Is sex before marriage condemned in Tradition?

[JimG]

My original NAB New Testament has this:

1 Cor 6:9: Can you not realize that the unholy will not fall heir to the kingdom of God? Do not deceive yourselves: no fornicators, idolaters, or adulterers, no sexual perverts, theives, misers, or drunkards, no slanderers, or robbers will inherit God’s kingdom."

Seems pretty clear.

Do you wish to seriously argue that,

(a) sex before marriage is not fornication?
(b) fornication is not a sin?
(c) St. Paul did not really mean fornication?
(d) St. Paul really believed that sex before marriage was OK if it was a ‘committed loving relationship’? (I thought that’s what marraige is.)
(e) St. Paul was merely exaggerating for effect?

 

[FLCathMom]

Also, isn’t condemnation of sex outside of marriage the whole point of this passage in 1 Corinthians 7:

7:1Now for the questions about which you wrote. Yes, it is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman;

2yet to avoid immorality every man should have his own wife and every woman her own husband.

3The husband must give to his wife what she has a right to expect, and so too the wife to her husband.

4The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and in the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.

5You must not deprive each other, except by mutual consent for a limited time, to leave yourselves free for prayer, and to come together again afterwards; otherwise Satan may take advantage of any lack of self-control to put you to the test.

6I am telling you this as a concession, not an order.

7I should still like everyone to be as I am myself; but everyone has his own gift from God, one this kind and the next something different.

8To the unmarried and to widows I say: it is good for them to stay as they are, like me.

9But if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry, since it is better to be married than to be burnt up.

 

[richwmiller]

But what does a ‘loving’ couple mean anyway? Plenty of people get engaged on the third date and break up on the sixth! As if any couple who had regular sex short of it being for money couldn’t say they were as ‘loving’ as that!

Now note that Jesus quoted and reaffirmed the scripture passage about a man leaving his parents and cleaving to his WIFE and the two becoming one flesh. As in married wife, not betrothed fiance. And the language is clear on the difference - we know Mary fell pregnant when she was merely betrothed to Joseph, not married to him, for example. So if Jesus wanted to include betrothed people he would have done so.

So clearly it is indeed forbidden in scripture.

NT betrothed doesn’t mean just engaged or fiances. They were married. For Joseph to abandon Mary at that stage he would have needed a divorce. If Joseph had died at that point, she would have been a widow.
The system is not the same today.

 

[LilyM]

NT betrothed doesn’t mean just engaged or fiances. They were married. For Joseph to abandon Mary at that stage he would have needed a divorce. If Joseph had died at that point, she would have been a widow.
The system is not the same today.

Most translations say ‘put her aside quietly’, not ‘divorce’. He wouldn’t have needed a formal divorce, they were not formally married!

 

[Petergee]

So far, I see a great many references to scripture or works of early church fathers that mention adultery or fornication, but neither term is defined with absolute clarity to include sexual relations before marriage between a loving couple. I see a great many assumptions made that fornication and adultery or impurity MUST include ANY sexual relations between a couple outside marriage but I see no hard or concrete evidence for this. I think the OP’s question is very valid and one that I struggle with myself.

Is pre-marital sex condemned by the early Church or in the Bible? So far, I would have to say that it is only implied, and that implication would only exist if you define adultery, fornication or impurity in the most conservative and restrictive context possible.

Come on! Jesus said that if you so much as LOOK at a woman lustfully, you are committing adultery in your heart. He told his followers that those who can be celibate ought to be celibate for the sake of the Kingdom. Do you seriously think he meant to imply that some kinds of sexual activity outside of the God-ordained married couple might be OK?

 

[BrownR]

My original NAB New Testament has this:

1 Cor 6:9: Can you not realize that the unholy will not fall heir to the kingdom of God? Do not deceive yourselves: no fornicators, idolaters, or adulterers, no sexual perverts, theives, misers, or drunkards, no slanderers, or robbers will inherit God’s kingdom."

Seems pretty clear.

Do you wish to seriously argue that,

(a) sex before marriage is not fornication?
(b) fornication is not a sin?
(c) St. Paul did not really mean fornication?
(d) St. Paul really believed that sex before marriage was OK if it was a ‘committed loving relationship’? (I thought that’s what marraige is.)
(e) St. Paul was merely exaggerating for effect?

The Greek word used in 1 Cor 6: is “porneia” (refer above) and the context was in reference to the rampant prostitution from the Venus acolytes who were practicing prostitutes held at public expense in the city of Corinth. Prostitution was an act of worship to their deity and idolatry from the Christian perspective. Farmers would pay to have sex with the prostitutes to gain favor from their “god” for a good season of crops. This is the context of St. Paul’s exhortation. Again, “porneia” in no way, shape, or form, implies pre-marital sexual relations between two people in a loving relationship. It just doesn’t folks.

 

[LilyM]

Most translations say ‘put her aside quietly’, not ‘divorce’. He wouldn’t have needed a formal divorce, they were not formally married!

Sorry, I just wanted to add to the above.

The angel told Joseph not to be afraid to TAKE Mary for his wife - not to keep her as his wife. And upon receiving the message, Joseph does so. What need for such expressions if they were already considered to be married?

 

[LilyM]

The Greek word used in 1 Cor 6: is “porneia” (refer above) and the context was in reference to the rampant prostitution from the Venus acolytes who were practicing prostitutes held at public expense in the city of Corinth. Prostitution was an act of worship to their deity and idolatry from the Christian perspective. Farmers would pay to have sex with the prostitutes to gain favor from their “god” for a good season of crops. This is the context of St. Paul’s exhortation. Again, “porneia” in no way, shape, or form, implies pre-marital sexual relations between two people in a loving relationship. It just doesn’t folks.

Yes, but as pointed out above ‘whoever looks lustfully upon a woman’ certainly does refer to ALL sexual activity - for that matter WITHIN the marital bond (there are inappropriate uses of sex within marriage as well ya know!) let alone outside of it.

And he talked about people making themselves EUNUCHS - ie COMPLETELY celibate - for the sake of the kingdom. This was his ideal, and Paul’s though he acknowledged not everyone could live up to it.

 

[FLCathMom]

Again, “porneia” in no way, shape, or form, implies pre-marital sexual relations between two people in a loving relationship. It just doesn’t folks.

What is the point of passage in 1 Corinthians, then?

7:2:“yet to avoid immorality every man should have his own wife and every woman her own husband.”

and

7:9:“But if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry, since it is better to be married than to be burnt up.”

 

[JimG]

The Greek word used in 1 Cor 6: is “porneia” (refer above) and the context was in reference to the rampant prostitution from the Venus acolytes who were practicing prostitutes held at public expense in the city of Corinth. Prostitution was an act of worship to their deity and idolatry from the Christian perspective. Farmers would pay to have sex with the prostitutes to gain favor from their “god” for a good season of crops. This is the context of St. Paul’s exhortation. Again, “porneia” in no way, shape, or form, implies pre-marital sexual relations between two people in a loving relationship. It just doesn’t folks.

Yes, it’s quite true that Paul for some reason disapproved of the temple prostitutes. Are you saying that there was a separate word for fornication that Paul should have used if he wished to be clearer?

Is there any evidence that he took issue with sexual relations between two people NOT in a loving relationship but was OK with sex between two people IN a loving relationship? What would his distinction have been, except for the fact of marriage?

In the quote given by FlCathMom above, he also recommends that people marry if they cannot exercise self-control. I don’t see any implied approval of fornication.

 

[BrownR]

Yes, but as pointed out above ‘whoever looks lustfully upon a woman’ certainly does refer to ALL sexual activity - for that matter WITHIN the marital bond (there are inappropriate uses of sex within marriage as well ya know!) let alone outside of it.

And he talked about people making themselves EUNUCHS - ie COMPLETELY celibate - for the sake of the kingdom. This was his ideal, and Paul’s though he acknowledged not everyone could live up to it.

Simply put, Jesus in Matthew 5 is talking about ADULTERY, not fornication (modern erroneous translation of porneia) or any other variant. Adultery is sleeping with another man’s wife and has absolutely nothing to do with pre-marital sex between two single individuals. This verse does nothing to strengthen an argument against pre-marital sex.

As for the value of celibacy, what does this have to do with the argument? If celibacy draws one closer to God, how does this imply that pre-marital sex is a sin? Fasting in a monastery would draw me closer to God, but does this imply that watching television is a sin? Of course it doesn’t.

 

[BrownR]

Is there any evidence that he took issue with sexual relations between two people NOT in a loving relationship but was OK with sex between two people IN a loving relationship? What would his distinction have been, except for the fact of marriage?

Respectfully, the burden of proof is not mine to bear in this argument because I’m not the one arguing that the Bible explicitly or implicitly instructs against pre-marital sexual relations. (in any context) I’m saying the Bible is silent on that specific issue and that the Greek word for “fornication” can’t be used to decisively include pre-marital sex.

In the quote given by FlCathMom above, he also recommends that people marry if they cannot exercise self-control. I don’t see any implied approval of fornication.

Nor do I, but again, we differ on how we define “fornication”. The modern definition of the word is a much more liberal and inclusive form than, in my opinion, what was intended by the original Greek. Porneia does not refer to pre-marital sex. Perhaps St. Paul felt no need to speak about sexual relations among single people because most Christian Jews were married at a very young age and subject to arranged marriages. This would corroborate the context of sexual sin within an adulterous context. Girls could marry at 12 yrs of age and boys could marry at 13 yrs of age. Marriage while young was encouraged because we need to remember that the average age of death was 38. That doesn’t leave a great deal of time to raise a family and provide for them.

 

[richwmiller]

Most translations say ‘put her aside quietly’, not ‘divorce’. He wouldn’t have needed a formal divorce, they were not formally married!

You may believe what you please.
Look it up. Google betrothed.
They were legally married.
I am not talking about what the NT says but what the custom was.

But the NIV translation says:
Matthew 1:19 Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

Strong’s Ref. # 630

Romanized apoluo
Pronounced ap-ol-oo’-o

from GSN0575 and GSN3089; to free fully, i.e. (literally) relieve, release, dismiss (reflexively, depart), or (figuratively) let die, pardon or (specially) divorce:

KJV–(let) depart, dismiss, divorce, forgive, let go, loose, put (send) away, release, set at liberty.

 

[JimG]

So you are saying that the bible is silent on pre-marital sex, yet you want us to prove that the bible condemns it?

In other words, if it’s not mentioned, it must be OK?

You indicate that perhaps the Paul doesn’t condemnt pre-marital sex because it wasn’t practiced.

I thought that porneia was used to refer to any type of illicit sexual relations; I doubt that it was used exclusively of relations with temple prostitutes. The word is translated “fornication” in at least some bibles. I’m not sure how it is translated in others.

This letter appearing in This Rock magazine seems to indicate that it might apply to quasi-marital relationships, which would be even more to the point when it comes to modern cohabitation arrangements.

In any case, Fr. Richards was certainly correct in indicating that " porneia " in these Matthean passages refers to an impermissible quasi-marital relationship more formal than casual fornication.
Source: catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9712ltrs.asp

I’m not a scripture scholar, but I think that if your looking for biblical approval of fornication, it’s going to be quite a stretch.

 

[LilyM]

Simply put, Jesus in Matthew 5 is talking about ADULTERY, not fornication (modern erroneous translation of porneia) or any other variant. Adultery is sleeping with another man’s wife and has absolutely nothing to do with pre-marital sex between two single individuals. This verse does nothing to strengthen an argument against pre-marital sex.

As for the value of celibacy, what does this have to do with the argument? If celibacy draws one closer to God, how does this imply that pre-marital sex is a sin? Fasting in a monastery would draw me closer to God, but does this imply that watching television is a sin? Of course it doesn’t.

Sex is sex is sex. Like food is food is food. If fasting brings me closer to God then necessarily an overdependence on food (such as overeating) draws me away from Him and is a sin and to be condemned.

So it absolutely follows - marital sex (within the proper bounds) is licit, any other sexual activity isn’t. Just as proper and moderate use of food is licit, and anything else is sinful.

So if celibacy (no sex) draws me closer to God then ANY overdependence or overindulgence in the sexual department is a sin and to be condemned. This includes not waiting until the relationship is sacramentally sealed - which Jewish marriage never was, remember, not even Joseph’s and Mary’s.

Christ was the first to make marriage a sacrament. So you’re disrespecting - mocking - the sacramental nature of marriage by acting as if you’re married when you’re not.

 

[BrownR]

Sex is sex is sex. Like food is food is food. If fasting brings me closer to God then necessarily an overdependence on food (such as overeating) draws me away from Him and is a sin and to be condemned.

Forgive me, but I simply don’t follow your train of logic. You seem to be making an a priori argument when perhaps you should be making an a posteriori one. Are you saying all sex is equal? Prostitution, adultery and bestiality, one and the same? Sins? Certainly, but only because they are explicitly mentioned in Scripture. Pre-marital sex is not.

So it absolutely follows - marital sex (within the proper bounds) is licit, any other sexual activity isn’t. Just as proper and moderate use of food is licit, and anything else is sinful.

No, it doesn’t absolutely follow which is the point of this discussion. You have no biblical reference to pre-marital sex. Quite unlike prostitution, bestiality, adultery and the like. Your opinion is merely relative.

 

[LilyM]

Forgive me, but I simply don’t follow your train of logic. You seem to be making an a priori argument when perhaps you should be making an a posteriori one. Are you saying all sex is equal? Prostitution, adultery and bestiality, one and the same? Sins? Certainly, but only because they are explicitly mentioned in Scripture. Pre-marital sex is not.

No, I’m saying that sex and food are alike in that they have a proper use - and anything that falls outside that use is to be condemned. All improper uses of either are indeed sinful, gravely so, even though probably not equal. Whether those improper uses are explicitly mentioned in scripture or not.

The Bible is not a comprehensive list of all possible sins - it couldn’t possibly be. For one thing people come up with new ways to sin every minute, and have certainly done so in the 2000 years since scripture was written.

God told us what the proper uses of sex are - both a) ‘be fruitful and multiply’ and b) a man cleaving to his WIFE (not his betrothed). Reaffirmed by Christ. Anything that goes against either of these is sinful, and premarital sex goes against b).

And I notice you haven’t addressed the fact that marriage, since the time of Christ, is sacramental in nature. Thus by play-acting at marriage before that sacramental seal is placed upon it which alone can make it a real marriage, then you’re mocking Christ who instituted the sacrament.

 

[BrownR]

So you are saying that the bible is silent on pre-marital sex, yet you want us to prove that the bible condemns it?

I’m not the one claiming that Scripture implicitly teaches that pre-marital sex is always wrong. I’m claiming that the Bible simply doesn’t say one way or the other. If you are claiming that pre-marital sex is a sin and is forbidden, then the burden of proof is yours to make. It would be mine to make if I were claiming that the Bible teaches that pre-marital sex is not a sin and I’m doing nothing of the sort.

I’m not a scripture scholar, but I think that if your looking for biblical approval of fornication, it’s going to be quite a stretch.

I’m not a biblical scholar either, but I’m calling attention to the fact that our modern day definition of “fornication” which generally includes pre-marital sex in the English language does not accurately reflect the Greek.

 

[rlg94086]

This has got to be one of the funniest threads I have seen on CAF. It is stretching incredulity to even consider that pre-marital sex is acceptable as a Christian. And, being told that it has to be proven because the “modern” definition of fornication may not match up with the Greek? Give me a break!

Has every Christian scholar - Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant - gotten it wrong up until now?

Boy, I’m so glad someone found a loophole 2000 years later.

 

[blessedtoo]

This has got to be one of the funniest threads I have seen on CAF. It is stretching incredulity to even consider that pre-marital sex is acceptable as a Christian. And, being told that it has to be proven because the “modern” definition of fornication may not match up with the Greek? Give me a break!

Has every Christian scholar - Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant - gotten it wrong up until now?

Boy, I’m so glad someone found a loophole 2000 years later.

Actually, it’s already been tried here:
uscatholic.claretians.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=12369&news_iv_ctrl=0&abbr=usc_

And completely discredited here:

“Because the position of the authors is contrary to church teaching about the intrinsic evil of fornication, I have disassociated the Omaha Archdiocese from the Center for Marriage and Family at Creighton University,” Archbishop Curtiss wrote.

omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2798&u_sid=10066178