Is there a Christian position that s*x outside of marriage is NOT a sin?

[cathmom]

If so, what would it be? I am asking because of a conversation I had with my sister.

 

TIA!

[5kidsforME]

If so, what would it be? I am asking because of a conversation I had with my sister.

 

TIA!

 

No.

[Suzanne in ABQ]

If so, what would it be? I am asking because of a conversation I had with my sister.

 

TIA!

 

 

 

I wonder if it comes down to a person's definition of the word "fornication". What is that exactly? Or, more specifically, what is the meaning of the Greek word (porneo?) that is translated "fornication" in the KJ, and "sexual immorality" in the NIV. I looked it up in my lexical aides some time back (I'm definitely not a Greek scholar), and the word (porneo, I believe? Definitely "porn"-something), means the kind of sex that is bought and sold, or base, or pornographic in nature. I wish I could find my notes, but my dh is asleep in our room.

 

I came to the conclusion that at some point after the Bible was written, people added the tradition that stated that all sex outside of marriage is sin. I don't find it in the Bible, because the original language (as I understand it) doesn't say that.

 

Note that I'm not saying that EXTRA-marital sex is okay. I'm not talking about adultery. That is obviously, and explicitly, forbidden. I'm talking about pre-marital sex. I'm not convinced that what happens privately, between a man and woman, in a committed, monogamous, love relationship, is necessarily evil.

 

I usually keep these thoughts to myself, so I'm stepping out on a limb here. I'm really hoping that no one will come saw the limb off, sending me careening into the dirt. I'm only bringing it up in response to the OP's questions. Disagree (as I'm sure many will), but please be nice. :)

[Peek a Boo]

ONLY if you defined marriage as "state approved."

 

There are many Christians that do not recognize a state marriage and simply won't seek one: they have a private wedding/ceremony and consider themselves married in God's eyes. According to the state, that would be "$*x outside marriage."

 

right now, dh and i are legally divorced. According to the state, we're just shacking up. ;) But as far as God is concerned, we never ceased to be married ["what God has joined together, let no man put asunder"]. The legal divorce was a tool to address a specific issue [that has worked remarkably well].

 

But no --the Christian position holds that one must be married [committed for LIFE] to a spouse before $*x.

[Kathy in MD]

I remember a sermon that said extra-marital sex in the Old Testament was a sin against the husband, because he couldn't be sure that he was the father of his sons. And immortality at that time was believed to be a function of having biological sons. A man lived on through his sons. Daughters didn't count.

 

I think that pre-marital sex at that time was considered a sin against the woman's father, but I'm not real sure on that. It may have been more acceptable.

[cathmom]

Note that I'm not saying that EXTRA-marital sex is okay. I'm not talking about adultery. That is obviously, and explicitly, forbidden. I'm talking about pre-marital sex. I'm not convinced that what happens privately, between a man and woman, in a committed, monogamous, love relationship, is necessarily evil.

 

I usually keep these thoughts to myself, so I'm stepping out on a limb here. I'm really hoping that no one will come saw the limb off, sending me careening into the dirt. I'm only bringing it up in response to the OP's questions. Disagree (as I'm sure many will), but please be nice. :)

 

Thank you, Suzanne. I believe the part that I bolded was where my sister was coming from. She didn't mention anything about original Greek or anything like that - I don't think she has studied that.

 

Can I ask though, what would be considered "committed"? If a couple exclusively sees each other, there still is nothing preventing one of them from just deciding that they don't want to be committed anymore. I don't see how there's really a solid commitment without marriage (which, these days, isn't all that much of a commitment either sometimes).

[Suzanne in ABQ]

Thank you, Suzanne. I believe the part that I bolded was where my sister was coming from. She didn't mention anything about original Greek or anything like that - I don't think she has studied that.

 

Can I ask though, what would be considered "committed"? If a couple exclusively sees each other, there still is nothing preventing one of them from just deciding that they don't want to be committed anymore. I don't see how there's really a solid commitment without marriage (which, these days, isn't all that much of a commitment either sometimes).

 

 

Well, in my opinion, you answered your question (the part I bolded) yourself. There is really little in our culture that prevents a married person from walking out.

 

ETA: You mentioned that marriage isn't much of a commitment "sometimes". In actuality, the last I heard, this is true in the majority of marriages these days (is it still 52% of marriages that end in divorce?)

 

 

Interestingly, I've known several couples who lived together for years happily. It wasn't until they got married that one or the other decided to walk out. I'm not sure this is relevant, I just thought I'd throw it out there. :)

Edited July 7, 2009 by Suzanne in ABQ

[Rosie_0801]

Interestingly, I've known several couples who lived together for years happily. It wasn't until they got married that one or the other decided to walk out. I'm not sure this is relevant, I just thought I'd throw it out there. :)

 

I've known a few in this situation and their relationship was in trouble before they married. I'm not sure why they would marry after living together so long and having children, when they were unhappy with the relationship, but they did. Hard to see how anyone could think a ceremony is going to fix any problems, of course I'm not married so I can't view from that direction. I would be if someone had asked, but that someone didn't, lol.

 

Rosie

[Suzanne in ABQ]

I've known a few in this situation and their relationship was in trouble before they married. I'm not sure why they would marry after living together so long and having children, when they were unhappy with the relationship, but they did. Hard to see how anyone could think a ceremony is going to fix any problems, of course I'm not married so I can't view from that direction. I would be if someone had asked, but that someone didn't, lol.

 

Rosie

 

 

 

Yeah. I'm sure I shouldn't have said that the couples I mentioned were "happy" before getting married. I have no idea if their relationship was happy or not before they got married. I have a feeling that whatever it was that kept them from getting married in the first place reared it's head and put them over the edge after they were married. I have no facts to back that up, though; it's just a theory.

[Mrs Mungo]

I've known a few people who happily lived together and broke up soon after marrying. I think in those cases (not generalizing to the whole world or anything) the problem was that people don't necessarily have the same expectations from a girlfriend/boyfriend as they have from a husband/wife. I think that was unexpected.

[Peek a Boo]

Can I ask though, what would be considered "committed"? If a couple exclusively sees each other, there still is nothing preventing one of them from just deciding that they don't want to be committed anymore. I don't see how there's really a solid commitment without marriage (which, these days, isn't all that much of a commitment either sometimes).

 

i'll give it a try..... :)

 

Sex is a pretty powerful gift.

So strong, that the Bible consistently relates sex to marriage.

Especially in the OT.

 

Eph 5:31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.â€

 

1 Corinthians 6:16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.â€

 

whether it is for money w/ a prostitute or with your spouse, the "one flesh" rule of marriage in God's eyes immediately applies.

 

I corinthians 7 is sketchy: Paul admits that it is his own opinion, not "of Christ." But as with the OT, since it's included in Scripture, there is value in considering it to help us clarify context of other passages:

 

verse 1 clarifies that a man shouldn't even TOUCH a woman, but to remain unmarried.

BUT--

v.2 clarifies that to avoid fornication [even if only porneia as defined "bought and sold"] Christians are told to marry -not to just enjoy each other for free thru premarital sex ;).

 

and of course, he goes into even more debatable issues later in the chapter. but all those points about marriage assume a "one flesh" union that can be defined by sexual intercourse.

 

Rom.13:14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.

 

I'm not seeing how that could be a "go ahead" for sex outside the bounds of marriage.....

a blurb from http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_16.html

We are called not simply to maintain but also to develop Spirit-filled self-control. Jesus spoke of those who were eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake (Matt. 19:12). He spoke of self-control and self-denial for the sake of God's glory. And He declared that any man who would follow Him must practice self-denial (Matt. 16:24), just like the Master, whose supreme Self-denial brought about the salvation of sinners.

 

on the other hand, we must be careful to not assume that marriage RELIES ON sex. Can a man and woman be married in God's eyes and never have sex? Can they be "one flesh" without having sex? I believe that is stated pretty well as YES in Gen 2.

 

However, the opposite does not necessarily apply: Can a man and woman HAVE sex and NOT be seen as married? i don't think so, based on the explicitness of both OT and NT scripture wrt sexual unions and "one flesh."

 

So if a couple were to COMMIT to one another for life, they could consider themselves married in God's Eyes. Even if they don't commit, by having sex they would be considered "one flesh" in God's eyes, and therefore married.

 

that's probably clear as mud, eh? ;)

[Peek a Boo]

ETA: You mentioned that marriage isn't much of a commitment "sometimes". In actuality, the last I heard, this is true in the majority of marriages these days (is it still 52% of marriages that end in divorce?)

 

 

Interestingly, I've known several couples who lived together for years happily. It wasn't until they got married that one or the other decided to walk out. I'm not sure this is relevant, I just thought I'd throw it out there. :)

 

yeah, and then there are freaks like me and dh who do better in a marriage after getting divorced.......:001_huh: :confused: :lol:

[Rosie_0801]

I've known a few people who happily lived together and broke up soon after marrying. I think in those cases (not generalizing to the whole world or anything) the problem was that people don't necessarily have the same expectations from a girlfriend/boyfriend as they have from a husband/wife. I think that was unexpected.

 

 

I've heard that numerous times. I have no idea why there would be a difference between defacto and married, but everyone I've spoken to says there is. Ah well, I'm not going to find out by personal experience, and this a detour from the original question here...

 

Rosie

[Carrie12345]

The ELCA neither condones nor approves of premarital sex at the moment. Their official statements do detail the sins of exploitation and promiscuity, but there is no official position on, say, two stable, healthy people in love who are not married.

[Elizabeth Conley]

I'm not convinced that what happens privately, between a man and woman, in a committed, monogamous, love relationship, is necessarily evil.

 

 

This is the loving, common sense approach that most people hold "self evident". Not surprisingly, so does God.

 

Peekaboo patiently tracked down the relevant Bible verses:

 

Eph 5:31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”

 

1 Corinthians 6:16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”

 

whether it is for money w/ a prostitute or with your spouse, the "one flesh" rule of marriage in God's eyes immediately applies.

 

 

It's not the ceremony that makes people married, it's the act. For this reason, sex is a very powerful thing, and not to be engaged in lightly.

 

To be fair to those who place great importance on legal marriage, I do think there are good reasons for people to become legally/publicly married before becoming actually married. Here are a few:

1. It avoids the appearance of wrongdoing.

2. It provides broader social support for the marriage.

3. The couple demonstrates respect and appreciation for each other, their families and their community.

4. It signals the couple's willingness to perform the duties of a married couple beyond their private relationship.

 

Promiscuity causes a great deal of trouble. The two chief sources of trouble I have observed have been as follows:

 

1. Huge interpersonal drama: serial monogamy, infidelity, and good old fashioned promiscuity keep people in a constant state of emotional turmoil.

 

2. Overheated imaginations: communities with a huge disparity between stated values and actual behavior engage in never ending lewd speculation and slander. It's incredibly divisive. Further, they talk about sex more than they do it, so much depravity results.

[Tami]

In this day and age, you can find a "Christian" doctrinal position for anything. See 2 Timothy 4: 3-4

 

"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths."

 

The Bible affirms the boundaries for sexual expression over and over again from Genesis to Revelation. I would ask, "What is God's purpose for sexuality?" Is it for fleeting pleasure only? Is it merely for procreation? Or, is there an even higher purpose? Check out some of the info HERE if you are interested.

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

I agree with everything Peek has said. (which is usually the case)

 

Sex outside of marriage is not permissible for a Christian except when marriage is a state institution. My sister and brother-in-law have a common law marriage and they have been together exclusively for over 35 years. They call themselves Mr. and Mrs. D----, and are recognized as married by society.

 

In one of Paul's letters (I think Peek may have mentioned the scripture reference) he is speaking of a couple that is "betrothed" but not yet officially married. He says if they slip up before the ceremony they need to just go ahead and get married instead of waiting, and it will not be counted against them. That could be a slippery slope in today's society because there is really no equivalent to betrothed, which was marriage in practicality without the physical union. When someone was betrothed they could commit adultery because they were already legally bound to be committed to the marriage.

[Elizabeth Conley]

To be absolutely crystal clear:

 

sex outside of marriage presents a paradox, because sex is marriage.

[Tami]

To be absolutely crystal clear:

 

sex outside of marriage presents a paradox, because sex is marriage.

 

Are you saying that a rape victim is effectively married to her rapist? Just curious.

[Elizabeth Conley]

Nope, I'm saying that rape is wrong.

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

I agree that is God's intent. However, that definition is not possible on a human plane. It must also take place within a moral context. There are so many situations that a person may find themselves in, not of their own choosing, where that definition would demean the institution of marriage.

[Elizabeth Conley]

Chuckle!

 

Seriously! What God has told us and I am merely repeating, is that there is no such thing as "just sex".

 

If we go there carelessly, combatively, as a form of assault, promiscuously, as part of a deception, or in any other way that does not honor ourself, our partner, humanity and God, we're fouling up.

 

People foul up a lot. God's used to that, and forgives it pretty readily. Don't make a huge drama out of it. Just try not to foul up too frequently. Fouling up often has unpleasant consequences.

 

Trivializing sex doesn't make rape more reprehensible, but rather less. Granting sex the significance it deserves brings greater clarity to the magnitude of the evil inherent in rape.

[Tami]

Nope, I'm saying that rape is wrong.

 

You said that sex equals marriage, and so I was wondering how you felt about situations where sex is forced upon someone. I have read new articles about victims being forced to marry their rapists in the middle east, since some take the 'sex equals marriage' position.

 

I believe that marriage is a covenant, and that covenant involves an agreement by both parties (legal documents, vows), witnesses to the covenant (signed witnesses, wedding guests, etc), a sign of the covenant that both parties made (usually a ring) and that the covenant is culminated by celebrating with a covenant meal between the covenant partners and other celebrants (usually a wedding reception). This pattern of covenant begins in the book of Genesis and is carried through to the New Testament.

 

See Malachi 2 and notice that the wording is your wife by covenant. The word "covenant" is used 298 times in the Bible, and it typically means a compact, a testament. Covenant is an extremely serious and binding agreement, not entered into lightly.

 

Mal 2

 

13 And this is the second thing you do:

You cover the altar of the LORD with tears,

With weeping and crying;

So He does not regard the offering anymore,

Nor receive it with goodwill from your hands.

14 Yet you say, “For what reason?”

Because the LORD has been witness

Between you and the wife of your youth,

With whom you have dealt treacherously;

Yet she is your companion

And your wife by covenant.

 

 

Sorry if this is TMI, but I love hearing how others think and view things, so I hope you don't mind me sharing my thoughts as well.

Edited July 7, 2009 by Tami

[Marylou]

"This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church" Ephesians 5:32

 

1) I love the word "profound"

2) one hardly ever hears about marriage being a picture of this (see above)

3) John Piper has a new book, This Momentary Marriage which I can't wait to buy and read.

4) don't get hung up on the word "but"

 

ETA: Oops, I forgot to add 5) marriage is a Creation ordinance (just google it if you don't know what it means)

Edited July 7, 2009 by dmmosher

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

I also feel that there must a covenant side to marriage. Not necessarily with all the social trappings, but a covenant none the less.

[Tami]

I agree with you on most of your points, and was wondering what Scripture you could point me to that instructs us that marriage equals sex. TIA!

[KingM]

The Bible affirms the boundaries for sexual expression over and over again from Genesis to Revelation.

 

The Bible also tells us to stone adulterers and kill people who disrespect their parents. It teaches circumcision, teaches us not to fully harvest our crops (so the poor can glean the leftovers), to forgive debts every jubilee year, not to make fun of deaf people, and to treat our slaves well.

 

It's a book filled with the profound, the banal, and the bizarre. Pretty much everyone who reads it takes the stuff the like and discards that which they see as either immoral or no longer applicable.

 

Given the modern liberation of women and the ability to control birth outside of marriage, I see no reason to limit sex to married couples only.

[FO4UR]

This is an interesting thread.

 

I think somewhere "obeying the laws of the land" comes into play here too. Meaning, that unless a lawful marraige by the state is in someway contradictory to the Bible, that we should be legally married before consimating the marraige.

 

 

You said that sex equals marriage, and so I was wondering how you felt about situations where sex is forced upon someone. I have read new articles about victims being forced to marry their rapists in the middle east, since some take the 'sex equals marriage' position.

 

 

 

rape = theft

 

It's not that the victim is bound in marriage now, it's that the rapist STOLE from the victim and the victim's spouse (present or future).

 

There is a verse in the OT that speaks to this.....it basically says that if a man rapes a woman that he is responsible to take care of her (must marry her if she desires), but she has the right to refuse the marriage. HE would be bound by the act - SHE would NOT. I see how that would get twisted into modern day applications...

[Elizabeth Conley]

Tami,

 

Peakaboo did a good job of listing the applicable verses.

 

WRT the covenant issue, I'm not convinced that you cannot become married through a covenant alone. I'm not aware of any statements in the Bible that contradict this.

 

In other words, God's plan for sex places sex within marriage. If God had chosen a Venn diagram instead of Bible verses to convey this, we would see sex within marriage, rather than marriage within sex or marriage and sex overlapping.

 

There is a logical argument for the possibility that there are ways to enter into marriage other than sex. It is not prohibited, so it is permitted. If there is benefit, so much the better. Jesus said that marriage is a relationship only relevant to this life. Even this understanding does not prohibit people from entering into social contracts that are beneficial, and calling them what they will.

 

Blessings Tami. I've got some things to do today. As more people wake up, you'll find plenty of people to further discuss this matter with.

[Tami]

The Bible also tells us to stone adulterers and kill people who disrespect their parents.

 

No I would differ with you slightly, the Bible instructs the Jews in that time operating within the context of a Theocracy and within the Old Covenant. Different time, different nation and people, different covenant. It is instructive, not prescriptive. Also, there is no record of any parent ever following through with stoning their children, but I bet the threat kept the teens in line. :D

Edited July 7, 2009 by Tami

[KingM]

No I would differ with you slightly, the Bible instructs the Jews in that time operating within the context of a Theocracy and within the Old Covenant.

 

Yes, well all the teachings of the Bible are nearly 2,000 years old. Why don't we use the same logic and claim that this is a book that was meant only for people living in Judea and the Roman Empire within a certain historical and political context?

[Tami]

Yes, well all the teachings of the Bible are nearly 2,000 years old. Why don't we use the same logic and claim that this is a book that was meant only for people living in Judea and the Roman Empire within a certain historical and political context?

 

Do you seriously want an answer, or are you just looking to make your point? The OP was posting for a Christian perspective, and not so much a secular one, as far as I can decipher. When someone is looking for a secular answer, I normally take a pass as I am VERY biased! Maybe it is OK to mix it up a little more, but I don't want to be rude or inappropriate. I admit that I have been multi-tasking this morning and may have missed something. :tongue_smilie:

[Tami]

And grace and peace on your day, Elizabeth. :grouphug::):thumbup:

[Karen sn]

Were Adam and Eve married?

[Marylou]

The Bible also tells us to stone adulterers and kill people who disrespect their parents. It teaches circumcision, teaches us not to fully harvest our crops (so the poor can glean the leftovers), to forgive debts every jubilee year, not to make fun of deaf people, and to treat our slaves well.

 

It's a book filled with the profound, the banal, and the bizarre. Pretty much everyone who reads it takes the stuff the like and discards that which they see as either immoral or no longer applicable.

 

 

Do you seriously want an answer, or are you just looking to make your point? The OP was posting for a Christian perspective, and not so much a secular one, as far as I can decipher. When someone is looking for a secular answer, I normally take a pass as I am VERY biased! Maybe it is OK to mix it up a little more, but I don't want to be rude or inappropriate. I admit that I have been multi-tasking this morning and may have missed something. :tongue_smilie:

 

Don't worry about it, Tami. I think he just keeps it on his clipboard and pastes it into every thread he can!

I'm glad he reads these threads in the first place. Hope he goes to the links, too! Especially desiringgod.org.

Edited July 7, 2009 by dmmosher
more

[Tami]

Were Adam and Eve married?

 

Good question!

 

I think we are left to infer here, because Scripture doesn't tell us implicitly. Genesis is the book of beginnings, so at the very most, Adam and Eve were the beginning of the marriage relationship as we know it. Adam and Eve's situation is not repeatable, obviously, so as a Christian, I look the what is most clear and obvious in scripture, and work my way back to what is less clear and questionable. As the Bible progresses, topics become more and more clear as ideas and precepts build upon one another and as different Biblical accounts emphasize different concepts. As a Christian, I would first look at what the Word of God clearly states about marriage and such, and then work my way back to Adam and Eve, if I had time and inclination.

Edited July 7, 2009 by Tami

[Quad Shot Academy]

I have heard the argument that if you have already thought about it, you might as well do it because you are already guilty! :001_huh:

[Cheryl in NM]

A few perspectives:

 

I had a very religious friend who prided herself on still being a virgin when she got married. Of course, she had done every s*x act except "penetration". So, technically, she was a virgin, but I think in her heart she wasn't.

 

Dh and I lived together for almost 3 years before getting married. We fought something awful. I'm sure our friends wished we would break up. Mostly we fought because I was much more committed to our relationship that he was. Not that he was out fooling around. We were faithful to each other. It was more his attitude of solidarity. The minute we were married his attitude changed and it was about us, as a couple.

 

For the record, the only reason I started having s*x in highschool was because I thought everyone else was and that was the only way I'd keep a boyfriend. The only reason had s*x with dh the first time was to keep him. That's also why I lived with him. I wish I had been more secure in myself back then. Of course, that's another thread altoghether!

 

I am teaching ds to wait until marriage for s*x. He knows that it is a union between husband and wife and no others. I hope he follows what I've taught him, but I'm not about to disown him if he doesn't stay pure until marriage. My step-daughter has lived with boys since she was 16. No one could stop her. I still love her and think she's a good person, but I wish she would have waited. It's hard enough to be a teen/young adult without being so wrapped up in intense emotions and other people's perspectives of you.

[cathmom]

Thank you, everyone, for your thoughts.

 

I think Adam and Eve were married - they were already one flesh because God made Eve from Adam.

 

After reading the comments everyone posted, I think that it's more of a justification than a rational, thought-out position in my sister's case.

[Marylou]

A few perspectives:

 

I had a very religious friend who prided herself on still being a virgin when she got married. Of course, she had done every s*x act except "penetration". So, technically, she was a virgin, but I think in her heart she wasn't.

 

Dh and I lived together for almost 3 years before getting married. We fought something awful. I'm sure our friends wished we would break up. Mostly we fought because I was much more committed to our relationship that he was. Not that he was out fooling around. We were faithful to each other. It was more his attitude of solidarity. The minute we were married his attitude changed and it was about us, as a couple.

 

For the record, the only reason I started having s*x in highschool was because I thought everyone else was and that was the only way I'd keep a boyfriend. The only reason had s*x with dh the first time was to keep him. That's also why I lived with him. I wish I had been more secure in myself back then. Of course, that's another thread altoghether!

 

I am teaching ds to wait until marriage for s*x. He knows that it is a union between husband and wife and no others. I hope he follows what I've taught him, but I'm not about to disown him if he doesn't stay pure until marriage. My step-daughter has lived with boys since she was 16. No one could stop her. I still love her and think she's a good person, but I wish she would have waited. It's hard enough to be a teen/young adult without being so wrapped up in intense emotions and other people's perspectives of you.

 

Thank you for sharing your story!

[Tami]

Does that count for ice cream? Oh boy, could I use some justification right about now!:D

[emeraldjoy]

I will maintain that sometimes sex within marriage can also be wrong.

I think that any sex that objectifies the other is the problem and I think when Jesus spoke on the sermon on the mount about this, lusting after ANY woman is what he spoke. To further this viewpoint, I would like to add that if the sex act is completely void of objectification (completely) and is done how God created us(look at the physiology of our bodies) then I believe that it is okay, even if not under the tradional marriage heading because more than likely that type of union is stronger and more holy than a "marriage" as our culture defines it.

Does that make sense?

e

[Wyndie]

Does that count for ice cream? Oh boy, could I use some justification right about now!:D

 

 

:lol:

[KingM]

Don't worry about it, Tami. I think he just keeps it on his clipboard and pastes it into every thread he can!

I'm glad he reads these threads in the first place. Hope he goes to the links, too! Especially desiringgod.org.

 

Nah. :tongue_smilie:

 

But I do admit that when people say, "The Bible says this!" then my first reaction is to say, "Yes, but according to whom?"

 

If you get ten people reading the Bible you'll get ten different opinions about what it says. (Unless one of the ten is me, and then you'll get eleven. ;) )

[Joanne]

I think this is another area in which a "paper" marriage is over emphasized.

 

The presence or absence of paper has little relationship to the quality of intimate relationship.

 

I've noticed many Christians put a heavy importance on the legal definition of marriage. But that's not *marriage*. Biblical marriage comes with relational guidelines, interaction guidelines, and instructions on how to love, honor and respect. Without adhering to those, Biblical marriage is not present - regardless of having spoken words in front of God, friends, family or having signed a piece of paper.

 

I, at 40, had sex with my now husband before our public marriage. According to some readers, I was already (still) married to my ex so I was not only having sex outside of marriage but in adultery.

 

I do not feel I acted outside of God's designs for me. Of course, I don't feel my first 14 year long marriage with certificate and performed by a (male) Pastor was ever a marriage by Biblical standards.

[OnTheBrink]

I think this is another area in which a "paper" marriage is over emphasized.

 

The presence or absence of paper has little relationship to the quality of intimate relationship.

 

I've noticed many Christians put a heavy importance on the legal definition of marriage. But that's not *marriage*. Biblical marriage comes with relational guidelines, interaction guidelines, and instructions on how to love, honor and respect. Without adhering to those, Biblical marriage is not present - regardless of having spoken words in front of God, friends, family or having signed a piece of paper.

 

I, at 40, had sex with my now husband before our public marriage. According to some readers, I was already (still) married to my ex so I was not only having sex outside of marriage but in adultery.

 

I do not feel I acted outside of God's designs for me. Of course, I don't feel my first 14 year long marriage with certificate and performed by a (male) Pastor was ever a marriage by Biblical standards.

 

Why is the gender of the pastor who married you to your first husband even relevant?

[KingM]

Why is the gender of the pastor who married you to your first husband even relevant?

 

I'm guessing that what she's saying is that the marriage would appear to meet the most stringent requirements of a "Christian marriage," including a pastor of the correct gender (again, the strictest requirement) and yet it was still missing something.

[HRAAB]

I've long been interested in how marriage has developed into what it is today. In the early church I'm assuming that new Christians continued on with the Jewish ceremony? I wonder how it developed. In the Catholic church the bride and groom marry each other and confer the Sacrament of Matrimony themselves; the priest or deacon is only a witness. I read one time that the marriage ceremony didn't become 'codified' (can't think of the right word) until around the Council of Trent? I've no idea if that is accurate or not. But it has led to me wonder if couples were always married in a church with a priest/minister or if that developed more slowly.

 

Janet

[KingM]

I've long been interested in how marriage has developed into what it is today. In the early church I'm assuming that new Christians continued on with the Jewish ceremony? I wonder how it developed. In the Catholic church the bride and groom marry each other and confer the Sacrament of Matrimony themselves; the priest or deacon is only a witness. I read one time that the marriage ceremony didn't become 'codified' (can't think of the right word) until around the Council of Trent? I've no idea if that is accurate or not. But it has led to me wonder if couples were always married in a church with a priest/minister or if that developed more slowly.

 

Janet

 

That's an interesting question. I do know that during much of the Middle Ages, it wasn't considered a sin for a betrothed couple to have sex, so long as the intention was marriage. I believe that I read a study that indicated that 50% of the women in 16th Century England were pregnant at the time of their actual church marriage. The date of conception wasn't important, so long as the child was born to a married couple.

 

I believe that a lot of our "save sex until marriage" attitude dates from the 19th Century, when a renewed push toward purity took place. Since the 1950s, society has been pushing hard--perhaps too hard--in the opposite direction.

[Peek a Boo]

I think Adam and Eve were married - they were already one flesh because God made Eve from Adam.

 

After reading the comments everyone posted, I think that it's more of a justification than a rational, thought-out position in my sister's case.

 

I think you're right on both counts :)