The Biblical Aspects of Premarital Sex

So I was doing a little research lately on one of my favorite topics... (sex of course. ;-) haha.)

I was researching the moral and Biblical aspects of premarital sex, and here are a couple interesting things that I found:

1. Jewish Law, specifically the Torah or the Old Testament, prohibits:

a) Adultery (Ex 20:14, De 5:18 & Le 20:10)
b) Homosexuality (Le 20:13)
c) Bestiality (Le 20:15-16)
d) Incest (Le 18:6-18)

... all while failing to prohibit Pre-marital sex.
According to JewishVirtualLibrary.org, a division of the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise:

"Many people are surprised to learn that the Torah does not prohibit premarital sex. I challenge you to find any passage in the Jewish scriptures that forbids a man from having consensual sexual relations with any woman he could legally marry. It's just not there!
"Nor is there any passage that requires a man to marry a woman after having consensual sexual relations with her. The passage forcing a man to marry the woman deals with rape (the man seizes her). It says nothing about consensual relations."(Link)

The verse they are referring to says that "If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days." (De 22:28-29)

Jewish tradition in actuality does not approve of premarital sex or promiscuity.

"Quite the contrary: traditional Judaism strongly condemns the irresponsibility of sex outside of marriage. It is considered to be improper and immoral, even though it is not technically a sin.... But these laws come from the Talmud and the Shulchan Aruch, not from the Torah." (link)

A Jewish womans virginity does seem to be important since she is in danger of her life if her husband accuses her of not being a virgin when he married her, and no proof otherwise is presented. (De 22:13-21) Although I don't know how that would always be possible since a virgin can break her hymen by merely going about her daily tasks.

But yet again, in the Song Of Solomon there is an delicate and intimate love story between two unmarried lovers (Ref.1) who have already obviously consummated their relationship (SS 5:1). And it is portrayed in the most beautiful sense, and without condemnation.


Regarding the New Testament:

I will grant that the New Testament of the Bible prohibits "fornication" or "sexual immorality" in multiple places. The task now is to go back to the original intent of the writer and define what is meant by sexual immorality. The definition of the word "porneia" that is translated into the English language as sexual immorality covers a broad range of meanings which I would like to share.

1. illicit sexual intercourse

a. adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
b. sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
c. sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,

2. metaph. the worship of idols

a. of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols (Link)

Keep in mind that, 1) a word used does not usually encompass all of it's definitions at the same time and, 2) the meaning or definition of the word used usually varies according to the situation or context in which it was written.

The first definition is "illicit sexual intercourse" which I would determine by what has already been prohibited in the Old Testament (Adultery, Homosexuality, Bestiality and Incest.) They also throw the word "fornication" in there which is loosely defined as "sexual intercourse between two unmarried people" (link) which includes premarital sex, but also therefore covers all of the above.

Also, take note of the second definition of pornea. It is metaphoric of idol worship. Even adultery in the old testament seems to be associated with, and sometimes metaphoric for idolatry. (Eze 23:37 & Ho 3:1) And one of the definitions of the word "Na'aph" which is translated as adultery is figurative for " idolatrous worship." (Link)

And in one of the verses where the NT talks about sexual immorality it refers to adultery and fornication separately (Ga 5:19) while some translations (ASV) remove adultery covering the entire meaning with the word "fornication." Paul later in the same sentence lists idolatry and sorcery, but other place it seems that he goes out of his way to identify fornication with idolatry.

Take these verses relating fornication and idolatry for example:

"Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry." (Col 3:5)
"Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot? Certainly not!" (1 Cor 6:15)
"But that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood." (Ac 15:20)

Even Leviticus 20:6 talks about prostituting one's self with "mediums and familiar spirits." (link)

As one of the websites I was reading clearly states:

"The Corinth city had many temples, where there were many temple prostitutes, both men and women. Paul told them that being members of the Messiah’s body they could not defile themselves with these Gentile’s devilish customs... Abstaining from fornication meant to refrain from having sex with temple prostitutes, a practice that was so prevalent in their day." (link)

It is therefore my opinion that:

a) Consensual premarital sex is not specifically forbidden in the Old Testament (or even dealt with in the Bible) comparative to other forms of "fornication," and is therefore differentiated.

b) Premarital sex is, on the contrary to what most believe, actually portrayed as very beautiful in some sections of scripture.

c) Premarital sex is actually propagated by the Christian community as sin, rather than being directly condemned by God.

Note: Some skeptics believe that "ancient Israel had no concept of pre-marital sex," although this does not make logical sense to me and I personally disagree. (link)

I did used to think that a woman was presumed to have lived with her family until she was married at a young age, but this does not seem to be the case, at least currently. One of the sites I was reading, instead of affirming that a woman remained at home until she was married, actually implied the opposite as it talked about "a woman who is not connected to a family unit" and quoted a Jewish woman as saying

"I value the fact that I can get up and travel abroad without asking anyone for the money." (link)

To close I would like to use the following quote by another single Jewish woman that shows the differentiation between laws imposed by God, and the laws imposed by man.

"My body, the thing with which I'm supposed to be on the friendliest terms, because it is `I,' is so much in conflict with itself because of the restrictions imposed by the rabbis." (link)

And now that I've concluded this issue, I would like to throw out a tidbit for you to think about. One of the other things that does not seem to be prohibited, or even discouraged in the Old (or New) Testament is polygamy. But that is a subject I plan to cover in the near future. Think about it.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Other references used:
1. "She and her lover meet secretly in the countryside at night and part at daybreak, so it is clear that they are not married."
Taken form The Song of Songs: A New Translation, by Ariel Bloch and Chana Bloch.... page 3

From the lips of Lou Dobbs

From the lips of Lou Dobbs regarding the "regional prosperity and security program"... or better known as the US, Canada and Mexican merger:

"This is absolute ignorance... What in the world are these people thinking about? You know, I was asked the other day about whether or not I really thought the American people had the stomach to stand up and stop this nonsense, this direction from a group of elites, an absolute contravention of our law, of our Constitution, every national value. And I hope, I pray that I'm right when I said yes. But this is -- I mean, this is beyond belief."

Oh what, you mean you didn't see the US trending toward socialism? Not that I am against the free-trade that it would open up, but I am against one man (namely Bush) undercutting the authority of congress, and therefore of our citizens.

**Quote taken from WND.

Porneia and Jewish Law

In researching the word porneia, fornication and Jewish Law I came across a couple things that I thought were interesting:


Regarding married sexuality:

"Sex is the woman's right, not the man's. A man has a duty to give his wife sex regularly and to ensure that sex is pleasurable for her. He is also obligated to watch for signs that his wife wants sex, and to offer it to her without her asking for it. The woman's right to sexual intercourse is referred to as onah, and is one of a wife's three basic rights (the others are food and clothing), which a husband may not reduce."

Regarding birth control:

"It is well-established that methods that destroy the seed or block the passage of the seed are not permitted, thus condoms are not permitted for birth control. However, the pill is well-recognized as an acceptable form of birth control under Jewish Law."

Regarding abortion:

"Jewish Law not only permits, but in some circumstances requires abortion. Where the mother's life is in jeopardy because of the unborn child, abortion is mandatory.
"An unborn child has the status of "potential human life" until the majority of the body has emerged from the mother. Potential human life is valuable, and may not be terminated casually, but it does not have as much value as a life in existence. The Talmud makes no bones about this: it says quite bluntly that if the fetus threatens the life of the mother, you cut it up within her body and remove it limb by limb if necessary, because its life is not as valuable as hers. But once the greater part of the body has emerged, you cannot take its life to save the mother's, because you cannot choose between one human life and another."

And regarding pre-marital sex:

"Many people are surprised to learn that the Torah does not prohibit premarital sex. I challenge you to find any passage in the Jewish scriptures that forbits a man from having consensual sexual relations with any woman he could legally marry.... Nor is there any passage that requires a man to marry a woman after having consensual sexual relations with her."

**Source taken from JewishVirtualLibrary.org, a division of the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise.

Correspondence

It sounds like you've been reading John Elderage lately... he is definitely one of my favorite authors!

But, I would like to take a moment and reply to some of the other things you wrote about if you don't mind...

>> Maybe I don't know that many people...but up here in Washington, I don't know a single gay or lesbian person. And maybe that just because we are a military family.

Just because you don't know that they are homosexual, doesn't mean that they're not. We tend to assume that people are just like us, or believe the same things that we do unless we have reason to believe otherwise.


>> Oddly enough it seems we have a decadent minority bent on making horrible things OK...like porn...once a sacred act between two married people, we now sell sex and its ok...

Just wondering since when sex was a sacred act between a man and a woman. I know that God designed it to be that way, but has sinful man ever really accepted that?


>> I know prostitution is probably the oldest profession in the world but never has it been seen in such a positive light like today.

Really?? Look in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament. It is littered with sexual perversions that seem to be culturally acceptable (which obviously doesn't make them right.) Polygamy and concubines were common place as well as homosexuality and I think bestiality in some places. (I don't think that God would have felt the need to inform the Israelites that bestiality was wrong and make it punishable by death if it was not already in practice.) And what about Tamar? She deceived her father-in-law into having sex with her, and then was praised for it. (Genesis 38:26 "She hath been more righteous than I.") This along w/ numerous other references (think Sodom, Noah, Jacob and Rachel, the 2 daughters of Lot)that I don't have time to get into now.

As far as it being the oldest profession, even Penguins practice a form of prostitution.


>> No we don't like prostitutes in person, but there are so many who watch porn, its just prostitution with a different name.

Yeah, I absolutely HATE porn. But I would still rather that than having to share my husband w/ other wives and concubines.


>> But I can see that we're sliding downhill as a nation.

Hmm.. I didn't think so. I seem to have thought that we'd improved since the good old days when prostitution was a legal and reputable business, and men got shot for cheating at poker.


>> And what's with the letting women choose to sell their bodies?

Are you implying that I don't own my own body... that someone else does? Or that I don't have a right to sell what is mine??
What about labor? When I do physical labor for wages, am I not in essence selling my time and my body??

Not that I think prostitution is right, but I would disagree.


>> I've never seen anyone happy who gave themselves away to various people.... That's not freedom.

No. But freedom is letting them choose for them self what they will do. It is allowing a person to take responsibility for their own actions, as it is their live, and not ours. As much as it hurts them to do it, and as much as it hurts us to watch... we still do not have any authority over the responsibility that God has given them.

Freedom is a God given choice. If a person chooses to live in freedom, that is their choice. If they choose to live in bondage, it is theirs as well.

As CS Lewis said: "Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."

That's all for now. Take Care.

Flag Anti-desecration Amendment

Yes, this would be one of the things that burns my ass... (Please see link.) Although it is over, I would like to relay the correspondence that I have had with republican representative Marsha Blackburn.

I originally sent her a brief e-mail on June 13th:

"I am in opposition to this amendment. By supporting this amendment, you undermine and oppose the very values that this country was founded on and that this flag stands for. By supporting this amendment, and discarding the right to freedom of expression that this country was founded on, you devalue the very flag that you seek to protect.

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech."

Today I received a letter back from her arguing that:

"For over half a century until 1989, every State in the Union, and later in the federal government, outlawed the physical desecration of the flag, without constitutional objection. In response to the 1989 Supreme Court ruling, Congress passed the "Flag Protection Act of 1989." A year later, The Supreme Court struck down the Act, ruling it infringed on expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment.
"The Flag protection act of 2005 would restore the authority of Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag.... I am in support of this legislation."

So, of course I replied:

"Thank you for your response. I am disappointed that you use the bandwagon argument in your support of the Flag Desecration Amendment. I would have preferred that you supported your view of this amendment based on logical reasoning and facts showing the benefit of supporting the Flag Desecration Amendment as well as refuting my concerns that the it is not only a violation of the freedom of speech, but also invalidates the American Flag itself by removing the very thing it symbolizes instead of arguing that "well... no one else had a problem with it before."
"This is the very reason that we are a republic. The very reason that our founding fathers renounced and criticized democracy... Because contrary to popular opinion, the majority are NOT always right.
So my question is; Are you going to go with the flow of the crowd because it's comfortable, or are you going to stand up for what is right and constitutionally accurate?"

Somebody please tell me that the people we elect to represent us have more integrity than this.