1 Corinthians 7:36 Sex before marriage okay, so long as you marry?

[Moonrise Lu]

I have a friend who told me a while ago that she believes it is not a sin to have sex before marriage, so long as you marry the person in the future.

My reaction was of course, "No way! Everything about sex outside of marriage in the bible clearly says it's not okay! Sex is only good inside of marriage." My friend used this verse to support her view.

1 Corinthians 7:36 NIV
"If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if his passions are too strong and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married"

She reads this verse more like this : "If anyone is worried they might be going too far with the person they are engaged to, if his passions are too strong and knows they will marry, they should do any physical thing they want. They are not sinning. They can do it as long as they marry."

But from the context, Paul is telling people not to get married AT ALL, he thinks it's better for serving the Lord (being single you can go/do what you want for God, don't have responsibility to family holding you back, etc) so when he says "He is not sinning. They should get married" I feel he is just again reassuring people that they should get married if they have those desires, as he wouldn't want people committing fornication/adultery/sexual sins. He thinks singleness is preferable, but he wants to reassure that marriage is good in God's eyes and people who have sexual desires should marry.

My friend did say she isn't saying you can have sex on your first date, as long as you end up marrying them whenever. She said specifically that if someone had sex the night before their wedding, she doesn't see it as a sin in God's eyes.

But I still believe that goes against what God says in the bible. Premarital sex is considered fornication, isn't it? God's word clearly says do not commit adultery or fornication. My friend also asked a pastor we know about it, and he apparently said that he agrees with her and there is some debate among christian scholars or whoever about it. But I cant find anything about it online. And this is the first I've ever heard someone saying they think it's biblically okay to have sex outside of marriage.

Can someone give some insight into this topic? Are there others out there who have the same view as my friend? (that premarital sex is sometimes okay, such as the night before your wedding?) If so, please provide scripture to support your view.

 

[Radagast]

The ESV has perhaps a better translation:

"If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly towards his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry—it is no sin. But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well. So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better." (verses 36-38)

It's pretty clear from the passage as a whole that Paul is endorsing marriage, not sex before marriage.

 

[football5680]

The Bible condemns fornication so it doesn't matter whether you will marry them in the future. Fornication is sex outside marriage and until you are married you would be committing a sin.

Saint Paul is endorsing marriage here and saying if you are engaged to a woman you should marry her if you don't think you could continue to resist the urge to commit fornication.

This has been the Majority view for 2000 years and going against something which all generations of Christians accepted is simply twisting the scriptures to suit your own desires.

 

[Mister_Al]

Any sexual act before becoming one flesh (marriage) is fornication (sin).



Alan

 

[hedrick]

1 Cor 7:36 has an amazing variety of interpretations. Most modern translations have something like “fiancé.”

Many ancient commentators actually thought it referred to parents, so that Paul is instructing parents to judge whether their daughter is able to resist having sex or whether she should get married.

Another common view is that Paul was speaking of “spiritual marriages,” where couples would live together but vow not to have sex. I believe there's evidence that there was such a custom in the early Church.

The most common modern view is that it is referring to engaged couples.

But whatever specific type of couple it refers to, I don’t think this passage intends to give sexual license to couples before marriage. Quite the contrary. I would say Paul is assuming that they are not having sex before marriage, and that he recommends marriage if they find that they are unable to resist having sex. Paul isn't specifically teaching that premarital intercourse is wrong. He doesn't have to. It's obvious to him that the people he's writing to won't do it.

"Do as he wants" means get married. NRSV translates "let him marry as he wishes."

(I note that these alternatives are based on Thiselton's commentary, and even then I'm giving only the most likely of a larger number of alternatives that he lists.)

 

[Targaryen]

1 Cor 7:36 has an amazing variety of interpretations. Most modern translations have something like “fiancé.”

Many ancient commentators actually thought it referred to parents, so that Paul is instructing parents to judge whether their daughter is able to resist having sex or whether she should get married.

Another common view is that Paul was speaking of “spiritual marriages,” where couples would live together but vow not to have sex. I believe there's evidence that there was such a custom in the early Church.

The most common modern view is that it is referring to engaged couples.

But whatever specific type of couple it refers to, I don’t think this passage intends to give sexual license to couples before marriage. Quite the contrary. I would say Paul is assuming that they are not having sex before marriage, and that he recommends marriage if they find that they are unable to resist having sex. Paul isn't specifically teaching that premarital intercourse is wrong. He doesn't have to. It's obvious to him that the people he's writing to won't do it.

"Do as he wants" means get married. NRSV translates "let him marry as he wishes."

(I note that these alternatives are based on Thiselton's commentary, and even then I'm giving only the most likely of a larger number of alternatives that he lists.)

 

[RDKirk]

The ESV has perhaps a better translation:

"If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly towards his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry—it is no sin. But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well. So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better." (verses 36-38)

It's pretty clear from the passage as a whole that Paul is endorsing marriage, not sex before marriage.

In that time among both Jews and Graeco-Romans, a "betrothal" was arranged by parents and might occur well before--even years--the couple comes together sexually and begins having children. While betrothed, the woman, especially, was still living with her parents and the man probably was as well. Most young unmarried people in those societies were not "out on their own."

Also, for the ancients, the particular term "to marry" (en matrimoniam ducere in the Latin, literally "to lead into motherhood") specifically meant sexual activity leading to motherhood for the woman. If a couple was not yet sexually active, they were not yet married and not yet heading for children, only betrothed (although the betrothal was a pretty sticky thing in itself).

Some scholars believe this verse was aimed at the father of a daughter in a betrothal arrangement, some believe it is aimed at the prospective husband of a betrothal arrangement. Either way, it's about a betrothed couple that had not yet come together sexually, so they were not yet "married" and were thus abstaining from children.

Remembering that Paul has a strong idea that Christians should remain free of most worldly entanglements--and probably related that to the churches he planted--there is also a thought that many betrothed couples were abstaining from coming together as married couples and having children because of Paul's teaching.

As Paul did with regard to the basic marriage itself, Paul is letting them know that despite his own attitude, the attachments of marriage and family are not wrong but fully accceptable to the Lord.

This is not "sex before marriage." A betrothed couple that engaged in sex became married by that act, and the lifetime bonds of Christian marriage then applied.

 

[bcbsr]

So basically you're asking whether it is sin to have sex with someone who is not your spouse. I assume "well duh!?" is not a sufficient answer. But what else could be meant by fornication? (rhetorical question). And what if the other person decides not to go through with the marriage. Is the sinfulness of the act contingent upon whether or not some future even occurs? That's not how sin works. The act is either sin or not sin, regardless of some uncertain future event taking place. Right?

 

[Mark51]

I agree! Any sexual conduct outside the marriage arrangement is fornication and therefore a sin against God. Even fantasizing is considered fornication.-Matthew 5:28. This acceptance is born of the "world" and the world is not part of God's kingdom. It, therefore, take endurance, prayer and Bible knowledge to fight such strong temptations. See Ephesians 6:14-17. Althought Christians live in the "world"; nevertheless, we do not have to be "part" of it.

Suggest these scriptures about fornication to your friend: 1 Corinthians 6:13, 18; 10:8; Galatians 5:19-21; Ephesians 5:3; Colossi ans 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 3:5.

 

[Amatorreginae]

It's a huge mistake to give oneself sexually to another in the belief that marriage will follow. How can anyone know? And is a girl to throw her virginity away on someone who doesn't deserve her? If a man is honourable, he will wait until he can marry her; if he is impatient, then he is not. A woman needs a man who deserves her and is not merely out for 'a good time'. A man needs to show her that he is worthy of her. Let him wait.

 

[DamianWarS]

I have a friend who told me a while ago that she believes it is not a sin to have sex before marriage, so long as you marry the person in the future.

My reaction was of course, "No way! Everything about sex outside of marriage in the bible clearly says it's not okay! Sex is only good inside of marriage." My friend used this verse to support her view.

1 Corinthians 7:36 NIV
"If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if his passions are too strong and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married"

She reads this verse more like this : "If anyone is worried they might be going too far with the person they are engaged to, if his passions are too strong and knows they will marry, they should do any physical thing they want. They are not sinning. They can do it as long as they marry."

But from the context, Paul is telling people not to get married AT ALL, he thinks it's better for serving the Lord (being single you can go/do what you want for God, don't have responsibility to family holding you back, etc) so when he says "He is not sinning. They should get married" I feel he is just again reassuring people that they should get married if they have those desires, as he wouldn't want people committing fornication/adultery/sexual sins. He thinks singleness is preferable, but he wants to reassure that marriage is good in God's eyes and people who have sexual desires should marry.

My friend did say she isn't saying you can have sex on your first date, as long as you end up marrying them whenever. She said specifically that if someone had sex the night before their wedding, she doesn't see it as a sin in God's eyes.

But I still believe that goes against what God says in the bible. Premarital sex is considered fornication, isn't it? God's word clearly says do not commit adultery or fornication. My friend also asked a pastor we know about it, and he apparently said that he agrees with her and there is some debate among christian scholars or whoever about it. But I cant find anything about it online. And this is the first I've ever heard someone saying they think it's biblically okay to have sex outside of marriage.

Can someone give some insight into this topic? Are there others out there who have the same view as my friend? (that premarital sex is sometimes okay, such as the night before your wedding?) If so, please provide scripture to support your view.

I think it is irresponsible to consider sex before marriage as something the bible allows but I also think western culture places unrealistic demands on what "marriage" means. First of all God defines marriage not the law or a ceremony so I do believe there could be circumstances where a couple may engage in sex before their wedding yet still be consider married in God's eyes.

Sexual development really starts to emerge in our preteens yet our culture tells us it wrong to get married at 14/15 and we must finish school first and pick a career before we can be deemed ready to marry. Realistically this rite of passage can put some in their mid to late twenties which is a lot to ask of horny teenagers. But western culture also doesn't prepare teens to be responsible enough to get married in their teens so it is sort of a catch-22 and in the end teens are expected to figure it out and wait to have sex when their bodies are very much telling them something different.

I think as Christians parents we should not discourage young marriage and focus on greater responsibility for our youth. We still need to be responsible to the demands of our culture so 15 may be too young still but perhaps 20 a little more reasonable. Early on we should prepare a couple and both set of parents work together to prepare them for marriage. If they have no money or jobs, maybe even still in school, then still support them as you would if they were single. Bless the relationship and let a young couple express their love the way God designed rather then say your too young.

 

[RDKirk]

I think it is irresponsible to consider sex before marriage as something the bible allows but I also think western culture places unrealistic demands on what "marriage" means. First of all God defines marriage not the law or a ceremony so I do believe there could be circumstances where a couple may engage in sex before their wedding yet still be consider married in God's eyes.

Sexual development really starts to emerge in our preteens yet our culture tells us it wrong to get married at 14/15 and we must finish school first and pick a career before we can be deemed ready to marry. Realistically this rite of passage can put some in their mid to late twenties which is a lot to ask of horny teenagers. But western culture also doesn't prepare teens to be responsible enough to get married in their teens so it is sort of a catch-22 and in the end teens are expected to figure it out and wait to have sex when their bodies are very much telling them something different.

I think as Christians parents we should not discourage young marriage and focus on greater responsibility for our youth. We still need to be responsible to the demands of our culture so 15 may be too young still but perhaps 20 a little more reasonable. Early on we should prepare a couple and both set of parents work together to prepare them for marriage. If they have no money or jobs, maybe even still in school, then still support them as you would if they were single. Bless the relationship and let a young couple express their love the way God designed rather then say your too young.

I agree with what you have said.

Sexuality is very conflicted in American society, and Christians in the West (particularly Christians in America) are confused in our outlook on sexuality.

American culture (which, btw, is not the culture of citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven) seeks to sexualize children as early as possible. I remember when my own daughter was only five years old, adults would chide her, "Do you have a boyfriend yet? Who is your boyfriend?" My wife would quickly and firmly put a halt on that--a little girl does not need to be given the idea that she ought to have a boyfriend. But that is an expectation inculcated into children in America at the earliest possible age. And Christians in America have completely bought into that idea, that our children should be experimenting with sexuality as early as possible (we may say otherwise...but it was a Christian who queried my 5-year-old daughter about having a boyfriend).

Yet, even though urging sexuality upon children at an early age, we push back on marriage. A few years ago, "Christianity Today" had an article about how Christians in America didn't really believe in marriage--and said a lot of what you said.

American culture demands later marriage solely for the sake of making more money, no other reason. "Get yourself set up, first. Finish college, get a job...then think about marriage." So in American culture, sex comes early and marriage comes much later...if at all.

Christians are caught in conflict. We have bought in to the early sex concept--whether verbalizing it or not, we fully participate in the sexualization of our children. We expose our children to the sexualized toys, the sexualized television, the sexualized movies, the sexualized clothing. We expect them, even encourage them to engage in emotional, sexually charged relationships early and frequently throughout childhood...
...and then expect them not to have sex until well into adulthood. Christians in America expect our children to play around with sex for a decade or more...without actually practicing it.

But it's not that way in many other places. In many cultures, there is not this cultural early sexualization of children. Children are not expected to engage in sexually charged relationships prior to marriage, and when they do marry--often early--their parents do continue to support them.

This is not an unusual thing, this is how it is for most Christians in the world even today, and the way it was for Christians in the 1st century.

 

[DamianWarS]

I agree with what you have said.

Sexuality is very conflicted in American society, and Christians in the West (particularly Christians in America) are confused in our outlook on sexuality.

American culture (which, btw, is not the culture of citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven) seeks to sexualize children as early as possible. I remember when my own daughter was only five years old, adults would chide her, "Do you have a boyfriend yet? Who is your boyfriend?" My wife would quickly and firmly put a halt on that--a little girl does not need to be given the idea that she ought to have a boyfriend. But that is an expectation inculcated into children in America at the earliest possible age. And Christians in America have completely bought into that idea, that our children should be experimenting with sexuality as early as possible (we may say otherwise...but it was a Christian who queried my 5-year-old daughter about having a boyfriend).

Yet, even though urging sexuality upon children at an early age, we push back on marriage. A few years ago, "Christianity Today" had an article about how Christians in America didn't really believe in marriage--and said a lot of what you said.

American culture demands later marriage solely for the sake of making more money, no other reason. "Get yourself set up, first. Finish college, get a job...then think about marriage." So in American culture, sex comes early and marriage comes much later...if at all.

Christians are caught in conflict. We have bought in to the early sex concept--whether verbalizing it or not, we fully participate in the sexualization of our children. We expose our children to the sexualized toys, the sexualized television, the sexualized movies, the sexualized clothing. We expect them, even encourage them to engage in emotional, sexually charged relationships early and frequently throughout childhood...
...and then expect them not to have sex until well into adulthood. Christians in America expect our children to play around with sex for a decade or more...without actually practicing it.

But it's not that way in many other places. In many cultures, there is not this cultural early sexualization of children. Children are not expected to engage in sexually charged relationships prior to marriage, and when they do marry--often early--their parents do continue to support them.

This is not an unusual thing, this is how it is for most Christians in the world even today, and the way it was for Christians in the 1st century.

You raise some good points. Western culture puts high value on sex before marriage and the general sexualization of children and we think it's cute until it crosses a certain line. It may sound intense but we should not encourage our kids to engage in "try before you buy" relationships. And I don't mean sex but young relationships that we know are going nowhere. Instead we should encourage friendship and at the right stage a courtship that leads to marriage. Then release them into marriage at a younger age but mentor them in this process rather than expect they should have it all figured out. This is not to diminish the role of the male in leadership in his family but to recognize both the limits and demands of western culture while at the same time recognizing what God has intended marriage to be.

 

[ewq1938]

When you love someone the sexual relations made the two people married. That is what marriage is. No, having sex with just anyone doesn't count. It has to be true love and intention to be with them for life.

Becoming one flesh is intercourse.

Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
Mat 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Mat 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Again, this only counts in specific situations where God is involved. So, one night stands and general fornication do not create a marriage.

 

[RDKirk]

When you love someone the sexual relations made the two people married. That is what marriage is. No, having sex with just anyone doesn't count. It has to be true love and intention to be with them for life.

Becoming one flesh is intercourse.

Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
Mat 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Mat 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Again, this only counts in specific situations where God is involved. So, one night stands and general fornication do not create a marriage.

Except:

Know ye not that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? “For two,” saith He, “shall be one flesh.” -- 1 Corinthians 6.

Scripture says "joined to a harlot" "is one body with her" and very specifically pointed to the very verse you quoted.

 

[ewq1938]

Except:

Know ye not that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? “For two,” saith He, “shall be one flesh.” -- 1 Corinthians 6.

Scripture says "joined to a harlot" "is one body with her" and very specifically pointed to the very verse you quoted.

And the next verse makes it clear there is no marriage happening in this situation because there is not a joining of spirits meaning God did not bring these two people together as he does when physical intimacy creates a marriage.

So, there is becoming one flesh with God being a part of the process and becoming one flesh without God.

 

[RDKirk]

And the next verse makes it clear there is no marriage happening in this situation because there is not a joining of spirits meaning God did not bring these two people together as he does when physical intimacy creates a marriage.

Umm.

Know ye not that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her?
“For two,” saith He, “shall be one flesh.”
But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

I don't see that saying "there is no marriage happening in this situation because there is not a joining of spirits meaning God did not bring these two people together as he does when physical intimacy creates a marriage."

"He that is joined to a harlot" is rhetorically parallel to "He that is joined unto the Lord," and is not saying "he that is joined to a woman in the Lord"--which is what I think you're trying to say that it says.

But it doesn't say that. He's not talking about the flesh-bond between a man and a woman, he's talking about the spirit-bond between a man and the Lord.

Remember this is the same guy who is probably already thinking about his next point for this letter: "It is good for a man not to touch a woman." Marriage is not his most important priority.

So, there is becoming one flesh with God being a part of the process and becoming one flesh without God.

Are you saying that being "one flesh without God" is not relevant to anything? Paul, rather, gives it even more significance than marriage.

Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that commiteth fornication sinneth against his own body.

What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

Paul is saying that it is a sin that has significance above other sins because it fouls the body which is the temple of the Lord, purchased by Him for Him. That's why this is the segue to Paul saying, essentially, "If your sexual appetite is about to get the better of you, get married--a bond of the flesh God has authorized--but don't bond yourself to a harlot.

That is nowhere saying sexual intercourse does not create a bond that has negative impact on one's ability to bond with God, rather just the opposite.