• 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?

NeoPatriarch said:
For starters, your missing that this is not literal, it figurative.
Click to expand...
And so we’re supposed to gloss over an example that God himself is using of an actual Jewish marriage betrothal/covenant process to explain his own relationship with an actual nation?

I’d respond that you are missing the obviously perfect example to justify mediocrity.
 
EternalDreamer said:
She's brought to her father because clearly she isn't 'with' the guy she had sex with, right? What am I missing?
I'm not sure how that means you can't have sex before the marriage 'ceremony' stuff.
Click to expand...

My statement was to prove that it was Biblically possible to have sex without it automatically resulting in marriage.

I am not saying that you cant have sex before the ceremony. I’m not even saying that anyone has to have a ceremony per se and definitely not a license. Each of us here can “make” a marriage however they feel led. It is not up to me or anyone else here to “legitimize” or recognize a marriage.

However, as best I can tell, a man that has sex with a woman and doesnt marry her falls under the Hebrews 13:4 sentencing.
 
Kevin said:
It would only be PolyAndry if she married them all.
Click to expand...

Priceless. If sex = marriage, then polyandry would be the logical conclusion, not which one is she married to. She had sex with them all = she’s married to them all. Especially with the caveat that her father didnt allow her marriage to the first guy she had sex with.

Too funny.
 
I’m trying to catch up after a crazy week, so no doubt I’m forgetting to address something or reply to someone.

Just wanted to reply to one of @rockfox s posts.

I’m not intending to say that you cant marry a non virgin. It happened all the time in Hebrew culture and there were stipulations for it, like only paying half the virgin bride price etc.

The issue with the Deuteronomy 22 passage about the guy marrying a bride and finding out she wasn’t a virgin was one of trust, disclosure and price.

  1. He would have paid twice as much for a virgin as for a non virgin
  2. The culture was very nit picky about their progeny and their mothers purity.
  3. If it was disclosed in the betrothal process and he covenanted anyway, Jewish law inferred that he was ok with it and thus he couldn’t bring a claim against her for being a non virgin. This was very useful in the case of a humbled daughter that the father didnt allow the previous marriage for.
 
FollowingHim said:
I am careful not to add to scripture, so don't label anything 'sin' unless that's really unarguably clear.
Click to expand...
I'll take that admonishment. I would appreciate that same admonishment also be given to others aswell, who label things forbidden for people to do (indirectly calling it a sin) that scripture does not make absolutely and inarguably clear on other subjects aswell. I kept asking why it was sinless because I was hoping someone would try to give an example so I could show them that just because it wasn't a sin didn't mean it was a way walk in the Spirit because it's grounded in the world. I could have just said that but without some on being invested in exchange it's going to be a pass over statement because everyone is looking for biblical validation and/or justification for sex with a non virgin out side of marriage in a thou shall or thall shall not form. Which i find amusing because when its part of a personal beleif that doesn't have one, they don't care that there's not a thou shall or thall shall not form, only their interpretation.

I agree its foolish to have sex outside marriage. My intent was to show that a sinful act cannot bear good fruit. It either bares bad fruit or no fruit. Eat enough bad fruit and you'll get sick, no fruit and you'll starve. I was also showing that there is never a situation that a sinful act leads to a sinless situation. It leads to a worldly situation, which default postion is opposed to God. The ways of the world lead to sin not God. If anyone can show that in scripture without using an interpretation of instruction meaning in the book of John, Samuel, Job ect...., where a sinful act leads to a sinless situation, I would accept that it is not a carnal desire, and there for not set against God.

Romans 12:2
Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

The question was posed how is this applical in the life of a beleiver? (paraphrased) Simple it's not. If a beleiver wants to justify sex with a non virgin out side of marriage the can use the absence of a direct thou shall/shall not command. I'm saying they would have found a away around it anyway even if there was one. That's what people do. The flesh wants what the flesh wants.

This is not an accusation of anyone participating in this thread.
 
Kevin said:
The question was posed how is this applical in the life of a beleiver? (paraphrased) Simple it's not. If a beleiver wants to justify sex with a non virgin out side of marriage the can use the absence of a direct thou shall/shall not command. I'm saying they would have found a away around it anyway even if there was one. That's what people do. The flesh wants what the flesh wants.
Click to expand...

I totally agree it’s foolish and it leads to problems. My only quibble would be about folks who used to behave this way or even are still behaving this way. They still need to be reached (either for salvation or at a minimum to bring them back into fellowship) and calling something sinful that God doesn’t call sinful is the wrong way to do that. I have seen this very issue ruin people’s lives because the “church” they attended labeled them a fornicator or an adulterer and then threw them out of the church. I’m not saying we should justify thier actions and many times these situations include other factors that actually are sinful which should be dealt with properly... but if we aren’t biblically accurate when we deal with people we are not doing Gods work.
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
I’m not intending to say that you cant marry a non virgin. It happened all the time in Hebrew culture and there were stipulations for it, like only paying half the virgin bride price etc.

The issue with the Deuteronomy 22 passage about the guy marrying a bride and finding out she wasn’t a virgin was one of trust, disclosure and price.

  1. He would have paid twice as much for a virgin as for a non virgin
  2. The culture was very nit picky about their progeny and their mothers purity.
  3. If it was disclosed in the betrothal process and he covenanted anyway, Jewish law inferred that he was ok with it and thus he couldn’t bring a claim against her for being a non virgin. This was very useful in the case of a humbled daughter that the father didnt allow the previous marriage for.
Click to expand...

I can see the appeal of this argument. But when God calls for her to be stoned, it's not due to fraud or swindle, but because she was a whore.

she has committed an act of folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father's house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you.
Click to expand...

And so if you say that these passages could be translated as simple fornication, I don't see how it would be acceptable to marry a non-virgin in any case. Fornication was an evil to be purged, not covered over in marriage.

Kevin said:
I kept asking why it was sinless because I was hoping someone would try to give an example so I could show them that just because it wasn't a sin didn't mean it was a way walk in the Spirit because it's grounded in the world.
Click to expand...

If you can't show something is sinful then you're arbitrarily assigning it to 'the world'. That's just another way of saying something is bad/sinful/prohibited. Sophistry. The Bible doesn't explain to us every single thing that is sinless. That's not how things work. If it was, I wouldn't be driving a car.
 
EternalDreamer said:
@Pacman and @Kevin

Just to be clear: you are discussing sex without marriage, correct? Not sex before a ceremony/whatever, and would agree with @Verifyveritas76 and I that sex + intent forms a marriage, correct? So this discussion of fornication is specifically around sex WITHOUT intent to marry/marriage, correct? :)
Click to expand...

Basically yes...
 
I see no moral or OT legal distinction between sex with someone you're engaged to marry and someone you're not. Especially in the present day when people live together for long periods of time. I've known more than a couple who have been 'engaged to marry' for the last 5 years.
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
I’d respond that you are missing the obviously perfect example to justify mediocrity.
Click to expand...

That would be true ONLY IF it represents what you assert. However without that literal example it's simply fanciful conjecture.

Look you're just repeating this assertion. Stop, don't bother repeating yet another version. Research and find the literal example, or gracefully admit you do not have one.

Even that, wouldn't mean you were absolutely wrong, but rather that you are humble enough to admit you do not have the evidence to support this assertion.
 
NeoPatriarch said:
That would be true ONLY IF it represents what you assert. However without that literal example it's simply fanciful conjecture.

Look you're just repeating this assertion. Stop, don't bother repeating yet another version. Research and find the literal example, or gracefully admit you do not have one.

Even that, wouldn't mean you were absolutely wrong, but rather that you are humble enough to admit you do not have the evidence to support this assertion.
Click to expand...

As I stated earlier, I’m still at a loss of what exactly you consider a covenant. I have provided a perfect example of a covenant in my perspective and you have moved the bar. So please, give me a definition of what constitutes this covenant that you are looking for.
 
rockfox said:
I can see the appeal of this argument. But when God calls for her to be stoned, it's not due to fraud or swindle, but because she was a whore.

And so if you say that these passages could be translated as simple fornication, I don't see how it would be acceptable to marry a non-virgin in any case. Fornication was an evil to be purged, not covered over in marriage.
Click to expand...

In that particular passage, I’d submit it was because he expected a virgin and found her not to be. In that case he had three options.
  1. Give her a writing of divorce for uncleaness and send her out and she could find another husband Deut 24:1
  2. Take her before the assembly for judgement which would result in her death if she was guilty Deut. 22:21
  3. Privately put her away and continue to protect and provide for her. Matt 1:19
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
because he expected a virgin and found her not to be
Click to expand...

and yet

she has committed an act of folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father's house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you.
Click to expand...

because why? because "played the harlot." the text does not claim fraud or false witness as the problem here, but harlotry.
 
rockfox said:
and yet



because why? because "played the harlot." the text does not claim fraud or false witness as the problem here, but harlotry.
Click to expand...

I’d say that harlotry is the catch all indictment/assumption for why she’s not a virgin and why her father didn’t know about it to disclose it in their negotiations. This would be the case if a man seduced her and the father denied his suit for marriage and then negotiated her marriage to another.
If that was the case the father would have to disclose her status before the negotiations were ended or risk the charge against his daughter or a charge of fraud or a bad name against himself.
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
As I stated earlier, I’m still at a loss of what exactly you consider a covenant. I have provided a perfect example of a covenant in my perspective and you have moved the bar. So please, give me a definition of what constitutes this covenant that you are looking for.
Click to expand...
Excuse me.

Please indicate where I "have moved the bar".

The example of a literal covenant I gave was between David and Jonathan. All I ask, and have ever asked, is that your example be just as literal.
 
Interesting thread, I agree that to know what porneia is we must refer back to the Old Testament. If one does not refer back to the Old Testament then one is stuck with a term that is ill defined. The sexual sins are listed and there are several case laws in scripture and the fact is that sex before marriage is not a sin. Ex. 22: 16-17 gives the father the right to refuse no penalty is mentioned for the couple involved.

Also concubinage was lawful concubines were not wives as some Christians mistakenly believe but female slaves. Common prostitution was legal in ancient Israel but it was regulated. Deut. 23:17 bans temple prostitution Lev. 19:29 bans a father from pimping or forcing his daughters into prostitution. Lev. 21:9 bans the daughters of the priest from prostitution, this is because God wanted no association with temple prostitution but it was legal for the other 11 tribes.

As for the Moabites/Midianites that Paul also mentions in the New Testament, they were committing sexual idolatry, this is mentioned in detail in the book of Jasher as the Israelites sacrificed to the pagans gods after having sex with the foreign women so God killed them. Lesbianism is absolutely allowed as scripture condemns anal sex whether it be homosexual or heterosexual.
 
faithinhim said:
Also concubinage was lawful concubines were not wives as some Christians mistakenly believe but female slaves.
Click to expand...
Concubines are clearly wives, as the words are used interchangeably, for instance Bilhah was Jacob's wife (Gen 30:4) and concubine (35:22). Yes, some concubines were female slaves. However that's not the whole picture. Start here, then search the forum for the word "concubine" if you'd like to read further, there's a lot of discussion of this around the place.
 
FollowingHim said:
Concubines are clearly wives, as the words are used interchangeably, for instance Bilhah was Jacob's wife (Gen 30:4) and concubine (35:22). Yes, some concubines were female slaves. However that's not the whole picture. Start here, then search the forum for the word "concubine" if you'd like to read further, there's a lot of discussion of this around the place.
Click to expand...

I've read some of that thread I'm aware of some Christians believing that concubines were wives, however, the scripture clearly states that sex with a married woman was adultery and resulted in the death penalty. Sex with a female slave (concubine) did not result in death because she was not married to her master. Paul mentions this in the New Testament Sarah was the freewoman Hagar was the slave (concubine).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top