Embedded Files
This essay goes to the top of the list for subjects that desperately need to be reexamined by professing Christians. I realize that our society is totally inundated with media, academic information, psychological discussion, casual talk, etc., about sexual topics. However, I am referring to a serious biblical treatment of the issue that most so called spokespersons in the Christian community do not address squarely or adequately. In particular, we need to discuss the definition of sexual immorality and establish how this problem is rapidly destroying American culture and ruining the lives of professing Christians who refuse to live distinctly from our paganized society. Read on for a discussion of the topic.
What the Bible Says about Sex outside of Marriage
How is sexual immorality to be defined? Most Christians knowledgeable of the Scriptures know that the word fornication refers to unlawful or illicit sex. When I use the word unlawful, I use it similarly to the way John the Baptist used it when he rebuked King Herod for having sexual relations with his brother’s wife (Matthew 14:3-4). It is unlawful according to God’s law, which is universal and binding on all cultures throughout history regardless of whether or not the majority consents with it or if it is codified as illegal in civil legal codes. If this were not true, then John would have no business rebuking Herod who operated under the auspices of the Roman Empire – no bastion of sexual restraint by the time this prophet lived and operated.
Defining the Problem
God views sexual immorality (and I speak here particularly of premarital, heterosexual sex) first as a transgression of His law, which is enough reason for Christians to be against it. Even so, in our age of religious humanism, a sin against God is not taken seriously or condemned the way a sin against another person or a protected group would be. Be that as it may, this type of sexual misbehavior should be viewed beyond merely a sin but as a criminal act also because of the emotional, moral, and physical harm it does to the individuals involved, the dishonor it brings to the families concerned (even if they don’t consider it a disgrace), and the disorder it brings to the society where the activity takes place. As such, sexual immorality defrauds the parties engaging in it (when not married), destroys the exclusivity that makes marital relationships special and highly honorable, and weakens the social fabric of civilization.
Am I going over the line in declaring fornication a criminal act? Well I am speaking of biblical standards here and not contemporary popular opinion. In ancient Israel, God’s law in some instances required the death penalty for premarital and extramarital sex if the action were discovered and there was demonstrable evidence. Why was Moses, writing under God’s inspiration, so severe about something that is so widespread today and to some degree has been throughout history? One reason is because once you attack the family covenant represented in monogamous marital relationships, you are in effect attacking societal stability since the biblically defined family is the foundation of an orderly society.
For confirmation that the breakout of sexual permissiveness is harmful to a civilization, consider the Soviet Union under Lenin’s lenient attitude toward “free love” and divorce. Within this paradigm children were being born out of wedlock with no family support, and homelessness had become a problem among the many unwanted youngsters. Consequently, when Stalin took power he restricted divorce and reinstituted the primacy of marriage and the family as a way to solidify the social order of the Soviet state.
A Modern-Day Example
A more contemporary example can be seen in the American black community. Currently, due to loose sexual mores and a corresponding low regard for marriage, approximately 70 percent of black children are born out of wedlock. In the majority of these cases, the affected youth are not given the parental attention necessary to become productive, disciplined, civilized members of society.
In this scenario, fathers are largely absent after the children are born, and mothers very often have to work to support their offspring. The young ones are consequently neglected and placed in day cares or school programs that feed them breakfast and lunch (all billed to taxpayers) and even provide after-school care, making contact with parents even less frequent. So they have essentially become wards of the state.
Among other factors, this lack of family structure and influence has been devastating for blacks themselves and for the society at large that must and cope with the disproportionate criminal element that manifests from this population. As an example, from 1970-2010 Americans of black-African descent have ranged from 11% to 12.6% of the national population, yet according to Bureau of Justice statistics, between 1976 and 2005, they have committed over 52 percent of the nation's homicides. Similar disparities can be seen with respect to robbery, rape, assault, burglary, etc. (See here for statistics.)
The high illegitimacy rate among blacks has also damaged our national economy by forcing working people to subsidize the existence of this population from cradle to grave through excessive taxation. To illustrate, from 2007-2008, blacks, despite their much lower population numbers, represented 34.2% of Temporary Assistance or Needy Families (welfare) cases (more than double their population in America) versus whites who received 31.5% yet were 66% of the total population. A similar situation exists with the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as food stamps. According to the New York Times, “Half of Americans receive food stamps, at least briefly, by the time they turn 20. Among black children, the figure was 90 percent.”
And I haven’t even discussed sexually transmitted disease prevalence (including AIDS), poverty, Section 8 housing, prison expenses, subsidized medical costs, and abortion rates. There are other problems in the black community (with similar ones increasingly evident in white America as well), but the ramifications of sexual immorality to this culture and our civilization in general should be obvious.
Sinful and Criminal Behavior?
Christians who are familiar with biblical teachings already know that fornication is a grievous sin that will exclude people from God’s salvation. Many verses can be quoted to support this assertion, but 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 will suffice here: “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”
Note that fornicators – Greek “pornos” – and adulterers – Greek “moichos” – are listed as separate categories in this passage, meaning Paul is differentiating between unlawful sex engaged in by unmarried people and unlawful sex engaged in by married people. Other Bible passages support Paul’s condemnation of such sexual transgressions, so many Christians are in agreement with this position. But most professing believers would cringe at the idea of fornication being illegal. Let it be called a sin and leave it at that, they would say.
What modern-day Americans who profess the Christian faith probably don’t realize is that for most of U.S. history (and certainly during the colonial period as well) the nation’s legal code has been based on biblical ethics and in many cases taken directly from biblical law. The regulation of certain deleterious sexual behaviors was no exception to this trend. For example, fornication and cohabitation have been illegal according to state and local laws throughout the history of the United States and have been penalized via monetary fines and imprisonment. In fact, there are still laws against cohabitation on the books in five states as of 2011: Mississippi, Virginia, Florida, North Carolina and Michigan.
The rest of the country had their state prohibitions against fornication and cohabitation repealed beginning around 1970 and gradually over the years since then as society became more self consciously anti-Christian and anti-biblical. Secular humanists who hate Christianity and despise God’s law can be expected to encourage the ongoing de-Christianizing of society, but why do Christians (who have biblical answers to destructive social problems like sexual anarchy) remain silent?
Changing Definitions
We live in such an apostate age, and so many are biblically uninformed, so I will have to give some more Scriptural backing to demonstrate how immoral and unacceptable pre-marital sex is. In the Old Testament Hebrew the word harlot/whore/prostitute (Hebrew “zanah”) is used for a woman who has unlawful sexual intercourse. Here is where much confusion and misinterpretation muddles the definitions and the issue at large. Today when you hear the word “prostitute” most people think of a woman who has sex for money, while the word “whore” means a very loose woman who fornicates with many men. These definitions are correct, but they don’t go far enough.
The meanings shifted as premarital sex became more and more acceptable in the public eye (approximately over the last 30 years) where the majority now seems to accept unmarried teenage or young adult sex as “experimenting” or premarital sex with one or a handful of “lovers” as being normal and expected. As long as the relationship is consensual and between partners of approximately the same age (maybe with some manipulation, drunkenness, or dishonesty thrown in) and generally monogamous, the woman is not a whore or the man is supposedly not a whoremonger. (Contrary to popular opinion, the patriarchal Bible, especially as the covenant faith develops in the New Testament, has no double standards in this regard).
Of course, just as the previous sexual standard slowly degenerated along with its older definition, this one will as well. In fact, to some degree it already has. Some notable examples of this are seen with the relatively new terms “exotic dancer” (for stripper), “sex worker” (for prostitute) “porn star” (for X-rated movie whore or whoremonger), “playa,“ “playboy,” or “ladies man” (for whoremonger), “sexually active” for fornicator, “hooking up” (for casual, short-term sex or fornication), and “friends with benefits” (for recurring and casual immoral sexual action without commitment – another form of fornication).
Meanwhile, having exclusive sex with one partner outside of marriage (even if it happens in successive relationships with different people) will eventually become outdated (unless there is a major upheaval and revival of sexual morals), just as Aldous Huxley foresaw in his 1932 novel Brave New World.
Biblical Definitions
As sexual behavior is continually redefined to accommodate ever loosening sexual standards, the word “whore” will probably become obsolete in the public square as well. That’s why Christians must have something better to offer the world if they want to represent God’s kingdom properly in this regard. They will have to interpret, adhere to, and present the Scriptures of both Testaments accurately and relevantly. To illustrate, we’ll go back to our Hebrew word “zanah.” Taken in context from Leviticus 21, we have Moses’ qualifications for priests in the Old Testament order.
Most would not see any modern-day relevance here, but this passage has some because we are talking about definitions and practical applications of God's law and the intent behind that law. The passage in question describes what type of woman a priest was permitted to marry: “The woman he marries must be a virgin. He must not marry a widow, a divorced woman, or a woman defiled by prostitution, but only a virgin from his own people… (13-14).
We have an interesting contrast here. The first group includes widows, divorcees, and prostitutes (whores in King James, zanah in Hebrew). What is the common denominator among these three types of women? They have all had sexual intercourse. (This is not to say that widows and divorcees are immoral or comparable to whores – they were just not sexually chaste and qualified to marry priests.)
So what is the only acceptable category of potential spouse for the Old Testament priests? It was a virgin (Hebrew “bethula”) or a woman who had not had sexual relations with anyone. This means the Bible’s definition of a prostitute or whore includes any woman who has had sexual intercourse before marriage –- even if it was just for one time. As I mentioned, we are not discussing the obscurity of the Old Testament priesthood (now represented in the completed work of Christ) but just using the passage to clear up the biblical definition of whore.
In another earlier portion of Leviticus, Chapter 19, the book outlines general laws defining and prohibiting profanity. These legislations apply to the entire covenant community of God’s people and not just the priestly class. Specifically regarding sexual sin, Leviticus 19:29 commands fathers, “Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness.” The Hebrew word for whore here is “zanah,” and according to the first definition in Gesenius’ Lexicon, it means “to commit fornication … Attributed properly and chiefly to a woman; whether married … or unmarried.”
Aside from the correct definition for sexual immorality and whore in this passage, it is also noteworthy that this behavior is forbidden because of its morally destructive effects on the community and the society at large. (The land becomes “full of wickedness”.) It would be safe to assert that this ancient legislation is still highly relevant today and that the land falling to “whoredom” undoubtedly applies to current-day American society. In his commentary on the Pentateuch, Leviticus Volume III, theologian R. J. Rushdoony elaborates on the subject:
How then does a man profane his daughter? The ancient rabbinic interpretation is very clear on this, and especially important in its modern relevance. To profane a daughter meant and means to allow any ungodly relationship with a man, including a non-marital sexual relationship. The rite of marriage is viewed as the sanctification of the man and the woman in their sexuality. It is in terms of God’s law, the normal and godly estate; hence, if a father permits any profane or ungodly conduct by his daughter, the effects on society are far-reaching. As Hertz noted, the land would fall into harlotry and become full of lewdness, which means, “looking upon the ‘demand’ for harlotry as a normal condition of things, and tolerating the consequent ‘supply’ of human beings for such a life of shame.” (pg. 241-242)
Much of our paganized society clearly sees pre-marital sex as “a normal condition of things,” but biblically and in reality, such conduct actually constitutes a “life of shame.”
Deuteronomy Lays down the Law
Deuteronomy 22:13-30 elaborates on sexual transgressions and their penalties in Old Testament Israel. I will quote the entire section on fornication (New International Version) so as not to be accused of avoiding the so called “harsh” biblical passages:
13 If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16 Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels[b] of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives. 20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.
Obviously, this type of primitive discourse on fornication does not sit well with most people (including professing Christians) in our “sexually liberated” modern age. But for those who believe the whole Bible, there must be some application however modified for our currently secular, post-theocratic era.
This claim is substantiated by 2 Timothy 3:16: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” Since Scripture meant the Hebrew Bible when Paul was writing his letter to Timothy, even those who deny the relevance of Old Testament case laws should at least find something instructive from this piece of legislation.
First, it is clear that among all of God’s people, sexual purity is the norm before marriage. This portion of Scripture applies to “a man” who takes a wife, meaning anyone in the covenant community, not just priests or religious leaders.
Second, fornication was undoubtedly taken very seriously by Israel since falsely accusing a woman of not being a virgin at marriage was slanderous and punishable with a heavy fine. (According to Rushdoony, fifty shekels of silver could be worth as much as three year’s salary, yet this penalty was double that amount.)
Third, as seen earlier, the definition of whore means more than a paid prostitute or a wildly loose woman with scores of sexual partners. The word promiscuous in the NIV (translated “play the whore” in the King James Version) comes from the aforementioned Hebrew word zanah. Thus, taken in context, playing the whore means not being a virgin before marriage.
Also important to note, fornication was seen as a total humiliation of the woman and a dishonoring of her father and the family since both parents are involved in clearing the name of their daughter, and the fine for slander is paid to the father. In addition, pre-marital sex was seen as “outrageous” (“folly” in KJV, Hebrew “nĕbalah,” meaning senselessness, disgraceful folly, profane action, immorality, or contumely disgrace).
So how outrageous was this behavior? Well, if the woman were found guilty of fornication, it was punishable in some cases by execution. Without advocating for a reinstatement of this sanction on modern-day fornicators, Christians should at least admit that such sexual activity is clearly heinous behavior in God’s eyes (not just a sin or a mistake) and is completely off limits outside of marriage.
Old versus New Testament
Now I can hear the chorus: “But that’s the Old Testament. We’re in the New Testament age now.” For this argument, I will grant that a majority of the professing Christian community feels this way about the Hebrew Scriptures (unless the text is from Psalms, Proverbs, or some other select passages). I don’t agree with this viewpoint, meaning I believe that the entire Bible is one unified, continuous covenant and that the Old Testament is valid and relevant with some ceremonial/administrative changes and some things now accomplished by the atoning work of Christ (such as blood sacrifices and the work of the priesthood).
The newness of the New Testament, meanwhile, is primarily with regard to the covenant community having been expanded to Gentiles and the faith having become international and no longer localized in Israel. As such, the Hebrew Bible is still highly applicable -- sometimes directly and other times in principle in light of some New Testament modification. I argue this way because Christians are spoken of as the “Israel of God” in the New Testament era according to Paul in Galatians 6:16. Paul equating God’s people with the Jews of the Old Testament period tells us so much about what our attitude should be toward the Jewish Scriptures.
For one, there is much more continuity between the Old and New Testaments than many would lead us to believe. Just looking at Jesus’ comments would verify this concept. Jesus quoted repeatedly from the law and the prophets and continually pointed his Jewish audience back to Old Testament figures like Moses and Abraham as ones who believed in and looked forward to Christ.
Moreover, Jesus said himself that he did not come to abolish the law and the prophets but to fulfill them (Matthew 5:17). The word fulfill here does not mean "to bring to an end." The Greek word used (pleroo) is translated "fill to the full," "to make complete," "to carry into effect," "to bring to realization," "to bring to pass," and "to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfillment."
As also made clear in Mark 7:1-13, Jesus’ campaign against legalism was not a rejection of God’s law but a denunciation of the Pharisees’ erroneous interpretations of the law as informed by their traditions. (The Talmud, for example, includes rabbinic commentaries on the Torah).
Some may protest that in the new administration, Old Testament commandments (such as laws against sexual misconduct) are to be discarded along with the ceremonial laws for the old Jewish nation. But when we see New Testament themes against sexual immorality corroborating those of the Old, we should not dismiss them as irrelevant or outdated.
Laws regulating the Passover observation or the special Jewish feasts or pilgrimages to Jerusalem are no longer directly in force because they are tied down to the regional, land-based religion of the Jews and other covenant keepers who became Jews religiously. They are also explicitly spoken of as defunct in the New Testament. But moral condemnations against murder, theft, and sexual crimes, just to name a few, are reiterated in the New Testament. Therefore, they are to be taken seriously today (and should be legally enforceable, I might add, if we want to preserve what is left of our society.)
Virgins, Wives, or Whores
To prove that the New Testament corroborates the Old on the matter of sexual immorality (and that both Old and New complement each other) we can first look at the familiar story of Christ's birth from Matthew 1:18-19. Joseph and Mary are engaged to be married in this scene, which is described as follows:
"This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. 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."
Engagement was obviously a serious precursor to marriage during this time period since a break up was considered a divorce. Notice that Mary was found to be carrying the Christ child before Joseph and Mary married or came together (from the Greeksynerchomai meaning "conjugal cohabitation"). In response to this revelation, Joseph planned on divorcing Mary quietly to protect her from public disgrace because, being pregnant, she appeared to have been involved with another man sexually.
Obviously, a woman having had sex before marriage was a total scandal during Jesus' time, so much so that it was grounds for an annulment of the marriage to be. The consequences described here are not as severe as some of Deuteronomy's penalties, but the expectation that a woman be a virgin before marriage was the same.
We can also review Paul’s distinction between unmarried and married women to understand the nature of sexual immorality more clearly. In discussing the differences between these two types of women, the Apostle declares, “An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband (I Corinthians 7:34). Paul is clear on this issue. An “unmarried woman OR virgin” means that an unmarried woman IS a virgin.
The counterargument may come that this passage is actually giving us two categories: unmarried women (who have had premarital sex) and virgins (who have not had sex). But a look at the Greek connecting word “kai” (in this case translated as “or”) should dispel this theory. According to Thayer’s Lexicon, kai is a connecting word that joins two words and can mean “in general, in a word, or in short” or joins to a general idea something particular already contained in that broad concept but brought out more emphatically. In other words, Paul is emphasizing that an unmarried woman (general idea) is a virgin (particular idea).
This would be similar to my saying, “A professor or a college teacher uses his research to clarify his ideas.” Likewise, Paul is clarifying, “An unmarried woman, or in short, a virgin” to make more sense of it. (This would not be without purpose as the Corinthians were not known for their chastity – Paul may have been deliberately emphasizing this point for his Christian audience at Corinth.) Meanwhile, those who insist that kai really means “and” in this case would have to reconcile all of Paul’s and the Bible’s condemnations of fornication found in other passages as defined by the relevant Greek expressions.
For further confirmation that sexual self-control before marriage is seen as normative in the New Testament (along with the Hebrew Scriptures) we can examine some specific prohibitions against sexual immorality (including pre-marital sex/fornication) that are found throughout the Greek letters to the churches. For one example, Hebrews 13:4 sheds light on the definition of sexual immorality by contrasting legitimate sexual behavior within marriage with unlawful sex outside of marriage: “Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.”
Although the Greek word for sexually immoral, “pornos,” can mean male prostitute, another definition that fits this context even better is “a man who indulges in unlawful sexual intercourse, a fornicator.” Either way, a man who has sexual intercourse outside of marriage is a “whoremonger,” whether he gets paid for his lewd activity or not, just as a woman who does so is considered a whore, biblically speaking. (Notice again that there is no double standard for one gender over the other with regard to fornication.)
To reinforce the biblical definition of whore as seen in the Hebrew Scriptures, we can look to I Corinthians 6:15 where Paul is warning the Corinthians against sexual immorality: “Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never!”
The word prostitute here comes from “porne.” This Greek term has a few meanings including “any woman indulging in unlawful sexual intercourse, whether for gain or for lust.” Undoubtedly, from this definition we can see that illegitimate sexual behavior is not limited to sex for money as the expression “for lust” indicates. Also notice that porne is designated by the lexicon as unlawful and not just as sinful.
More on Fornication
Other New Testament passages illuminate the nature and meaning of fornication. For instance, Ephesians 5:5 echoes the warning from Hebrews by also using the word pornos (translated “immoral” in the NIV and “fornicator” in the KJV): “For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person--such a man is an idolater--has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.” For our modern audiences, this means that fornicators, based on their sexual behavior, are NOT part of God’s family and therefore are NOT Christians, regardless of how regularly they attend church, how nice they are, or how much they insist they love God.
Even worse, being excluded from God’s kingdom because of fornication (among other sins) results in an ultimate separation from God in the afterlife. Revelation 21:8 addresses this fearful destiny of sexual transgressors: “But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers [pornos], and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone: which is the second death” (KJV).
In I Corinthians 6:18, Paul gives further detail on his prohibition against sexual immorality and specifies how it is especially harmful to the human body and soul: “Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.” The word for sexual immorality in this passage is "porneia" and means “illicit sexual intercourse,” which includes the following specific offenses: “adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals … sexual intercourse with close relatives … sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman.”
Also important here is Paul’s emphasis on how sexual immorality (which includes pre-marital sex) is a more heinous transgression than other wrongdoings because of what it does to the body along with the soul. In another letter, Romans 13:13 admonishes, “Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy” (NIV). The Greek word for sexual immorality here is “koite,” which in this context means unlawful cohabitation, adultery, or sexual intercourse (outside of marriage).
Overall, when a thoughtful and thorough interpretation is applied, it is evident that pre-marital sex or fornication is condemned in both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures (Old and New Testaments) and that the definition of whore (for females) and whoremonger (for males) encompasses this form of sexual activity.
Getting Physical
With the argument about fornication laid out, we can move onto an even broader warning against sexual sin – although in an arguably milder form. Accusations of being “puritanical” or “prudish” notwithstanding, I have pondered this matter at length and drawn certain conclusions based on my own experiences, observations, and conversations with others. Let us first discuss what exactly takes place in so called “dating” relationships.
For most people, “going out with” or “seeing” another person in a romantic relationship (someone you “like” or are attracted to for whatever reason) is going to involve bodily interaction sooner or later. This attraction is usually the initial basis of the relationship or what draws the two people together in the first place. So if they spend time together, and do so more and more, it is natural for them to want to make physical contact and get closer bodily, assuming both are mutually attracted.
If you are attracted to the other person, close hugging, kissing, touching, caressing, etc., are all desirable activities. My argument here is simple – these actions are a part of sex or at the very least are precursors to sex (sometimes known as “foreplay”) and therefore fall under the category of unlawful physical intimacy for unmarried people.
In the previously quoted passage from Romans 13:13, the word “debauchery” or “sensuality” is translated from the Greek word “aselgeia,” which means, among other things, “wanton (acts or) manners as filthy words, indecent bodily movements, unchaste handling of males and females, etc.” This definition does not necessarily have to mean full-fledged sexual intercourse since “unchaste handling of males and females” includes types of touching and physical contact.
Put another way, kissing and the other behaviors mentioned energize and stimulate the parties involved to engage in further action, namely sex, and therefore are not appropriate and definitely not for a Christian. At this point, I would remind you of former President Clinton’s sexual dalliances and the rationale he used to defend them. He argued that oral sex was not “sex” proper. Perhaps he found a loophole according to our society’s ever changing definitions of reality, but in the perspective I am presenting here, oral sex could be included in either category – foreplay or sexual activity – and so both behaviors involve illegitimate sexual stimulation for an unmarried person.
Another passage from I Corinthians sheds some light on this matter: “Now concerning the things whereof you wrote unto me: [It is] good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband” (7:1-2 KJV). In the context of the chapter, Paul is speaking about how unmarried men and women should interact. The word touch in this case comes from the Greek “haptomai,” which can mean “cling to” or refer to “carnal intercourse with a woman or cohabitation.” Moreover, according to Thayer’s Lexicon, haptomai also means “to kindle, set on fire.”
Figuratively speaking then, the Greek expression translated as “touch” means to touch in a sensual way so as to spark and arouse feelings or sexual passion in another. Paul’s solution is not for opposite-sex acquaintances in such circumstances to use a condom, cohabit, or date for a few years to “get to know one another.” Instead, his answer is for them to get married to avoid fornication (porneia).
As a man, I know what normally happens when one touches, kisses, etc, a female with passion, attraction, or any feeling whatsoever. For the sake of decency, I won’t go into the biological details, but suffice it to say, these actions would inspire most males physically and emotionally to continue on. (And something similar certainly happens inside of the female body/mind).
So when you are getting physical with the opposite sex, you are starting a “fire” or arousing desires and emotions that you cannot legitimately fulfill (according to biblical standards) if you are unmarried. Meanwhile, as evangelist Greg Ball once argued, if you engage in this type of intimacy, and it does not affect you physically or stir up desires, you need to go see a doctor because something is wrong with you biologically.
Getting to Know Them
I understand that much of contemporary society has accepted pre-marital sex as “normal” since it is so commonplace and since the supposed right to personal “sexual freedom” has become one of the ultimate reasons for living in America. I also realize that what I am saying about physical intimacy (even without full-fledged sexual intercourse) will sound so behind the times and morally antiquated that I’ve already lost much of my audience. But the issue here is not how popular my message or argument is but how true it is. More particularly, this discourse is for professing Christians who want to justify what they call “dating” when it involves the aforementioned forms of physicality.
But how can you get to know the person if you don’t spend quality and intimate time with them before marriage? Of course, I am talking about a serious relationship, which, by the way, should be the norm for any Christian because no relationship should be treated casually. After all, can you imagine Jesus Christ treating any person or relationship carelessly? Should we??? Especially concerning one of the most important types of relationships that forms the foundation of the family and society? Obviously, then, “casual dating” is off the table for sincere believers.
The answer to my question is straightforward – you don’t need to get physical with the other person to find out what he/she is like. If you can’t handle being around each other without touching because you are so attracted then you can use the phone or converse online. You can also find out about the person from social connections such as family members and friends. And if you don’t want to wait, then you can get married after securing a steady income with which to support your household/family to be. Conversely, if you are not ready to get married, you shouldn’t be getting physical.
Google Sites
Report abuse