-
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
This is absolutely crucial @Joshua:
The place I part ways with @The Revolting Man is simply that he recognises "marriage" does not appear in scripture, then proceeds to make his whole argument about finding an equivalent in scripture, and settles on defining "marriage" as "one flesh". So he recognises that the word "marriage" is extrabiblical but then immediately slips back into using it in the heart of his argument.
I, instead, discard the word entirely.
Scripture tells us about two things that are closely related but different, and both of which factor into our concept of "marriage".
1) Ownership / possession of women.
2) One flesh, the physical union formed through sexual contact with a woman.
These are entirely separate concepts, but correlated because they obviously usually occur at the same time.
We are told about bride prices, obtaining the father's consent, marriage contracts / ketubah - these are all in the sphere of ownership / possession of a woman.
We are also told that having sex makes you one flesh. That is a separate matter but one that is even more important.
So there are four different possibilities for how a man and woman can be related:
1) Neither ownership nor one flesh. The relationship between you and most women in the world.
2) Possess a woman but have not made her one flesh. E.g. betrothal - you have agreed that she is your woman, paid a bride price for her if the father demanded it, but haven't slept together. Slavery is another scriptural example - this is the status of Bilhah and Zilpah before Jacob slept with them.
3) One flesh but don't possess the woman. Obvious example being that you slept with your neighbour's wife - you are now one flesh but she most certainly is not yours. But I would also apply this to sleeping with a prostitute, and a man sleeping with a virgin without first gaining her father's consent.
4) Both possess a woman and become one flesh with her. A healthy "marriage", to slip into using that term again as it gives the right mental picture.
A man should first determine that a woman is his - check she is not already bound to anyone else (is available), obtain her and her father's consent, pay a bride price if relevant. (2)
Once he has established that a woman is his own woman, then he has full freedom to have sex with her, to become one flesh. It is the fact that she is already his woman which makes the sex wholesome and good. (4)
On the other hand, if he does this in the wrong order - becoming one flesh with her before establishing that she is his (3) - that's not the end of the world. If she's a virgin, he simply has an obligation to now establish ownership / possession of that woman also. So now he has to go back to the father and sort out the bride price etc.
I think that in practice, @The Revolting Man are really saying basically the same thing, we're just applying the label of "marriage" to this differently. He calls one flesh "marriage", so labels both relationships 3 and 4 as marriage. I use the word "marriage" to refer only to relationship 4, once the ownership issue has been established also. It's not really worth debating which is the correct way to use the word "marriage", since it's extrabiblical anyway. The important thing is that we understand the underlying concepts of one flesh and ownership.
And up to now I have been using the word "marriage" in my responses, which is sloppy. To explain where I'm coming from I'm going to back up a step further and stop using that word.
The place I part ways with @The Revolting Man is simply that he recognises "marriage" does not appear in scripture, then proceeds to make his whole argument about finding an equivalent in scripture, and settles on defining "marriage" as "one flesh". So he recognises that the word "marriage" is extrabiblical but then immediately slips back into using it in the heart of his argument.
I, instead, discard the word entirely.
Scripture tells us about two things that are closely related but different, and both of which factor into our concept of "marriage".
1) Ownership / possession of women.
2) One flesh, the physical union formed through sexual contact with a woman.
These are entirely separate concepts, but correlated because they obviously usually occur at the same time.
We are told about bride prices, obtaining the father's consent, marriage contracts / ketubah - these are all in the sphere of ownership / possession of a woman.
We are also told that having sex makes you one flesh. That is a separate matter but one that is even more important.
So there are four different possibilities for how a man and woman can be related:
1) Neither ownership nor one flesh. The relationship between you and most women in the world.
2) Possess a woman but have not made her one flesh. E.g. betrothal - you have agreed that she is your woman, paid a bride price for her if the father demanded it, but haven't slept together. Slavery is another scriptural example - this is the status of Bilhah and Zilpah before Jacob slept with them.
3) One flesh but don't possess the woman. Obvious example being that you slept with your neighbour's wife - you are now one flesh but she most certainly is not yours. But I would also apply this to sleeping with a prostitute, and a man sleeping with a virgin without first gaining her father's consent.
4) Both possess a woman and become one flesh with her. A healthy "marriage", to slip into using that term again as it gives the right mental picture.
A man should first determine that a woman is his - check she is not already bound to anyone else (is available), obtain her and her father's consent, pay a bride price if relevant. (2)
Once he has established that a woman is his own woman, then he has full freedom to have sex with her, to become one flesh. It is the fact that she is already his woman which makes the sex wholesome and good. (4)
On the other hand, if he does this in the wrong order - becoming one flesh with her before establishing that she is his (3) - that's not the end of the world. If she's a virgin, he simply has an obligation to now establish ownership / possession of that woman also. So now he has to go back to the father and sort out the bride price etc.
I think that in practice, @The Revolting Man are really saying basically the same thing, we're just applying the label of "marriage" to this differently. He calls one flesh "marriage", so labels both relationships 3 and 4 as marriage. I use the word "marriage" to refer only to relationship 4, once the ownership issue has been established also. It's not really worth debating which is the correct way to use the word "marriage", since it's extrabiblical anyway. The important thing is that we understand the underlying concepts of one flesh and ownership.
As has been said, re: this discussion, "been there, done that." My take, likewise, has been clear before: I do not believe that the English term "fornication" has any relevance to Scripture, in the sense that what that is NOW thought to mean, "sex before licensed 'marriage' [whatever that is!]" is a non-sequitor. [There ARE equivalents in Hebrew, however, for things that ARE explicit, and can be shown to be forbidden: incest, adultery, whoring, male-on-male penetration by whatever name, and almost no others*, aside from abominations like 'bestiality.']
As to "the act of sexual union" -- e.g. --
I will contend that there IS another word that IS used, and, in fact, has become almost a 'wink-wink, nudge, nudge' synonym.
Genesis 4:1. "And Adam knew [Hebrew root: yada] Chava/Eve his wife [root isha; specific: his isha / ishto ]
He "knew her," in the "Biblical sense." And it's not the 'first use' of that word, either!
But what it REALLY means is, He KNEW her, intimately. Up close and personal. Experientially. First-hand.
------------------------------
* And, yes, שָׁכַב (šāḵaḇ), as in, "lie with me" - whether it's Lot's daughters, or Potiphar's wife. But those other words already apply, be it incest or adultery.
As to "the act of sexual union" -- e.g. --
or...
I will contend that there IS another word that IS used, and, in fact, has become almost a 'wink-wink, nudge, nudge' synonym.
Genesis 4:1. "And Adam knew [Hebrew root: yada] Chava/Eve his wife [root isha; specific: his isha / ishto ]
He "knew her," in the "Biblical sense." And it's not the 'first use' of that word, either!
But what it REALLY means is, He KNEW her, intimately. Up close and personal. Experientially. First-hand.
------------------------------
* And, yes, שָׁכַב (šāḵaḇ), as in, "lie with me" - whether it's Lot's daughters, or Potiphar's wife. But those other words already apply, be it incest or adultery.
I agreed even before reading and thank you, as this message is sufficient as an explanation. Let’s look at the verse in genesis,
Genesis 2:24 (KJV) Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
So he shall cleave unto his woman (she’s already his by ownership, God was the one who gave eve), *AND* they shall be one flesh, a reference to sex of course. Therefore, God establishes that it’s best to only be one flesh with your women, as it helps you bond, created children that should stay in your family, etc. Penetrating a woman definitely doesn’t make you her owner, it’s insightful access, her father shouldn’t give her to you after rape, and shouldn’t if you seduce her and can’t provide properly/be a Godly man.
I will not have to be more specific. The statement stands. If you break it, you bought it.
I would not dispute this claim. But I am unaware of any biblical word like sex or anything that explicitly designates what our treasured @MeganC so antiseptically and pedantically refers to as “boinking like bunnies”.
This is a very valid criticism. Ideally we would jettison completely the word “marriage” and “married”. They are neither useful or descriptive. I disagree that I want to replace the word marriage with one flesh. I want to replace the English definition of marriage with the biblical definition of one flesh.
Except hilariously you’re discarding the very word that means what you want it to mean
Big noses! Obviously.
Another Biblical term to think about is the phrase "his woman", translated "his wife" but with the literal word actually being "woman", which appears everywhere in scripture. It helps to clarify things a lot. Going back to the four states I illustrated above:
1) No relationship. Not your woman.
2) Ownership established. She is your woman - but not one flesh.
3) Ownership not established but sexual contact anyway. She is not your woman - but is one flesh.
4) Ownership and sexual contact. She is your woman and you are one flesh.
To look more carefully at state 3:
If we are to use the word "marriage", I prefer to use it only for situations that are fully formed and proper - state 4 - rather than applying it to situations that are improper.
1) No relationship. Not your woman.
2) Ownership established. She is your woman - but not one flesh.
3) Ownership not established but sexual contact anyway. She is not your woman - but is one flesh.
4) Ownership and sexual contact. She is your woman and you are one flesh.
To look more carefully at state 3:
- You might become one flesh with your neighbour's wife, but she's certainly not your woman.
- You might become one flesh with a prostitute, but cannot say "this is my woman". She's not your woman any more than she's the woman of any other man she's slept with. She's either nobody's woman or everybody's woman or she has a husband she's committing adultery against and is his woman - but she is not your woman.
- You might catch a young virgin and rape her. You're now one flesh with her - but she's not your woman. She's a woman you have abused, but she still belongs to her father and herself, you can't establish ownership through theft.
- You might persuade a young virgin to willingly sleep with you, but if you haven't yet come to an understanding with her and/or her father than establishes her as belonging to you alone, she's not your woman. She should be your woman, you now need to sort this out, but she isn't and you really shouldn't have slept with her without sorting that out first.
If we are to use the word "marriage", I prefer to use it only for situations that are fully formed and proper - state 4 - rather than applying it to situations that are improper.
What do you think of all the biblical imagery of bad women, (let’s say proverbs 7) they are always married committing adultery, can we say anything explicitly about the act between a man and virgin (other than he should attempt to marry her), and between a man and non virgin (either she was raped, or willingly slept with a men and either that man, her father or herself refused the marriage), other than it may not be wise? Also does that obligation to attempt to marry the virgin cease when one of the 3 parties refuse as a one time event? Or does that obligation remain until the point where that woman marries either the man who slept with her first or marries someone else?
Also side question what do you think of the imagery from Eph 5? Does this suggest at all to you that marriage=one flesh or can you explain it to me, I do agree with you right now though ownership and one flesh are different.
Ephesians 5:28-33 (KJV) 28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife [see] that she reverence [her] husband.
Last question, is there any verse about the rape of an unbetrothed girl? Punishment?
Last edited:
How do you know if it's 'rape' or consensual? The 'presumption of innocence' (as it used to be called in English Common Law) comes from the sequence in Deuteronomy chapter 22 (essentially 22-29).
What word is that? Marriage? How could I discard a word that isn’t there?Except hilariously you’re discarding the very word that means what you want it to mean
I thought he was saying you were discarding "One Flesh", which means what you are saying, by using "Marriage" for that concept. If so, I get the point - just use "one flesh" and don't assume that is equivalent to "marriage" - but it's a bit of a weird way to say it. I probably misunderstood him also.
Sorry it's taken me a few days to get back to this @Joshua.
There are many things that are evidently wrong based on the logic God has given us, which are not explicitly condemned in scripture. Nor does scripture go into great detail on many of these points. Your questions are now going beyond what scripture states in black and white, and getting into areas where we must apply our own judgement as to what is right and wrong. This is why we have the broad command to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. In any real situation involving the issues you have asked about, what is right and wrong will be evident to anyone who has the Holy Spirit plus a decent understanding of Biblical law and precedent, and approaches it prayerfully.
Not at all. When you have a wife, you become one flesh with her. Then you will love your wife, who is one flesh with you, as you love your own body. This does not override anything I have said above by equating "having a woman" with "one flesh". Although they are technically different, as one relates to ownership and the other relates to sex, in marriage both occur simultaneously, so the passage makes perfect sense.
One flesh sounds like the transitive of "Marry" taken from the Oxford English Dictionary.
II.
Extended uses.
II.
Extended uses.
- II.8.a.
c1450–
transitive. To unite intimately, to join closely or permanently; to correlate, link together (also with up); to cause or enable to blend together.
- II.8.a.
Yeah, I agree. “Marriage” just doesn’t require the explanation “one flesh” does.
Except it does when you start saying things like "a prostitute is married to everyone she sleeps with". The mental image people have of "marriage" is a man and woman committing to each other in a formal ceremony, with paperwork, and planning to be together for life. If you call the relationship between a prostitute and her client "marriage" you have to redefine marriage and explain what you mean by it. So you have to explain that you mean "one flesh". This is complicated.
As soon as you're dealing with anything other than an intentional marriage, I do think it is far simpler to explain "one flesh" and just use that term. Using the word "marriage" too broadly just causes confusion and unnecessary debate.
As soon as you're dealing with anything other than an intentional marriage, I do think it is far simpler to explain "one flesh" and just use that term. Using the word "marriage" too broadly just causes confusion and unnecessary debate.
I agree, much simpler to say a prostitute has sex with someone she has sex with. And a man and wife are in a committed relationship that everyone calls marriage. One could even call it a covenant relationship modeled on the covenant relationship the Most High has set forth as the heavenly example. But I’m just a crackerjack and don’t know nuffin.
And a man and his woman (or women) are in a committed relationship.... .