|
|
Post by Admin on May 26, 2016 12:03:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 26, 2016 12:03:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 26, 2016 12:04:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 26, 2016 12:04:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 26, 2016 12:04:36 GMT -5
Unscriptural customs and practices. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 26, 2016 12:07:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 26, 2016 12:09:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 26, 2016 12:09:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 13, 2017 7:16:11 GMT -5
"[T]he more that people disregard the moral and spiritual boundaries established by God,
the more society as a whole suffers" - w12 7/15 p. 24 par 2 |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 13, 2017 7:16:32 GMT -5
Xx
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 13, 2017 7:16:47 GMT -5
Biblically FORNICATION [Gr Pornia] it means "unlawful" or "illicit"/illegal sex. The only law referenced in scripture are the Mosaic law Under which sex OUTSIDE of marriage always carried a penelty ie was illegal. Christian law, which reflected some of the limits of the Mosaic law therefore carries the same meaning in the word "fornication": so basically sex that is outside of legal marriage. According to Timothy George (Galatians: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy p. 392), by the mid-first century CE, PORNEIA came to mean "sexual immorality or irregularity" Further reading fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.fr/2015/10/porneia-brief-diachronic-and-synchronic.htmlfosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.fr/2015/10/porneia-brief-diachronic-and-synchronic.htmlAre Christians infering a meaning onto "fornication" that was never part of its original meaning?Not at all. The English word " fornication" (translated from the Greek word "porneia"; Hebrew "zenah") has such a broad meaning it can encompass the all aspects of sexual misconduct including "sex before marriage". Porneia/zenah, have meant different things contextually over the centuries as they basically cover all illicit, illegal unlawful or lude sexual behaviour (Note: the same word "zenah" is also used for spirutal "disloyalty" (idolatry) in scripture). When it came to Hebrew laws governing sexual misconduct, the Mosaic law favored describing specific sexual behaviour rather than use such a broad term. Thus we will read "You must not rape a Virgin" or "You must not have sex with a close relative" or "you must not have intercourse with an animal" (all of which where considered lude or illegal sexual misconduct) rather than "you must not commit fornication". Why, then is there no law that explicity states "You must not have sex before marriage"? Because within the historical, cultural and social context that the Mosaic law was given, all aspects of the sexual behaviour had already been covered by specific laws (see above). If you are going to have sex you are going to do so as a single person or as a married person. An individual is going to have sex with either a single or married person, male or female (or with an animal) and that for money (prostition) or for religious reasons (idolatry/temple prostitution). If two single people chose to have "consensual" sex outside marriage they could do so, but that fact that it was considered as "illicit" (the basic meaning of the word "fornication") is seen by what the legal consequences would be if such behaviour came to light. For the man who had sex with a virgin, there would be a sanction (he would have to marry her or pay her father a fine). If the girl kept the incident quiet and later married another man (as a non-virgin) then she risked being executed. If she made it public, although there would be no legal consequences, she would have more or less destroyed her marriage prospects (which represented her sustanance) and would open herself up to accusations of prostitution (which carried the death penalty). If she fell pregnant, her child would have no inheritance (generally passed down through the male relatives) and again exposed her to accusations of prostitution. Similar socio-economic constraints effected the widow or a divorced woman and rendered "sex outside of marriage" highly disadvantageous for them. Since most men that would want to have sex, would want to do so with a woman, if a woman refused, he would be left with the option of rape (which carried the death penalty and is repulsive to most normal men), hiring the services of a prostitute (Prostitution was illgal under the mosaic law) or sex with a temple prosititute/idolatury (ditto). CONCLUSION: Most people that highlight the absence of a specific law that states "You must not have sex outside of marriage" are doing so because they are not aware of the scope of the original words in the bible text and/or are looking at the subject through the lense of 21st century "morals" where such behaviour is common. The specific laws in the Hebrew bible for the most part, cover "sex outside of marriage" rendering the need for a law "You must not fornicate" or "You must not have sex outside of marriage" redundant. By the Christian era did "porneia" not simply mean "prostitution" or "homosexual intercourse"? No. Although it may have orginally had its roots as such (the pagan temples was were ordinary citizens at the time primarily went to engage in such conduct) by the mid-first century the word had taken on a much broader sense and covered all kinds of sexual misconduct/perversions and was able to reflect the scope of its equivalent in the Hebrew text. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 13, 2017 7:17:56 GMT -5
Does that fact that there was no specific law prohibiting engaged people from having sex in bible times mean that God sanctions single people having sex before they are wed, if they are committed to each other?
While it is true that by Jesus time, the engagement contract required a certificate of divorce to be annulled and an engagement was viewed as the beginning of the marriage contract, it is also true that unenforcable laws are laws that have no use or purpose. Since it would only be possible to prove a woman had had sex before her marriage and that only if she fell pregnant or her husband suspected her of unfaithfulness, and made those suspisions public there would be little purpose served in having a law that stipulated engaged couples should wait until marriage.
Further more those that wish to sanction extra marital sex do well to also note that when choosing a mother for Jesus, God chose an engaged woman that was still a virgin. It would not be unreasonable then to take that as the "gold standard" and a ^proper reflection of God's view of couples having sex before they are legally married.
It should also be noted that the Mosaic laws said nothing of "legally binding" engagments so the whole arrangement was basically manmade tradition and hardly one that can be used to imply God's approval. Remember, when Jesus referred to God's original standard he referred not to an engaged couple but God binding a man with his WIFE (not his fiance) thus it is evident that the scriptures do indicate that the privileges of marital intimacy should commence when God "yokes" the two together in marriage, not when manmade traditions provide a loophole to.
CONCLUSION: Not only are engagements today not legally binding but a study of scripure indicate that although God has tolerated certain behaviours, Christians today cannot use this to promote loose morals and degraded sexual practices such as sex before marriage. The Christian bible is clear, those that wish to please God must "flee from fornication" and this includes having sex before one is legally married.
Does a man make a woman his wife by having sex with her? Is a couple's first sexual intimacy the moment a woman goes from being single to becoming "a wife" rather than at some ceremony or public ritual? There are those that claim so, thus rendering it impossible for single committed individuals to commit fornication with each other, but this is far from the bible's view.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 13, 2017 7:18:10 GMT -5
WEDDING CEREMONIES IN THE BIBLE
Interestingly Genesis, when speaking of the first couple says that God "he brought her [Eve] to the man". We note here that Eve was not left to be discovered by Adam or that Adam found Eve, had sexual intercourse with her and then inform her father [Jehovah] the were forthwith married. Genesis has God (her Father) bringing her her to the man. This action of a Father presenting his daughter in the sight of witnesses (in the Edenic case before the host of Angels observing from the heavens) could be regarded as the first wedding since following that event and prior to their expulsion from Eden and the conception and birth of any children, Eve is referred to as Adams "wife" (see Genesis 2:24). Thus Jesus, thousands of years later did not imply that a man and a woman yoke THEMSELVES together by making a committment and then having sex but rather that is it God that "yokes' them together by blessing their union before they enjoy the privilèges of marital intimacy.
Did public wedding ceremonies exist in bible times?
Yes. While the early Hebrews had no legal or religious ceremony it is ill informed to believe there was no ritual by which the community acknowleged the changed status of the couple. The groom would go to the home of his betrothed and publicly escort her to his home and this with the permissiion of the parents in view of close relatives and onlookers. Usually the bride and groom were attired in fine garments, and at his home they would have a wedding feast with invited guests.—Genesis 24:65-67; Matthew 1:24; 25:1-10; compare 1 Maccabees 9:37, 39
*Interestingly Malachi spoke of a marriage "covenant" for that is a contract or formal agreement
Sex before or after the wedding?
We note that it was following a similar ritual that a vieled Leah was presented to Jacob instead of his beloved Rachel. What is interesting in this account is that Jacob evidently did not have sex with Rachel before there was some kind of wedding feast even though they were betrothed and were fully committed to each other. Such a thing would have been considered "fornication" (lude and and improper sexual behaviour). This is further born out by what happened to Jacob's daughter Dinah. When her brothers found out the young man Shemech, who was obviously committed to her and in love (and have every intention of marrying her) had had taken her virginity with her, they didn't say "Oh well that means he's taken her as wife" rather viewed their interccourse as an indecent sexual act and likened the sex outside any marriage contract as "taking her as a prostitute". Indeed after they had had sex Shechem begged his father to get her for him as a wife, he didn't say "we've had sex so now she IS my wife" (see Genesis 34). In short all parties concerned recognized that having sex with a wililng virgin (willing or not) does not make her your "wife".
Legal documentation
The Bible’s detailed genealogies suggest that marriages were recorded in some way, and papyruses of the fifth century B.C.E. from a Jewish colony at Elephantine (Egypt) contain marriage contracts, one reading: ‘ . . . I have come to your house that you might give me your daughter Miphtahiah in marriage. She is my wife and I am her husband from this day for ever. I have given you as the bride-price of your daughter Miphtahiah (a sum of) 5 shekels’" {end quote} Indeed the very notion of a bride-price becomes redundant if a man was legally married just by having intercourse with a woman in a private moment of intimacy. Samson asked (regarding the woman from Timna) that his father : “Get her for me, because she is the right one for me.” Obviously it was not a case of convincing the girl he (Samson) was committed and then taking her sexually so they were "married". Clearly Samson was requesting his father negotiate with the girls father before he had sex with her.
Weddings in Jesus' day
Jesus in three illustrations referred to weddings (Matthew 22:2-14; 25:1-13; Luke 14:7-11)and of course himself atteneded at least one marriage feast in Cana where he famously turned water into wine. Are we to presume Jesus was celebrating a man and a woman having sexual intercourse (wedding themselves) or rather the traditional presenting of a Virgin bride to her groom by her father or male guardian? Indeed Paul alludes to this ritual of presenting a bride to her betrothed by a third party, writing The metaphor becomes nonsensical if brides were traditionally presented to their betrothed as non-virgins because they had already had sex. The whole point of the metaphor is that a girl would be considered "unclean" if she were a non-Virgin at the moment of her being a bride. And the moment of being presented as a bride was evidently not when she accepted her betrothed into her bed but when she was presented as a Virgin by her guardian.
CONCLUSION: In the bible neither the early patriarchs nor God's people Under God's law viewed the act of sexual intercourse as binding a man and woman in matrimony ("making a Virgin ones wife"). Rather sex before a wedding ceremony of some description was viewed as an indecent act comparable to prostitution. All proven sex outside marriage was sanctionable by law even whether the sex was between conscenting committed virgins or not. While the scriptures don't outline a specific ceremony or ritual, the Jews in bible times most certainly observed some and Jesus by attending a first century wedding feast, indicated that there was absolutely nothing wrong with them.
Those that think sex is making someone one's wife or that it is impossible for a man to commit adultery or fornication are doing so by ignoring both explicit and implicit scriptural statements. And any so-called "believers" do so, often do so because they themselves are living immoral lives and are ignoring the bibles clear mandate that "Let marriage be held in honor among all, and ... the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous." Heb 13:4
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 13, 2017 7:19:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 13, 2017 7:23:47 GMT -5
|
|
