In all cases it is NOT pre-marital sex at all.

  • Tyrone34

    HAHAHAHAHAHA Y’ALL HOES BE WAITING TILL YOU 30 TO FUCK??!?!???! THE FUCK WRONG WITH YALL??? DONT YALL WANT THE DICK CAUSE I WANT THE PUSSY WET AND ERR THANG. YALL SPEWIN SOME STRAIGHT BULLSHIT, NIGGA WHO THE FUCK CARES WHAT A DUSTY ASS BOOK SAYS YOU SHOULD DO, HOW MUCH YOU WANNA BET GOD BE YELLIN AT YOU JUST FUCK ALREADY BUT THESE 2000 YEAR OLD HEBREW COCKHELMETS BE TELLIN YOU ITS BAD BECAUSE SOME WEIRDO SAID THEY COULD DIRECTLY TALK TO GOD AND THEY JUST MAD THEY COULD GET SOMEBODY TO FUCK SO THEY SAID YOU GOTTA SLAP A RING ON DAT BEFORE YOU TAP DAT. YOU DONT KNOW IF GOD MEANT ALL THAT IN THE BIBLE, I BET HE DIDNT I BET HE THINKS WE ARE FUCKIN RETARDED FOR BELIEVING THIS DUSTY ASS BOOK. YALL NEED TO STOP STRAIGHT THINKIN WAIT SOME OLD ASS PEOPLE WROTE AND GOT REWRITEN AND TRANSLATED BY SOME ITALIAN MOTHAFUCKAS THAT ITS WHAT GOD WANTS. HOW DI YOU KNOW THAT? DID YOU TALK TO GOD AND HE TOLD YOU BACK THE BIBLE IS CORRECT?? DID YOU? NO YOU DIDNT SO SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU PATHETIC PIECES OF SHIT AND STOP WAITING TILL YOU PUSSY GET CRUSTY AT THE AGE OF 30. AINT NOBODY WANNA TAP A VIRGIN 30 PUSSY THAT SHIT FUCKIN WEIRD. STOP HOLDING OUT ON YOUR BOYFRIENDS OR HUSBANDS AMD JUST HAVE SEX WHEN YOU IN THE MOOD. YOU ONLY LIVE ONE TIME SO DO WHAT YOU PLEASE. YOU ARE GIFTED WITH LIIIFFFEEE BUT YOU ONLY GOT ONE SHOT TO LIVE, LIFE IS TOO DAMN SHORT FOR YOU TO BE WAITING UNTIL YOU ARE 30 TO HAVE SEX THAT IS TOO LONG. LIVE FREE BECAUSE TO BE HONEST I REALLY DONT THINK GOD GIVES A RAT’S ASS WHAT WE DO AS LONG AS WE DONT HATE HIM AND HIS SON AND ACCEPT HIS SON, DONT KILL OR STEAL OR RAPE, AND DONT BE AN ASSHOLE THEN YOU GOING TO HEAVEN. NOW GO OUT THERE, HAVE FUN, BE RESPONSIBLE AND USE PROTECTION IF YOU ARENT PLANNING ON HAVIN A BABY YET, AND STOP DEPRIVING YOUR MAN OF THE ONE SINGLE THING THAT BRINGS COUPLES THE CLOSEST BECAUSE ITS A BASIC HUMAN INSTINCT FROM OUR ORIGINS OF THE FIRST HOMO SAPIAN SAPIANS WERE THEY HUNTED AND HAD SEX AND STAYSD WARM TO SURVIVE, NOW GO HAVE SOME FUN, HOT, SWEATY SEX!!!!!!!!

  • inkaboutit

    From inkaboutit4u com

    Sex should not hurt, you need to
    go see a Doctor and ask why sex hurts you.

    My wife and I did this on my honeymoon. We tried to have sex
    for the first time and the hymen seem very strong so instead of pushing harder,
    we just figure to go see a Doctor
    instead. The Doctor cut her hymen out and said that her hymen was extra strong
    and gave her a local shot and he cut out her hymen. I was glad of that.

    Then after she healed everything
    was ok. Most all the time me and my wife us lube. Why not it only makes scene to me. Sex should have no pain at all.
    We need sexual pleasure not pain.

    Also most don’t understand that
    the time of the month mostly decides how wet a women is. When women are most fertile,
    just after your “mucus plug” is released and that lets a lot of fluid out,
    women are the most wet and most fertile. They are least wet and least fertile before the “mucus plug “ is released. So I just always use water base lube all the
    time.

    Also I believe people should schedule
    sex daily. Sex is a lot better if you
    have daily scheduled sex. To me sex is
    bad or lousy when you do not schedule it daily. You become all out of sync.

    Daily schedule sex programs the
    body daily to have sex and the body and mind
    adjust very good and everyone is a lot happier and marriages work be a
    lot happier. Everyday we did not have
    sex my mind would think “why did I get married for “ if we don’t have regular sex I could have
    stayed single.

    So I strongly believe in daily schedule sex
    everyone will be a lot happier in the long run. Also have as much sex as you
    can. Sex has over 50 benefits and it is
    the fountain of youth so do not miss out
    have as much sex as you can daily.

    They ask this women on her 50th
    university how to have a happy marriage she said, “ keep the fluids moving all
    the time” (meaning have lots of sex all
    the time you can). I would second that.

  • Tom Ubl

    Let us assume that premarital sex between non virgins of opposite sex of legal age is not a biblical violation. Ever wonder how much crime and deceit comes from misplaced sexual energy that SHALL, not will or may, manifest in other ways? Peter was very clear when he came back down from the Council of Jerusalem with Paul to the church at Antioch on what would serve the gentiles well.

    Sexual immorality is clear and is centered around homosexuality, bestiality and various acts of incest or relations with family with a few citations regarding intercourse during menstruation, etc.

    Eliminate the virginity premise. Eliminate giving in marriage (adultery), which in my mind are both very clearly a violation of the Word.

    Frame the argument with the following premise:
    1) 18 year old or older female who is not a virgin.
    2) 18 year old or older male who is not a virgin.
    3) Neither are married or have been married.
    4) They love each other as defined by 1 cor 13.
    5) They engage in sexual intercourse, not out of self centered passion to feed their own needs to get off, but to intimately communicate the love they have for each other.

    I challenge you to show me one tiddle of scripture that calls this foul.

  • Jeff

    The link below leads to absolutely the most detailed answer you will ever read that the idea
    of PRE-MARITAL SEX as a sin does NOT exist in the Bible. There are not even rules that require a ceremony, a minister nor a written agreement to establish marriage, certainly not a requirement for any government to issue a license. Pastors and Preachers will NEVER teach this to you, because it would cause the congregation to divide and their salary to stop. It would cause loan payments to the bank for the church building to go into default.

    It’s too long to post here- the blog will not allow it. But I guarantee if you read it, you will be set free from FALSE GUILT caused by COUNTERFEIT SIN.

    See read here:
    http://counterfeitsin.tumblr.com/post/54067457887/if-all-lust-is-a-sin-stop-looking-at-your-wife

  • Lee

    I understand old or less virile men making these rules… but to type so much about sex and how it should be performed is ludicrous. God created the universe. We evolved under the rules he set forth called to us as science/physics/mathematics/etc. To type up so much about why sex is bad shows me this person feels guilty for his own feelings whether acted upon or not. The “church” is merely an extension of Satan/evil/Lucifer and to follow it blindly puts you in the category of following false prophets and icons. There is nothing in the ten commandments which are god’s laws stating about rape or molesting. Why is that?

    I agree sex between people w/o love isn’t a great thing in our society. But just as Jesus would do I say minimal words to express my dislike then turn the other cheek and walk away from it. We have societal rules that haven’t been put in place by any God. Such as it’s against man’s law to rape or molest but according to the ten commandments that’s okay.

    To claim anything more than it’s extremely poor choice in a world overpopulated now to create babies is insanity. I make my own personal choices and lead by example. I do not judge nor care if people have premarital sex or are gay. None of my business as God deals with judging people.

    To follow a text w/o any sources/accurate citings in this modern information age shows the foolishness of your ways. Provided religion makes you a better person then great follow it even if it is Satan’s bible you covet as the truth. God personally told me that religion must die in order for humanity to survive. He told me this as a child. I never read the bible and only know of the words in it from those that speak them to me. Just as Jesus was in his day I am shunned as I know I am not a part of any original sin. That was the true message of Jesus that has been slandered by the religion created that is in fact the “anti-christ” they even speak about in all schisms of christianity.

    Ultimately I know without any question that those that follow the “god” of abraham and do not repent for doing such are destined for hell. There is overwhelming evidence to disprove deceptions in the bible. It is blasphemy to claim anything in the trinity of evil is correct (koran/bible/torrah). God does not consider us even for a fraction of a second. We have not proven ourselves worth no different than the animals we have evolved from. There is life after death but only if you disregard the bible and choose the path of light, logic, caring, and taking time to understand the real laws of God… physics/quantum physics/etc.

    I pray for all of your lost souls that follow the evil/Lucifer/devil… burn the bibles and take time to become educated instead. Again, just as Jesus was shunned I’m sure my message now will be just as unwelcome. Peace be with you all.

    • XNTP

      Lee, you asked the question in your post why the 10 commandments don’t forbid rape and molesting, if I’ve understood you correctly.

      Of course you have said way more but that is what I’m meaning now to comment on.

      Though it may seem that it does not because it is not specifically mentioned, I think I can make a case that it does in fact prohibit any sort of unkind/ unloving act. In fact this is part of what makes it such a grand law in my view: it covers any conceivable moral wrong-doing.

      Evidence:

      1) One of the commandments says the following (in Exodus 20:7):

      “You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.”

      Now, name in Hebrew as well as English implies more than what one is called—it implies a person’s character and reputation. My evidence for this is that the Hebrew word “Shem” (Hebrew GK #9005 and Hebrew Strongs #8034) which is used here has the following definition in the Strongs:

      “8034 shem shame; a prim. word [perh. rather from 7760 through the idea of def. and conspicuous position; comp. 8064]; an appellation, as a mark or memorial of individuality; by impl. honor, authority, character;— + base, [in-] fame [-ous], named (-d), renown, report.”

      Also there are examples where this same word seems to be used in a way to imply character/reputation for example Proverbs 10:7 says:

      “The memory of the righteous will be a blessing, but the name of the wicked will rot.” NIV

      and Proverbs 22:1 says:

      “A good name is more desirable than great riches; to be esteemed is better than silver or gold.” NIV

      I have also talked to those whom I believed to be knowledgeable about Hebrew and have not found any disagreement on this so far.

      2) God’s character is love.

      1 John 4:7-8 says ” Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.” NIV

      Also Exodus 33:12–Exodus 34:14 is a passage in which the LORD proclaimed his name and said among other things “The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin.”

      John 3:16-17 tells us that God loved us so much He sent us his son so that whoever believes in Him would not perish but have eternal life, and the God didn’t send us his Son to condemn us but to save us.

      3) God’s people have been called by God’s name, and God’s name is misused when God’s professed people dishonor his name by doing detestable things.

      According to Ezekiel 43:7-8 the Israelites defiled God’s holy “name” by their “detestable practices” from this passage. Also Proverbs 30 verse 9 says “Otherwise, I may have too much and disown you and say, ‘Who is the LORD?’ Or I may become poor and steal, and so dishonor the name of my God.” This is evidence that stealing dishonors the name of God. (there is only one true God as Isaiah 44:6 says). As far as God’s people having been called by God’s name goes, consider 2 Chronicles 7:14 which says:

      “then if my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and will pray and will seek my face and will turn from their evil ways, then I myself shall hear from the heavens and will forgive their sins and heal their land.” LEB

      4) The Bible teaches that God is our Father.
      Matthew 6:5-9 clearly teaches us to pray to God as our Father. As far as pagan’s our concerned, in Acts 17:16-33 is found the story where Paul addresses the men of Athens who were pagans and says of them and himself “we are his offspring” particularly note verses 28 and 29 in which it is clear that Paul was calling them the offspring of God. So if God is our Father and the pagans are also offspring of God, I would say it makes sense to believe that God is not only the “Father” of Believers but in some sense the “Father” of everyone.
      5) Whether we take on the “name” of Christian or Jew or any other sort of profession of being God’s people. We are all made in God’s image according to Genesis 1:26-28 and among the things we were told to do was to be fruitful and increase in number (and though I believe that that has a domain of applicability which can be restricted to what is reasonable, I don’t believe we should forget about it either—-even in an overly populated earth there is still a great big universe out there and sexual considerations will be relevant whether or not we decide it is appropriate to have a child under our particular circumstances. In churches and the education that church people have propagated, for a long time people have believed that sex outside marriage has been a biblically forbidden pleasure. It doesn’t surprise me at all that sex (as fun an activity as it is to do as well as talk about) would be a popular one—especially considering it has been the target of false guilt pushing by church people. Anyway since we are made in God’s image I think that emphasizes not only humanities prerogative and encouragement to view God as a Father, but also our responsibility to not disgrace his name—as in disgracing and degrading ourselves reflects badly on our family name.
      6) There is a simpler way we are a commandment breaker if we have raped or molested anyone. The reason is raping is taking something that isn’t rightfully ours without consent which violates the commandment which says “you shall not steal” as well as “you shall not covet…anything which belongs to your neighbor” (see Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 for the commandment references). Also Romans 13 8-10 and James 4:17 tell us that love is what fulfills the 10 commandment law and if we know the good we should do and fail to do it we sin (respectively). James even says if we have broken one law we have broken all of it which makes most sense if we consider that 10 commandment law an exposition of love. See James 2:8-13.
      7) In summary, if we claim to be taking on God’s name (I believe calling one’s self a Christian qualifies) and we rape someone, then we break the commandment against taking the name of the LORD in vain, because rape is unloving and is contrary to God’s character of love. On the other hand, if we choose to not make any claim relating to God’s name and we rape someone, then on the basis of the fact that God is our Father (since we are all his offspring) and due to the fact that doing things that are unloving are detestable and doing things that are detestable are dishonoring to God, we then are breaking at least the commandment that reads as follows:
      “Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.” Exodus 20:12

      • Lee

        I appreciate the time you took to type this up. I reviewed half but wanted to absorb and respond more at a later time :-)

        But in summary assuming the books written are the word of god is the leap of faith I am unwilling to take. I see them as the false prophet they claim we should not follow. We can’t forget the history of Catholicism which is the true “Christianity” as they were the ones that butchered, picking and choosing what to include in a Latin compilation of Greek and Hebrew tribal teachings that we now know as the “bible”.

        I know there is something binding our conscious energy to the universe but I also know the bible is a false hope presented to create turmoil in the spirit of man. To seek out prematurely signs of our own demise means we take actions to create this. Basic psychology we make decisions based on what we feel. When a government leader is in control they can do things like create “Israel” or worse engage in senseless wars. To feel humanity doesn’t follow the torch lit by Satan and following these wicked teachings wrapped in a candy cane to entice is to ignore the facts.

        Again I will take time and look up. This is the King James version of the bible you are referencing correct? I mean so many variations I want to ensure I look up what you quote :-)

        • XNTP

          I would say that “true Christianity” would be the manifestation of the principles advocated by the historical Jesus—whether or not they actually professed to be Christian or not. It is true I believe that all manner of atrocities have been committed in the name of Christianity but I would not consider those committing these to be Christian for one second! Actually as I said above, I would consider this to be breaking the commandment against taking the name of the LORD in vain. (“vain” references the King James Version. (KJV))

          I’ve mostly used the New International Version (NIV) and some Lexham English Bible (LEB) which unfortunately is only available online. NIV should suffice in getting a good modern translation of the texts though I believe. Any non-paraphrase could work but the King James Version uses antiquated English so it could make understanding it more difficult. That is why I’ve only referenced it when I believed the language to be clear and easy to understand. I personally don’t really trust any translations implicitly but tend to compare them and try to make my Bible studies translation independent by sticking to the closest I can get to the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic texts as much as possible. Sorry about my response not being the most straight-forward.

          One other thing:

          “assuming the books written are the word of god is the leap of faith I am unwilling to take”
          You may think as some “Christians” teach that the Bible teaches we must make a “leap of faith” for Salvation as in we need to abandon rationality to accept something as true without good evidence. My view after analyzing the evidence is that it does not teach this. Anyone believing this should examine their proof-texts in the original language. More sensibly it invites us to “taste and see that the LORD is good.”

          For the ESV (English Standard Version) of this relavant text see Psalms 34:8-10 quoted as follows:

          8 Oh, taste and see that the LORD is good!
          Blessed is the man who takes refuge in him!
          9 Oh, fear the LORD, you his saints,
          for those who fear him have no lack!
          10 The young lions suffer want and hunger;
          but those who seek the LORD lack no good thing.

          Thus any unbeliever is rationally invited to test God (if it is an honest experiment—the only time anything bad is said about testing God is when a person was persistently rejecting evidence they already had).

  • Pingback: Is Premarital Sex a Sin? Bible Scholars Respond | Christian Pundit

  • Darren Nietling

    To pretend people didn’t have sex in biblical times is utterly ridiculous. Why did they want to stone Mary Magdalene then? I’m pretty sure it was her, and that she was a harlot. Read “Jesus, the Son of Man” by Khalil Gibran. Yes, I know, its not the immortal word of God, blah blah blah. I would be surprised if most modern day Christians even know who he is, much less have read his work. Maybe you “Christians” would learn something about your savior in Gibran’s book. More than what little you know of his lifetime. And before you resent me, I will leave you with a quote from the book, when Jesus reveals he knows Mirriam had many lovers:

    For mind you, my friend, I was dead. I was a woman who had divorced her soul. I was living apart from this self which you now see. I belonged to all men, and to none. They called me harlot, and a woman possessed of seven devils. I was cursed, and I was envied.

    But when His dawn-eyes looked into my eyes all the stars of my night faded away, and I became Miriam, only Miriam, a woman lost to the earth she had known, and finding herself in new places.

    And now again I said to Him, “Come into my house and share bread and wine with me.”

    And He said, “Why do you bid me to be your guest?”

    And I said, “I beg you to come into my house.” And it was all that was sod in me, and all that was sky in me calling unto Him.

    Then He looked at me, and the noontide of His eyes was upon me, and He said, “You have many lovers, and yet I alone love you. Other men love themselves in your nearness. I love you in your self. Other men see a beauty in you that shall fade away sooner than their own years. But I see in you a beauty that shall not fade away, and in the autumn of your days that beauty shall not be afraid to gaze at itself in the mirror, and it shall not be offended.

    “I alone love the unseen in you.”

    Then He said in a low voice, “Go away now. If this cypress tree is yours and you would not have me sit in its shadow, I will walk my way.”

    And I cried to Him and I said, “Master, come to my house. I have incense to burn for you, and a silver basin for your feet. You are a stranger and yet not a stranger. I entreat you, come to my house.”

    Then He stood up and looked at me even as the seasons might look down upon the field, and He smiled. And He said again: “All men love you for themselves. I love you for yourself.”

    And then He walked away.

  • dallastexasviewer

    Sexual Immorality appears to be the following Four(4): Incest, Male Homosexuality in part but perhaps not in whole i.e. “sex with a man as with a woman”, Bestiality (sex with animals), and Adultery i.e. having sex with another man’s wife. Fornication would appear to encompass all these too. Rape is listed as a crime, but not sexually immoral unless it violates the above Four(4). Having sex with children is not sexually immoral unless it violates one of the above Four(4) e.g. incest, etc. Yet society has placed restrictions on this by placing an age-of-sexual-consent in the pudding. To extrapolate… it is deemed ok for (A) married man to have sex with his wife and a single woman/women either at the same time or separate. e.g. Twosomes, Threesomes, Foursomes, etc. (B) A single woman could have sex with a married man, a married woman, a single woman, or a single man. But not necessarily at the same time e.g. a married man and a single man together at the same time violates the Fornication Clause. Nor could she have sex with a married man and a married woman at the same time if the married man was not married to the married woman. Etc. (C) A single man could have sex with a single woman. (D) A married women could have sex with her husband and/or a single woman either separate or together. However, a married woman having sex with a married woman alone together may violate the Fornication Clause if both had different husbands (not the same husband).
    See where I am going with this? I have seen Jewish Charts that make this process of elimination much more visual and thus easy to follow. WHAT’S IN YOUR WALLET?

  • dallastexasviewer

    Dr. Lawson Stone says… “The fact in the OT is that a marriage was seen as naturally being “real” when sexual intercourse took place because sexual intercourse is the actual physical and emotional uniting of the man and woman.” However, I ask, if that is true, then are we to believe that Abraham divorced his son’s mother (Sarah’s handmaid) when he sent them away at Sarah’s request? Abraham would be considered married to Sarah’s handmaid according to your argument. So are you saying that a Concubine and a Wife are the same thing?

  • Pingback: Sex before Marriage – Does It Exist? | The Renegade Arminian

  • Tanya

    My name is Tanya i live in USA were Divorce seems to be the order of the day,i was married to my husband Lawson for 18 years and we were living happily together with our 3 kids and all of a sudden their came this sad moment for the first time in my life i curt my husband having an affair with a lady outside our marriage before this time i have already started noticing strange behavior like he used to spend some time with us, comes home early after work but since he started having an affair with this lady all his love for his wife gone and he now treats me badly and will not always make me happy.I had to keep on moving with my life never knowing that our marriage was now leading to divorce which i can not take because i love Lawson my husband so much and i can’t afford to loose him to this strange Lady,i had to seek a friends advice on how i could resolve my marriage problem and make the divorce case not to take place and my husband live this Lady and come back to me again having heard my story my friend decided to help me at all cost she then referred me to A spell caster named Priest Ajigar, my friend also told me that Priest Ajigar have helped so many people that were going through divorce, and also finding possible ways to amend their broken relationship. To cut my story short i contacted Priest Ajigar and in just four days after the spell was done my husband left the other lady and withdrew the divorce case all till now my husband is with me and he now treats me well and we are living happily together again all appreciation goes to Priest Ajigar i never could have done this my self, so to whom it may concern if you are finding difficulty in your relationship or having problems in your marriage just contact Priest Ajigar he is Powerful and his spell works perfectly,i am somebody who never believed or heard about spell but i gave it a try with Priest Ajigar and today every thing is working well for me and if you need his help his email is (priestajigarspells@live.com)