Sex before marrieag - just not the women?

[roamer_1]

I just don't quite understand why it would be important for the woman, but not for the man, to be a virgin until they get married.

No, he's stone-dead wrong.

But a couple of things:

Foremost and in general, barring the last couple of generations, chastity was always in the hand of the woman, because the consequences fell upon the woman. The historical norm does not tolerate bastard children and single parent households, and for good reason. Our views in this day should be understood to be abnormal and permissive, and terminally skewed wrt this subject.
Not fair, but true.

The consequence of the Hebrew law was probably enforced more so upon women, because the woman's virtue could be proven (and was proven upon the marital bed). Again, maybe not fair, but probably true.

Men could have more than one wife (in the case of the brother's widow, as law), so virginity in the man is not absolute.

Prostitution seems to be normative, whether frowned upon or not - Judah thought he was taking a prostitute when he took Tamar - That she wasn't a prostitute is beside the point... If there are prostitutes....

However, Torah says, for both the fornicator and the adulterer, that BOTH the man and the woman stand trial, and both were subject to penalty. How that works out considering the above is hard to suss out.

 

[Goodbook]

Just want to add that The guys argument is totally ridiculous becuase if women arent supposed to be having sex before marriage, and men are, then who are the men having sex with?

Arent they causing other women to sin? Or dont these women count?!

Or maybe...hes a sodomite, perish the thought.

 

[Goodbook]

OP for a woman its important in terms of children. Men can father many children and run off but with woman childbearing is hard on our bodies. Plus bastards do not inherit. If a woman has had a child with another man they arent obligated to inherit from the stepfather (see isaac and ishmael). Even Jesus had no real inheritance from Joseph..his inheritance was from above. Mary was a virgin because the messiah had to be firstborn.

However that all changes when someone adopts a child. The new covenant actually pays for this sin. Even though we are born into iniquity...Abba, our true Father, adopts us and we do in a sense become Gods firstborn when we become born again and inherit the privelige of being his sons and daughters.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

He's as wrong as wrong gets. What's sin for the goose is sin for the gander, to paraphrase an old saying.

I do remember that old double standard, how women were expected to be virgin brides, but men were supposed to bring some experience. I always wondered where they were supposed to get the experience, since all other alternatives were Scripturally outlawed as well.

 

[PeterDona]

Find me a scripture that says that marriage is defined by a piece of paper issued by civil government, and not, first consummation of union. What I see in scripture is: first joined, first cleaved unto, first becoming one flesh. First is first, so I don't see an "sex before marriage" as even possible in the bible. I see "first sex = married" all sex to anyone else afterward is apparently adultery.

It is pretty important to understand who is your one flesh partner in life. Yeah, it is vital, because there are such sins as fornication and or adultery, which both concern sex with someone else than your covenant / one flesh partner.

My belief is that the one flesh is something that God creates, when you vow yourself to a spouse, and both are never before married. Although I can not substantiate how God creates the one flesh, I can say that that is the only view that I find in accord with all scriptures.

If your view was correct, that a one flesh can be created without a vow, then there would not exist the sin of fornication, which is sex before marriage.

Thus you also need to be concerned about those scriptures that state that God will hold you to account for all the solemn vows you make in your life. Better be careful to fulfill them.

So, in answer to part of your post, I would say, that it is not the piece of paper, but it is the solemn vow that is the crucial issue.

 

[John Hyperspace]

It is pretty important to understand who is your one flesh partner in life. Yeah, it is vital, because there are such sins as fornication and or adultery, which both concern sex with someone else than your covenant / one flesh partner.

As I am lead to understand, fornication is the selling of sex, adultery would be with anyone who is not your first coupling.

My belief is that the one flesh is something that God creates, when you vow yourself to a spouse, and both are never before married. Although I can not substantiate how God creates the one flesh, I can say that that is the only view that I find in accord with all scriptures.

The "one flesh" is created by consummation of union. "A man will cleave to the woman and become one flesh", and, as Paul writes: "the two become one flesh": it is the very act of consummation that defines "becoming one": but there is nothing in the bible about "vows mean marriage"

If your view was correct, that a one flesh can be created without a vow, then there would not exist the sin of fornication, which is sex before marriage.

Fornication is being defined by you as "sex before marriage" but that isn't the meaning of the word being translated. The same word is also translated "whoremonger" and "harlotry" and comes from the base of "to sell": I see no support at all for the definition "sex before marriage"

So, in answer to part of your post, I would say, that it is not the piece of paper, but it is the solemn vow that is the crucial issue.

I would say that the act of consummation of union is itself far more crucial than speaking words. Not only, but would then a couple who never took (perhaps couldn't afford, or, by illegality such a racial couples in times past) vows not be husband and wife? Would then an interracial couple in times past be fornicators, and their union unbiblical, since they had no slip of paper or no vows?

 

[CodyFaith]

Find me a scripture that says that marriage is defined by a piece of paper issued by civil government, and not, first consummation of union. What I see in scripture is: first joined, first cleaved unto, first becoming one flesh. First is first, so I don't see an "sex before marriage" as even possible in the bible. I see "first sex = married" all sex to anyone else afterward is apparently adultery.

I don't need scripture to spell it out clearly like that (there were many other things that weren't spelled out either), I have wisdom in the matter.

Marriage is important in God's eyes yeah? Very important. God guides the church through the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit teaches us and guides us in all things.

I can give you many verses which stress avoiding sin at all costs, especially sexual sin. Fornication and adultery are condemned so many times in scripture and warned that sinning sexually is a terrible sin for a Christian to commit and is to be avoided at all costs.

So what you're saying is, that the church, is so blinded to the matter that they are constantly sinning all the time? That, because of their lack of self-appointed wisdom, wisdom that only you have achieved and no one else in the church has come onto, they sin gravely all the time?

Don't you see what an arrogant position it is to hold to the idea that you have this nugget of truth and no one else in the church does?

Unless of course you're wrong, and relying on self-wisdom. Which you are. But not only are you wrong, you're promoting your view as truth, hardening yourself on it so much that you're actually promoting your idea in all sorts.

Do you go to church? If you do - tell the pastor your view. Be honest and upfront, because nobody likes these sort of secret doctrines lurking in churches. If you don't, you're hiding, your being secretive - things that are contrary to love and contrary to Christian fellowship.
And another question, are you acting in ways in this regard, that every other Christian in the church would consider sin? That's important to tell the pastor aswell, because as per scripture we aren't to even sit and eat with a person who says they are a Christian and is sexually immoral.
1 Corinthians 5:11
But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

 

[John Hyperspace]

I don't need scripture to spell it out clearly like that (there were many other things that weren't spelled out either), I have wisdom in the matter.

Oh really? So "the two will become one flesh" isn't clearly speaking of consummation of union?

Marriage is important in God's eyes yeah? Very important.

Sure. Now all we have to do is define what "marriage" means to God, so we know what is actually important in His eyes.

I can give you many verses which stress avoiding sin at all costs, especially sexual sin. Fornication and adultery are condemned so many times in scripture and warned that sinning sexually is a terrible sin for a Christian to commit and is to be avoided at all costs.

But is your understanding of "fornication" correct?

So what you're saying is, that the church, is so blinded to the matter that they are constantly sinning all the time? That, because of their lack of self-appointed wisdom, wisdom that only you have achieved and no one else in the church has come onto, they sin gravely all the time?

Come again? Why are you saying "they are constantly sinning all the time"? Are you saying the church is constantly selling sex? I don't follow you here.

Don't you see what an arrogant position it is to hold to the idea that you have this nugget of truth and no one else in the church does?

Not really; it seems fairly simple to understand "the two will become one flesh": it's not really a "nugget" at all.

Unless of course you're wrong, and relying on self-wisdom. Which you are. But not only are you wrong, you're promoting your view as truth, hardening yourself on it so much that you're actually promoting your idea in all sorts.

I'm not sure what any of that actually means.

Do you go to church? If you do - tell the pastor your view. Be honest and upfront, because nobody likes these sort of secret doctrines lurking in churches. If you don't, you're hiding, your being secretive

If I'm being so secretive; how is it that you're replying to me?

 

[Open Heart]

I think I might be able to shed some light on this, although I can't guarantee that this is where the guy was coming from -- could be he was just a misogynist.

When the Torah was written, polygamy was perfectly licit. A man could have as many wives as he could support and it was not a sin.

There were three ways you could marry: a contract, a gift, or intercourse. Today in Judaism, they do all three. So having sex MARRIED a man to a woman. The general rule of thumb was therefore that for a man, there was no such thing as premarital sex, just another wife.

There were exceptions, what was known as ILLICIT sex, sex which did not marry you, or if you THOUGHT you were married, you could obtain a divorce. Deuteronomy 24:1 Today we would say the marriage is annulled because it is invalid. Examples of illicit sex are things like sex for money, finding out your wife is your sister, sex with another man's wife.

This ALL CHANGED when the Christian Church moved to monogamy, based on Jesus making monogamy the ideal, "A man shall leave his mother and father and cleave unto his wife, and the two shall be one flesh." Jews during the time of Christ were polygamous but Romans were monogamous. So when Jews became believers they brought their plural wives into the church. Paul however writes that a bishop is to be the husband of one wife. By the time of Tertullian, polygamy was considered unlawful. Today, obviously, we forget that polygamy was ever even accepted by God.

IF Monogamy is now the only acceptable option, this impacts the old arrangement about men and sex.

Remember the adage about a contract, a gift, or sex marrying you? The church ended that. The Church decided that it was decision of the couple themselves to marry that mattered. For many years, couples simply decided for themselves that they were married, but there were two many problems with men lying to women and saying "I'm marrying you," to get a woman into bed, and then claiming, "I never said that." Thus, the Church added the necessity of vows before witnesses, and this is true to this day.

So now that sex no longer marries a man to a woman, and there is such a thing as illicit premarital sex for a man as well as for a woman, which is why the gentleman on the other thread was so very mistaken.

 

[Tetra]

First, I'm sorry if this is the wrong area, I wasn't sure where to post it, so if this is wrong, I'm kindly asking the mods to put this in the right area.
Recently, there was a discussion on a different Christian forum about sex before marriage. I know, old topic, has been discussed a thousand times. What shocked me, however, was that one of the very strict Christians there (who, admittedly, seems to be a bit of a misogynist, considering the way he writes about women), claimed that it was the women who were not supposed to have sex before getting married.
I had always understood that not having sex before marriage is something Christians would want both to do, the men and the women, but this guy on the forum claimed it just mattered that the woman was a virgin when getting married. He didn't explain how he came to that conclusions, generally he then likes to go of in the area of "I'm just telling you what God wants, if you don't like it, something is wrong with you" which is why I find it hard to have a discussion with him, when I get that instead of proper reasoing and explanations.

Is he right? Does it say anywhere in the Bible that just the women are supposed not to have sex before getting married, but it's fine for men?
Btw, this is not really a request for personal advice since I'm already married. I was just a bit shocked because I hadn't really heard that one beofre, but then I think in my case, it was a lot of assumptions, so maybe he really is right? I just don't quite understand why it would be important for the woman, but not for the man, to be a virgin until they get married.

Well if he's saying only women have to wait... who's he having sex with?? lol

 

[dqhall]

My dad's sister was raped when she was high school age. The student who date raped her was from a prominent family. Her date disowned her after the incident. My dad's sister had to put the baby up for adoption. This type of fornication is very bad and unjust.

Wise people of ancient times recognized sex should be limited to married couples in order for children to have a chance for proper upbringing. In modern times there is birth control preventing some accidents, yet not all men or women want to use birth control. Bastard children produced by premarital sex may lack sufficient family resources and developmental support. Promiscuous behavior also spreads AIDS, hepatitis A, B, and C, other diseases. One form of hepatitis raises the risk of malignant cancer.

A couple engaged and having premarital sex might not suffer lasting retribution, as long as the story has a happy ending.

 

[GirdYourLoins]

If a man has sex with a woman before he is married, the woman is either unmarried or committing adultery. By his standard they are sinning.

By his own standard the man would be making that woman sin. Does this man consider it acceptable to lead ofther peolpe into sin?

 

[Norbert L]

It's really just simple deduction. I suppose you're aware that "inappropriate contenteia" means the root "to sell" and specifies "selling sex": thus the man at 1 Corinthians is guilty of "selling sex" with the person mentioned. That is the meaning of the word, and by which meaning the statement would be understood. To understand it in some other way would be against the use of the word; but by what reasoning?

So you have deduced that he preferred to buy sex from his father's wife and that she was charging her husbands son to have sex with her. That simply those Gentiles in Corinth who would publicly acknowledge the prostitution going on at the Temple of Aphrodite, yet somehow when a son pays for sex with his step mother is where they would draw the line? Is that how you're reading the situation Paul describes?

 

[John Hyperspace]

So you have deduced that he preferred to buy sex from his father's wife and that she was charging her husbands son to have sex with her. That simply those Gentiles in Corinth who would publicly acknowledge the prostitution going on at the Temple of Aphrodite, yet somehow when a son pays for sex with his step mother is where they would draw the line? Is that how you're reading the situation Paul describes?

I'm saying that fornication means "selling sex" by the very word itself (which is why it's also translated as "harlotry" and "whoremongering" in every translation) so when I see the word "fornication" I'm saying "that word means 'selling sex'" because that is how language functions. So yes, I am reading that some form of sex-selling is going on between these two people.

Also, they are not drawing the line at this, that is the very problem, they are glorifying this and drawing no lines at all:

2 And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.
6 Your glorying is not good.

I cannot say precisely what was going on in this church other than that harlotry was running rampant, and was actually a source of pride in these people. Probably they had misunderstood Paul's teachings concerning grace abounding is the presence of "exceeding sin", and thought the more they sinned, the more grace abounded, the better it was; Paul had to write to churches to stop this from happening because the people were misunderstanding grace.

My question is, are we really going to ingore the plain fact that consummation of union is the very act of cause "two to become one flesh": Genesis 2:24, 1 Corinthians 6:16: that "inappropriate contente" means "harlot" (and is always translated as such) and "inappropriate contenteia" means "to sell sex; harlotry; whoremongering", and cast it all aside based on your understanding of one verse? Let's look at the following chapter in which Paul is still talking about this, and also speaks of "two becoming one flesh"

1 Corinthians 6:15-18 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. Flee fornication.

The word "harlot" is "inappropriate contente" meaning "prostitute" from the root "to sell" i.e. sex. Paul uses the word twice, then states "flee inappropriate contenteia" after specifically speaking of "joined to an harlot (inappropriate contente)" "flee (inappropriate contenteia)": is it not clear that he's speaking of prostitution? So not only is Paul clearly speaking of "harlotry" and using a word from the root "to sell"; he's also reiterating the explicit understanding that consummation of union is what defines "one flesh", and therefore, with whomever a man or woman first consummates the act of union, they are "one flesh" in the eyes of God. This is the very act of sealing consummation of union between a man and a woman; there is nothing whatsoever in the bible about "marriage is a slip of paper from the civil secular government; it doesn't matter how many consummation of union acts have been committed prior to this; it only counts when there is a slip of paper and a man saying 'I pronounce it so'"

 

[John Hyperspace]

Also, if I've not already said it: if you're under grace then sin is not imputed, and there's nothing to worry about if you are not with the first person of union. Thank the Lord for that one.

But if you're under law, and like to make a boast about "I'm going to heaven because I follow the rules" then I'm sorry to rain on your parade, but you're in a constant state of adultery. You'll want to immediately cease boasting, and remove from under the law and into grace.

 

[Norbert L]

I'm saying that fornication means "selling sex" by the very word itself (which is why it's also translated as "harlotry" and "whoremongering" in every translation) so when I see the word "fornication" I'm saying "that word means 'selling sex'" because that is how language functions. So yes, I am reading that some form of sex-selling is going on between these two people.

Also, they are not drawing the line at this, that is the very problem, they are glorifying this and drawing no lines at all:

Just to clarify, Paul wrote "a kind that even pagans do not tolerate"(NIV). The pagans at Corinth did legally tolerate the Temple prostitutes, but Paul's words show they (the pagans) wouldn't engage in this kind of relationship.

...

The word "harlot" is "inappropriate contente" meaning "prostitute" from the root "to sell" i.e. sex. Paul uses the word twice, then states "flee inappropriate contenteia" after specifically speaking of "joined to an harlot (inappropriate contente)" "flee (inappropriate contenteia)": is it not clear that he's speaking of prostitution?

How many forms of selling sex were there in ancient Rome? History is aware of the ritual prostitution available to the public at the Temple of Aphrodite. Then there's the brothels they've uncovered in Pompeii. So what kind of "selling sex" was going on?

It is clear, a Christian was having sex with his step mother. It is also clear that even the non believing open minded pagan populace toward "selling sex" would react to that relationship with indignation. The last thing to be clear was Paul used the word "inappropriate contenteia" to describe the above. What is not mentioned is that those two had to sell each other on the idea of having sex together. Knowing the carnal mind they certainly bought into it.

 

[John Hyperspace]

Just to clarify, Paul wrote "a kind that even pagans do not tolerate"(NIV). The pagans at Corinth did legally tolerate the Temple prostitutes, but Paul's words show they (the pagans) wouldn't engage in this kind of relationship.

Right, the Gentiles engaged in prostitution as sacred, but even they wouldn't take it to the lengths that not only the Corinthians were taking it, but glorifying in their prostitution as though is was even more "godly" than that of the Gentiles.

How many forms of selling sex were there in ancient Rome? History is aware of the ritual prostitution available to the public at the Temple of Aphrodite. Then there's the brothels they've uncovered in Pompeii. So what kind of "selling sex" was going on?

There's only one form of prostitution. How many forms of prostitution are there today? One. You pay money for sex. That is what "inappropriate contente/os" does. A "inappropriate contente/os" is a prostitute who charges money for sex. "Porenia" is the business of "inappropriate contente/oi" "prostitutes"

 

[Norbert L]

There's only one form of prostitution. How many forms of prostitution are there today? One. You pay money for sex. That is what "inappropriate contente/os" does. A "inappropriate contente/os" is a prostitute who charges money for sex. "Porenia" is the business of "inappropriate contente/oi" "prostitutes"

So given your former comments with me, you are asserting that the man mentioned in 1 Cor 5 was engaging in the business of prostitution with his step mother. Was he pimping her out? Is that what Paul is saying in "that one of you hath his father’s wife"?

 

[John Hyperspace]

So given your former comments with me, you are asserting that the man mentioned in 1 Cor 5 was engaging in the business of prostitution with his step mother. Was he pimping her out? Is that what Paul is saying in "that one of you hath his father’s wife"?

As I said, I can't be certain of the specific manner of the act, but that the two were in some way guilty of "inappropriate contenteia": probably one was selling as a temple prostitute and the other was buying. The question here isn't "can we solve with exact specificity the act being performed, where, when, why, how, with whom, who approved, who didn't, how much was being charged, what else was going on..." The question is, what does "inappropriate contenteia" mean and it means "prostitution"; "inappropriate contenteia" is the act in which a "inappropriate contente/os" engages.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

First, I'm sorry if this is the wrong area, I wasn't sure where to post it, so if this is wrong, I'm kindly asking the mods to put this in the right area.
Recently, there was a discussion on a different Christian forum about sex before marriage. I know, old topic, has been discussed a thousand times. What shocked me, however, was that one of the very strict Christians there (who, admittedly, seems to be a bit of a misogynist, considering the way he writes about women), claimed that it was the women who were not supposed to have sex before getting married.
I had always understood that not having sex before marriage is something Christians would want both to do, the men and the women, but this guy on the forum claimed it just mattered that the woman was a virgin when getting married. He didn't explain how he came to that conclusions, generally he then likes to go of in the area of "I'm just telling you what God wants, if you don't like it, something is wrong with you" which is why I find it hard to have a discussion with him, when I get that instead of proper reasoning and explanations.

Is he right? Does it say anywhere in the Bible that just the women are supposed not to have sex before getting married, but it's fine for men?
Btw, this is not really a request for personal advice since I'm already married. I was just a bit shocked because I hadn't really heard that one before, but then I think in my case, it was a lot of assumptions, so maybe he really is right? I just don't quite understand why it would be important for the woman, but not for the man, to be a virgin until they get married.

The instructions in the bible tend to only work in a society where men have more rights/freedom than women and arranged marriage is common. Since both of those societal factors are basically gone in the west, applying the teachings according to what is there, causes massive dysfunction in society.