• 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?

FollowingHim said:
We can get a bit confused by the terminology. There is ultimately no word for "wife", rather simply "woman". A woman belonging to a man is translated as "wife" in modern English (in old English the word "wife" also just meant woman, as in Hebrew). So, a woman a man is sleeping with is his woman. Whether she's a slave, or came in free, she's his woman. Those details will affect aspects of the relationship (most critically inheritence), but ultimately if she's his woman, she's his woman. Ie, his "wife" in translation. All are therefore wives. It's not some complex process whereby a bondmaid is "converted to a wife". She just is as soon as he starts sleeping with her, because that's just the word for it.

Because the death penalty only applied to a wife who wilfully committed adultery. In the case of rape, only the man got the death penalty. Rape being defined as when the woman cried out for help, with the benefit of the doubt given to the woman (if it happened away from people, it is assumed she cried out for help even though nobody heard, and therefore only the man died). In this case, it is very clear that Absalom chose to sleep with them all to prove a point, not because the women were in any way attracted to him. What he did was rape - and those many witnesses would have attested to that. So only Absalom would get the death penalty, and he was already dead.

Note that I take this from Deuteronomy 22:22-27, and technically in this passage the rape provision is only applied to a betrothed woman. However I think it is entirely reasonable to extend it to marriage also in the light of God's character. To apply v22 completely legalistically even in the case of rape would be insane.
Click to expand...

Where in scripture does it say that they were raped? For all we know they slept with him willingly thinking he would be the next king. Where does scripture say that a woman who is raped not entitled to sex from her husband? Again these are some pretty big problems if you assume that concubines are wives. Also prostitution was legal in Israel a man who slept with a prostitute did not make them married.
 
FollowingHim said:
The word for "whore" in that verse is also the feminine of the word for male temple prostitute (confusingly translated sodomite). Both are derived from the word "qadash", meaning sanctify / dedicate / hallow: in other words both words specifically refer to someone who is set apart for service of a god, ie a temple prostitute very specifically. This verse is very specifically talking about temple prostitution.
Click to expand...

You're right on the money. There are so many case laws in scripture proving that prostitution was legal in Ancient Israel some of which have already been mentioned.
 
ZecAustin said:
I do not have the emotional energy for another knock down drag out fight right now and there is a LOT of stuff on here about the concubine debate but the first question that comes to my mind in regards to your Absalom question is what makes you think any of that was conducted in a way that reflected God's plan for marriage and concubines? That was one giant sin-fest from start to finish. It was a living example of the wages of sin being death and under no circumstance should it be taken as an example of how God wants us to conduct our lives.
Click to expand...

I don't understand what you are getting at here. My point it this episode proves that concubines are not wives. What man of God would leave ten of his wives at home and take seven with him when he is fleeing for his life? On the other hand it makes since for David to take his wives and leave his slaves behind considering that he was in a hurry.
 
rockfox said:
This is where you get in trouble by not understanding the culture and not looking at the original language behind the translation. "he hath not betrothed her" indicates that she was acquired with the intention of making her his women (i.e. wife, concubine, etc). Hence why it is deceitful if he sells her off.
Click to expand...

I agree that we are going around in circles at this point. The reason why I quoted that verse is to show the context is talking about slavery not marriage. As I mentioned before you can be pledged (betrothed) to be a slave or a wife. The context her is talking about slavery no divorce is mentioned.
 
Cap said:
Hagar was more than a slave/concubine, and even though she is not specifically said to be Abraham wife, it is clear that she does have a rule that goes along with the concept of wife.
Click to expand...

I can see God telling Abraham to listen to his wife and let his slave (concubine) go free, but I can in no way ever imagine God telling Abraham to listen to his wife and divorce his other wife. If this is true this presents a whole host of problems.
 
faithinhim said:
Her attire was similar to a temple prostitute.
Click to expand...
And this is based upon what evidence exactly?

It a chicken Vrs egg dilemma. Which came first? Which influenced the other if it did? And how do you prove it?

From what I’ve seen in my studies, there is not enough proof one way or another at this point.

I’m open to some type of proof, even extra Biblical. Opinions don’t do much for me.
 
faithinhim said:
I don't understand what you are getting at here. My point it this episode proves that concubines are not wives. What man of God would leave ten of his wives at home and take seven with him when he is fleeing for his life? On the other hand it makes since for David to take his wives and leave his slaves behind considering that he was in a hurry.
Click to expand...
The giant fact being overlooked here is that David may have never even met these women in person. We translate the word that describes them in ways we can comprehend but that doesn't mean our definitions apply.
These were women that David owned, wives also fell in to this category but not every women he owned would have been covenanented with through sex.
Look, I've had these debates a LOT. My beliefs on these matters have been forged in a lot of fire.
I know how important concubines and legal prostitution are to those who believe in them but I have seen the evidence and found it wanting. Like I said though, I don't have a lot of interest in rehashing this all again. There is a LOT of debate about it on the forum.
 
faithinhim said:
Where in scripture does it say that they were raped? For all we know they slept with him willingly thinking he would be the next king. Where does scripture say that a woman who is raped not entitled to sex from her husband? Again these are some pretty big problems if you assume that concubines are wives. Also prostitution was legal in Israel a man who slept with a prostitute did not make them married.
Click to expand...
Scripture does not say that they were raped, nor that they slept with him willingly.

You claim that this episode shows concubines were not wives because they did not get the death penalty. For this to be the case, you have to make two very large assumptions.
  1. That they slept with him willingly.
  2. That if they did sleep with him willingly, David would have applied the scriptural penalty and not shown mercy.
If it was rape, your point is invalid.

Also, although the penalty was stoning by law, we don't have any scriptural example of this actually being done (the closest is Tamar, and she wasn't stoned in the end). We do have more than one example of mercy (Joseph intended to divorce Mary not stone her; God states prophetically that He has divorced Israel and Judah for adultery, not destroyed them; Jesus didn't stone the woman caught in adultery; David himself took back Michal after her marriage to another). It appears that divorce was considered an alternative to stoning in at least some cases. David could have chosen to do the same even in the case of consensual adultery - even if his choice to do so were against the law, he might have chosen it anyway. So even if it were not rape, the fact that he didn't have them stoned doesn't prove anything about the nature of marriage as this is an understandable way he could treat a wife anyway.

So no, I cannot prove that they were raped. But I'm not trying to prove any point. You're the one making a point here, and the burden of proof is on you to back it up.

Can you prove both that they all slept with Absalom willingly, and that David would have automatically stoned any wife who slept with another man willingly? If you cannot prove these from scripture, your point is invalid.
 
cnystrom said:
If your Dad did not take your Mom as wife, would that have been a sin, and if so, what sin would it have been?
Click to expand...

Not fulfilling his responsibility... Exodus 22:16 can we call that sin? I would say it’s disobedience to Gods standard.
 
Asforme&myhouse said:
I don’t know. My only point was that the church would call pre-wedding ceremony sex, fornication.
Click to expand...

This is a very common stand in most churches with absolutely no scriptural backing that I can find... my former pastor said this recently in his completely unbiblical teaching about divorce and remarriage...
 
Christian marriage seminars pretty much teach the very opposite of truth. Good - evil Evil - Good.

American pastors are almost completely clueless when it comes to teachings on the sexes and marriage. It is as shallow as it is wrong. They don't even come close to the sort of depth that we cover, right or wrong, here in this thread. They couldn't even try to address this teaching, are completely unequipped and too disengenuous to get to the truth.

All they are doing is teaching a slightly out of date version of the world's ideology. Though they're working hard to get up to date.
 
I haven't been to a church that actually taught me anything for a long time. Not just in marriage, but in anything. They just seem to find a passage in the bible and waffle. It always eventually gets back to how much Jesus loves us, and that's about it. I know Jesus loves me, I wouldn't be in church otherwise, I don't need to know that.
There are things that churches NEVER teach on. Well, that's not entirely true, Samuel preached them in the church we were going to before we were kicked out.... Marriage, sex, circumcision, for examples. Things that you actually need information on to make decisions in your life.

We've never been to a Christian marriage seminar, but we went to a pre marriage course. There were 4 couples plus the married couple leading it, and all were surprised at how traditional Samuel and I were. It was natural for us, but we were also trying to hold to scripture for how marriage is supposed to be. At the time I just thought it was funny that no one else was doing things the way we were, but now I look back and think that it's a very sad thing. In all honesty, I'm not sure how much that course actually taught us about married life at all, especially since it was a blanket thing based on anyone who thought anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top