Christians and viewing "sex for enjoyment" as sinful

redleghunter · Jul 3, 2017

Apex said:
Anyway, I would like to discuss 1 Corinthians 7:1-9. I agree with you to a point. However, in context, the desire that the unmarried were actively struggling with was sexual idolatry.

This is your assumption as you have not established this was a historical reality. Nothing in the text isolates the sexual immorality to sexual idolatry.

Apex said:
Before becoming Christians, many had made it a habit to visit such temple activities. They apparently were finding it hard to stop. Under such conditions, Paul advises them to marry instead. We must remember that the culture at this time had very few legitimate sexual outlets - unlike our culture. Marriage, at this time, was the best way to find a partner to have regular moral sex with.

Again an assumption on your part. It is historical fact that the pagan temples were socially acceptable means of personal conduct. However, not the only ones. Even in Roman society adultery was illegal but pre-marital sex was not frowned upon at all. The Jewish culture did forbid pre-martial sex. Paul in all his church epistles addresses a mixed Jewish Diaspora and Gentile audience. We also know the moral law was taught by the apostles from a TaNaKh perspective as at the Council of Jerusalem we have the following:

Acts 15: NKJV

18 “Known to God from eternity are all His works. 19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”

This indicates that all of the assemblies with Jews and Gentiles were being taught from TaNaKh.

Apex said:
The question that Paul addresses in the opening section of this chapter is whether it is good to abstain from sexual intercourse. Some of the Corinthians asserted that it was good and understood "good" to be the highest virtue. Paul counters in 7:2–5 that it is absolutely not good for married couples to attempt to do so, and he vetoes any bid by the Corinthians to become celibate within marriage.

He is arguing why it is inadvisable for married partners to withdraw from conjugal relations. As he will do in chapter 8 when discussing idol food, Paul stresses the danger involved in their current practices. Eating in an idol temple may drive a fellow Christian who has a weak conscience back into the clutches of idolatry (1 Corinthians 8:10). Trying to be celibate in a marriage relationship is also recipe for the weak to seek sexual attention in the idol temple. You have to remember that in this culture none of this was taboo or shameful - at least to the vast majority of the population. We must restrain ourselves from viewing these prostitutes as our modern day nasty hookers. Plus, many of these wives probably were not even against their husbands doing it!

Again, you are assuming Paul is speaking of sexual intercourse only found in pagan temples. The text does not suggest that at all. You mention 1 Corinthians 8 as supporting your claim, however, that appeal actually goes against your assumption. Paul makes a clear point in chapter 8 to relate food to idols. He did not do so in chapter 7 when speaking of sexual immorality.

Apex said:
"Let each one have his own wife or her own husband" does not advise everyone to marry. The Greek verb "to have" is used in 7:12, 13, 29 to refer to the state of being married, but that meaning does not apply here.

Who claimed all should marry? I agree the text advises young men and young women to get married. If they have a higher calling then they don't. The Greek verb 'to have' is used consistently as 'to have.' Meaning, you may want to redefine what 'is IS' but you can't. The 'to have' also applies to possession of objects and livestock. So not seeing how you can say 'yes it refers to marriage' and then claim 'that meaning does not apply here.'

Apex said:
We should take note that the verb "to have" was also commonly used as a euphemism for having sexual intercourse. The immediate context, with the reminders about what is owed in marriage, the assertion that husbands and wives have sexual rights over one another, and the command not to deprive one another, makes clear that the phrase "let each one have his own wife or her own husband" refers to sexual relations within marriage, not getting married. Otherwise, Paul would contradict himself in 7:8–9 when he asserts that celibacy is a workable ideal for those who feel no compulsion to marry (also see 1 Corinthians 7:38).

The above makes no sense.

Apex said:
And since you mention "burning in passion", I'll quickly rundown my thinking of verse 9. Some translations make this verse harder to understand. To the unmarried, Paul does not say "if they cannot control themselves." Rather he says, "if they are not exercising self-control." The implication is that some of these people are actively doing the same as some of the married in verses 1–6, practicing sexual idolatry, that is, also going to the temple prostitutes.

Your entire argument rises and falls on the pagan temple cult rituals. Unfortunately, nowhere in the text, nor even the context thereof can you point this out. Why? Because it is not there.

You can make an inference of course. A cultural inference for a portion of the Corinthian audience. However, that is frankly begging the text to conform to your theory (eisegesis). Yes there were temples and sex happened there. However, one would have to assume a Jew and former Pharisee now come apostle of Jesus Christ would be teaching young Jewish and Gentile people that it is ok to shack it up in the sheep pen but as long as you don't do it in a pagan temple..no problem.

Apex said:
It is these unmarried active participates that Paul is addressing. And like I said above, the antidote for such sin (in the culture of Corinth at least) is to get married. This might not be true in other contexts.

You could have saved us a lot of time by just telling me up front you don't see Biblical sexual mores applying to Christians today. Do you believe there are moral absolutes? And if so where do we derive them from?

redleghunter · Jul 3, 2017

Apex said:
Is your tactic to throw as many verses as possible my way that I cannot possible find time to address them all?

Not a tactic. I was addressing your narrow scope of the text and how you came to asserting your conclusions. The multiple passages all relate the one passage you derive your entire theology on the subject of sexual mores. This is an expository approach to the subject and I presented you with several companion passages which address the same sexual moral issues from the same author (Paul). In which pagan sex rituals are not the subject.

Apex said:
I'm okay with being in the minority. I, also, believe in believer's baptism and symbolic communion, all of which are minority positions too. Just because something is a minority does not make it false. My purpose for quoting references is to show that legitimate scholarly work as gone into some of my positions and I am not just pulling them out of thin air.

I addressed the content of your presentation. Not the fact it is a minority opinion.

Apex said:
As for Romans 6, Paul is only focusing on sinful desires - those that conflict with God's will, not ALL bodily desires. That would be an impossible interpretation. For example, hunger is a bodily desire, but don't you obey it? As such, my position is unaffected. Since we define what is and isn't sinful differently, we mentally envision a different list of activities when Paul says "sin". My list doesn't include what I mentioned earlier in this thread.

Who said all bodily desires? Your list and my list of what 'we' consider sin is irrelevant. Paul is clearly teaching we are to live pure lives. Here are the passages you leave out as it refutes your 'open to interpretation mores':

Galatians 5: LEB

16 But I say, live by the Spirit, and you will never carry out the desire of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh, for these are in opposition to one another, so that whatever you want, you may not do these things. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are sexual immorality, impurity, licentiousness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissension, factions, 21 envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, things which I am telling you in advance, just as I said before, that the ones who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Now those who belong to Christ have crucified the flesh together with its feelings and its desires.

Sexual immorality (fornication) is listed separately from idolatry, licentiousness, carousing, and many other listed 'deeds of the flesh.' Deeds of the flesh is clearly defined.

Apex said:
It is not a play on words. It is not just the plural "you" but the connection to a singular "temple".

As I pointed out 'you' is used to address all and not addressing 'you' as a corporate body. The context of the passage itself refutes your claim:

1 Corinthians 6: NKJV

18 Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? 20 For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.

Notice Paul is addressing individuals at the church of Corinth. For your theory to work of the "temple must refer to the whole church" then all of the passage much be within the context of the 'church.'

-Every sin that a man does----must mean church instead of 'a man.'
-'he who commits sexual immorality'---must mean church instead of 'he who.'
-Your body is the temple of the Holy 'who is in you'---must mean the corporate church even though the two previous sentences indicated individual activity.
--You were bought with a price---must mean only the church as a corporate entity was bought with a price. Are you Catholic?
--Therefore glorify God in 'your body and in your spirit'--must mean church.

Of course none of the above makes sense applying every instance of 'your' and 'you' as church if the 'he' and 'a man' don't mean church.

My answer stands, you are playing with words to wrest the Scriptures in favor of your eisegesis. This is not just a minority opinion. You are flat out changing meanings.

You are correct the plural 'you' is used. However, the plural 'you' does not always mean the corporate group. The plural 'you' is used by Paul to reinforce a known teaching. For, example "don't you all know how to tie your own shoes?"

Apex said:
The focus of Jewish faith developed into the Temple ritual and liturgy (cf. Jer. 7) instead of personal faith in YHWH. It is not where or when or how one worships, but who one is in relationship with, God. Jesus saw His body as the temple of God (cf. John 2:21)."

That actually weakens your argument of a 'the church' is the temple. Personal faith in God as established in the New Covenant establishes we are filled with the Holy Spirit upon conversion and yes this is a personal relationship. Thus making each converted regenerated Christian a temple of the Holy Spirit which should cause us great fear and trembling as we live our lives for Christ and walk in His pure walk.

Apex said:
"Take the time to tease out the implications of interpreting the text through an individualist lens and through a collectivist one. If you understand 1 Corinthians 6:19 to mean: “your [singular] body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you [singular], whom you [singular] have received from God,” you might conclude a good application would be, “I need to quit smoking.” If, however, you read “your [plural] body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you [plural], whom you [plural] have received from God,” you might conclude Paul’s concern has more to do with the community at large. In the context of 1 Corinthians 6, Paul is speaking about visiting temple prostitutes. If you read the passage individually, you think in terms of personal repercussions, but Paul was actually worried about how bad behavior contaminated the entire congregation."

E. Randolph Richards and Brandon J. O’Brien, Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2012), 110–111.

The problem with Richards and O'Brien's approach is that Paul uses clear language when he is addressing church corporately and when he is speaking of individual actions/personal conduct.

For example, Paul rebukes the church for keeping immoral people as members without exercising church discipline (1 Corinthians 5:1-6), restoring one to fellowship (2 Corinthians 2:1-10 and Galatians 6:1); establishing apostolic teaching within the church and rebuking those who oppose (2 Thessalonians 3:14). Paul also addresses the church corporately when they do not follow sound doctrine (Galatians 1).

Therefore, Paul's language is quite clear when he is addressing the church in general, and when he is addressing church members in particular.

Apex · Jul 3, 2017

redleghunter said:
This is your assumption as you have not established this was a historical reality. Nothing in the text isolates the sexual immorality to sexual idolatry.

I would disagree. Since this passage is textually complex (as evidenced by the multitude of interpretations), the most fundamental question facing this dilemma is the historical setting. What exactly is Paul opposing in chapter 6? You have not proposed how this is anything other than temple prostitution. If you think this was secular prostitution, what evidence do you have?

However, I do still think the text provides some helpful hints. I am suggesting temple prostitution and idolatry activity is view. I mentioned that the temple imagery is suggestive of this. We see idolatry and sexual immorality juxtaposed in 10:7-8. This section is a meaningful warning only if Paul had good reason to assume sexual play was a regular part of meals in the pagan temples of Corinth. It seems that the Corinthian slogan "all things are lawful" which is used in both chapter 6 and chapter 10 indicates that these words were used to defend behaviors connected to cultic practices. This is strengthened when we consider the way in which temple meals were conducted - sacrificing the animal, cooking the meat, inviting idol to be guest of honor, eating the meat dedicated to idol, drinking the wine dedicated to idol, and having sex with temple prostitutes. Paul is addressing all these issues in his letter. He, however, addresses sex with temple prostitutes first because it made sense to link it with another case of sexual immortally in chapter 5. Furthermore, the vice list that proceeds 6:12 explicitly lists (and in my opinion connects) inappropriate contentea and idolatry.

However, the strongest indication that Paul is opposing cultic prostitution is in 6:19. Paul sees this activity with "the prostitute" as a desecration of the true temple! I'm not sure how you can continually dismiss that the text connects sex with cultic practices.

Your entire argument rises and falls on the pagan temple cult rituals. Unfortunately, nowhere in the text, nor even the context thereof can you point this out. Why? Because it is not there.

I have! See above. It is historically credible that prostitution did occur at festive occasions in pagan temples (see 2 Maccabees 6:4). My positions is exegetically congruent and accounts for the theocentric thrust of the passages - especially with the link to Chapter 10.

You could have saved us a lot of time by just telling me up front you don't see Biblical sexual mores applying to Christians today. Do you believe there are moral absolutes? And if so where do we derive them from?

What I am saying is that your understanding of "Biblical sexual mores" is wrong. And, yes, I believe in moral absolutes. That is the only way morality makes sense. But this does not means context is not important.

Apex · Jul 3, 2017

redleghunter said:
Who said all bodily desires? Your list and my list of what 'we' consider sin is irrelevant. Paul is clearly teaching we are to live pure lives. Here are the passages you leave out as it refutes your 'open to interpretation mores':

Galatians 5: LEB

16 But I say, live by the Spirit, and you will never carry out the desire of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh, for these are in opposition to one another, so that whatever you want, you may not do these things. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are sexual immorality, impurity, licentiousness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissension, factions, 21 envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, things which I am telling you in advance, just as I said before, that the ones who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Now those who belong to Christ have crucified the flesh together with its feelings and its desires.

Sexual immorality (fornication) is listed separately from idolatry, licentiousness, carousing, and many other listed 'deeds of the flesh.' Deeds of the flesh is clearly defined.

My ethics are not "open to interpretation". I am very clear about what constitutes my morality - the Law of Christ. You are confusing my willingness to allow historical context to contribute to my interpretation of several biblical passages as me not having an objective moral compass. I most certainly do.

As for Galatians 5, lets break it down.

What does Paul mean by flesh?
I believe he means evil impulses of our fallen nature. However, how do we know what is an evil impulse and what is not? I would say, if it is an act that is unloving - it is an evil impulse. I filter all actions through the Law of Christ. I do not think that all acts of non-marital sex, masturbation, or even sexual fantasizing are unloving. Therefore, I cannot make a blanket ethical statement that all non-marital sex, masturbation, or sexual fantasizing are always sinful. This is why I stress context.

What does Paul mean by sexual immorality?
inappropriate contentea is a broad term, but I think it is safe to define it as deviant sexual behavior. Again, I would filter such sexual behavior through the Law of Christ. Adultery is the unloving betrayal of your spouse. It is deviant. Rape is unloving forced sex. It is deviant. Having sex with temple prostitutes it participation of cultic feasts is unloving blasphemy toward God. It is deviant. However, is it unloving to touch? I would say no. Context, context, context.

What does Paul mean by impurity?
Purity is about boundaries. Under the Mosaic Law, these boundaries were external. Under the Law of Christ, these boundaries are now internal. The intentions of your heart are what define purity, not a list of legalistic rules. Again, context is the key.

What does Paul mean by idolatry?
The Greek word translated in English as "idolatry" in this passage literally means "image-worship". It is specific to the act of having internal devotion to an idol, but says nothing of the numerous related activities associated with such worship. This is why activities, such as inappropriate contentea and carousing are listed separately. Not all deviant sexual behaviors or drunken parties are done in relation to image-worshiping. But when they are done in such contexts, they take on a blasphemous nature. This is what I mean by sexual idolatry. I guess a better term would be blasphemous sex.

I'll try to get to the rest of your comment later tonight or tomorrow.

FireDragon76 · Jul 4, 2017

A lot of conservative Christians have values that are less appropriate to our modern situation.

Having said that, I would also point out I do not think the secular culture always has a healthy attitude towards sexuality, either. Christians need to avoid both libertinism and legalism in evaluating sexual ethics.

redleghunter · Jul 5, 2017

Apex said:
I would disagree. Since this passage is textually complex (as evidenced by the multitude of interpretations),

I pointed out this is not so several times.

Apex said:
the most fundamental question facing this dilemma is the historical setting.

Indeed. A VERY Jewish and VERY Gentile mixed church environment. Which means Paul is teaching moral absolutes and not just addressing Greeks who visit pagan temples.

Apex said:
What exactly is Paul opposing in chapter 6?

Unrighteousness.

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived... (1 Corinthians 6:9)

Apex said:
ou have not proposed how this is anything other than temple prostitution. If you think this was secular prostitution, what evidence do you have?

I'll say it again. There is absolutely no evidence Paul is even addressing temple prostitution. One can infer he is by a data point from the history of Corinth. Again that is a data point but not the only one. It is one of many and if we are applying exegesis we must consider them all. Meaning we must consider Paul is teaching the same moral absolutes in all his epistles to a mixed audience of Jews and Gentiles. That is why I quoted you multiple passages from multiple epistles to paint the picture there is a theme here.....It's living holy lives unto the Lord Jesus Christ. That is the 'gold standard' if you will.

Therefore, this has very little to do with pagan temple rituals, secular prostitution, Roman army orgies etc. The apostolic teaching here is "the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God." Paul then lists out unrighteous actions:

1 Corinthians 6: NKJV

Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

Notice nothing above indicates Paul is addressing solely pagan temple rituals. To state such is a logical fallacy.

Then he tells his audience (both Jews and Gentiles) thus:

11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

redleghunter · Jul 5, 2017

Apex said:
However, I do still think the text provides some helpful hints. I am suggesting temple prostitution and idolatry activity is view.

Perhaps but the text does not state such. Again, this is a consideration but not the only one. The theme of Paul's teaching is the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9)

Apex said:
I mentioned that the temple imagery is suggestive of this. We see idolatry and sexual immorality juxtaposed in 10:7-8.

The full context does not help your argument.

1 Corinthians 10: NKJV

10 Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, 2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. 5 But with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.

6 Now these things became our examples, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted. 7 And do not become idolaters as were some of them. As it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.” 8 Nor let us commit sexual immorality, as some of them did, and in one day twenty-three thousand fell; 9 nor let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed by serpents; 10 nor complain, as some of them also complained, and were destroyed by the destroyer. 11 Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.

12 Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall. 13 No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.

The above shows Paul using the example of Israel sojourning in the wilderness in Torah. Therefore the context is not Greco-Roman pagan rites, but unrighteousness in general with examples in particular. Paul calls them 'examples.'

But here is the clincher: No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man (1 Corinthians 10:13). Common to man. Not common to pagan temple rituals. Common to man since the fall.

Apex said:
This section is a meaningful warning only if Paul had good reason to assume sexual play was a regular part of meals in the pagan temples of Corinth. It seems that the Corinthian slogan "all things are lawful" which is used in both chapter 6 and chapter 10 indicates that these words were used to defend behaviors connected to cultic practices. This is strengthened when we consider the way in which temple meals were conducted - sacrificing the animal, cooking the meat, inviting idol to be guest of honor, eating the meat dedicated to idol, drinking the wine dedicated to idol, and having sex with temple prostitutes. Paul is addressing all these issues in his letter. He, however, addresses sex with temple prostitutes first because it made sense to link it with another case of sexual immortally in chapter 5. Furthermore, the vice list that proceeds 6:12 explicitly lists (and in my opinion connects) inappropriate contentea and idolatry.

No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man (1 Corinthians 10:13).

redleghunter · Jul 5, 2017

Apex said:
However, the strongest indication that Paul is opposing cultic prostitution is in 6:19. Paul sees this activity with "the prostitute" as a desecration of the true temple! I'm not sure how you can continually dismiss that the text connects sex with cultic practices.

I'm not dismissing Paul addressed Corinthian pagan temple debauchery. My point is and has been, Paul is addressing all unrighteous deeds regardless of location:

No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man (1 Corinthians 10:13).

As to 'the prostitute' comment:

1 Corinthians 6: NKJV
15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot? Certainly not! 16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For “the two,” He says, “shall become one flesh.” 17 But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him.

Paul is using a physical example to teach a spiritual reality. We cannot be joined to our sin and also be joined to the Lord in one spirit with Him. We either love our sin or love Christ. This has nothing to do with pagan temple worship. If it did Paul would say you cannot be joined with Zeus/Diana/etc. and be joined to Christ. He had plenty of OT images to work with there (Baal of Peor Numbers 23) to link idolatry specifically in 1 Corinthians 6:19 but he did not. He focused on unrighteousness.

Paul was a straightforward speaker/writer. He did not beat around the bush. He addresses sin (unrighteousness) regardless of physical location (e.g. pagan temples). Given he had ample opportunity in all his epistles to mention specifically temples, and did not, does not say much for your argument.

Apex said:
What I am saying is that your understanding of "Biblical sexual mores" is wrong. And, yes, I believe in moral absolutes. That is the only way morality makes sense. But this does not means context is not important.

I did not give an 'understanding.' I presented what Paul was teaching. He taught 'if you do these things you will not inherit the kingdom of God.' My point was Paul did not limit these unrighteous actions to just pagan temple rituals. As he said:

No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man (1 Corinthians 10:13).

I must conclude based on your presentation and what you post in the quote above, that you view there are no sexual sins outside of pagan idolatrous practices. And based on this being pagan temple practices in 1st Century AD, such sins don't apply as we don't have pagan temples today. Is this a fair assessment of your view?

redleghunter · Jul 5, 2017

Apex said:
My ethics are not "open to interpretation". I am very clear about what constitutes my morality - the Law of Christ. You are confusing my willingness to allow historical context to contribute to my interpretation of several biblical passages as me not having an objective moral compass. I most certainly do.

I did not address your ethics nor qualify them. I agree you have provided historical context but you do so narrowly and fail to comprehensively address what Paul summarized quite clearly here:

No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man (1 Corinthians 10:13).

Apex said:
As for Galatians 5, lets break it down.

What does Paul mean by flesh?
I believe he means evil impulses of our fallen nature. However, how do we know what is an evil impulse and what is not? I would say, if it is an act that is unloving - it is an evil impulse. I filter all actions through the Law of Christ. I do not think that all acts of non-marital sex, masturbation, or even sexual fantasizing are unloving. Therefore, I cannot make a blanket ethical statement that all non-marital sex, masturbation, or sexual fantasizing are always sinful. This is why I stress context.

What does Paul mean by sexual immorality?
inappropriate contentea is a broad term, but I think it is safe to define it as deviant sexual behavior. Again, I would filter such sexual behavior through the Law of Christ. Adultery is the unloving betrayal of your spouse. It is deviant. Rape is unloving forced sex. It is deviant. Having sex with temple prostitutes it participation of cultic feasts is unloving blasphemy toward God. It is deviant. However, is it unloving to touch? I would say no. Context, context, context.

What does Paul mean by impurity?
Purity is about boundaries. Under the Mosaic Law, these boundaries were external. Under the Law of Christ, these boundaries are now internal. The intentions of your heart are what define purity, not a list of legalistic rules. Again, context is the key.

What does Paul mean by idolatry?
The Greek word translated in English as "idolatry" in this passage literally means "image-worship". It is specific to the act of having internal devotion to an idol, but says nothing of the numerous related activities associated with such worship. This is why activities, such as inappropriate contentea and carousing are listed separately. Not all deviant sexual behaviors or drunken parties are done in relation to image-worshiping. But when they are done in such contexts, they take on a blasphemous nature. This is what I mean by sexual idolatry. I guess a better term would be blasphemous sex.

The point of addressing Galatians 5 is Paul lists the things which the flesh lusts against the Spirit. This list is devoid of any linkage to solely pagan temple rituals as idolatry is listed separately from the sexual sins:

Galatians 5: NKJV

16 I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. 17 For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Same theme as in 1 Corinthians 6. Why would one think this solely addresses pagan temple rituals?

Apex · Jul 5, 2017

redleghunter said:
As I pointed out 'you' is used to address all and not addressing 'you' as a corporate body. The context of the passage itself refutes your claim:

1 Corinthians 6: NKJV

18 Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? 20 For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.

Notice Paul is addressing individuals at the church of Corinth. For your theory to work of the "temple must refer to the whole church" then all of the passage much be within the context of the 'church.'

-Every sin that a man does----must mean church instead of 'a man.'
-'he who commits sexual immorality'---must mean church instead of 'he who.'
-Your body is the temple of the Holy 'who is in you'---must mean the corporate church even though the two previous sentences indicated individual activity.
--You were bought with a price---must mean only the church as a corporate entity was bought with a price. Are you Catholic?
--Therefore glorify God in 'your body and in your spirit'--must mean church.

Of course none of the above makes sense applying every instance of 'your' and 'you' as church if the 'he' and 'a man' don't mean church.

The interpretive crux in 1 Corinthians 6 is individual verse communal “body”. We see early on that this metaphor was used by Paul to teach group theology in several churches. The gospel creates, not a bunch of individual Christians, by a community of Christians. Paul’s letters were never meant to be read through the lens of individualism. That is a Western way of thinking. No listener of Paul’s words would have done this.

Romans 12:4-5
For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.

1 Corinthians 12:12
For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
19-20
If all were a single member, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.
24-27
But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.

Colossians 1:24
Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church

Ephesians 5:28-32
In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.

In this last passage, we see Paul (like in 1 Corinthians 6) use the one flesh marriage analogy to represent the relationship the church has with Christ. It has nothing to do with sex here! Instead is shows a communal or kinship bond similar to the one a man and wife have in marriage.

Now compare, brackets include my clarifying remarks:

1 Corinthians 6:13-20
The [communal] body is not meant for immorality [blasphemous communion with temple prostitutes], but for the Lord, and the Lord for the [communal] body. And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up [the communal body] by his power. Do you not know that your [individual] bodies are members of Christ [a communal body]? Shall I then take the [communal body] members of Christ and make them [part of an opposing communal body] members of a [temple] prostitute [the representative of her god]? Never! Or do you not know that he who is joined [not in sex, but in communal bondage] to a prostitute[‘s god] becomes one [communal] body with her [god]? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” But he who is joined [not in sex, but in communal bondage] to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. Flee from immorality. “Every ~~other~~ [not in the text] sin a person commits is outside the [individual] body” [Corinthian slogan], but the immoral person sins against his own [communal] body [Paul’s rebuttal]. Or do you not know that your [plural] [communal] body is a temple [singular] of the Holy Spirit within you [plural], whom you have from God? You are not your own [individual bodies], for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your [plural] [communal] body [singular].

Apex · Jul 5, 2017

redleghunter said:
I pointed out this is not so several times.

Are you denying that throughout history thousands of Bible scholars have struggled with this passage? No one except you thinks it is "clear".

"The interpretation of 1 Corinthians is greatly conditioned by the exegete's assessment of the situation at Corinth, because Paul's words can mean different things when read against various backgrounds. Hence the need to determine as objectively as possible the positions adopted by the Corinthians. In any such investigation pride of place must be given to citations of Corinthian statements which occur occasionally in the Apostle's argumentation. The purpose of the present note is to focus attention on two such statements which occur in the difficult passage 1 Cor 6: 12-20.

In 1934 E.B. Alio calculated that there were between 20 and 30 explanations of the statement "Every sin which a man may commit is outside the body; but the fornicator sins against his own body" (1 Cor 6:18). The contemporary situation is no better with the commentators who attribute it to Paul divided into those who take him seriously and those who refuse to do so. The former generate a labyrinth of subtle distinctions signed to justify the idea that fornication is essentially different from any other sort of sin. The latter cannot see Paul in such scholastic reason in and so postulate a laxity of expression which permits them to say what they will. As early as 1874, however, W. J. Conybears and J. S. Howson suggested that the assertion "Every sin which a man may commit is outs the body" should be ascribed to the Corinthians and not to Paul. The influence of a puritanical morality may explain why this hypothesis won no acceptance. An inspired statement that appeared to stress the unique evil of fornication was too valuable an ally to lose."

Jerome Murphy-O'Conner, Corinthain Slogan in 1 Cor 6:12-20, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. 3 (July, 1978), p. 391-392

Indeed. A VERY Jewish and VERY Gentile mixed church environment. Which means Paul is teaching moral absolutes and not just addressing Greeks who visit pagan temples.

Paul was addressing a divided church. He addressed issues that dealt with a variety of religious and cultural backgrounds. Chapter 10 is indeed about eating meals at pagan temples. He was "addressing Greeks who visit pagan temples."

"Paul begins ch. 10 with a reference to the experience of “our ancestors.” This reference could imply that most of his audience was Jewish, but that is flatly contradicted by the subject matter of the passage, namely, eating in idol temples. More likely Paul sees salvation history as a continuum and thus sees the ekklēsia of Jews and Gentiles as the true development of the people of God. This idea is further reinforced in v. 18 where Paul reminds the audience of “Israel according to the flesh,” which surely means OT Israel and implies a distinction from an Israel according to the Spirit, that is, the ekklēsia—both Jew and Gentile in Christ."

Ben Witherington III, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995), 218.

I'll say it again. There is absolutely no evidence Paul is even addressing temple prostitution. One can infer he is by a data point from the history of Corinth. Again that is a data point but not the only one. It is one of many and if we are applying exegesis we must consider them all. Meaning we must consider Paul is teaching the same moral absolutes in all his epistles to a mixed audience of Jews and Gentiles. That is why I quoted you multiple passages from multiple epistles to paint the picture there is a theme here.....It's living holy lives unto the Lord Jesus Christ. That is the 'gold standard' if you will.

I have showed more evidence than you have for any opposing position! Then what type of prostitution do you think Paul was addressing? The modern sacred-secular distinction is not completely applicable to a society in which religion played a part, often an important part, in all public life and in the home as well.

redleghunter · Jul 5, 2017

Apex said:
The interpretive crux in 1 Corinthians 6 is individual verse communal “body”. We see early on that this metaphor was used by Paul to teach group theology in several churches. The gospel creates, not a bunch of individual Christians, by a community of Christians. Paul’s letters were never meant to be read through the lens of individualism. That is a Western way of thinking. No listener of Paul’s words would have done this.

Romans 12:4-5
For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.

1 Corinthians 12:12
For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
19-20
If all were a single member, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.
24-27
But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.

Colossians 1:24
Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church

Ephesians 5:28-32
In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.

In this last passage, we see Paul (like in 1 Corinthians 6) use the one flesh marriage analogy to represent the relationship the church has with Christ. It has nothing to do with sex here! Instead is shows a communal or kinship bond similar to the one a man and wife have in marriage.

Now compare, brackets include my clarifying remarks:

1 Corinthians 6:13-20
The [communal] body is not meant for immorality [blasphemous communion with temple prostitutes], but for the Lord, and the Lord for the [communal] body. And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up [the communal body] by his power. Do you not know that your [individual] bodies are members of Christ [a communal body]? Shall I then take the [communal body] members of Christ and make them [part of an opposing communal body] members of a [temple] prostitute [the representative of her god]? Never! Or do you not know that he who is joined [not in sex, but in communal bondage] to a prostitute[‘s god] becomes one [communal] body with her [god]? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” But he who is joined [not in sex, but in communal bondage] to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. Flee from immorality. “Every ~~other~~ [not in the text] sin a person commits is outside the [individual] body” [Corinthian slogan], but the immoral person sins against his own [communal] body [Paul’s rebuttal]. Or do you not know that your [plural] [communal] body is a temple [singular] of the Holy Spirit within you [plural], whom you have from God? You are not your own [individual bodeis], for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your [plural] [communal] body [singular].

Indeed the Church is One Body and the Head is Christ. No argument there. However, this Body is made up of individuals as you pointed out here:

Romans 12:4-5
For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.

As mentioned in an earlier post, Paul instructs how to handle sin within the Body. He evokes Matthew chapter 18 (Matthew 18:15-20) in 1 Corinthians 5:

1 Corinthians 5: NKJV

5 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles—that a man has his father’s wife! 2 And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you. 3 For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

6 Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7 Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. 8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

That pretty much refutes your notion that sin is solely seen as some Borg collective. It is true that even one individual can destroy the reputation of the body of believers. However, do you see how Paul tells the Corinthian church to discipline the individual for his transgression?

Here is another example of Paul speaking to each individual, yet addressing the 'you' of church:

Colossians 3: NKJV

5 Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. 6 Because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience, 7 in which you yourselves once walked when you lived in them.

8 But now you yourselves are to put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth. 9 Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds, 10 and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him, 11 where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all.

I think 'you yourselves' should be clear enough.

While "the communal body is not meant for immorality" is accurate and true, the notion Paul is not speaking of individual conduct is false. Individual members make up the Body (Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?) and as Paul later in 1 Corinthians 12-14 goes into long detail how some members have gifts others don't. By using the singular quite often:

1 Corinthians 12: NKJV

4 There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. 6 And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all. 7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: 8 for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills.

[...]

27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually. 28 And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But earnestly desire the best gifts. And yet I show you a more excellent way.

I think the above puts to rest this notion Paul is not addressing individuals when he says "you" collectively. -----Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually

Apex · Jul 5, 2017

redleghunter said:
Indeed the Church is One Body and the Head is Christ. No argument there. However, this Body is made up of individuals as you pointed out here:

Romans 12:4-5
For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.

As mentioned in an earlier post, Paul instructs how to handle sin within the Body. He evokes Matthew chapter 18 (Matthew 18:15-20) in 1 Corinthians 5:

1 Corinthians 5: NKJV

5 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles—that a man has his father’s wife! 2 And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you. 3 For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

6 Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7 Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. 8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

That pretty much refutes your notion that sin is solely seen as some Borg collective. It is true that even one individual can destroy the reputation of the body of believers. However, do you see how Paul tells the Corinthian church to discipline the individual for his transgression?

All I have argued is that religious allegiance and communal bondage is the context of chapter 6. This doesn't rule out individual sin or individual consequences.

Here is another example of Paul speaking to each individual, yet addressing the 'you' of church:

Colossians 3: NKJV

5 Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. 6 Because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience, 7 in which you yourselves once walked when you lived in them.

8 But now you yourselves are to put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth. 9 Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds, 10 and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him, 11 where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all.

I think 'you yourselves' should be clear enough.

Unfortunately, you have completely misunderstood my reasoning behind pointing out the plural "you" in 1 Corinthians 3 and 6. I'll defer to my earlier posts and have any thread lurkers make up their own mind on this issue.

While "the communal body is not meant for immorality" is accurate and true, the notion Paul is not speaking of individual conduct is false. Individual members make up the Body (Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?) and as Paul later in 1 Corinthians 12-14 goes into long detail how some members have gifts others don't. By using the singular quite often:

1 Corinthians 12: NKJV

4 There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. 6 And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all. 7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: 8 for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills.

[...]

27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually. 28 And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But earnestly desire the best gifts. And yet I show you a more excellent way.

I think the above puts to rest this notion Paul is not addressing individuals when he says "you" collectively. -----Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually

I am genuinely confused how this refutes my position. Either way, we have had a good run. I'll leave with this comment about 1 Corinthians 12:27 which you just mentioned.

"From this point on Paul explains the image of the body as referring to the church, the body of Christ. This verse takes up the thought of verse 12. For this reason and in order to make the contrast between verses 27a and 27b clearer, several translations agree with TEV in expanding you to “all of you.” For example, JB has “Now you together are Christ’s body …”; NJB “Now Christ’s body is yourselves, each of you with a part to play in the whole.”

Are the body of Christ may be expressed as “make up Christ’s body.” The body of Christ means not “the body which is Christ” but “the body which belongs to Christ.” An alternative translation model for this verse is: All of you are the body which belongs to Christ, and each one of you is a part of it."

Paul Ellingworth, Howard Hatton, and Paul Ellingworth, A Handbook on Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1995), 287–288.

Apex · Jul 5, 2017

redleghunter said:
The full context does not help your argument.

1 Corinthians 10: NKJV

10 Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, 2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. 5 But with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.

6 Now these things became our examples, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted. 7 And do not become idolaters as were some of them. As it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.” 8 Nor let us commit sexual immorality, as some of them did, and in one day twenty-three thousand fell; 9 nor let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed by serpents; 10 nor complain, as some of them also complained, and were destroyed by the destroyer. 11 Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.

12 Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall. 13 No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.

The above shows Paul using the example of Israel sojourning in the wilderness in Torah. Therefore the context is not Greco-Roman pagan rites, but unrighteousness in general with examples in particular. Paul calls them 'examples.'

But here is the clincher: No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man (1 Corinthians 10:13). Common to man. Not common to pagan temple rituals. Common to man since the fall.

No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man (1 Corinthians 10:13).

In 1 Corinthians 10:1-10 Paul describes the exodus and desert experience of Israel as a pattern in which idolatry followed on the heels of redemption. He believes that some Corinthians (probably pagan converts) are in danger of falling into the same pattern due to their attitudes and practices with regard to food sacrificed to idols (especially the practice of eating in pagan temples and participating in other certain pagan activities - such as sex with temple prostitutes). In verse 7 Paul quotes the Septuagint version of Exodus 32:6 as proof that the Israelites committed idolatry and sexual blasphemy. The references to eating, drinking, and "playing" [having sex] in association with idolatry make Exodus 32:6 an obvious reference point for issues related to food sacrificed to idols. Also, this is why the warning against sexual sin immediately follows in verse 8. Paul believes that more is going on in the pagan temple than just feasting. Paul uses Exodus 32:6 to inform the Corinthian's understanding of the ethical and spiritual danger they are facing.

And rose to play, literally "and they stood up to play," uses a word that suggests sexual play, especially since it is associated with drinking. (The word is translated as "fondling" in Gen 26:8.) 32:6 TEV has "an orgy of drinking and sex." Others are less explicit: "to indulge in revelry" (32:6 NIV), "and then rose to dance" (TAN). It is also possible to say "and they rose to dance in a shameful [or, immoral] way."

Noel D. Osborn and Howard A. Hatton, A Handbook on Exodus, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1999), 753.

After making an attempt to honor the Lord with their offerings, the people satisfied their own desires and proceeded to "indulge in revelry." The verb ṣāḥaq signifies drunken, immoral orgies and sexual play ("conjugal caresses," BDB, p. 850; cf. Gen 26:8; 39:14, 17).

Walter C. Kaiser Jr., “Exodus,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 478.

redleghunter · Jul 6, 2017

Apex said:
In 1 Corinthians 10:1-10 Paul describes the exodus and desert experience of Israel as a pattern in which idolatry followed on the heels of redemption. He believes that some Corinthians (probably pagan converts) are in danger of falling into the same pattern due to their attitudes and practices with regard to food sacrificed to idols (especially the practice of eating in pagan temples and participating in other certain pagan activities - such as sex with temple prostitutes). In verse 7 Paul quotes the Septuagint version of Exodus 32:6 as proof that the Israelites committed idolatry and sexual blasphemy. The references to eating, drinking, and "playing" [having sex] in association with idolatry make Exodus 32:6 an obvious reference point for issues related to food sacrificed to idols. Also, this is why the warning against sexual sin immediately follows in verse 8. Paul believes that more is going on in the pagan temple than just feasting. Paul uses Exodus 32:6 to inform the Corinthian's understanding of the ethical and spiritual danger they are facing.

And rose to play, literally "and they stood up to play," uses a word that suggests sexual play, especially since it is associated with drinking. (The word is translated as "fondling" in Gen 26:8.) 32:6 TEV has "an orgy of drinking and sex." Others are less explicit: "to indulge in revelry" (32:6 NIV), "and then rose to dance" (TAN). It is also possible to say "and they rose to dance in a shameful [or, immoral] way."

Noel D. Osborn and Howard A. Hatton, A Handbook on Exodus, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1999), 753.

After making an attempt to honor the Lord with their offerings, the people satisfied their own desires and proceeded to "indulge in revelry." The verb ṣāḥaq signifies drunken, immoral orgies and sexual play ("conjugal caresses," BDB, p. 850; cf. Gen 26:8; 39:14, 17).

Walter C. Kaiser Jr., “Exodus,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 478.

Having sex within the confines of the pagan temple rituals is being discussed and rebuked. No question. Where our disagreement is on whether such sins as premarital sex are solely seen to encompass only temple worship/attendance at feasts. The Corinthian Venus et. al. temples were their 'hook up' locations. Akin to our Western 'club scene' hook ups and online hook up sites.

Therefore, I have to assume that you don't see Paul condemning the Corinthians if they have premarital sexual relations outside of the Corinthian 'hook up' culture. Yet such an argument (if it is truly your own) would have to be from silence seeking a direct command saying "thou shalt not shack up with your neighbor's shepherdess daughter, thou shalt marry her instead." Well of course such a direct command does not exist in 1 Corinthians at all. So we have to seek other such conversations Paul has with his flock and see if 'sexual immorality' or fornication appears outside of this heavy pagan temple ritual hook up culture you elaborately present above.

I have already provided other sources but will do so again. The quotes will be at length to provide context.

Ephesians 5: NKJV
5 Therefore be imitators of God as dear children. 2 And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma.

3 But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; 4 neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. 5 For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not be partakers with them.

8 For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light 9 (for the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness, righteousness, and truth), 10 finding out what is acceptable to the Lord. 11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret. 13 But all things that are exposed are made manifest by the light, for whatever makes manifest is light. 14 Therefore He says:

“Awake, you who sleep,
Arise from the dead,
And Christ will give you light.”

This is a general call for the Ephesians to live according to their new nature---new creation and put on Christ (see previous chapter 4 of Ephesians). The same list of unrighteous deeds are listed as in 1 Corinthians. No mention of temple feasts here. Just general good Christian living. Applying to all even the Jews of Ephesus.

Also here in Galatians 5, we see the same exhortation from Paul. Notice the chapter begins with a discussion of circumcision and the law. The audience here is clearly mostly Jews as there is an emphasis on addressing those preaching Mosaic law keeping.

Galatians 5: NKJV
5 Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. 2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. 3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. 4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.

As seen above there were those emphasizing law keeping. Yet later in the chapter Paul makes the same list of 'fleshly desires' as he did in 1 Corinthians, however devoid of the details of pagan feasts:

16 I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. 17 For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. 24 And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.

Same list. Different audience and different focus. This is the general 'call to pure living' Paul gives in all of the larger epistles and even in the pastoral epistles.

1 Thessalonians 4 is also another epistle in which there is no mention or even allusion to sin exclusive to temple idolatry. Paul instructs the Thessalonians in similar fashion calling them to purity:

1 Thessalonians 4: NJKV

4 Finally then, brethren, we urge and exhort in the Lord Jesus that you should abound more and more, just as you received from us how you ought to walk and to please God; 2 for you know what commandments we gave you through the Lord Jesus.

3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual immorality; 4 that each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, 5 not in passion of lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God; 6 that no one should take advantage of and defraud his brother in this matter, because the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also forewarned you and testified. 7 For God did not call us to uncleanness, but in holiness. 8 Therefore he who rejects this does not reject man, but God, who has also given us His Holy Spirit.

What we have ignored thus far? What was the Jewish perspective of premarital sexual relations? Obviously, the only design from TaNaKh teachings and taught by Christ and His apostles is a man and woman would marry and raise families:

From Torah, which was heard every Sabbath in the Diaspora synagogues. What would these nascent churches be taught from TaNaKh?

They would be taught that marriage is God's design for a man and woman to join in love and intimacy thus becoming one flesh (Matthew 19:1-9). Which Jesus teaches straight from Genesis 2:23-24 “The man said, ‘This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called “woman,” for she was taken out of man.’ For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.”

And which Paul teaches as well in Ephesians 5:31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”

And also here in Hebrews 13:4 "Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge."

As we discussed before here in 1 Corinthians 7:

1 Corinthians 7: NKJV
7 Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me:

It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment. 7 For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that.

8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; 9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

All of the above reinforced from TaNaKh and the direct teachings of Jesus Christ. But what understanding did young and old have sitting and listening to Paul's epistles? They knew Torah as "For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.” (Acts 15:21)

What was the teachings from Torah on if people engaged in sexual intercourse prior outside of marriage? The remedy for such illicit relations was in Exodus 22:16 “If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife." This would be the understanding of the Jew who sat listening to Paul's instruction on marriage.

YHWH's design for sexual relations since the beginning (Genesis 1-2) and confirmed by Jesus Christ (Matthew 19 et. al.) and taught by His disciples (1 Corinthians 7 et. al) has always been one man, one woman become one flesh in marriage. They have sex and raise children, rinse and repeat generation after generation.

And of course this is not some frigid legalistic Calvinist or Roman Catholic conservative notion. TaNaKh shows that our sexual relations in the design of marriage is to be most enjoyable:

Proverbs 5: NKJV

15 Drink water from your own cistern,
And running water from your own well.
16 Should your fountains be dispersed abroad,
Streams of water in the streets?
17 Let them be only your own,
And not for strangers with you.
18 Let your fountain be blessed,
And rejoice with the wife of your youth.
19 As a loving deer and a graceful doe,
Let her breasts satisfy you at all times;
And always be enraptured with her love.
20 For why should you, my son, be enraptured by an immoral woman,
And be embraced in the arms of a seductress?

Apex · Jul 6, 2017

redleghunter said:
Having sex within the confines of the pagan temple rituals is being discussed and rebuked. No question. Where our disagreement is on whether such sins as premarital sex are solely seen to encompass only temple worship/attendance at feasts. The Corinthian Venus et. al. temples were their 'hook up' locations. Akin to our Western 'club scene' hook ups and online hook up sites.

Therefore, I have to assume that you don't see Paul condemning the Corinthians if they have premarital sexual relations outside of the Corinthian 'hook up' culture. Yet such an argument (if it is truly your own) would have to be from silence seeking a direct command saying "thou shalt not shack up with your neighbor's shepherdess daughter, thou shalt marry her instead." Well of course such a direct command does not exist in 1 Corinthians at all. So we have to seek other such conversations Paul has with his flock and see if 'sexual immorality' or fornication appears outside of this heavy pagan temple ritual hook up culture you elaborately present above.

You view all non-martial sex acts as sinful. I do not. I filter all behavior through the Law of Christ. This means there exists contexts where non-marital sex is sinful and other contexts where it is not. As such, I am not arguing that the only context where non-marital sex is wrong is within the confines of pagan ritual. In fact, some marital sex is sinful! I'm just arguing that the specific sexual sin Paul has in mind in chapter 6 is having blasphemous sex with temple prostitutes.

I have already provided other sources but will do so again. The quotes will be at length to provide context.

Ephesians 5: NKJV
5 Therefore be imitators of God as dear children. 2 And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma.

3 But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; 4 neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. 5 For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not be partakers with them.

8 For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light 9 (for the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness, righteousness, and truth), 10 finding out what is acceptable to the Lord. 11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret. 13 But all things that are exposed are made manifest by the light, for whatever makes manifest is light. 14 Therefore He says:

“Awake, you who sleep,
Arise from the dead,
And Christ will give you light.”

This is a general call for the Ephesians to live according to their new nature---new creation and put on Christ (see previous chapter 4 of Ephesians). The same list of unrighteous deeds are listed as in 1 Corinthians. No mention of temple feasts here. Just general good Christian living. Applying to all even the Jews of Ephesus.

Also here in Galatians 5, we see the same exhortation from Paul. Notice the chapter begins with a discussion of circumcision and the law. The audience here is clearly mostly Jews as there is an emphasis on addressing those preaching Mosaic law keeping.

Galatians 5: NKJV
5 Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. 2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. 3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. 4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.

As seen above there were those emphasizing law keeping. Yet later in the chapter Paul makes the same list of 'fleshly desires' as he did in 1 Corinthians, however devoid of the details of pagan feasts:

16 I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. 17 For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. 24 And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.

Same list. Different audience and different focus. This is the general 'call to pure living' Paul gives in all of the larger epistles and even in the pastoral epistles.

Again, I am not arguing that inappropriate contentea only means sex with temple prostitutes. I'm just arguing that Paul had that specific act in mind when writing 1 Corinthians 6. Of course there are other sexual sins that can occur outside of pagan rituals - 1 Corinthians 5 details just that.

However, in all of the passages you list, the word inappropriate contentea is never defined (in terms of specific acts). This follows my previous argument that inappropriate contentea is contextual. We both agree that it means deviant sexual acts, but we do not agree which acts are deviant. The above texts do not help in this aspect either. You see them as condemning all premarital sexual relationships only because you are assuming that act is deviant. This, of course, is circular reasoning. Nothing in those texts explicitly state such.

What objective reason do you have to believe premarital sex is always wrong?

What we have ignored thus far? What was the Jewish perspective of premarital sexual relations? Obviously, the only design from TaNaKh teachings and taught by Christ and His apostles is a man and woman would marry and raise families:

The Jewish perspective helps us understand what people believed, but what they believed and what was theologically true are two separate things. Plus, there is no "standard Jewish position". It changes and contradicts on many issues - even sex. Just a quick perusal of the Talmuds proves this! They literally believed you could have sex with minors!! Disgusting...

b. Nid. 5:4, I.1.A
A. Our rabbis have taught on Tannaite authority:
B. “A girl three years old may be betrothed through an act of sexual intercourse,” the words of R. Meir.
b. Nid. 5:4, II.1.A
A. [If] she is younger than that [age], [intercourse with her] is like putting a finger in the eye:
B. The question was raised: to the virginity-signs go their way and then come back, or perhaps they are not completely destroyed until after the third year of age?
C. What is the practical consequence of the answer to that question?
D. A case in which one had sexual relations during the first three years of the girl’s life and produced blood, and then had sexual relations after the first three years and found no blood. If you take the view that the virginity-signs go their way and then come back, then one might suppose that the reason there was no blood is that there was not sufficient time for the virginity-signs to come back. But if you maintain that they are not completely destroyed until after the third year of age, lo, it would then be obvious that a third party had had sexual relations with her [after she turned three, and she would be classified as a harlot]. What is the rule?

Jacob Neusner, The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary, vol. 22d (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2011), 206-207

From Torah, which was heard every Sabbath in the Diaspora synagogues. What would these nascent churches be taught from TaNaKh?

They would be taught that marriage is God's design for a man and woman to join in love and intimacy thus becoming one flesh (Matthew 19:1-9). Which Jesus teaches straight from Genesis 2:23-24 “The man said, ‘This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called “woman,” for she was taken out of man.’ For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.”

And which Paul teaches as well in Ephesians 5:31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”

And also here in Hebrews 13:4 "Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge."

Again, I don't think "one flesh" has anything to do with having sex. Adam uses kinship language "flesh and bone" to describe his new wife (see Laban's response to Jacob in Genesis 29:14). The "one flesh" bond is that of a new kinship relationship. Also, in Hebrews 13:4 - this all depends on what you believe is defiling and sinful. The text does not state these things explicitly. Did Jacob defile his marriage bed with Leah when he had sex with Rachel?

What was the teachings from Torah on if people engaged in sexual intercourse prior outside of marriage? The remedy for such illicit relations was in Exodus 22:16 “If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife." This would be the understanding of the Jew who sat listening to Paul's instruction on marriage.

The focus is on the lost money the father would suffer. This was about cultural property rights, not solely sex. We live in a different culture that does not have the same societal safety nets for divorced or widowed women.

"The terms of this guiding principle indicate that its primary focus is financial, both with regard to the father of the unattached girl and also with regard to the young woman herself. The marriage money was in the way of compensation to a young woman’s family for her loss into another family, and it may have reverted to the bride herself upon the occasion of the death of her father or her husband. In case the girl’s father considered the match unsuitable for his daughter, as well he might under the circumstance, the man involved was still to pay as a penalty a sum equivalent to the marriage price for young women eligible to be married."

John I. Durham, Exodus, vol. 3, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), 327.

YHWH's design for sexual relations since the beginning (Genesis 1-2) and confirmed by Jesus Christ (Matthew 19 et. al.) and taught by His disciples (1 Corinthians 7 et. al) has always been one man, one woman become one flesh in marriage. They have sex and raise children, rinse and repeat generation after generation.

So you are against polygamy? You do realize that the supposed author of Genesis, Moses, was a polygamist! Did he not understand his own writings? It is simply untrue that a man cannot have more than one "one flesh" union. Was Jacob "one flesh" with both his wives? The phrase "the two will become one flesh" is not saying anything about the number of times this can happen, just what constitutes a single marriage. Jacob was married to Leah - the two became one flesh. Jacob was also married to Rachel - the two became one flesh. Monogamy is not mandated by Genesis 2:24. The original author did not see it this way nor did the original readers. It was centuries later that Jews stated to think about monogamy as ideal and this was in large part due to Roman influence. Strict monogamy is a Greaco-Roman idea.

Here is an interesting article: Why We Think Monogamy Is Normal

And of course this is not some frigid legalistic Calvinist or Roman Catholic conservative notion. TaNaKh shows that our sexual relations in the design of marriage is to be most enjoyable:

Proverbs 5: NKJV

15 Drink water from your own cistern,
And running water from your own well.
16 Should your fountains be dispersed abroad,
Streams of water in the streets?
17 Let them be only your own,
And not for strangers with you.
18 Let your fountain be blessed,
And rejoice with the wife of your youth.
19 As a loving deer and a graceful doe,
Let her breasts satisfy you at all times;
And always be enraptured with her love.
20 For why should you, my son, be enraptured by an immoral woman,
And be embraced in the arms of a seductress?

This is a warning against exogamy. The translators have lead you astray. The Hebrew words for "immoral woman" and "seductress" are really "non-Israelite woman" and "foreign woman" respectively. Drinking from your own cistern means taking a wife from the Hebrew faith and not a wife from a foreign faith. Here the teacher is telling his students that a good Israelite woman can satisfy you just as well as a non-Israelite woman. Do not be tricked by their cunning words and good looks.

Nothing about premarital sex here.

redleghunter · Jul 6, 2017

Apex said:
However, in all of the passages you list, the word inappropriate contentea is never defined (in terms of specific acts). This follows my previous argument that inappropriate contentea is contextual. We both agree that it means deviant sexual acts, but we do not agree which acts are deviant. The above texts do not help in this aspect either. You see them as condemning all premarital sexual relationships only because you are assuming that act is deviant. This, of course, is circular reasoning. Nothing in those texts explicitly state such.

inappropriate contentea is translated as illicit sex, not specifically deviant. I believe the reason inappropriate contentea or fornication or sexual immorality is defined such, illicit, is that something illicit is violating some law. You mentioned we must filter all such Holy Scriptures through the lens of the Law of Christ. This is a good method indeed.

Jesus did preach God's design for marriage. He gave what should be as it was in the beginning (Matthew 19:1-12; Mark 10: 2-9)---A man leaves his parents, takes a wife (woman), the two become one in love (I like the older use of 'cleave') and they have babies. This is not some Hebrew or even Western frigid outlook, it is what God commanded from the beginning. In fact what I quoted from Proverbs 5 (not to mention the Song of Solomon), God created us with a powerful sex drive where humans are always 'in season' and as Solomon advises his young men: "Let your fountain be blessed, And rejoice with the wife of your youth. As a loving deer and a graceful doe, Let her breasts satisfy you at all times; And always be enraptured with her love." (Proverbs 5:15-19)

No, I am not saying premarital sex is deviant. Paul encourages marriage so no man or woman would burn in their passions.

It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. (1 Corinthians 7:1-3)

The Christian and Biblical teaching is 'get hitched.' The Torah teaching was if you did have premarital sex, then the man marries the woman. If such was deemed deviant then the punishment would be death. But it wasn't death, because YHWH created us with a powerful sex drive, knows the flesh is weak and provided an escape clause....Meaning, if the man was so taken with sleeping with a virgin, he should be married to her. I know this is some 4000 years ago, in a Hebrew theocracy, but it shows us what God thinks of us when we have sex with another person....they are unified in one flesh. That is His design, not mine, not the Pope's not Calvin's not the New England Puritans. It is God's design. It is what Jesus taught, and what His apostles reinforced.

Apex said:
What objective reason do you have to believe premarital sex is always wrong?

See above. It goes against the stated design of God. I think that is quite objective as all morals are objective and are derived from God.

Perhaps you can provide me with a vignette of what you would consider a righteous example of premarital sex?

Apex said:
Jacob Neusner, The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary, vol. 22d (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2011), 206-207

I referred to what the TaNaKh (OT) taught. Not some perverted rabbis from the Babylonian Talmud era. They also believed if you did not wash after going to the bathroom you would be possessed by the privy demon.

Apex said:
So you are against polygamy? You do realize that the supposed author of Genesis, Moses, was a polygamist! Did he not understand his own writings? It is simply untrue that a man cannot have more than one "one flesh" union. Was Jacob "one flesh" with both his wives? The phrase "the two will become one flesh" is not saying anything about the number of times this can happen, just what constitutes a single marriage. Jacob was married to Leah - the two became one flesh. Jacob was also married to Rachel - the two became one flesh. Monogamy is not mandated by Genesis 2:24. The original author did not see it this way nor did the original readers. It was centuries later that Jews stated to think about monogamy as ideal and this was in large part due to Roman influence. Strict monogamy is a Greaco-Roman idea.

Quite glad you mentioned this. Although, I don't know of Moses having more than one wife, polygamy is rampant in the OT. Ask the question...was this God's design from the beginning? No. Nor was divorce as Jesus taught us.

List out any successful polygamist marriage in the OT that you can think of. Meaning, one without strife or even attempted and actual murder. I can't think of one. Jacob loved Rachel more than his other wives. God blessed Jacob's first wife with the first children and most of the children. Jacob's sons were always in conflict and they even ventured on killing Joseph but settled on selling him into slavery. Wow.

David. Murder, adultery, rape were among the exploits of his sons. Solomon? Enough said.

Apex said:
The original author did not see it this way nor did the original readers. It was centuries later that Jews stated to think about monogamy as ideal and this was in large part due to Roman influence. Strict monogamy is a Greaco-Roman idea.

The original author is God. And Christ as truly God and truly human stated in Matthew 19 and Mark 10 what God's design for marriage. THAT is why Christians are monogamous.

Apex said:
This is a warning against exogamy. The translators have lead you astray. The Hebrew words for "immoral woman" and "seductress" are really "non-Israelite woman" and "foreign woman" respectively. Drinking from your own cistern means taking a wife from the Hebrew faith and not a wife from a foreign faith. Here the teacher is telling his students that a good Israelite woman can satisfy you just as well as a non-Israelite woman. Do not be tricked by their cunning words and good looks.

Nothing about premarital sex here.

I made no mention of immoral women. My quote was quite focused on how sex within a marriage is no frigid affair. I was not making a point about premarital sex. I was pointing out once again, marriage was upheld as the only licit sexual relation.

Apex · Jul 6, 2017

redleghunter said:
inappropriate contentea is translated as illicit sex, not specifically deviant. I believe the reason inappropriate contentea or fornication or sexual immorality is defined such, illicit, is that something illicit is violating some law. You mentioned we must filter all such Holy Scriptures through the lens of the Law of Christ. This is a good method indeed.

Okay, we can say inappropriate contentea means "illicit sex". I believe the only law Christians have to follow is the Law of Christ. I identify the law of Christ with the admonition to love one another. We also could say that Christ’s life, and the sacrifice of his life in his death, exemplifies to the uttermost the law of Christ. That is, Christ’s life and death are the paradigm, exemplification, and explanation of love.

So, my morality stems from asking one simply question: Is this loving?

There are several situations where non-marital sex can be harmful or unloving. Those acts are sinful.
There are several situations where non-marital sex is not harmful or unloving. Those acts are not sinful.

We live in an era of grace and liberty. This doesn't mean we can do whatever we want, like the libertines would argue, but it also doesn't require us to live by strict legalism, as the traditionalists would espouse. What matters now is the intentions of our heart. The purity boundaries have been reversed. It is not what is external to us that defiles (food, corpses, menstruation, sperm, etc.), but instead what is internal. This is why love is key.

Jesus did preach God's design for marriage. He gave what should be as it was in the beginning (Matthew 19:1-12; Mark 10: 2-9)---A man leaves his parents, takes a wife (woman), the two become one in love (I like the older use of 'cleave') and they have babies. This is not some Hebrew or even Western frigid outlook, it is what God commanded from the beginning. In fact what I quoted from Proverbs 5 (not to mention the Song of Solomon), God created us with a powerful sex drive where humans are always 'in season' and as Solomon advises his young men: "Let your fountain be blessed, And rejoice with the wife of your youth. As a loving deer and a graceful doe, Let her breasts satisfy you at all times; And always be enraptured with her love." (Proverbs 5:15-19)

I'm not sure how many times I can reiterate this. One flesh does not have a sexual connotation nor does it mean coming together to have children. Not all couples are able to have children and they are still considered one. One flesh only references the type of relationship a man and a woman have when they become married. This bond is analogous to kinship bonds. Now, of course, such unions will likely include sex and possible bring forth children, but this is not what makes a couple one.

As for Proverbs 5, it promotes the idea that a healthy sexual relationship within marriage can be had without venturing into exogamy. Sex is what was tempting married Israelite men to marry foreign woman. And in this case, "wife of your youth" is an idiom for first wife. It was common (and cheaper) to marry a foreign woman for your second wife. This passage is focused on one particular context, trying to apply it to non-marital sex (which it isn't even about) across the board is ill advised.

No, I am not saying premarital sex is deviant. Paul encourages marriage so no man or woman would burn in their passions.

It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. (1 Corinthians 7:1-3)

I thought we discussed this already. "It is good for a man not to touch a woman" was not Paul's words. He is quoting the legalistic Corinthians. Paul is not advising all people to marry in verse 2. He is saying that if you are already married, you should have sex with each other. Apparently some Christian wives (or possibly husbands) were taking up this mantra as an excuse to not have sex with their husbands! This would often lead these men to fall back into old habits, such as having sex at temple feasts to release their sexual tension.

The Christian and Biblical teaching is 'get hitched.' The Torah teaching was if you did have premarital sex, then the man marries the woman. If such was deemed deviant then the punishment would be death. But it wasn't death, because YHWH created us with a powerful sex drive, knows the flesh is weak and provided an escape clause....Meaning, if the man was so taken with sleeping with a virgin, he should be married to her. I know this is some 4000 years ago, in a Hebrew theocracy, but it shows us what God thinks of us when we have sex with another person....they are unified in one flesh. That is His design, not mine, not the Pope's not Calvin's not the New England Puritans. It is God's design. It is what Jesus taught, and what His apostles reinforced.

In this particular context, Paul does advise the unmarried (in verse 9) to get married if they are being tempted to continually visit temple prostitutes. However, he only suggests this to those who were currently struggling with this. You must remember that there wasn't many options available for lawful sexual encounters in this culture. Most women were married the moment they came of age. Marriage was, and still is, a very good option for those who wish to have regular sex. This does not mean there are no other options though. Our current society, thanks to birth control and other medical/cultural advancements, has more non-marital sexual options available to the unmarried. Options that align with the Law of Christ.

Perhaps you can provide me with a vignette of what you would consider a righteous example of premarital sex?

Biblical example: Concubinage.

Quite glad you mentioned this. Although, I don't know of Moses having more than one wife, polygamy is rampant in the OT. Ask the question...was this God's design from the beginning? No. Nor was divorce as Jesus taught us.

With my understanding of the purpose of marriage and sex, I do not see my position conflicting with God's design for either.

List out any successful polygamist marriage in the OT that you can think of. Meaning, one without strife or even attempted and actual murder. I can't think of one. Jacob loved Rachel more than his other wives. God blessed Jacob's first wife with the first children and most of the children. Jacob's sons were always in conflict and they even ventured on killing Joseph but settled on selling him into slavery. Wow.

I can list several examples of monogamous marriages with the same type of marital issues in the Bible. Does this mean monogamous relationships are wrong?

The original author is God. And Christ as truly God and truly human stated in Matthew 19 and Mark 10 what God's design for marriage. THAT is why Christians are monogamous.

Christians are monogamous because of Greco-Roman influence. Did you read the article I posted above? Do you have a rebuttal?

xpower · Jul 6, 2017

The reason I am talking about this subject, is because I think this"sex for pleasure is sinful" attitude is not good. A while ago I encountered a story of boy that was punished(grounded for 5 or so months) by his parents because he was caught masturbating.

To me, that is just ridiculous. There are also a lot more stories just like this one. these people grow up and associate these negative experiences with Christianity. Not to mention it's just unhealthy.

Apex · Jul 6, 2017

xpower said:
The reason I am talking about this subject, is because I think this"sex for pleasure is sinful" attitude is not good. A while ago I encountered a story of boy that was punished(grounded for 5 or so months) by his parents because he was caught masturbating.

To me, that is just ridiculous. There are also a lot more stories just like this one. these people grow up and associate these negative experiences with Christianity. Not to mention it's just unhealthy.

Sexual repression is unhealthy. I'd even blame it for breaking up marriages and faith. This secular view is not far off the mark: Sexual Repression: The Malady That Considers Itself the Remedy

Christians and viewing "sex for enjoyment" as sinful

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Radical Centrist & Ethicist

Radical Centrist & Ethicist

Well-Known Member

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Radical Centrist & Ethicist

Radical Centrist & Ethicist

Thank You Jesus!

Radical Centrist & Ethicist

Radical Centrist & Ethicist

Thank You Jesus!

Radical Centrist & Ethicist

Thank You Jesus!

Radical Centrist & Ethicist

Newbie

Radical Centrist & Ethicist

Similar threads