# Scripture suggesting no intercourse before marriage



## Constantlyreforming (Sep 11, 2012)

Where would you first turn to defend the Biblical principle of no intercourse before marriage? Obviously, the ideal is to be the husband of one wife, and such. However, I have a hard time pinning down a few verses that would defend the principle that one should not engage in sexual relations prior to a marriage ceremony. Has this always been the case? Is this something that has changed with time? I remember back in my high school days at the Christian school, many of the high schoolers would try debating with the teachers that "David and Solomon had many wives", etc....and the teachers had a tough time coming back with solid answers to deter them from poor judgements. 

I saw somewhere else here that the early American puritans....a supposed quarter of the marriages were done when the bride was 3 months pregnant. Do you believe that a ceremony is necessary before intercourse takes place, and if so, what are the scriptures to support that? Im not arguing for the opposite side, I am looking for a detailed reasoning for what we believe regarding this.


----------



## rbcbob (Sep 11, 2012)

These should help. The Bible distinguishes between sexual intercourse between those who are married and those who are not.

1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither *fornicators*, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,
(1Co 6:9 NKJ)

2 Corinthians 12:21 lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and I shall mourn for many who have sinned before and have not repented of the uncleanness, *fornication*, and lewdness which they have practiced. (2Co 12:21 NKJ)

Matthew 15:19 "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries,* FORNICATIONS* (*πορνεία*), thefts, false witness, blasphemies.
(Mat 15:19 NKJ)
Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, *fornication*, uncleanness, lewdness,
(Gal 5:19 NKJ)
Ephesians 5:3 But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; (Eph 5:3 NKJ)
Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but *fornicators* and adulterers God will judge. (Heb 13:4 NKJ)

*πορνεία, πορνείας, ἡ (πορνεύω)*, the Septuagint for תַּזְנוּת, זְנוּת, זְנוּנִים, fornication (Vulgate fornicatio (and (Rev. 19:2) prostitutio)); used a. properly, of illicit sexual intercourse in general (Demosthenes, 403, 27; 433, 25): Acts 15:20,29; 21:25 (that this meaning must be adopted in these passages will surprise no one who has learned from 1 Cor. 6:12ff how leniently converts from among the heathen regarded this vice and how lightly they indulged in it;


----------



## Constantlyreforming (Sep 11, 2012)

and fornication can always be proven to show that it is sexual relations prior to marriage?


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Sep 11, 2012)

I would say maybe Matthew 1:18-19, 

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly."

The fact that Mary and Joseph were betrothed, or engaged, and yet had not "come together" suggests that it is proper to wait until the marriage is finalized. The further fact that Joseph wanted to quietly break their union demonstrates that this would have been considered improper. Of course it is true that Joseph would have assumed that Mary had been unfaithful, but it would hve none the less been an embarrassment even if he were the father.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 11, 2012)

How about Mary and Joseph. If it was permissible wouldn't you think that they....

There is a lot involved. There are old testament passages that speak about deflowering outside of the Marriage covenant and what a man is responsible for. He violates the father of the female. The male has to even go get permission still to become wed to her. The father can refuse and a penalty and fine paid to the father. The Covenant of Marriage is violated by partaking of its communal aspects before the Covenant is ratified and the father gives the woman to a husband.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 11, 2012)

Constantlyreforming said:


> and fornication can always be proven to show that it is sexual relations prior to marriage?



Does it have to? How about if it only refers to one instance? It is sex outside of God's design. It is perversion from what God intended. It is uncleaness before the Lord.


----------



## Constantlyreforming (Sep 11, 2012)

oh I agree, mr. Moderator. I am looking to cover all bases as I seem to have a lot of young college aged students ask these types of questions of me...


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 11, 2012)

However relevant/irrelevant in terms of modern application the Levitical laws are now, in the days of the Apostles/NT formation they form the immediate moral-social background to the NT way of expressing things.

Dt.22:23-29 contains three related scenarios, pertaining to unmarried's sleeping together. All the scenarios _presuppose_ that it is an unlawful act, and that the shame of the act is likely to fall disproportionately on the female. However, the circumstances demand that "fair-play" be accorded the man (presumed seducer), so that in one case if his action takes place within presumed earshot of help, and the woman (who is betrothed to another) does not "cry out," they both may be executed, but he gets the benefit of the doubt (i.e. implied consensuality if they literally go out to the countryside for a tumble in the hay).

On the other hand, the last scenario presents a clear cut premarital-sex condition, in which the man is compelled to marry, and may _never_ divorce his wife "because he has humbled her." This dictate is qualified further by a look at Ex.22:16-17, in which the father of the girl is acknowledged to have right-of-approval/disapproval in such event.

These are just basics of a general biblically-informed morality, which lies behind every NT discussion of proper sexual conduct. I would also argue that the decision of Act.15 pertains to the question of sexual ethics generally. One question needing answer at the Jerusalem Council was: _to what extent do the laws of Moses have any bearing on NT Christian conduct?_ They lay down one overarching rule that negates the idea that Gentiles must become Jews, and add three general caveats (v20) to which the law held forth timeless principles:

1) that idol pollution must be avoided (which standard later needed interpretation, re. meats sacrificed to idols)
2) *from sexual immorality*, (which has to be defined... how best? pay attention to how Moses unpacked the 7th commandment)
3) any other "general equity" precept, a kind of prototype example of which is referenced, Gen.9:4 (which is long before the giving of the Law).​

As a further note, the Act.15 council *did not* undermine the Moral Law, universal and binding upon all mankind forever, and summarized conveniently for biblical people in the 10C, the moral cornerstone of any law code, including that of Israel.

In the end, sexual mores in any society are bound to its preservation of the institution of marriage, and so how it treats sex outside of marriage reflects its opinion of the inviolate status of marriage as the principal regulator. ALL sex outside marriage undermines the institution in some way. Premarital sex is adultery against a future spouse, especially if that person believes he/she is marrying a virgin (and is presumably a virgin him/herself), see Lev.19:29; Dt.22:13-21.

We should also consider righteous Joseph's conduct WRT to Mary, his betrothed, who thought of using the divorce-law in the most compassionate way possible (i.e. not shaming Mary publicly, or calling for her death). Death was an extreme penalty, a maximum penalty, and divorce was intended to be a form of mercy in the appropriate circumstance, when reconciliation seemed impossible (usually due to hardness of heart).

There really is no other honest way to interpret the Bible's consistent stand on sexual-ethics. We have no other relevant source. Jewish mores of the Apostle's day, even if they had been corrupted by Gentile presence (see Rom.2:22), were still regulated by the letter of the OT law. This has continued to be the stance of the faithful Christian church to the present day.


----------



## OPC'n (Sep 11, 2012)

Are you asking "What if there is no pastor to wed us....can we make vows together before God and be considered married?" I can't think of a country in which there would be no pastor or where they couldn't go to the state office and get a marriage license. I think Bill gave the best Scripture that shows that fornication is sex between a man and a woman before a marriage ceremony.


----------

