• 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.

Genesis 2:24

Status
Not open for further replies.
That argument does not make logical sense.

If the couple in Exodus 22 are married, then her father would have no authority over her. The fact that he does is proof positive that the girl is still a daughter, not a wife.

If she were a wife, her husband would be the one with that authority. He is not her husband yet.

If you read this verse in an interlinear Bible, it should make it rather clear. The literal does not assume a marriage has already occurred at all. There is no clause suggesting that they are married if the father says nothing, it is within the meaning that the man might reject her, or never want her in the first place.

There are, of course, other laws that deal with such a man.

But, in this case, it does assume that the couple is interested in such and makes clear that the father can say no. In fact, this verse is a nail in the coffin of the idea that sex equals marriage. It seems to have been written to directly refute the idea that "I have taken her, she is my wife now". She is not a wife, until the covenant is agreed upon. You are right to say there is no mention of a covenant before they have sex. But there is also no mention of them being married afterwards. The verse simply says that they had sex. And then affirms that her father may "refuse to give her to him as a wife".

Is she the man's wife? No. If she were his wife, then she would be his wife.

But the verse says the father may, after they have had sex, still refuse to give her as a wife.

The man is guilty of fornication. Incestuous relationships are also fornication. Sex with a prostitute is fornication. Homosexual sex is fornication. One night stands are fornication. Any sex between two people who are ineligible for marriage, for any reason, is fornication (and perhaps more). Any sex between two people without a marital covenant is fornication.

There is no verse in scripture that suggests sex alone immediately means marriage, or is sufficient.
 
And yet clearly her father's authority is curtailed as well. He doesn't have absolute authority at all anymore. When he hears about the consummation he has to take positive steps to contradict it or it stands as a legal marriage, that means it had some sort of standing as a marriage before that. And since there is no mention of a covenant being made after the father consents, I find it uncreditable that one was required before. Are you implying that the father is making a covenant for the couple? I think the father's ability to undo a marriage he hasn't endorsed in the first day is a way to protect the role of father as a metaphor for our Heavenly father. But when you combine this with 1 Corinthain 6:15-16 it becomes clear, sex with a woman of any status makes a very powerful spiritual bond.

And Strongs defines that word translated as prostitute in verse 15 as a woman who engages in unlawful sexual acts for gain or lust. This idea that this verse only applies to sex attached to a monetary exchange is a false one, or at least a very limited one of what the word conveys.

Combine this with the fact that there is no covenant or a marriage ceremony of any kind mentioned in scripture and suddenly this idea of extra-marital sex is a very shaky one.

And stop for a minute and think about these women who would be having these meaningless affairs. Is this how God would want us to behave towards anyone, let alone a weaker vessel that has somehow been left unprotected? Would God allow men He has called to reflect His character to act so callously towards anyone?

When God talks about marriage He almost always says "the two became one flesh." He doesn't add anything to that or complicate it. They slept together. They were one flesh. 1 Corinthians6:15-16 makes it clear that one flesh relationship is created even with a harlot, whether she's motivated by lust or money.

Now a woman who leaves her husband, and I don't think that anyone here is arguing that a virgin who has sex isn't married once her father either consents or accepts it, is not allowed to remarry. Sex with her is adultery. A woman who is unlawfully divorced by her husband is not necessarily forbidden to remarry, but adultery is still committed if she does, it's just attributed to her first husband. There is only a very limited path for a woman to not be a virgin and to not be committing adultery when having sex with a man other than her husband. This is powerful and dangerous stuff we're talking about here, that can very easily lead to mortal sins.

And keep in mind what sex is. This is the physical representation of our intimacy with God. Sex and marriage is a metaphor for how God longs for us, how we should yield to Him and the inviolable bond that results. This should be the most consequential and meaningful sacrament in our lives after baptism and communion. I am being convicted of some of my attitudes even as I write this.

What disturbs me about this being taught here is that the members of this group have shown great courage and maturity in recognizing the authority of scripture and the bedrock principle of not adding to or taking away from it. I think the teaching of extra-marital sex, at best is an adventurous interpretation that is impossible to implement practically in a Godly way, and at worst might be leading Christians into adultery and robbing their future pairings of God's blessings.

Now we have to make allowance for God's grace. All things can be made new and I don't want anything written here to condemn anyone. There are many who have been deceived for their entire lives and certainly anything that happened prior to salvation is covered by the Blood. But once we have a clear view of God's Law we are responsible for trying to conform to it and I don't see how extra-marital sex fits in to that.

I love you all brothers. You're men of courage and wisdom. I would encourage you to re-examine this issue.
 
Again, that view of that verse does not make sense, because if the woman is married her father has no authority over her anymore.

Also, the verse does NOT say that the couple is married if the father says nothing, or that he only has one day to decide. You are confusing this verse with the verses about women making vows. The verse says nothing about the woman being able to decide. The decision, yes or no, is solely with the father. His authority is not curtailed. She is not married.

You mention the New Testament word for prostitute also includes formication, not just sex for money. This is true. It is also true of the Old Testament word. The same word sometimes translated prostitute is also translated as "fornicate" "harlot" "sexual immorality" "whoredom". It is the word used in Leviticus 19 to warn fathers not to allow their daughters to do this. Note that their is no assumption of a marriage in that verse. It simply states that a father should not allow his daughter to be a fornicator. You said you didn't see fornication in the Old Testament, but it's everywhere. Strong's 2181.

Interestingly, that same chapter discusses the case of fornication with a slave. The couple is not married afterwards, and neither are they killed for their sin. She is not held accountable, because she is a slave, and he is not required to marry her. He is required to offer a sacrifice for his sin. This of course in no way at all fits with the idea that sex is a marriage.

Another good example is Hosea chapter 4. Hosea prophecies that the maidens of Israel will fornicate and the married women will commit adultery. That's sexual immorality, outside of marriage, without marriage resulting (in the case of the maidens) and contrasted with sexual immorality in the case of a married individual. It couldn't be clearer that there is a real difference.

You said "When God talks about marriage He almost always says the two became one flesh.He doesn't add anything to that or complicate it." But that's not quite right. Jesus and genesis have more to say. They say a man leaves his father's home (where there are no eligible women) cleaves to his wife (by making a covenant with her) and they become one flesh (sexual intercourse). Three steps. Three conditions. All must be present.

Becoming one flesh without the other steps no more makes a marriage than Ruth "cleaving" (same word used) to Naomi makes them married. All three conditions must be met.

You said "keep in mind what sex is. This is the physical representation of our intimacy with God." Yes. I agree. But think of the implications if fornication was not really a thing. We would spiritually belong to whatever first had us. God would have no claim on us.

To see the very important spiritual side of this look at Jeremiah 3:1. The law states that if a man divorces his wife and she married someone else, he can never take her back again. God had divorced Israel, and he wanted to take her back. He made it clear in this verse that she had not married anyone else, but she had only committed fornication, which he desired to forgive. This example doesn't necessarily cover our current topic, because of the spiritual divorce, but it does illustrate the view of our spiritual marriage to God, and His concern for righteousness in that relationship.
 
Just to be clear, my position is not that there is a way to have sex outside of marriage that is not sinful. My position is that sex outside of marriage exists, as either adultery or fornication.
 
Unfortunately for my pride you are right. I had conflated two different passages in my mind. But reading Exodus 22:16-17 again has simply solidified my position. In the King James it reads; "16And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. 17If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins."

This seems pretty clear, if a man entices a virgin he has endowed her to be his wife. There is no covenant needed. The father's role here is one of hard heartedness. If he absolutely refuses to give the girl up then the man is freed from the marriage.

All of the evidence points to sex causing a one flesh situation to result. Sleep with a virgin, you're one flesh. Sleep with a harlot, whatever her motivations, you're one flesh.

I still think your definition of fornication is wrong. Since fornication is simply prohibited sexual acts you would really need to find extra-marital sex listed somewhere for it to fall under that heading. The argument that it is not listed anywhere and so is not prohibited makes some sense. But I stand by the rest of my last impassioned response. There is no way this fits into God's plan for a man after His own heart. And I still believe that all the evidence points to sex forming a marriage. It might not be the only way to form a marriage, or even the best. But if you handle the merchandise, you bought it.
 
I think the correct word is bride price rather than dowry. Often used in place of each other erroneously.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
The verse does not say that "he has made her his wife". "Endowed" refers to paying a dowry. Look at the interlinear. It says he has to pay the bride price that her father has set. And then it says even if she is not allowed to become his wife, he still must pay out the bride price. There is no marriage assumed.

And if they were married, the father would have no say. This is completely clear in scripture. A husband is the head of a wife. Not the father. This verse is proof positive that sex does not equal marriage.

Also, there is no method by which a man is "freed from a marriage". Certainly not by a third party. Jesus made that clear: "What God has joined together, let no man put asunder". No man means no man. It doesn't mean no man except her father. If they were married, then they would be married. No outs.

"All of the evidence points to sex causing a one flesh situation to result." Well, yes. That's what "one flesh" means. It is a euphemism for sex. It does not however mean marriage on its own.

I would entertain an argument that says "a woman's father or husband is responsible if she falls into the sin of fornication", but to say that fornication is not said anywhere to be wrong is silly. It's everywhere.

Leviticus 19:29 is a direct law. There are others. The word "zarah" is strong's 2181. It means fornication. It is also translated as prostitute, harlot, whoredom, sexual immorality, or other things depending on whether or not the context points to a specific type of sexual sin.

"I stand by the rest of my last impassioned response. There is no way this fits into God's plan for a man after His own heart." Think about what you're saying, from a woman's perspective. Does it "fit into God's plan", or our understanding of his heart, that a woman would be forever bound to a mistake she made at 14 years old? Or to a sexually abusive father? Or to a rapist? Does this fit our view of God, imperfect though it may be? As I said before, an action cannot be simultaneously a blessed union and a vile sin.

Think of what this doctrine would mean spiritually. We would be forever "married" to whatever had us first. We could never become the legitimate bride of Christ. He would be committing adultery with us!

Think of how He describes the Canaanites. He says they commit "zarah" (fornication) with their gods, but will entice the Isrealites to commit adultery with their gods. We gentiles are spiritual fornicators, and thank God! Because if we were spiritually married to the first thing that had our hearts, there is no hope for us.

I also want to make it clear again that I am NOT saying sex outside of marriage is ok. I believe it is a sin. I don't see any loophole whatsoever where a man can have sex without sinning, unless it is in the consummation or continuance of a marriage. I am simply saying that sex outside of marriage is a real thing. Sinful, but real.
 
Yes. You are exactly right. Women are tied to the first man to have her. We all are spiritual fornicators and adulterers. This is why we had to be redeemed with a price. I won't keep boring you by restating the same thing over and over. I disagree with how you define fornication, narrowing down while still trying to have a broad category and I disagree with adding in a covenant that appears nowhere in scripture. And of course I think one flesh means marriage. But at this point I don't have anything to advance the conversation. If I run across anything else I will bring it up.
 
The woman in Exodus 22 is not tied to the first man that had her.

The woman in Leviticus 19 is not tied to the first man that had her.

The woman in 1 Corinthians 6 is not tied to the first man that had her.

The woman at the well is not tied to the first man that had her.

The foreigners that chose to live among the Isrealites praised God because they were no tied to the first god that had them.

I praise God that I am not tied to the first thing that had me.

A bride, which we are, cannot be bought with a price from her true husband. If we belong to the first thing that had us, then that is the end of our story. God would have no right to us. If we were to leave to follow Him, we would be committing adultery.

No one is "adding in" a covenant. The covenant that God has with his people is clearly laid out, with many many words taking up full chapters. It is a model for our own covenants.

Even notice, at the end of this covenant, the last thing that is said is a directive to "never fornicate with other gods again", followed by the first sprinkling of blood in consecration (a symbol of consummation).

And covenants are also apparent or implied in instances of human marriage as well. Exodus 22 is an example in law, stating that the father and man must agree to the terms before a marriage takes place. Isaac and Rebekah. Jacob's dealings with Laban. Mary and Joseph. Others.

Did Jacob consider his daughter Dinah married after having sex with Sechem? Absolutely not! Her brothers said they had fornicated, not married. Sechem understood this as well, and asked for a covenant to make them married.

Covenants are all over scripture. You are ignoring them.

In fact, there is a much better argument that the covenant is what makes a marriage (although I would reject that as incomplete also), since there are multiple examples of sex not leading to marriage, but also multiple examples of a covenant being treated as a marriage all on its own.

The idea that sex equals marriage does not make logical sense. It makes for unbiblical theology. It is not supported by law or by example.
 
Only if you assume "one flesh" means marriage.

But if you assume that, then the verse is nonsensical.

If man A has sex with a prostitute and is then assumed to be married to her, then when she has sex with man B 20 minutes later, she would be committing adultery. But Paul didn't call it adultery, he said "one flesh". So then man B must be married to the prostitute too if that's what one flesh means. But then what about man A? She is now married to both? And not only them, but every other man she ever slept with?

Talk about adding to scripture! This is polyandry, and there is no room for it in the biblical definition of marriage.

What could be said about this illogical situation? Maybe it could be claimed that she not only marries each man, but then each of them also divorce her. But where is her certificate of divorce? Without one, she is not biblically divorced! Then we are again led to the conclusion she is committing adultery, but that doesn't match up with the sex=marriage idea.

Even if we add in an assumption of multiple divorces, and then reject the biblical model of divorce for a casual "no-strings-attached" version, that brings up more problems.

Now we would have an understanding of this verse that says "you are married when you have sex, but immediately divorced afterwards, and each time you have sex is a completely legitimate biblical marriage". This would be the ultimate do-as-you-please no worries doctrine of marriage!

The better reading is to add no meaning into this verse by way of assumption. "One flesh" means sex. Paul doesn't mention marriage. He could have, if he meant it, but he didn't.

As you said earlier, the word used for prostitute in this verse also includes sexual immorality. That's what is referred to here. Fornication. Not marriage.

Notice the word here is LITERALLY the word for "fornication". I am adding nothing to scripture. Saying the verse is about marriage IS adding. Marriage is not mentioned.
 
Once again, the word for fornication doesn't mean sex outside of marriage. Porneia means prohibited sexual acts. Which prohibited sexual acts you ask? Excellent question, the ones listed in the Old Testament. Those lists don't include extra-marital sex. I repeat, the word interpreted fornication in the New Testament does not mean what we interpret fornication to mean in the 21st century.

And yes, I believe a man commits adultery when he sleeps with a prostitute. She's still one flesh with the last guy she slept with. And she'll still be one flesh with you when she sleeps with the next guy. That's why Paul is saying not to do it. That's not illogical at all. Its the most straightforward reading of the verse. Not only are you one flesh with her, you're roping Christ into this thing too.

Now I know you're not saying its okay to sleep with prostitues. I know you would say the exact opposite. And from your other posts I think you've said that its a sin to have sex with a non-virgin with no intent to marry her. Correct me if I'm wrong.

So here's my point of contention, where is that sin listed? It's not in porneia, the word translated fornication in the New Testament. That word references a list of sins found elsewhere. Now none of the lists of sins I know of in scripture list extra-marital sex so you're left with two options; either you say that extra-marital sex with a non-virgin is not a sin and thus permissible or you have to add it in your self, something that allow any number of fallacies to be inserted into the faith, including a prohibition on polygyny.

Unless of course you can show me where it is listed as a sin. And I can't accept stories that relate how humans, even Biblical patriarchs handled various situations. Even the best of them sinned and got it wrong. I need to see where someone says "Thus saith the Lord." Can you show me that?
 
Leviticus 19:29. Hebrews 13:4. Just a couple of mentions.

Back to 1 Corinthians, you're saying that Paul is wrong? That he doesn't know what he's talking about? He said fornication is "one flesh", which you say is a marriage. Now you say it's adultery? You're correcting Paul? He should have said "the first guy that sleeps with a prostitute is her husband, and after that it's adultery"? Because he didn't say that. You're completely changing the verse. He didn't say "ONLY the first guy is one flesh with her". You are adding to scripture in every verse we talk about.

Now a question for you. You keep claiming fornication doesn't include extra-marital sex, and say you believe that because the Old Testament doesn't talk about it. Firstly, I would say you obviously haven't done a word study of "zanah". But my question them is this: you are claiming a girl that is raped by her father is his wife? You realize that means she would be required by God to give herself to him? You believe God blesses that perversion?
 
Zec and Jason, good calm conversation. My 2 cents to try and summarise things:

I believe Jason is correct that "one flesh" is simply a euphemism for sex. It actually reminds me of the crude Shakesperean euphemism "the beast that has two backs"... They're one flesh as they're so close physically, cooperating as one. One flesh is something that happens in marriage - it is not marriage.

This is why a betrothed couple are treated as married when it comes to the laws around adultery. Sleeping with a betrothed woman is as much adultery as sleeping with a married woman. The covenant of betrothal makes them essentially married. There was no need to become one flesh to be treated as married under the law - therefore "one flesh" does not equal marriage. Covenant is at least as important, if not more important. Becoming one flesh through sex is just part of it, that cannot on its own make a marriage.

In Genesis 2:24 - a man leaves his father and mother, cleaves to his wife instead, and THEN they become one flesh. So, presuming we can take this description to be written in chronological order, she was his wife before they became one flesh, and it was the fact that she was already given to him as his wife that made it acceptable for them to become one flesh together.

On the other hand, ZecAustin is certainly correct that "fornication" does not necessarily mean sex outside marriage. That is a modern Western cultural rendering. Fornication simply means sex forbidden in the Law. Every example of sex we see that is described as "fornication", where we're told what the act actually is, is something forbidden in the Law. While nowhere in scripture is fornication specifically defined as extramarital sex. We can't call any sex "fornication" unless we find it actually prohibited somewhere else.

Extramarital sex, to be wrong, must be forbidden under another category. And, as Jason has pointed out, it comes under various terms variably translated "whoredom", "licentuousness", "promiscuity" etc.

To be honest though, and I am aware this may make a few people uncomfortable, but read to the end of the post before judging: I think it would be a stretch to try and class every single instance of extramarital sex as one of these, as they are not clearly defined.
- We all know promiscuity when we see it. I think it's pretty clear that someone going and sleeping with a different person every weekend would fall under these categories.
- On the other hand, I think it is less clear that someone who gives in to lust and sleeps with one non-virgin, whom they didn't end up marrying, and that was the only such mistake they made in 20 years, could be classed as promiscuous. I struggle to find a very clear law that says that this person has absolutely undoubtebly sinned - plenty of indications that they maybe sinned, but no clear "thou shalt not" command.

To clarify, I'm not saying it's ok to do anything like this. It isn't. The language is not completely clear, and there's a good chance that's sinful, so if in doubt certainly don't do it. I would never suggest that anyone should do that.

However, if someone looks back on their past and gets all worried about a single mistake they made 20 years ago and worries that they might be married to someone they haven't seen in half their lifetime, maybe their current marriage is actually adultery since they didn't stick with their one-night-stand fling they never saw again... That's when I think we need to recognise that the scripture does not actually say that a one-night-stand made you married, everyone makes mistakes, and it doesn't have to ruin the rest of your life. Just pray, put it in YHWH's hands, and try and behave in the way we all agree is ideal from now on.

This is why I take a more relaxed attitude wherever I cannot see clarity in scripture. Not to justify behaviour for Christians. But rather, to help people who are looking at their past and trying to work out how to "repent" from the past - what exactly do they need to do to repent, what have they done that they need to do something to rectify vs what can they simply ask forgiveness for and move on.
 
"fornication does not necessarily mean sex outside marriage."

Serious question here:

Is there a verse that uses the word fornication that is referring to marital sex? Any at all?

In other words, any instance where strong's 2181 is used for anything OTHER than sex outside of marriage? Where is it EVER used to describe marital sex?
 
At first... I was like... uh... Ephesus? probably not? Ohh.. hebrew... HEBREW!

I would suppose not, because that word appears at first blush to be referring only to a literal whore, or else a spiritual one BUT WAIT HOLD THE PHONE

Found one that's close!

Leviticus 21:7, Speaking specifically to the priests who were the sons of Aaron, commands them not to take a wife who is a whore (H2181)

So marrying a whore would be wrong (for certain priests) and therefore sex within a marriage would be wrong, I think.

however, sexual immorality or fornication in the greek 'porneia' sense cannot be seen as mere 'harlotry' as the word is described in reference to an immorality not even named among the gentiles, that a man has his father's wife. This isn't 'harlotry specific' but is sexual immorality nonetheless.

Therefore, excuse my liberal definition, but I take "fornication" or "Sexual immorality" to refer to any sexual act specifically forbidden in Lev 18 and Lev 20.

Therefore I would posit that having sex with your own covenanted wife during her menstrual period would still be regarded as sexual immorality. Not harlotry, but still fornication and still on the naughty list that we need to be concerned about because of the ruling of the Holy Spirit at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.
 
The word "zanah" does not literally mean prostitute. Some verses that use the word seem to be insinuating a prostitute, because an exchange of goods is mentioned, but in most instances it simply means formication. So I would agree that it includes prostitution, but as Zec pointed out earlier both the New Testament and Old Testament words in question encompass much more than prostitution.

I can see what you mean about those two verses. But as you pointed out, while it says not to marry one of these women, it would be questionable to say that you must not have sex if you had already done so. I might even agree about the prohibition on sex during a wife's cycle. That might be the only one, if so. But that command doesn't use the word "zanah".

So setting that one thing aside as maybe a question for later, my point is that every time "zanah" is used, it refers to sex between a man and a woman who are not married to one another. In fact, there are several instances where this word "fornication" and "adultery" are used in the same verse to refer to the same sin committed by an unmarried and a married woman respectively. This shows that "zanah" refers to sex outside of marriage. The context of the nearly 100 times it is used in the OT also show this.

The argument is made that "fornication" MUST refer back to a list of specific acts. So then tell me, what acts are being referred to? When Rahab is called "zarah", was she being called insestuous? Was it being claimed she had sex on her period? Come on. We all know what this means.

The idea that a word with a real, actual, known meaning doesn't carry that meaning is bad hermeneutics. It's said that THIS word must be defined elsewhere in the bible for it to have any meaning. This is rediculous. What other word is held to this standard?

When Jesus referred to the saying "korban" to describe the pharisee's greed, do we say "we can't possibly know what this means, because it isn't specifically defined elsewhere". Of course not. We find out what the word meant to the people that spoke/wrote it. This is hermeneutics.

But the word "zanah" is not nearly as ambiguous as thousands of other words we have no problem defining. It is used nearly a hundred times, always to describe sex between two individuals that are not married to one another. Most often (maybe every time) it is used to describe extra marital sex with an unmarried woman.

This is because that is what it means.

You can say it also includes the specific acts listed in Leviticus. Maybe it does. But it certainly means what the verses it includes mean. No one accidentally used the word.

This argument is like saying "an ark is something made out if gopher wood, but not a boat, because genesis doesn't specifically say boat". Moses used the word appropriately, according to its meaning. He also used "zanah" appropriately, according to its meaning.
 
That was my bad. Stepped in cuz I thought there was a simple answer handy for a straightforward question. Inasmuch as that wasn't the case, I'm out like trout.
 
Note that everyone's talking at cross purposes a bit here, as some are referring to the Hebrew and others to the Greek, and all words have different nuances.

The relevant words are:
Hebrew: "zanah" and "taznuwth". Both usually translated "harlotry", sometimes as "fornication" but only in contexts that could equally well be referring specifically to "harlotry" (either paid prostitution or unpaid extramarital promiscuity).
Greek: "porneuo", "porneia", "ekporneuo". Almost always translated "fornication". Based on the root word "porne" meaning prostitute. But appear to be used a bit more broadly than the word "zanah" is, in my reading.
Jason said:
"fornication does not necessarily mean sex outside marriage."

Serious question here:

Is there a verse that uses the word fornication that is referring to marital sex? Any at all?

In other words, any instance where strong's 2181 is used for anything OTHER than sex outside of marriage? Where is it EVER used to describe marital sex?
Click to expand...
Most times that any word for "fornication' is used, it appears in isolation, with no clear explanation of what it is referring to. As I said above, the Hebrew "zanah" (H2181) seems to refer specifically to harlotry. However the Greek "porneia" is more broadly defined. The only times I have found where the context defines what is being spoken of as "porneia" are:
Matthew 5:32 - refers to a wife committing "fornication", presumably with a man other than her own husband, so here "fornication" actually refers to adultery. They aren't two different things. Adultery is just one type of fornication.
Acts 21:25 - The church is defining what aspects of Torah must be kept by new believers, and "fornication" is in the list, so refers directly back to things forbidden in Torah.
1 Corinthians 5:1 - A man has his father's wife. As he "has" her, I presume this means he has married her. Probably, his father is dead, as Paul does not say that he is committing adultery. Just he's committing incest. So here fornication refers to incest - most likely occuring IN marriage.
1 Corinthians 6:15-18 - Fornication refers to prostitution. Most likely temple prostitution, since Corinth was famous for temple prostitution, and there is a very strong religious theme in this discussion.

So, "porneia" fornication, as defined by scripture, refers to:
- Adultery
- Sex forbidden in Torah
- Incest
- Prostitution (most likely temple prostitution)
With adultery, incest and temple prostitituion being simply sub-classes of "sex forbidden in Torah", so the single simplest definition is just "sex forbidden in Torah".

To answer your question - yes, here is an example of sex in marriage being called "fornication", if we assume the man had married his father's wife. If any form of sex that is forbidden in Torah is fornication, it is possible to commit fornication within marriage through:
- Incest (ie marrying someone forbidden)
- Sleeping with a menstruous woman
And possibly others can think of other examples.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top