Porneia and Premarital sex.

[Adrift]

Hello all,

I'm new here, so i figured I'd start out with a fairly hard question :D

Basically I'm researching on weather or not the Bible clearly states that sex before marriage is sinful. I personally believe it is sinful based on Paul's letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 7) concerning the usefulness of marriage; as well as the Bible's repeated concept that a man leaves his parents in order to cleave unto his wife and they become one flesh (here i'm assuming that sex is used solely in the context of the marriage convenant).

However, an aquaintance from another forum is convinced that sex before marriage is permissable. He's written a blog on the subject here http://aaroncavanaugh2.blogspot.com/ . His arguement is that the Greek word Porneia which tranlates to fornication does not refer specifically to premarital sex, but to illicit sexual behavior usually in the form of adultry, whoredom, homosexuality, incest, and beastiality. He argues that since Jesus did not come to change the law but to fulfill it, that in order for any arguement in the NT that hints at premarital sex to be valid, it must be mentioned in explicit terms in the OT. He sort of passes over the whole cleaving unto the wife and becoming "one flesh" issue because he has:
trouble assuming that these passages state that having sex constitutes a marriage. I believe that these verses are only an example of how God has given us a vocabulary to use, an example for life. I think it is a stretch to infer that these verses mean that sex constitutes marriage. In fact, these verses don’t even, specifically mention sexual relations.

I'd like to know more about Hebrew customs and manners on this topic, and more about the use of the word porneia.

Thanks for any help offered.

Adrift

[National Intelligence Director Phoenix]

Hello Adrift and welcome to TWeb! Thanks for your question! Let's get to it.

You've also come to the right place for your question. This is a topic I write about often on here so I will be pointing you to some of my old posts on this topic.

This link should take you to an article on here that was one of our last featured member articles that I wrote called "A Theology of Sex." http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=68776

This is a post also about how commitment is the pleasure in the sexual relationship. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=73092

And another one: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=73150

The bottom line I'd say to your friend is that if he really loves the lady, why not just go on and marry her? Is he afraid she'll leave him before then? Then intercourse (And I use that word instead of sex for a specific reason as should be seen in my posts) is not being an act of trust but an act meant to coerce.

One question I'd really consider askings is, are you being given reasons or excuses?

As for the question on porneia, I'll be seeing if I can get a Greek expert on here to answer that one.

If there's anything unanswered in what I've written, let me know.

Hope this helps!

[themuzicman]

Hello all,

I'm new here, so i figured I'd start out with a fairly hard question :D

Basically I'm researching on weather or not the Bible clearly states that sex before marriage is sinful. I personally believe it is sinful based on Paul's letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 7) concerning the usefulness of marriage; as well as the Bible's repeated concept that a man leaves his parents in order to cleave unto his wife and they become one flesh (here i'm assuming that sex is used solely in the context of the marriage convenant).

However, an aquaintance from another forum is convinced that sex before marriage is permissable. He's written a blog on the subject here http://aaroncavanaugh2.blogspot.com/ . His arguement is that the Greek word Porneia which tranlates to fornication does not refer specifically to premarital sex, but to illicit sexual behavior usually in the form of adultry, whoredom, homosexuality, incest, and beastiality. He argues that since Jesus did not come to change the law but to fulfill it, that in order for any arguement in the NT that hints at premarital sex to be valid, it must be mentioned in explicit terms in the OT. He sort of passes over the whole cleaving unto the wife and becoming "one flesh" issue because he has:


I'd like to know more about Hebrew customs and manners on this topic, and more about the use of the word porneia.

Thanks for any help offered.

Adrift
4 Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.

povrnoV is the noun form, here, and refers to those who commit sexual immorality juxtaposed against the marriage bed, which is held in high honor.

It seems pretty clear from this verse that all sex outside of marriage is wrong.

Michael

[Adrift]

Thanks to those who responded to my post.

ApologiaNick, I really appreciate the help you're giving. I've read through the articles you've presented and think they're pretty sound and logical, however, I think i'm looking for something more along the lines of a strong scriptural exegesis on the topic. Also, at this point, I have no idea/evidence that this arguement is based on something personal (i'm assuming that it may be, but i don't really know). For all I know he's argueing the point simply to make a point.

Like you, I'm also of the opinion that our goal should be less about 'what can i get away with' and more about 'what can i do to further the kingdom of heaven', but i still think it's important (especially in cases where it can get personal) to have an answer for all things.

Muz, Thanks for the imput... This is probably more along the lines of what i'm looking for. Anyway you can expand on the uses of porneia? Also, since my visit here i've found that the trusty ol' Strong's Concordance I've been using isn't as reliable as I've always assumed it was. What concordances are more reprentative of what modern scholars are using now and which scholars use these? (sorry these last couple of questions may be out of the frame work of the original post).

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

His arguement is that the Greek word Porneia which tranlates to fornication does not refer specifically to premarital sex, but to illicit sexual behavior usually in the form of adultry, whoredom, homosexuality, incest, and beastiality. He argues that since Jesus did not come to change the law but to fulfill it, that in order for any arguement in the NT that hints at premarital sex to be valid, it must be mentioned in explicit terms in the OT.Firstly, he is correct that porneia just means (usually sexual) immorality in general, and it dos not specify premarital sex.

But why doesn't he think the OT speaks about the issue? It very clearly does. I'm somewhat liberal on this one as I consider de-facto marriages to be the same as biblical marriage, but the OT law clearly states that if a man and woman have sex, the man is then required to take the woman as his wife, in Exodus 22:16. Why would this law exist if there was nothing wrong with having sex with someone who is not your wife? Why not just keep "seeing each other" and having sex?

[Adrift]

Firstly, he is correct that porneia just means (usually sexual) immorality in general, and it dos not specify premarital sex.

But why doesn't he think the OT speaks about the issue? It very clearly does. I'm somewhat liberal on this one as I consider de-facto marriages to be the same as biblical marriage, but the OT law clearly states that if a man and woman have sex, the man is then required to take the woman as his wife, in Exodus 22:16. Why would this law exist if there was nothing wrong with having sex with someone who is not your wife? Why not just keep "seeing each other" and having sex?
oh wait, apparently he counters the situation in Exodus 22:16 by stating the act there had nothing to do with sin so much as it was Jewish custom. A form of insurance, if you will, in case the father couldn't get rid of the daughter after her virginity was lost.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

oh wait, apparently he counters the situation in Exodus 22:16 by stating the act there had nothing to do with sin so much as it was Jewish custom. A form of insurance, if you will, in case the father couldn't get rid of the daughter after her virginity was lost.
Well if that's what he does, he has given himself a way of denying that any statement about premarital sex in the Old Testamnent has relevance. All he needs to do is to say - without any scriptural warrant - that the law in question existed because of some unique social circumstance.

Secondly, why would there be a custom of not marrying a person who is not a virgin? After all, if there's nothing wrong with giving yourself sexually to a person you don't intend to commit to, the future husband hasn't missed out on anything of moral importance if his bride has been around the block a few times.

Thirdly, the New Testament never defines porneia, but the word is used many times in the OT (septuagint) to refer to sexual morality. The New Testament presupposes the sexual ethics of the Old Testament, both when the word porneia is used, and even when it isn't. It would be a clear cut case special pleading to say that while we should presuppose that the prohibition on, say, bestiality continues, even though it is nowhere mentioned in the NT, the principles about sex and marriage should go out the window.

[Adrift]

Well if that's what he does, he has given himself a way of denying that any statement about premarital sex in the Old Testamnent has relevance. All he needs to do is to say - without any scriptural warrant - that the law in question existed because of some unique social circumstance.

Secondly, why would there be a custom of not marrying a person who is not a virgin? After all, if there's nothing wrong with giving yourself sexually to a person you don't intend to commit to, the future husband hasn't missed out on anything of moral importance if his bride has been around the block a few times.

Thirdly, the New Testament never defines porneia, but the word is used many times in the OT (septuagint) to refer to sexual morality. The New Testament presupposes the sexual ethics of the Old Testament, both when the word porneia is used, and even when it isn't. It would be a clear cut case special pleading to say that while we should presuppose that the prohibition on, say, bestiality continues, even though it is nowhere mentioned in the NT, the principles about sex and marriage should go out the window.

Thanks for the reply. At this point I don't think it'll matter much. Sometimes when someone has made up their mind, its hard to convince them otherwise. But I'll take the info you've shared for future discussion on the topic. Thanks again.