Sex before marrieag - just not the women?

[PeterDona]

The "one flesh" is something that God creates, when people get married. We should acknowledge, that the institution of marriage was the very first holy institution that God created. Well, more than that it is a reality.

Adam and Eve were created one flesh. They did not become one flesh, they were so even from the beginning. It was a reality for them.

And so the words in Genesis 2:23-24 tell us how any couple of man and woman can become one flesh in the like manner of Adam and Eve
1) the man leaves his father and mother
2) cleave unto his wife
3) they shall (sure promise) be one flesh
So there is not a one flesh, if not there has first been a cleaving, which I believe is best expressed by solemn vows.

Furthermore, it is one of the mainline understandings of what happened before the flood, that Cains grandgrandgrandson Lamech started to do sex with more than one wife (polygamy-adultery), and that the sons of God (Seths descendants) finally also succumbed to the sin of adultery and fornication, and that is when God repented in his heart that he had created man. And so he brought the flood. He even tells Noah, that all flesh has become corrupt. And how can flesh be corrupt? Well, it has to refer back to Gn 2:23-24, because that is the only other mention of flesh in the preflood account. So corruption must refer to the corruption of the one-flesh reality.

 

[Hallstone]

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.

Considering the fact that Jesus said just looking at a woman to lust for her amounts to adultery in your heart, I would say that person on that previous thread is definitely wrong, and is probably trying to justify something he has/is done/doing.

 

[Norbert L]

The question is, what does "inappropriate contenteia" mean and it means "prostitution"; "inappropriate contenteia" is the act in which a "inappropriate contente/os" engages.

The only thing without a doubt in my mind is you keep on suggesting he meant that there was some kind of ambiguous type of "sex selling" going on. Yet you are incapable of showing that there was any exchange of goods for sex within the text.

The better question is why did Paul use that word to describe a relationship that involved sex and was described as having his father's wife. It's up to anyone who studies the scriptures to try and comprehend the mindset of the author (Philippians 3:5). His intent. Knowing for certain Paul's credentials, he would of been well aware of Leviticus 18:8 and he states his view on that law (Romans 7:7). What is also with out a doubt, he used the word inappropriate contenteia in conjunction with the idea of a man having his father's wife. He without any doubt associates inappropriate contenteia with a sin that doesn't involve prostitution.

 

[John Hyperspace]

The only thing without a doubt in my mind is you keep on suggesting he meant that there was some kind of ambiguous type of "sex selling" going on. Yet you are incapable of showing that there was any exchange of goods for sex within the text.

The very word shows selling is involved. Your statement here is like reading a report that says "Such and such was charged with prostitution" and saying "You're incapable of showing there was any selling of sex involved": I'm only wondering why you are so fixated on a single verse in the scripture? Are you trying to "prove" that "inappropriate contenteia" means "sex before marriage" by citing a single verse out of every verse in the entire bible, then wrestling that verse into meaning? What, exactly? Incest? Because this verse doesn't indicate "sex before marriage" in any way, shape or form.

The rest of your post doesn't have any relevant meaning to the fact the word "inappropriate contenteia" means "to sell sex" and is the business of "inappropriate contente" which are "harlots": this is not difficult to follow. It is the same word base connection as any other: fish/fisher, sit/sitter, play/player, inappropriate contente/inappropriate contenteia: harlot/harlotry

 

[Norbert L]

The very word shows selling is involved. Your statement here is like reading a report that says "Such and such was charged with prostitution" and saying "You're incapable of showing there was any selling of sex involved": I'm only wondering why you are so fixated on a single verse in the scripture? Are you trying to "prove" that "inappropriate contenteia" means "sex before marriage" by citing a single verse out of every verse in the entire bible, then wrestling that verse into meaning? What, exactly? Incest? Because this verse doesn't indicate "sex before marriage" in any way, shape or form.

Three bible verses were used to give credibility towards the mindset of Paul in this matter. That he considered something other than "selling sex" as a sin. Which given what the view on marriage in Hebrews 13:4. When then means that sex outside of marriage is certainly regarded as sin. It's not referring to only prostitution here.

I'm not just saying that you are incapable of showing that you're "selling sex" theory bears merit, the answers being provided by you show that it is true. They are ambiguous and then as you do again, try and move the discussion away. If the first shoe doesn't fit, there's no sense in trying to put on the other one. Paul was using the word inappropriate contenteia about a sexual relationship outside marriage that didn't involve prostitution. Which thenSex outside of marriage is certainly regarded as sin.

 

[John Hyperspace]

I'm not just saying that you are incapable of showing that you're "selling sex" theory bears merit

Again, that's no different than saying "just because the paper says 'prostitution' doesn't mean you're capable of showing that it is 'selling sex'": it's a statement seemingly not understanding the use of language. It would be the burden of the one claiming "prostitution does not mean 'selling sex'" to justify his proposition, just as the onus is yours to justify that "inappropriate contenteia" doesn't mean "selling" when that is the root of the word, and from "inappropriate contente/harlot"

However, the real issue here is, is sex before marriage sinful? That is the question in the thread. To determine this, we first have to determine what scripture defines as "marriage": then we can talk about "before marriage": I maintain my stance that "marriage" is defined by consummation of union. This is even the underlying understanding of our word "marriage": two things becoming one: a "marriage of X and Y": and the very first consummation of union is the very first marriage; the very first "two become one": thus there can be no such a thing as "consummation of union before marriage" since consummation of union is the very definition of marriage.

Many today like to say "the bible defines marriage as between man and woman" because of the statement made by Adam concerning "the man will cleave to the woman": and this is true by scripture, as is the following "and the two become one flesh" consummation of union i.e. marriage.

 

[seashale76]

So, he thinks it's okay for men to engage in homosexual relationships then? Since all the women folk are expected to be virgins, this is the logical conclusion.

 

[MayMcFlurry]

Polygamy was ok in the old testament - but it was a cultural thing and God put up with it. Any man who uses that to justify baseless sex is just kidding themselves in my opinion, sure you can have that opinion, but God always intended for things to be equal in the beginning.

 

[Blade]

1st... each one knows. God has written it on our hearts. I live in America.. I obey all mans laws.. up to the point they go against the word of God. So if man says I need a paper so forth so on.. that is what I do or did

So sex before marriage is a sin no more no less. Yet...a believer is free. There is no condemnation...there is no judgement. He has not changed. You are no slave no puppet. You DONT DO not because your told to but because you WANT to. If one does not do out of fear or has to.. might as well just done it. Your heart has to be in this. This DONT DO.. is because when we listen to that lie that goes against the word of God the enemy then comes in because we gave him the right..by sinning. God knows this. This SIN is what keeps us away from Him. He just wants us to NEVER EVER be away from Him and Adam and Eve should show us what happens when we listen to just a lie and do it. Just touched and takes a bite.. look what that sin did.

No matter what any man/woman says.. there is a price to pay when we sin. Sin = death in this life. So even the world knows. One should be married then YES FUN WOOOT.. well marriage Yet if you done it.. just repent and HE is SO GOOD at what He does.. HE will make you brand new! No judgement...no condemnation. Its what HE says not man not me

 

[AvgJoe]

I propose it is your understanding of the bible that may disagree but, not necessarily the bible. The first thing I would again ask is, produce a passage defining "marriage" in the bible? I know that men define it by a slip of paper for tax purposes; but there is no hint of this in the bible, nor that God recognizes the slip of paper. But in the scripture it's very clear that when a man is joined to a woman the two become one. This would necessarily indicate that the very first consummation is an act of becoming one flesh; man and woman in consummation of union.

Becoming "one flesh" is used in Scripture for the consummating sexual act of marriage. But what constitutes marriage, today? It depends on the laws of the country in which you reside, because as a Christian, we are to be subject to government (Romans 13:1-7) and where I live, in the USA, the government uses 'a slip of paper'. And that slip of paper isn't just for tax purposes, it's also to give rights, especially to the wife and her children, in this society, thus, providing protection to her and her children should the unthinkable happen.

Now, your verse speaks of "fornication" but how is this understood? As sex before marriage? By what biblical definition of "marriage", you see? We can define the words of the bible with our own understanding, but that doesn't make the understanding correct. The Greek word (and Hebrew) translated as "fornication" both mean sex from the base of selling i.e. prostitution. Paul is admonishing each have a single partner in order to avoid engaging in prostitution, selling and buying of sex.

So the verse provides no biblical meaning for "marriage" and looks to be referencing prostitution to fulfill sexual desires, which are best fulfilled with a single partner.

The definition of the word "fornication" appears to be much broader than what you've shared here. From Strong's Concordance;

inappropriate contenteia: fornication
Original Word: πορνεία, ας, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: inappropriate contenteia
Phonetic Spelling: (por-ni'-ah)
Short Definition: fornication, idolatry
Definition: fornication, whoredom; met: idolatry.

From inappropriate contenteuo; harlotry (includ. adultery and incest); fig. idolatry:-fornication

4202 inappropriate contenteía (the root of the English terms "inappropriate contentography, inappropriate contentographic"; cf. 4205 /pórnos) which is derived from pernaō, "to sell off") – properly, a selling off (surrendering) of sexual purity; promiscuity of any (every) type.

inappropriate contenteia comes from the word inappropriate contenteuo which means, from Strong's Concordance;

inappropriate contenteuó: to commit fornication
Original Word: πορνεύω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: inappropriate contenteuó
Phonetic Spelling: (inappropriate content-yoo'-o)
Short Definition: I fornicate, practice idolatry
Definition: I fornicate; met: I practice idolatry.

Cognate: 4203 inappropriate contenteúō – commit fornication (sexual immorality); (figuratively) to be unfaithful to Christ, while posing as His true follower. See 4202 (inappropriate contenteia).

From Thayer's Greek Lexicon;

1. to prostitute one's body to the lust of another. In the Scriptures

2. to give oneself to unlawful sexual intercourse; to commit fornication (Vulg.fornicor): 1 Corinthians 6:18; 1 Corinthians 10:8; Revelation 2:14, 20; (Mark 10:19 WH (rejected) marginal reading).

3. by a Hebraism (see πορνεία, b.) metaphorically, to be given to idolatry, to worship idols: 1 Chronicles 5:25; Psalm 72:27 (); Jeremiah 3:6; Ezekiel 23:19; Hosea 9:1, etc.; μετά τίνος, to permit oneself to be drawn away by another into idolatry, Revelation 17:2; Revelation 18.

While money can, certainly, be a part of it, fornication can be committed without any money exchanging hands. The definition of the word is much broader than just the buying/selling of sex.

 

[Basil Isaacks]

There are lots of social 'double standards' along these lines (oh, so many), but I'm not aware of any scriptural or traditional basis.

In general, when someone refuses to explain their position at all, you can be pretty sure they don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[Basil Isaacks]

ST. Basil said much the same thing about the double standard that existed in his time, too.

Forgive the blank posting. One day I'll learn how to operate this properly.

Christ is baptized! In the Jordan!

 

[BeachBabe87]

The Bible says "everything is permissible, not everything is beneficial, everything is permissible, not everything is constructive."

All the laws in the Bible are about what is God's most loving plan for us. Sex before marriage is permissible, but not beneficial when there is a huge risk of pregnancy and a child being born out of wedlock. This is why sex before marriage is not okay, but lets face it, most people, even Christians fall into temptation and we all are tempted. Only about 1% of Christians I know, if honest, have abstained before marriage.

There are these things called hormones. I believe the Bible that sex before marriage is destructive and unloving, it does way more harm than good. But all sin is sin, sin simply means not God's best and most loving for us when you actually look into the meaning of the word.

This brings us back to the word, everything is permissible, not everything is beneficial, everything is permissible, not everything is constructive.

 

[faroukfarouk]

The Bible says "everything is permissible, not everything is beneficial, everything is permissible, not everything is constructive."

All the laws in the Bible are about what is God's most loving plan for us. Sex before marriage is permissible, but not beneficial when there is a huge risk of pregnancy and a child being born out of wedlock. This is why sex before marriage is not okay, but lets face it, most people, even Christians fall into temptation and we all are tempted. Only about 1% of Christians I know, if honest, have abstained before marriage.

There are these things called hormones. I believe the Bible that sex before marriage is destructive and unloving, it does way more harm than good. But all sin is sin, sin simply means not God's best and most loving for us when you actually look into the meaning of the word.

This brings us back to the word, everything is permissible, not everything is beneficial, everything is permissible, not everything is constructive.

I think there is a great variety among different professedly Christian groups.

 

[Near]

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?

Well, I guess those men must be committing sodomy then because they can't make the women sin.

 

[Dave-W]

he better question is why did Paul use that word to describe a relationship that involved sex and was described as having his father's wife. It's up to anyone who studies the scriptures to try and comprehend the mindset of the author (Philippians 3:5). His intent. Knowing for certain Paul's credentials, he would of been well aware of Leviticus 18:8 and he states his view on that law (Romans 7:7).

The very word shows selling is involved.

Not really. Paul was a Pharisee and was also fluent in Greek. Those in Corinth, many had come from the synagogue next door to the church that Paul started. So he would have been familiar with how the Jewish diaspora community used that word, and not just how society at large used it. His usage reflects the fact that the diaspora community used inappropriate contentia to reflect ANYTHING that violated OT sexual standards. That would certainly INCLUDE selling sex, but was not limited to it.

 

[Daniel Quartararo]

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.

I think this presentation by this gentleman will show that it is clear that sex is meant for marriage:

Enjoy and God bless you, in Jesus' mighty name!

 

[archer75]

I think this presentation by this gentleman will show that it is clear that sex is meant for marriage:

Enjoy and God bless you, in Jesus' mighty name!

I don't think this is what the OP was asking about.

 

[hedrick]

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.

You won’t see arguments like this in CF, because it isn’t permitted. But if you look at discussions elsewhere, it’s pretty clear that in the OT premarital sex for men is discouraged but not directly prohibited. For women, however, it’s a big deal. That’s where the position reported by the OP comes from. But that's not the end of the story.

The NT has virtually no explicit discussion on the subject. However the letters, at least, do prohibit “inappropriate contenteia.” So it comes down to what you think “inappropriate contenteia” is. It is translated either “fornication” or “sexual immorality.” The most detailed historical lexicon I have (TDNT) notes that while there were ambiguities in OT times, by the time of Jesus Jewish standards had gotten stricter, and that they applied equally to women and men. It is reasonable to believe that when “inappropriate contenteia” was used in the NT, it was used with the meaning current within 1st Cent Judaism, which would include both men and women. And despite the fact that the word originally meant specifically prostitution (an argument you will sometimes see at sites that permit it), by the 1st Cent the meaning in Jewish usage had broadened to include all sex outside of marriage.

Unless we have some reason to think that the NT writers were pushing for more relaxed sexual standards (and that seems unlikely), it’s reasonable to believe that they used “inappropriate contenteia” in the way that it was used in the 1st Cent Jewish community. What I think is fair to say is that premarital sex isn’t a topic that the NT writers saw a need to deal with explicitly. That is probably because it wasn’t disputed. Remember, most of the passages are in letters, and the letters tended to focus on hot topics, not systematic presentations of ethics.

Your own personal ethics are going to depend upon whether you accept the sexual ethics taught by the NT authors, or you think it’s permissible to reconsider them. But I think any honest exegesis is going to say that the NT authors accepted and passed on standard 1st Cent Jewish sexual ethics, which would have applied equally to men and women, and would have prohibited premarital intercourse.

 

[Angel Wings 1288]

A Christian man cannot claim that women must not have any prior sex partners prior to her husband, namely because it isn't consistent with what the Gospels teach about mercy and forgiveness. Jesus died not for people who live absolute puritanical lives, but for sinners (Romans 5:6). In other words, Christ came to save sinful people such as those who commit sexual immorality, not rigidly chaste people who are obsessed with maintaining "purity." Also, a Christian man can't judge women for past sexual immorality because he's been guilty of past sins, even if those sins aren't related to sex, because God will judge him likewise.

However, if someone has deep sexual issues related to insecurity and would be in lifelong distress knowing that his wife was intimate with other men in the past, then he should by all means seek out a virgin for marriage. That is his choice, and no one is forcing him to marry a woman he doesn't like. The sin isn't in wanting to marry a virgin; it's in judging women for past sexual indiscretions and demanding that all women maintain their "purity" for their husbands.