Hey @NickF , forgive the snark in this, I was some kind of mood at the time. But despite the extraness it’s the best argument against fornication meaning sex before marriage.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
What is fornication?
- Thread starter The Revolting Man
- Start date
So would you consider a man who lies with a virgin and doesn’t marry her a sinner? Is it because he’s not fulfilling his obligation? Or the act itself? What if he desires to marry her, but either her father or herself refuses? What if the girl is not a virgin? I would honestly like to know your personal takeaways from this thread and practical positions. Also, is there a thread on what physical act defines sex?
I consider him married. The act of lying with a virgin bound them together in God’s eyes. The man is only a sinner in that situation if tries to unjustly get rid of said former virgin.
It’s because we’re told not to break one flesh except for sexual impurity.
Again, I believe he married her when he took her.
Her status would be situational and alterable, it really would require more insight.
I do feel this sex=marriage stance is unsupportable. Does it not say in
Exodus 22:17 (KJV) If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.
Refuse to give her… in marriage….
Also, do you hold this sex=marriage view on rape?
@FollowingHim what are your insights, and anyone else I should ask?
I differ from @The Revolting Man on this in that I don't consider them automatically married from having sex, however I consider him to have an obligation to take her as a wife. If he doesn't do this, he is sinning by not fulfilling his obligation.
If she is not a virgin, he is not obliged to marry her. This is because if a woman was obliged to marry every man she slept with, she would be obliged to be polyandrous, which is sinful. Imagine a woman who sleeps with one man, hides it, sleeps with another, and then it all comes out and she is now required to marry both. Doesn't work. That's why this only applies to virgins. So if she's a non-virgin, there is no obligation to marry her, however if she's available it would obviously be the right thing to do.
If she is not a virgin, he is not obliged to marry her. This is because if a woman was obliged to marry every man she slept with, she would be obliged to be polyandrous, which is sinful. Imagine a woman who sleeps with one man, hides it, sleeps with another, and then it all comes out and she is now required to marry both. Doesn't work. That's why this only applies to virgins. So if she's a non-virgin, there is no obligation to marry her, however if she's available it would obviously be the right thing to do.
I agree, what about if the father refuses to give the daughter, or the daughter has no head and refuses to marry, after the act, does this guilt fall on the man or the one who refused? Also, does this obligation to attempt marriage for non-virgins apply if the woman is an unbeliever? (Although we are kind of inherently adding by saying this command to marry applies to non-virgins)
Last edited:
If the father or daughter refuses, he obviously cannot actually do it. He is still obliged to pay the bride-price, however that part is difficult to interpret into a modern context.
Does it make any difference to us who the guilt falls upon? God will judge correctly. We don't actually need to know the answer to that question.
The practical implication of all this is very clear: Don't "have sex before marriage", or more accurately, don't have sex when you are not committed for life. Because if you do, and don't follow through and turn it into a marriage, you're in sin and are opening a whole complicated can of worms. Instead, make sure the two of you are committed for life, ideally formalising this (a wedding is a very good tradition as it gives marriage the seriousness that it needs to have), and only then have sex. If you do fall into temptation and have sex prior to making such a commitment, then go and make the commitment, make it permanent.
Incidentally, the practical implication is essentially identical whether you look at this in the way @The Revolting Man does, or the way I do. So really, it doesn't actually matter much which view is technically correct, as the practical result of either viewpoint is identical.
There is no obligation to attempt marriage for non-virgins - whether or not she's a believer. However, given how strongly marriage is encouraged throughout scripture, and knowing God's general attitude towards men and women, it is obvious that it would be the right thing to do in either case. It's not a matter of avoiding sin, it's a matter of understanding God's heart. Seeking to do what is positive and good rather than just seeking to avoid what is negative.
Sometimes it comes across like people want to know how close they can get to the line before they have crossed it. If the primary objective is to wholeheartedly love God, then the focus will be positive...
Thank you, Samuel.
I agree we should always try to do the most good. This does have practical effects though, in the view of revolting, you could rape a virgin, widow, or divorced woman and now have lawful access to her. Furthermore, he would blanket label prostitutes who have no one willing to marry them as constantly committing adultery. He would then be able to blanket ban almost all porn as sin for watching “adultery” (unless it’s only women or a married couple present), and besides all that, he hasn’t even said what he thinks sex is yet? What physical acts count as sex? Along with the rape part being affirmed again, all these problems, scriptural inconsistencies, etc to make our theological system a little simpler…. Give me your thoughts
Surely, I do not always seek to stand next to the line, or on it… but I’m a man that hates unanswered questions, you’ll see me here asking clarification on minute details as it is my personality and conviction to know an issue thoroughly before taking a staunch position (positions I want to nail down to help myself and others).
No, he most certainly did not say that and I can assure you that is not what he believes! But I'll let him clarify himself.
You are however correct that @The Revolting Man considers prostitutes as in constant adultery, making that the reason prostitution is sinful. I agree prostitution is sinful: I disagree on the technicality of why (it's not adultery, it's a different form of fornication), but the practical effect is the same. Don't use prostitutes. Whichever way you look at it.
I define "sex" simply as "if you have to take your pants off to do it, it's sex". I take that from the oft-repeated phrase in the Mosaic Law "uncover the nakedness of". You are forbidden from "uncovering the nakedness of" your sister for instance, and the word "nakedness" in Hebrew technically refers to the genital region. To paraphrase, the Law is simply saying "keep your pants on". It does not give us more detail than that, so although we can try and define sex more precisely, all more precise definitions are to a degree speculative and are adding to scripture. Obviously there are grey areas (fondling from the outside while the pants stay on?), in all such cases I'd just take the practical conservative perspective: if in doubt it's sex.
I understand your passion is to figure out the theological details. I on the other hand have less interest in theological detail and my passion is instead for the practical application. In this case there are basically two different theological viewpoints that can both be argued for (sex = marriage after which you need to commit, and sex + commitment = marriage), but both have essentially the same practical application. I therefore take the practical application as confirmed and reinforced by both of them, and the practical application is all we actually need to know.
This is a very long and involved discussion and one we haven’t had in a while so it’s probably worth having again. If we do we’re going to get down into the weeds very quickly so let me make a few blanket statements now and we can go from there.
First off, there are no words in scripture for husband, wife, married, marriage or as far as I can tell even sex. Any time you use these words you are imposing modern definitions on ageless spiritual concepts. In the course of this discussion those words will become an impediment.
Secondly, and this is where the sparks start to fly, what we call “marriage”, God calls “one flesh”. The phrase is used in the foundational passage for “marriage” when Adam meets Eve, Christ uses that phrase and Paul uses that phrase. We are told explicitly not to lie with harlots because it will make us one flesh with them, morally bound to perform the duties of a “husband” to them, just like we are if we lie with a virgin. A man who has laid with either a virgin or a harlot has endowed her to be his “wife”. And before you start trying to disprove this statement, which is found clearly in the scripture, with practical considerations let me save you some time. Yes, I understand the implications of this and no, they do not change the reality. Now you will still have to try and use practical considerations to disprove my statement because there is no scriptural basis for you to use. In the course of this discussion you will never once use scripture to support your claims. You will only use it to attack mine. This is because there is no scriptural basis for any other view here. If you apply all of the verses plainly and consistently then the only conclusion you can arrive at is mine.
Thirdly, you are going to make a big deal out of the father’s ability to utterly refuse to give her to him. There’s no avoiding it. You will have to rest your entire attack on this verse. We will be spending a lot of time on it. This is unfortunate because the verse is not about how to form a one flesh union. It is about how to handle the bride price in a very unique set of circumstances. We will be ignoring many more far more relevant passages but that is the nature of this discussion.
Fourthly; and this part bothers me more than I can say and it is an unresolved issue in my mind, God does not look at rape the same we do in our modern world. This will be a very disturbing part of the discussion but if we’re going to base our sexual morals on scripture then at some point we have to admit that rape is a very difficult topic. One that yes, can result in a one flesh union.
As far as what constitutes sex, I’m probably not going to get bogged down in that one. Remember that sex is a metaphor for the intimacy between God and His people. We can reverse that metaphor then and say that the intimacy between God and His people is a metaphor for (righteous) sex. In fact the word for adultery is almost the same word as for idolatry. You can still commit idolatry even if you haven’t done a full on goat sacrifice to Baal, you can commit adultery short of penetrative sex. For the purposes of defining when a one flesh union has definitely been formed though I will say that it’s any time a man has penetrated a woman with his penis.
Alright, let the games begin. We’ve had this debate a number of time so taking a little bit of time to read some old threads will help you out. @NickF is a passionate opponent of my stance on this issue so he will be an invaluable resource for you in the days. His passion and dogged determination are the best defense to what is a pretty indefensible position and does it better than anyone else (mental insert smiley emoji here, I’ve never figured out how to).
I’ll see you on the field of battle.
Last edited:
It will be helpful to me and very destructive to you if you will take a hard stand on your beliefs. What do you say constitutes a morally binding marriage? How do we accomplish a morally binding marriage and where is that process described in scripture? These are questions you will have to be able to answer if you want to pursue this topic.
While I don’t have the time or mental energy for a new jousting match I’ve always asserted I am open to being proven wrong. Just not with circular reasoning 
I’ll pop some popcorn with my newly rendered brisket fat and enjoy the show though. Maybe you will be able to prove to me and others with scripture that my position is incorrect.
I’ll pop some popcorn with my newly rendered brisket fat and enjoy the show though. Maybe you will be able to prove to me and others with scripture that my position is incorrect.
"Shall become" seems to be future tense-(I am no language scholar). At what point does future tense become present or even present perfect tense? I am reminded of the society at the time and the prevalence of child sacrifice in idolatry. The prohibited "dividing assunder" aspect happens when? Is that the dissolution of the relationship or the idolatrous practice of child sacrifice? Not to get too far afield on this but sacrificing a child for the "betterment of the family" is a current practice during an abortion. This is of course specifically prohibited for the children of Yah. Perhaps in the mind of the ancient Hebrew, having sex being the definition of one flesh is indistinguishable form creating a baby.
You’ll have to be a little more specific. A man can penetrate multiple areas of a woman. I can think of 3.