Results 1 - 13 of 13
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | having sex if engaged biblical stance? | 1 Cor 6:16 | Superbabiez | 228069 | ||
My fiance and I have had sex before marriage and now I am reluctant to continue to do so. What is the biblical stance on repeating sex in this situation? I know 1 Corinthians 10:8 is just 1 of many examples which shows God is against fornication. I am just wondering if it makes any difference if the act is commited and repeated with the same person whom is my betrothed? I so want God to bless our union. Any clarification is greatly appreciated. |
||||||
2 | having sex if engaged biblical stance? | 1 Cor 6:16 | biblicalman | 228070 | ||
Well the truth is that in God's eyes you are now married. By making love you have been made one with your fiancee (1 Corinthians 6.16 clearly demonstrates this in much worse circumstances). And what God has joined together let no man put asunder (Mark 10.8-9). Sexual union is no light thing in God's eyes. To the Jews, and in Jesus' day betrothal was as binding as marriage. Only adultery could justify breaking a betrothal. Thus many betrothed couples did engage in sex. But while not totally condemned it was frowned on. You will notice that Joseph, Jesus' father, for example did not do so. But in the modern day engagement is not seen in that light, so that you are quite correct in surmising that you have done wrong, although marriage would right the wrong. I realise that you are confident that you will be married, but there are far too many broken engagements for it to be a certainty. On this basis i would suggest that you would be right to wait until marriage before continuing with sexulal relations. In this you will be truly honouring God. All best wishes for your future happiness. |
||||||
3 | having sex if engaged biblical stance? | 1 Cor 6:16 | Beja | 228071 | ||
Biblicalman, Though we are going on speculation and not clear verses, this passage seems imo to refute the notion that having sex means you are married in God's eyes. Joh 4:16 He *said to her, "Go, call your husband and come here." Joh 4:17 The woman answered and said, "I have no husband." Jesus *said to her, "You have correctly said, 'I have no husband'; Joh 4:18 for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; this you have said truly." Jesus clearly doesn't think her sleeping with the sixth man means they are married. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
4 | having sex if engaged biblical stance? | 1 Cor 6:16 | biblicalman | 228072 | ||
Beja. I would not call 1 Corinthians 6.16 speculation. It clearly teaches that sexual union makes us one with the person we have sex with. And that is marriage in God's eyes (Genesis 2.24; Mark 2.7-8) if we have not had sexual relations before. If we have tnen it still makes us one but in an adulterous relatonship. The principle is that sexual union makes us one with the person whom we have sexual union with. In the case of the first sexual union that is marriage (the two have been made one). A second sexual union is adultery. It is not marriage in God's eyes because the person had been made one with someone through the first sexual union May I suggest that your illustration misses the whole point In God's eyes (and in Jesus' eyes)she was married to the first man that she had had sexual union with. That being so Jesus would clearly not see her as married to the fifth or sixth man. Have you considered the fact that that was why He said that the man she was living with was not her husband (even if she was married to him, we do not know)? Man's misuse does not cancel the word of God. But we are not talking about a multiple adulterer who is at odds with God anyway. We are talking abut a pure girl who has had sexual union with a man she intends to marry. She can still have a husband in the eyes of God by marrying the man that she has had sexual relations with. If she marries anyone else she will be an adulterer. That is why if anyone in the Old Testament had sexual relations with an unmarried girl he was required to marry her and had no choice. As Jesus would have said concerning your illustration, 'from the beginning it was not so'. |
||||||
5 | having sex if engaged biblical stance? | 1 Cor 6:16 | Beja | 228073 | ||
Biblicalman, First, the passage that you are quoting does not say any of the things which you are saying. You are making inferences from the passage. Now those inferences could be correct or wrong, but the passage does not say them, they are inferences. Admitting as much is a matter of simply honesty, not debate. Second, you are making a lot of inferences from one statement. Third, your words do not agree with what Christ said. You said: "And that is marriage in God's eyes if we have not had sexual relations before. If we have tnen it still makes us one but in an adulterous relatonship." and "A second sexual union is adultery. It is not marriage in God's eyes because the person had been made one with someone through the first sexual union" Yet Jesus acknowledged 5 husbands as husbands. We do not have a clear explicit teaching but Scripture, and Jesus, do not appear to agree with your inferences which you are making from 1 Cor 6:16. I do not want to offend you as I have enjoyed and silently given my "amen" to many of your posts. However, I think you are off base on this one. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
6 | having sex if engaged biblical stance? | 1 Cor 6:16 | biblicalman | 228074 | ||
Beja, you are of course always entitled to disagree with me but i would claim that the Scripture is quite clear: 'perhaps you dont know that the man who joins his body to a prostitute becomes physically one with her'. to me that is quite clear the two have become one. and that is the essence of marriage as in Genesis 2.24. Jesus was not speaking in Biblical terms to the woman at the well, He was using common parlance. he was using the words as the woman understood them. you really cannot base your doctrine on what is said to a worldly woman. lol u wont offend me by disagreeing with me. you are welcome to do so. if what i say does not stand up then it deserves to be knocked down. thats what a forum is all about. i just happen to think that it does stand up. others must decide :-)) why do u think in the Old Testament that a man who had sexual relations with an unmarried woman was forced to marry her? it was for the reason i have stated. why was divorce permissible after adultery? for the same reason. the relationship of marriage had been broken by the sexual act best wishes |
||||||
7 | having sex if engaged biblical stance? | 1 Cor 6:16 | Beja | 228075 | ||
Biblicalman, Let me just focus on your questions to me rather than try to respond to everything you said. If you think I'm avoiding a key point you wish to make then just repeat it and draw my attention to it and I'll respond. I have no intention of avoiding your points, but giving due time where I think its needed. 1.) You said "Why do you think in the Old Testament that a man who had sexual relations with an unmarried woman was forced to marry her?" But look at what you are saying and what you have said. You yourself have just said that as a result of the sex he was forced to marry her, but previously you have been arguing that the act of sex actually did make them married in God's eyes! It can't be both. So I turn the question back to you. If the act of sex ment they were already married in God's eyes, why then were they forced to marry? 2.) You asked, "Why was divorce permissible after adultery? for the same reason. The relationship of marriage had been broken by the sexual act." I think this is completely wrong. Look at Matthew 19 with me. Mat 19:4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, Mat 19:5 and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'? Mat 19:6 "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." Mat 19:7 They *said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?" Mat 19:8 He *said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. Now this is going to be a string of exegesis so I beg readers to give their best effort to follow me. They ask Jesus, if God has indeed made the two one flesh then why did Moses permit divorce? Now where on earth did Moses discuss divorce? You will find nowhere that these Jews could be referrring to (correct me if I'm wrong) other than Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Now take a look at that passage. I'd paste it but I fear I'd run out of space. Here he never says anything about divorce directly but assumes it. He says that if a man takes a wife an he finds indecency in her (she's found to be sexually impure) and then if he does put her away and then if she marries again and then she is later single again, he is forbidden to remarry his ex-wife. So here it is. We have Moses implicitly allowing for divorce when a wife is unfaithful. This then is what is being discussed in Matthew 19, now back to that passage with this Old Testament context in mind. They ask Christ why Moses allowed divorce in the case of a sexually defiled wife. Christ's answer is key. He says that Moses allowed it due to the hardness of their heart, but from the beginning it wasn't that way. So lets consider that answer. First, Jesus makes the point that even when a wife was unfaithful, divorce was permitted then only due to the man's shortcomings. Second, divorce in the face of marital unfaithfulness was NOT the original model. So we see that divorce when a spouse is unfaithful is a undesirable, unnatural, allowance by the law because mankind's heart can so seldom love in spite of this great wrong. Now here is my question. If this is the case how on earth can anybody say that because of the adultery the marriage is inherently and already severed!? No, the plan of marriage in its ideal form is that the husband is faithful and united to the woman even in the face of such betrayal. The adultery does not break the marriage. But God, because of our inability to love rightly, allows us the choice to break the marriage in the face of such betrayal. So, God's original design for marriage is NOT marriage is over when adultery happens, but rather a constant union not matter what and that means no matter what. But the law later comes along and reluctantly adds the option to divorce when adultery happens due to the fact that our hard hearts often fall short of loving as it ought to. Sexual sin does not sever a marriage in and of itself. So I say again, scripture does not bear out what you are saying. I agree that "becomming one flesh" is at the essence of marriage, but that doesn't mean we can read into 1 Cor 16 everything you are saying. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
8 | having sex if engaged biblical stance? | 1 Cor 6:16 | biblicalman | 228078 | ||
Beja Marriage consists of two vital parts, the taking of oaths before God and the consummation of those oaths by sexual union. This is even recognised by churches which do not allow divorce. If the marriage is not consummated by sexual union they consider that it can then be annulled, whatever the oaths made, because Scripture teaches that sexual union is an essential part of marriage. Thus an unmarried pair having had sexual union should marry. That is the essence of what the Old Testament was teaching. Having consummated the marriage before it has taken place they are then bound in God's eyes to take oaths of loyalty before God. Their very sexual union has bound them to it. And this is because the sexual union has made them one person (Genesis 2.24). The two have become one (1 Corinthians 6.16). It was because of the hardness of men's hearts that God made allowance for man's weakness. BUT FROM THE BEGINNING IT WAS NOT SO (Matthew 19.8). Thus what you are describing as marriage is the lesser version which is not real marriage in accordance with God's purposes. It is lesser form of marriage, a sinful form of marriage, ssomething which falls short of true marriage. You may interpret Deuteronomy 24 as referring to unfaithfulness, but the Rabbis did not do so, and the Hebrew does not state it. It simple refers to some lack. That is why Jesus said that they allowed divorce 'for any cause'. However, Deuteronomy 24 does not permit divorce. It declares that if divorce has taken place and one party has remarried, the two can never again be married. Why not? Because that party has by sexual union become one with another. Thus for them to remarry is forbidden. So you are in fact wrong in saying that sexual union with another does not (in God's eyes)cancel marriage. It does. The fact that as a result of the innocent party forgiving there can be a renewal of that marriage by further sexual union does not mean that God did not see the marriage as broken. Jesus' teaching demonstrates that that is exactly how God saw it. That is why He stated that in that case divorce was permissible. The view of the Jews was that adultery ended marriage. That is why Joseph determined to put away Mary. Betrothal was a pre-marriage contract only breakable by adultery. So it was the same as marriage. No God's purpose was not that marriage should go on at all costs. God purposed that marriage be non-adulterous. It was man who messed things up. Anything following that was not God's purpose. It was thus not true marriage as God intended it to be. |
||||||
9 | having sex if engaged biblical stance? | 1 Cor 6:16 | Beja | 228083 | ||
Biblicalman, Since you have given no scripture to support any of your statements (with the exceptions of the original one in question) there is really nothing further to discuss. You have only restated what you have already said and failed to give any additional biblical support for it. All I can say is that this elaborate scheme is not stated in scripture. The scripture which I have brought forward you have dismissed with statements such as, "Thus what you are describing as marriage is the lesser version which is not real marriage.." How on earth does one respond to such a statment that has no basis in scripture? Between such dismissals of passages I bring forward and you providing no scriptural support for what you are saying, we are left to discuss our own imaginations which is pointless. All I can say in order to end on a positive note is that this is not a fellowship breaking issue and you have my sincere Christian affections. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
10 | having sex if engaged biblical stance? | 1 Cor 6:16 | biblicalman | 228087 | ||
Beja, If we are going to count Scriptures quoted you quoted two, I quoted four. So I suggest you read what i said again (u claim i only quoted one). I also cited an Old Testament fact about marriage which is in fact found in Deuteronomy 22.28-29. Possibly i should not have assumed that you would recognise the Scripture. I also explained why u were misinterpreting Deuteronomy 24. I do not think that you can honestly call what I said about that a 'dismissal'. Let others judge. Thus i guess I win 5-2 lol Best wishes |
||||||
11 | having sex if engaged biblical stance? | 1 Cor 6:16 | Beja | 228095 | ||
Biblicalman, I was referring to what had been your most recent post rather than the entire thread. Post ID# 228078. However, at your encouragement I did look back over the entire thread to see if I had been unfair and found that you gave nothing in the way of scriptures other than your set of "the two shall become one flesh" passages (Gen 2:24, 1 Cor 6:16, and Mark 10:8), which ofcourse the entire thread is questioning your interpretation of those passages. With regards to your dismissals, what I mean is your responses to my bringing up John 4 and Matthew 19. With regards to John 4 your response was that this was "worldly speaking" and that we can not take them seriously. This inspite of that we take the other things said to this woman by Christ quite seriously indeed. In Matthew 19 you simply said that he was talking about a lesser mode of marriage?? There is no sustaining a serious discussion when every passage that seems to reject what you are saying are so lightly dismissed without real discussion. I do not deny that you have a model with which you are explaining yourself. However, your entire arguement requires that we first before any exegesis to assume that all the things in scripture were said because of your prior framework. For example, you pointed out that they were forced to marry after sex. However, there is nothing whatsoever in that text that leads us to assume that the reason they were to marry is that sex formed a marriage bond. Your exegesis forces us to come to the passage already accpeting your framework in order for us to come to the conclusion you are coming to. However, the passage itself does not lend to that interpretation. Let's see it, and yes, I did recognize the reference. Deu 22:28 "If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, Deu 22:29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days. Now, your assumption is that they must marry because in God's eyes the sex formed the marriage. But the passage actually tells us the "why." It says, "because he has violated her." Now many interpreters see this to point to something quite different. The fact is that she is no longer a virgin, and her opportunity of being married has severly diminished. For this reason the man must fulfill the role of husband to her. And beyond this, if the reason was simply that the sex formed the marriage in God's eyes, then the inability to divorce her later should she be unfaithful has no explination. Now whether you disagree with that interpretation or not (I know you don't) the point is that NOTHING in the passage or exegesis is pushing you to your interpretation over this one except your already pre-attained conclusion before you come to the passage. And this is the only reason to read any of the passages the way you do. These are the types of things I was referring to, not simply a score of who has quoted more scripture. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
12 | having sex if engaged biblical stance? | 1 Cor 6:16 | biblicalman | 228111 | ||
Beja Unfortunately you have misunderstood what I said. I did not say it was 'worldly'. My point was that words mean different things in different contexts. For example someone might speak of homosexual marriages. They are using marriage in a modern sense as simply a personal contract between two people. If I were to use the word in that way I would not expect everyone to always assume that i meant that when i used the term marriage in other contexts. It would depend on the context. When Jesus was speaking to the woman about her spiritual condition he was using common parlance so that she would understand what He was talking about. What other words could He have used without getting over-complicated? But that fact cannot be used to declare what He would have said if He was asked to define God's view of marriage, and to say what an authentic husband would be like. If you cannot see that then there is little point in discussing with you. Meanwhile i also find your postings on this issue very short on Scripture, lol. Meanwhile I deny your claim that my thought forms are required before you can understand what 1 Cor 6.16 means. It is quite clear. It is that if you have sex wth someone you are made physically one with them. That is WHAT IT SAYS. It requires no thought form to understand that. And that should then affect your thought forms. Best wishes . |
||||||
13 | having sex if engaged biblical stance? | 1 Cor 6:16 | DocTrinsograce | 228114 | ||
Dear biblicalman, You wrote, concerning 1 Corinthians 6:16, "It is quite clear. It is that if you have sex wth someone you are made physically one with them. That is WHAT IT SAYS." (sic) I read through the thread again. Then I tracked back through the various Bible commentators to which I have access. I do not find any that draw your conclusion concerning the passage. John Calvin probably says it as simply as any of them: "For if he [Paul] quotes it [Genesis 2:24] to prove that two persons who commit fornication together become one flesh, he turns it aside from its true meaning to what is quite foreign to it. For Moses speaks there not of a base and prohibited cohabitation of a man and a woman, but of the marriage connection which God blesses. For he shows that that bond is so close and indissoluble, that it surpasses the relationship which subsists between a father and a son, which, assuredly, can have no reference to fornication." Even the commentators for which I have much less affection (e.g., Barnes, Clarke, Wesley, etc.) do not make your kind of causal connection. It looks to me like your advice was sound enough to Superbabiez -- although I might have encouraged them to marry sooner rather than later -- but the use of the 1 Corinthians passage is less than ideal. Still and all... a good discussion. In Him, Doc |
||||||