Marriage in The Resurrection

I shall have to set up some context before getting to the passage I really intend to explain here.

First, what passage of Genesis ordains Marriage?  

If you have a positive view of marriage as a mutual co-equal partnership you are likely to answer Genesis chapter 2 verses 18, 23 and24.  Where the word for “help meet” or Helper is a word also used of God in his relationship with Humanity in Exodus 18:4 and Deuteronomy 33:7-26-29 (I've seen it argued Rescuer would be a better translation then Helper) and where how the union happens is if anything seemingly Matrilocal.

But if you have a more cynical view, if the marriage you mean is the marriage that Marx and Engels wanted to abolish, you are likely to answer Genesis 3:16 where Patriarchy began.

In Hosea 2:16 we read “And it shall be at that day, saith YHWH, thou shalt call me Ishi; and shalt call me no more Baali”.  

Both of these are Hebrew words for Husband, but with different connotations.  Ishi is the word for Husband (or man in the KJV) used in Genesis 2:23 which is based on the same root as the word for Wife/Woman while Baali also means Lord or Sovereign or Ruler.  

The levirate marriage was an ancient custom in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 where if a husband died before producing an heir the wife would marry a near kinsman (brother preferably if available) and the son conceived would be considered a son of the dead husband in addition to his biological father.  This concept is relevant to Genesis 38, The Book of Ruth and explaining apparent genealogical contradictions involving Zerubbabel.

What fascinates me about this law is how while there are no references to Polyandry in The Hebrew Bible the logic behind this law can certainly open the door to it.  What if a husband becomes unable to reproduce but is still alive?  But in the time of Jesus the Pharisees were still dominated by the Shammai school for whom such a permissive reading would have been unthinkable, and the Sadducees were no doubt the same.

And so with those at first seemingly barely related subjects laid out I shall now interpret what Jesus said in Matthew 22:23-30 and Mark 12:18-25, and more different from the others Luke 20:26-37.

The Sadducees seek to discredit the promised future Bodily Resurrection of The Dead by bringing up the Levirate Marriage and implying that would result in Polyandry.

Jesus first says “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God”. The Greek word translated Power here is Dunamis/Dynamis which gets translated a number of ways including “abundance”.  Jesus is identifying their core error as an underestimation of God not an overestimation of the long term existence of marriage.

Next Jesus says “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven”. “Given in marriage” is one word in the Greek, Jesus uses two related verbs not the actual word for marriage itself.  

Who the “they” means in the context of what the Sadducees were talking about is key to understand here, they are thinking in the framework of marriage being a means by which a woman is possessed by her husband “whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her”.  It is women who Jesus is saying will no longer be passed around from one family or husband to another like a possession.

Luke’s version has a part about the Resurrected being “children of God” but that’s the same Gospel that called Adam the Son of God.  In Luke 17:27 Jesus also refers to marrying and “given in marriage” as part of what the people drowned in the Flood of Noah were doing.  Genesis 6 described their core Sin as Violence.

None of what Jesus said here can be interpreted as saying the Marriage of Genesis 2 where it was never about one party owning the other is discontinued.  In my view the “angels in heaven” are life forms living a Genesis 2 existence not the immaterial sexless phantoms Platonist Christian want them to be.

In the KJV the word Paradise only appears in the New Testament, that's because that Greek word is used for the Garden of Eden in the LXX and Revelation 2:7 confirms that’s still what it refers to.  That Paradise is in “Heaven” currently according to 2 Corinthians 12:4 but in Revelation 21-22 it returns to Earth as part of the New Jerusalem in the New Creation, which is also called The Lamb’s Wife. 

There is no marrying or giving in marriage in the Resurrection because the Body of Christ is a Communistic Polycule.

Age of Consent and Adulthood

If I identify with any specific branch of Christianity more then the others it's The Baptists (but with some Quaker characteristics), especially The General Baptists.  But one annoyance I have with a lot of modern Credo-Baptist sects is a refusal to state a clear absolute minimum age one can choose to be Baptized, with some even thinking Elementary School kids can be old enough.

Baptism should be viewed as in part a Commitment on par with Marriage.  So anyone you consider too young to get Married is also to young to be Baptized because I view Baptism as in-part becoming Betrothed to Christ.  But I think most Churches are permitting Marriage at too young an age as well.

Exodus 30:14, Leviticus 27:3 and Numbers 26:2-4 tell us that about 20 is when The Torah considered someone legally an Adult Citizen of the Congregation.  Numbers 1:3 and 2 Chronicles 25:5 also say 20 is the minimum age you could serve in the Military.

However since I view New Testament water Baptism as evolving out of the Water Immersion ritual that was part of consecrating the Aaronic Priesthood (Exodus 29:4, 40:12 and Leviticus 8:6) applied to the Priesthood of All believers Doctrine that only Congregational Polity practicing Christians even pretend to take seriously.  Age milestones related to the Levites specifically may be worth looking at.

Ezra 3:8 confirms the significance of 20, but that's not actually The Torah. In Numbers 8:24 the age of 25 is when Levites start waiting upon the service of the Congregation, but in Numbers 4:3-47 the age of 30 is when they started to do the work of the Congregation.

One of the arguments against Infant Baptism being the original norm of the Church is the clear evidence that early Christian Tradition going back to at least the 2nd Century said 5 years of Catechism was necessary before Baptism  This tradition remained formally in-place after Infant Baptism was standardized but was applied only to adult converts.  But that combination makes no sense, why can Infants be Baptized right away but adults need to be prepared to know what they are committing to?

Now a lot of people in Acts seem to be Baptized right after they convert, but in Acts 2 and 8 we are dealing with people coming from an Israelite background, the Ethiopian Eunuch was reading Isaiah already, the stuff the 5 year Catechism was necessary for may be stuff they already knew.  

I'm a true Paulian Christian, I don't believe we are under The Law in any rigid or legalistic sense.  But I am Hebrew Roots enough to still believe The Torah is useful, for things like this especially.  And I think a lot of early Christian traditions that don't seem directly mandated by The New Testament have their roots in applying Torah ideas though a New Testament filter.

So I think either 25 was originally the Minimum age to begin Catechism and then 30 when 5 years have passed for Baptism, or Catechism could begin at 20 with 25 for Baptism and another five years before you can be considered an "Elder". I don't think NT use of Presbyter meant Elder or Senior in the old age sense but more closer in application to the Japanese honorific Sempai, I think Congregational polity denominations often cede to much ground to Presbyterians and Episcopalians on how to define those words.

It is of course possible the Catechism was only required for Adult Converts and those raised in the faith were expected to know all that when they reached the minimum age.  But I do think it'd be a mistake for parents to pressure their kids to hard to get Baptized as soon as they turn 20 or even 25, let them think about it for awhile if they want to.

Thirty as an ideal age for Baptism is a natural conclusion one could draw from Luke 3:21-23 seeming to say about Thirty was when Jesus was Baptized.

So 20 as the minimum age for even beginning to prepare for Baptism in my view should also be the minimum age of Consent for Sex and Marriage.  But I can even sympathize with raising that to 25 based on the science about how the frontal context of the Brian isn't fully formed till 25.

Rabbinic Judaism at some point developed the Bar Mitsvah tradition of considering adulthood to in some sense begin at 12 or 13.  I don't know where this came from, there is nothing supporting it in The Torah or anywhere else in The Hebrew Bible.  Manasseh became king at 12, but he didn't turn out to be a very good King, maybe that had something to do with it?  Either way that happened because that was his age when his father died, no other reason. 

However a lot of Christians think 12 as some sort of milestone age is vindicated in The New Testament by Luke 2:40-42.  Nothing here says Jesus being 12 is the reason for anything.  The Torah required only adult males to attend the Pilgrimage Festivals but those Men did often bring their families including wives and children.  Nothing in Luke 2 says Jesus wasn't there for prior observances of Passover, this is just a time when something notable happened.  And it's notable precisely because it's unusual for someone this young to be this intellectually skilled, think of this almsot like a Detective Conan episode.  This is a story about how Jesus as the Son of God was not like other 12 year olds, it's not a model for anything.

[I've also been considering a theory on New Testament chronology that would have the Passover when Jesus was Twelve be the first one after the removal of Archelaus which makes sense as the first time Joseph would have brought his family with him given what the end of Matthew 2 says.  But that's a secondary theory and not necessary to explain it.]

Contrary to popular assumption NO it was not in Ancient or Medieval times common for people to get married with at least the woman being as young as 16 or even 12 in some claims.  While on the books marriages that young might have been technically allowed all the evidence shows that in practice the norm was usually at least 20.  The notable exceptions were usually among the Aristocratic or Royal Families making important marriage alliances and even they often weren't consummated right away.  But those exceptions are often what people write historical fiction about helping spread the confusion.

https://youtu.be/E6Ey6tAbUfg?t=530

There are no Biblical verses stating a clear ideal or minimum marriage age, but at least 3 notable people didn't get married till 40, Isaac, Esau and Moses (Jacob was Esau's twin and he got married even later). 

And no nothing in Scripture supports the "if she can bleed she can breed" meme people assume about pre-modern cultures.  

The one Bible verse some will cite for that is 1 Corinthians 7:36 but it does not explain what "flower of her age" means, the natural assumption to me is Puberty being over not when it starts, that "flowering' is a process not a singe event.   "Flower" isn't even a good translation of the Greek, the Greek text here is communicating the idea of being physically fully grown, which happens at about 20.  So I would consider 20 the age of consent for sex but still hold off on marriage till 25 or 30.  

Also regardless of age some people abuse "let him do what he will" from this chapter to defend martial rape. The context of this chapter is addressing believers questioning whether Sex and Marriage is right for them at all, Paul is giving people permission to enter consensual marriage, not disregarding the woman's consent.

Thing is I do want to lower the Voting Age, and some people may find that bizarre in the above context.  But to me the whole point of Democracy is to empower the most vulnerable.  The youngest people are the ones thinking about the future most which is why they need a greater voice.  You aren't consenting to anything when you Vote, you are telling the State or Society what you prefer and they consent only if enough people agree.

But I do think 25 or 30 should be the minimum age to actually hold office. I disagree with 35 being required for the Senate and Presidency, that should be lowered to 30 the age David's reign in Hebron started.  

In both Numbers 4:3-47 and Numbers 8:25 the age of Fifty is when Levites retire.  And looking at a lot of contemporary issues not letting people over Fifty stay in Congress or on the Supreme Court sounds like a good idea.  Letting people between 50-60 remain in advisory positions with no direct powers could also work, Sixty as a milestone age comes from Leviticus 27:3-7.

Thing about the Voting Age is you can't have it both ways, if you want to have a minimum voting age there should also be a maximum one because the elderly do at a certain point become functionally children again.  Except that older people vote the most Conservatively because they're most motivated by Nostalgia, so political bias clearly influences what Conservatives and Centrists think about the voting age since it suits their interests to stifle calls for radical change.  So in my opinion either both the youngest and oldest can vote, or neither.

The Pagan Greek Origins of Puritan Sexual Morality.

I wrote an Amazon Review for the book Plato or Paul?: The Origins of Western Homophobia by Theodore W. Jennings Jr.  [I recently learned that Jennings had passed away in 2020, may he Rest in Peace.]

I have also more recently obtained The Classical Origins of Modern Homophobia by Robert H. Allen.  I may also write an Amazon Review for it. 

I first learned about the Homophobia of Plato's The Laws however when I discovered this Website.

https://people.well.com/user/aquarius/

In it's article Plato: The Serpent in the Garden of Sexuality.  

My own past blog posts on this issue are a bit outdated now due to their references to things I've since changed my mind on, or at least now have a more informed opinion on.  Like how I had fallen into the trap of mistakenly thinking there was anything Communist or Socialist about either of Plato's proposed political systems.

Each of those three discussions of this issue have areas I disagree with.  None are as "Conservative" as I am about the origins of The Bible.  Only Jennings agrees with me that Paul is on our side, and Allen's agenda is not to exonerate The Bible of Homophobia at all, he alone of them agrees with the Homophobic reading of even the Leviticus verses.  Actually he cites a Saul Olyan that it's specifically referring to Male on Male Anal Penetration, which is close to my old position, but I now believe the "Wife's Bed" and "Abomination to Her" readings are the key to proving this is not a unilateral condemnation of any specific Sex act much less any type of relationship.

I think Jennings's theory on what Arsenokoites refers to (which is that it's essentially Rape) is probably most correct.  But I don't agree with his argument against it being in any way an allusion to the Leviticus verses, I simply think what he correctly argues Arsenkoites refers to, is what some people in Ancient Corinth and Ephesus thought those Leviticus verses were about.  His argument that Paul doesn't generally cite Leviticus to make moral arguments is irrelevant to the Vice Lists, because in those he was just using terms his audience would be familiar with, the vice lists are not themselves arguments against the behaviors listed.

I think Jennings's break down of Romans 1 is useful. but I still mainly side with Colby Martin's take on that in his Unclobber series.  Which is that Romans 1:18-32 is a rhetorical rant, that he's laying out the worldview the Epistle as a whole is written against, paraphrasing passages from Wisdom of Solomon and adding in Philo's usage of the "Para Phusis" concept introduced in The Laws, in order to spend the rest of the Epistle refuting that world view, in Romans 11 what God does is Para Phusis clearly rejecting the idea that being Para Phusis is immoral.

And Allen's cynical readings of The Bible lead to similar issues with extra-Biblical Church writers as well.  Clement of Alexandria was the first Christian to bring this "Para Phusis" Sexual Morality into the Church.  The crime of "corrupting youth" in works like the Didache is not Homosexuality or anything Sexual, just as it wasn't when Athens executed Socrates for that crime.  I likewise feel Allen is being unfair to both Justin Martyr and Tertullian.

The reason why I didn't put Plato in the title of this post is because Allen argues Pythagorean Philosophy and it's Dualism is the ultimate origin of this problem.  He argues Authentic Plato may have been at least partially influenced by Pythagoreanism, but also argues that The Laws as we have it is not an authentic work of Plato but a forgery produced and transmitted primarily by Pythagoreans.  And I think he might be correct on that.  Here is a YouTube video expressing similar ideas about the origins of Laws and how to interpret The Republic.

But still Authentic Plato or not the development of Platonic Schools of Philosophy was influenced by The Laws on these issues and others, which in turn influenced Roman Stoicism, Neopythagoreanism, Hellenistic Judaism, Gnosticism, The Alexandrian School of Christianity, and Neo-Platonism, which also all influenced each other in late Antiquity culminating in John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria and Augustine of Hippo.  Allen also documents how across the board Pagan Roman Society was Homophobic having been influenced by Southern Italian Pythagoreanism long before they even came into contact with the Eastern Mediterranean.

However another theory on the perceived inconsistencies between The Laws and the seemingly more positive Sexual attitudes expressed in works like Symposium is that Plato changed over the course of his life, perhaps partly from Pythagorean influence.  The Laws is considered the very last book he wrote and Symposium one of the earliest.

But going back to more indisputably authentic Plato, the title character of Timaeus (who's still around during Critias) is inferred to be a Pythagorean in the text of that dialogue.  So what Timaeus says can reasonably be presumed to be at least what Plato thought the Pythagoreans believed.  And it's from Timaeus we get what's considered the Platonist Creation Myth including the The Demiurge.  What's up for debate is how much the author wants us to take the title character and his ideas seriously.

The Website I linked to up top also has interesting stuff on the "Born Eunuch" issue and other subjects.  But it's article The Historic Origins of Church Condemnation of Homosexuality I don't recommend.  I have found no other sources claiming Eusebius of Nicomedia was ever referred to as a Eunuch.  meanwhile the pro Nicene Emperor Constans was a known Homosexual, before Theodosius I it was the Arian Emperors who were far more oppressive to those who disagreed with them.  [Update: So the Eunuch he's talking isn't the Bishop of Nicomedia who died in 341 but a different Eusebius mentioned in Athanasius's History of The Arians during the "Papacy" of Liberius.  Still I feel it's wrong to say the Arian controversy is why The Church embraced this Pythagorean sexual morality.  There were clearly Homosexuals and Platonists on both sides, Arian theology wouldn't be possible without the Timaeus based distinction between the Demiurge and the Monad, though making that distinction arguably begins with Numenius of Apamea in the 2nd Century.]

It's not just Homophobia, condemning all Sex Outside Marriage has the same roots in The Laws attributed to Plato.  As well as the idea that Sex is only for Reproduction which 1 Corinthians 7 explicitly contradicts.  What's almost Prophetic about it is how it talks about using Religion to condition society to react to Same Sex love the same way they do Incest.  These people were never fully able to get the Greeks to believe such things about their Native gods, but once many Greeks started worshiping the God of Abraham without a proper understanding of Bronze Age Semitic culture, that was when this long term scheme to lie about God's attitude towards Sex was able to take off.

Here is another Article I found about Pythagorean Sexual Morality.  And here is one on Pythagoras and Celibacy.

And it's not just the Sexual Morality of The Laws either.  Some people accuse Plato of being Proto-Fascist just based on The Republic, but The Laws is even more indistinguishable from the actual definition of Fascism.  Allen argued that the Pythagorean movement was tied to Totalitarianism already even before Plato's time.  Meanwhile the Calvinist view of Election which derives from Augustine's Gnostic Predestinationism lends itself well to the in-group vs out-group mentality.

Connecting this Sexual Morality to Platonism is useful because of how many other Unbiblical Ideas to enter Christianity are also tied to Plato's both direct and indirect influence on Greco-Roman Church Writers, including ideas opposed by many Conservative Evangelicals today.  So maybe a good way to open some minds is to show how these Sexual attitudes are tied to other doctrines they don't like.

Not all Platonist Ideas to enter the Church became part of Mainstream Christian thought.  Gnosticism and Marcionism were condemned as Heretical, as well as the Pre-Existence of Souls doctrine often associated with Origen, and Arianism which was also influenced by the Theology of Timaeus.  Still those ideas are related to things that did become mainstream.  Most casual Christians do have a fairly Platonist Understanding of the Immortality of the Soul simply minus the Reincarnation and Pre-Existence (Pope Benedict XII's Benedictus Deus in 1336 basically canonized the After Life depicted in Gorgias for the Western Church.), which in turn helps lead to Full Preterism and Amillenialism and any other Eschatology that denies a Literal Bodily Resurrection. 

Divine Impassability and Divine Immutability which I plan on making a separate post on are also tied to Platonic understandings of The Divine.  And a section in Gorgias definitely influenced the Traditional Judeo-Christian understanding of Hell and The Lake of Fire.

Evangelicals who don't like how more mainline denominations have been rejecting taking The Old Testament literally should know that not only is that a Platonist influence but the Allegorists are open about that.  In Brad Jersak's seminar on the subject he brags about how the Early Church Fathers decided to take the same approach to the Hebrew Bible that Plato and other Philosophers took to Homer and Hesiod.  He leaves out how the Antiochene School rejected that idea and were hyper-literalists.

Even Plato wasn't wrong on everything, he correctly concluded that the Earth was Round.  And that is why the most openly anti-Plato Christians on YouTube right now are the Flat Earthers.  So someone should explain to them how their Puritan Sexual morality has the same Platonist roots.  Still these Flat Earthers are unwittingly Pythagorean themselves with their Dome Cosmology resulting in a hard separation between the Divine and Earthly realms, and Rob Skiba even entertaining the view that we didn't have physical bodies before The Fall which is outright Gnostic.

One Pythagorean idea that was only ever accepted among some of the Full Blown Gnostics was Reincarnation, that one was especially impossible to make fit into The Bible.  But I do feel those who on Eschatology argue John The Baptist was the return of Elijah promised by Malachi's final verse are trying to plant a seed for it.

Over the course of the 2nd through 6th centuries Greco-Roman Christians increasingly took on Platonist Influences but in different ways.  Some seemed to be taking the Dialogue structure more so then any Metaphysics.  However when I look at Athenagoras of Athens who came a little before even Clement, it seems like the Sexual Morality of Laws was one of the first aspects of Platonism Christians embraced.  Maybe it's because even early on Paul's use of Para Phusis was easy to misunderstand.  Or maybe it's because this Minority religion mistakenly felt they should be rebelling agaisnt the Morals of mainstream Greek Society which it so happened was also what the Pythagoreans were doing.

Some similarities between Neoplatonism and Hellenic Judeo-Christians are the former being influenced by the latter, Numenius of Apamea definitely studied Jewish Platonists like Philo, and Ammonius Saccas was raised a Christian but then left the faith before becoming a teacher of Plotinus.  The puritanical Sexual Morality however definitely began with the Pplatonists not the Christians as this post has shown.

I take Sin very seriously, but I take The Son more seriously

A common accusation against someone like me, who both teaches Universal Salvation and argues for more permissive attitudes towards Sexual Morality, is often that we don't take Sin seriously enough.  How can I justify Paul saying "all have Sinned" if there are so many things I don't think are sinful?

But to me, it's mainstream Christianity that isn't taking real Sin seriously enough when they tend to focus on the same kinds of things the Pharisees focused on.

Jesus said the greatest Commandment is to Love God with all your heart mind body and soul, and the second greatest is to love your neighbor as you Love yourself, and He said those were the whole of The Law.  James and Paul in both Romans & Galatians also repeated that the second greatest commandment is the gist of the Law.  The greatest Sin is failure to Love, and in a way that's what all real Sin comes down to.  And I certainly fail to Love God and my neighbor constantly, I don't need a laundry list of specific actions to tell me I'm a Sinner, I just need to look at my own heart.

So I am opposing Sin when I oppose the aspects of Traditional Christianity that lead to justifying Hate.

The epistle known as 1 John in chapter 4 verses 7 and 8 says that God is Love, and that everyone who loves is Born of God and that everyone who Loveth not Knoweth not God.  Chapter 3:14 says everyone who loveth not his Brother abideth in Death.  This Epistle is not dividing humanity into two categories, but listing two categories into which every human has fallen.

Chapter 4 verse 10 and up clarified we are saved not because We Loved God but because God Loved us and gave His Son as the Atonement for our Sins.

Broader Sexual Morality can't be ignored when affirming Homosexuality

On the main Page of this Blog for my The Bible does not condemn Homosexuality dissertation I provide links to other posts relevant to the issue.  But also to posts about morality in general that may mention the Homosexuality or Transgender issues only briefly if at all.  Why do I do that?

Because one's broader view of Morality does effect how open one will be to the Homosexuality issue.  I think to many traditionalists that partly justifies their not even listening to the argument.

Because even when the Clobber Passages are properly understood, viewing it as totally okay to be a practicing Homosexual or Bisexual or Pansexual requires at least one of two major assumptions about Biblical Morality to be wrong.

1. That all Sex outside Marriage is a Sin.

2. That Marriage is only between Men and Women.

I have argued on this Blog quite strongly that The Bible does not Condemn all Sex outside Marriage, and that the word Fornication refers to Prostitution.  And the origins of condemning Sex outside Marriage lie with Plato.  It helps to understand my Ye Hath God Said study before reading those, to open one's mind to rejecting the assumption that of course God is super strict and questioning that is clearly a tactic of Satan.

While I am very open minded to equally rejecting the common assumption about Marriage.  My studies of it for The Old Testament on Polygamy and New Testament on Marriage posts lead me to conclude that The Bible presumes it to be a a union between Men and Women.

Now I do not want Biblical Marriage to define Legal Marriage.  I'd prefer the Government didn't give out Marriage Licenses at all, but as long as they do I want all alternative forms of Marriage to be legal and treated equally, Gay Marriage, Polygamy, Polyandry, Polyamory, Group Marriages, ect, even Incestuous Marriages.  As long as everyone involved is consenting and an adult, the State should not be allowed to restrict it.

And I feel Christians should refuse to get Marriage Licenses from the Government regardless, for the same reasons I support the House Church movement and rejecting the 501c3 status.  As I explain in The State, The Church and Marriage, There is no Marriage Ritual Ordained in The Bible and Marriage License vs Marriage Covenant.

Some Gay Affirming Christians may take the opposite approach, and I understand why.

1. They don't want their love to be viewed as different from or inferior to Male-Female love.  Marriage should not be necessary to achieve that, David's greatest love was Johnathon, regardless of only being married to women.

2. Some want to stick as close as they can to an Augustinian Sexual morality to avoid the stereotype that Gays and Bisexuals are deviants and perverts, that condoning them inevitably leads to anything goes.  Thus we get Dan Savage bragging about his husband being a "stay at home dad", and Yuri genre critics like Erica Freidman over reacting to even the mildest forms of Incest.

But I feel history shows the greatest gateway drug to perversion is being too sexually prudish.  When you tell people they're sinning anytime they don't wait for a long term commitment, and shame them for it, it frequently leads to them questioning any restrictions, even the basic idea of consent, since after all animals don't ask for consent.  That is again one of the points of my "Ye Hath God Said" study.

Allowing Sex Outside Marriage does not automatically lead to no morals.  As long as people try to stick to the Golden Rule, and Christians always seek the guidance of The Holy Spirit.  The right decisions can be made without needing to bind people to the minutia of a rule book.

However, since I believe we are not under The Law, I will never condemn or shame any Gay Christians for practicing a Gay Marriage.  We are under The Law of Liberty now, which is flexible.

My point here is, that in trying to open peoples minds on this subject, I think it's often necessary to begin with broader issues.  Then once that is achieved it may be easier for them to accept that what they thought they knew about the Clobber Passages is wrong.

Update July: I've made this post recently where I argue for more nuance in understanding the New Testament on Marriage and Gender.
 https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2018/07/neither-male-or-female-in-churhc-follow.html
But the overall point of this post I still stand by.
October 2018 Update: and now I've also done this post.
 https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-christology-of-sanctity-of.html
I've also basically reversed my past position on Polygamy in the Old Testament.
https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2018/08/just-accept-that-bible-doesnt-condemn.html

An insightful article

http://krwordgazer.blogspot.com/2013/08/christian-cliches-dont-cause-your.html

Might be some small things I disagree with here.  But it ties in helpfully to other issues I've discussed.

Plato, Augustine, and Traditional Christianity

[Update: This is out of date.]

Delilah

This post I made on another blog about Delilah may be of interest here

Marcia Aurelia Ceionia Demetrias

Marcia Aurelia Ceionia Demetrias

She was an early Christian from the late Second Century A.D.  And was the mistress of the Emperor Commodus.

She is not discussed often by modern Evangelical Christian historians, because she presents a problem to many of them.  She was engaged in extra martial affairs, and used the influence she gained though them to do good in advancing the Gospel.

Marcia was most likely Christian and persuaded Commodus to adopt a policy in favor of Christians, and kept close relations with Victor, Bishop of Rome.^[2] After Pope Victor I gave her a list she had asked for including all of the Christians sentenced to mine works in Sardinia, she convinced Commodus to allow them to return to Rome.^[2][4] Despite the fact that Marcia was not Commodus' legal wife, he treated her like one and was thus greatly influenced by her. The inscription found in Anagnia testifies that the local city council decided to build a monument, commemorating particularly the restoration of baths on her account.

Today, mainstream Christianity is way too prudish.  They interpret the adultery laws completely gender neutrally, and insist they apply to all kinds of sexual expression.  And they also like to assume that Christians living pre-Constantine where nearly infallible unless it was someone known to have taught a weird Gnostic or Proto-Arrian heresy.

Of course we don’t know if Marcia was ever involved with Commodus while he was still married to Crispina.  It’s after she was divorced and killed that Marcia had clearly become Commodous’s favorite.  But the possibly of being involved before seems to me to be the only way to explain her escaping her potential culpability in Lucilla’s failed conspiracy.

But in fact early Christians were certainly no less flawed then we are today.  Meanwhile it’s pretty clear that Adultery in the Bible is defined in a clearly patriarchal context, it’s about sleeping with another man’s wife, not another woman’s husband.

And now I’m sure many are shocked.  “Are you condoning that double standard?".  Well I also believe from my studies that The Bible’s sex restrictions are mainly concerned with reproduction.  Adultery is defined as “Lying carnally" with another man’s wife.  The Hebrew word translated “carnally" is the same word translated “seed" only being used as a noun.  That word basically means Sperm or Semen, the basic premise is that it refers to potential reproduction.  Wives had a responsibility to the Tribe to make sure that if they become pregnant it was their husband’s child.  But in fact I do not see the Bible as condemning all extramarital sex the way most people do.

So yes I agree the double standard is unfair.  But society has decided to rectify it by putting on men the same restrictions women used to have.  I say the advancement of society should increase freedom not decrease it.  I think a couple should decide between themselves what they are or aren't okay with.

Marcia was a an interesting woman.  I may not approve of everything she did but I admire her.  She wound up being involved in Commodus’s death when he decided he wanted to get rid of her.  Where she said a favorite quote of mine.

    "Well done, indeed, Commodus. This is fine return for the kindness and affection I have lavished on you and for the drunken insults which I have endured from you all these years. A fuddled drunkard is not going to get the better of a sober woman".

Levitcus 19:20, slavery and sex

Leviticus 19:20 is a situation that is uncomfortable for modern readers to begin with. But the KJV rendering here is one of the most problematic of all of those very few places I'm willing to consider the KJV translation outright wrong.

And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.

First off a lot is added to the translation that is not really in the text, including each occurrence of the word "she".

Second, both "whosover" and "husband' are the same word in the Hebrew, Ish which also means man.

Third, The word for "betrothed" here (Charaph. (khaw-raf')) is used many other times but the KJV only translates it "betrothed" in this one passage, no other occurrence is a meaning linked to marriage at all. 'aras is the usual word for betrothed. Ya`ad is another word the KJV translated that way in the context of dealing with a Slave, but it's also usually translated something else, but is much closer to being accurate then Charaph here. Charaph is most often translated reproach, and then several times defy, but also words like rail, upbraid and winter.

Fourth, Biqqoreth (bik-ko-reth) which is translated "scourged" only appears this one time, but various other translators feel this word means something like a trail or investigation rather then punishment. Some have also interpreted it as being a financial compensation that is to be paid. But the investigation theory makes most sense given the root it comes from. Bagar, which gets translated --(make) inquire (-ry), (make) search, seek out.

An online Jewish Translation of the Masoretic Text renders this.

And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, designated for a man, and not at all redeemed, nor was freedom given her; there shall be inquisition; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.

This particularl Jewish translation seems to mostly just follow the KJV and fix things they consider wrong because of Christian bias.

The following verses make clear that ONLY the Man is at fault here. So the KJV translating this as though the female slave still received some punishment is absolutely absurd, in fact it seems grammatically awkward even in the greater context of what the KJV says.

I think a good rendering is

A man that inseminates a woman, that is a bondmaid, designated for a man, and not at all redeemed, nor was freedom given her; there shall be an inquest; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.

Incest in The Bible

This is my dissertation on Incest in The Bible, what it deems a Sin and what isn't, and it's history.

First as a Six Day Young Earth Creationist, I take note of the fact that the Incest restrictions don't come until the time of Moses. And I believe Cain and Seth married their full Sisters as did all Adam and Eve's children.

Critics of The Bible love to view this argument as absurd. But Genesis 20:12 shows us that Abraham and Sarah where brother and sister. "And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.". The later incest restrictions don't just generically condemn Brother-Sister incest, they specifically single out half siblings sharing the same father. And Abraham and Sarah is one of the most approved romantic relationships in The Bible. God specifically wanted Abraham's descendents through her, not anyone else, to inherit the Covenant.

Back to Genesis 4, some take verses 16 and 17 "And Cain went out from the presence of Yahweh, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived". As implying Cain met his wife in Nod, after traveling away to a distant land and thus proving the existence of tribes at the time independent of Adam and Eve.  It doesn't say that however, it doesn't depict how they met at all, just says that's when she conceived Cain's First-Born son. I think he was already married to this woman before he slew Able.

Either way though, I believe over a century had passed by the time Cain killed Able (about 9 months before Seth was born is my conjectured timing) Plenty of time for some of Adam and Eve's children to travel about, they were commanded to Fill and Populate the Earth from the start.

Another thing, Adam was basically married to his Clone.

The reason Genetic problems occur because of Incest is because of The Fall, Genetic mistakes always occur in the gene pool, and closer related individuals are more likely to have similar mistakes. But closer to when this deterioration started it was far less of a problem. I suspect God was preemptive and that it still wasn't until awhile after the time of Moses (Ussher dated it to 1492 B.C. I'm undecided on if I agree with Ussher's date, but Ussher's is the youngest I can accept) that noticeable problems would have been a concern.

All pagan mythologies have Brother-Sister incest (And other forms, but that's most common) among the gods. Even the mythologies of cultures that all through our recorded history of them disapproved of Brother-Sister incest, like the Greeks and Romans. I believe the reason this happens is that it's the distant memory of when Brother-Sister incest was not just allowed but nearly universal.

Now to get to the The Law.

 Leviticus 18, Leviticus 20, and Deuteronomy 27 are the three passages listing Incest restrictions. Only L20 and D27 list punishments to be carried out, so only those were part of Israel's civil law code. L18 is what deals with what's immoral but not necessarily illegal. Notice there is plenty included in L18 but not the other two, while the others never condemn anything L18 doesn't. This is consistent with what I'd expect from what I argued in my Libertarianism and The Bible article.

Wikipedia, and I expect other places, accuse these passages of not condemning Father-Daughter incest. This is incorrect. L18:17 says "Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness." This basically says you can't have sex with any descendant of any woman you have had sex with. Since there was no artificial insemination back then, there was no way your daughter or granddaughter didn't qualify. I've seen people argue this is refereeing only to having a threesome with a mother and daughter, I think that's silly, it doesn't specify at the same time.

Wikipedia has a chart covering the various incest restrictions of the three chapters, but that chart made some mistakes, the one I addressed above and others, so I made my correction of it, and will share it with you all here.

Boxes filled in Red are condemned in that chapter, being still white and empty means it's not.

Step Siblings are ok. I don't know if that's illegal today, but people do have a tendency to consider it gross. It doesn't address anyone related by Adoption either, unless The Law simply doesn't consider adopted children/siblings distinct.

Some relations not allowed aren't biological ones, so genetic issues weren't their only concern. Inheritance and some other things were in mind too.

No same gender examples are covered, to some this would be because homosexuality is a sin altogether, but as I argued elsewhere, it's not. Genetic issues were not the only concern, but all the concerns did come basically down to reproduction in some way. So there was no reason to be concerned with same gender examples.

You'll notice they're not entirely gender neutral. The genders are different, including in how our Genetics work (Mitochondrial DNA is passed on only by the mother being one example). The main gender difference is, no restrictions on uncles marrying nieces, while nephews marrying aunts depends. Modern conventions are inclined to be the opposite here, if the relation implies the man is older then that's far more likely to be condemned as perverted. But as long as the younger is already an adult and consents I don't care.

It also doesn't address Cousins. Cousin relationships are inherently the most common (We're all Cousins ultimately if you believe The Bible) but First or even Second Cousin relationships tend to be viewed as wrong in most parts of the western world today. But at different periods this was different. The Bible not only doesn't outlaw Cousin relations, no matter how close, but it encourages First Cousin marriages in certain circumstances.

Most notably The Daughters of Zelophehad, discussed in Numbers 26:33, 27, 36, Joshua 17 and 1 Chronicles 7. Inheritance in Ancient Israel was normally Pater-lineal, but Zelophehad had no sons, so God decided in such a circumstance daughters could inherit so long as they married within their tribe, preferably their nearest kinsmen. They wound up marrying their first cousins.

Reheboam had many wives, all three named were fairly close cousins, and the mother of his successor was a first cousin. From what I argued before, pre-Moses examples don't prove anything, but I still feel like noting Jacob was married to two first cousins, and Issac to his first cousin once removed.

And if you consider Deutercanoical books like Tobit canon (as Catholics do).  Well that is a book that in the form we have it in is practically making it a sin not to marry your Cousin.  It seems the Book Tobit as we know it is a product of a time when Israelites were so paranoid about mixing with foreigners, they felt you should marry your nearest relation possible that's not forbidden in Leviticus 18.  Reason why I specify "as we know it" is because I have my personal theory that in the original version Sarah wasn't Tobit's cousin, in fact I speculate her name means Princess for a reason.  But that's for another topic on another blog.  Point here remains that if you think Tobit as it appears in the Septuagint, Catholic Bibles, or the 1611 KJV is God's word (I don't) then you have a pretty firmly pro Cousin marriage text in your Canon.

Genetically, between any two people there is always at least a 2% risk of these kinds of genetic problems.  Incest only increases the risk of it. First cousin relations (if there were few or no prior examples of incest in the shared ancestry) only increases the risk to 4%. So it's really not a big deal at all.

Today, for many reasons I don't think Gentile nations on this side of the Cross should be basing their Civil Laws on Ancient Israel's.

Genetic concerns are (or should be) the only concern of our modern civil laws. Some consider relations that imply a large age-gap should also be inherently wrong, but we have Statutory Rape laws (Which I feel need improving but I don't oppose having them) to protect minors. If both are adults and consent then I don't care and don't think the state should.

As a Libertarian I think only the most direct Heterosexual examples should be illegal, Biological Brother-Sister relations, and direct ancestors or descendants. But all incest laws outlawing anything else I oppose.

But to an extent I'm beginning to think perhaps any Incest laws are bad. The reasoning is the concern of genetic issues in the offspring makes it not a victim less crime. But that's basically Eugenics logic, and allowing the State permission to forbid reproduction in the case of Incest sets a precedent that could prove very dangerous.

The Bible does not condemn Homosexuality: Introduction

I'm giving this dissertation as a Fundamentalist Christian who takes the Bible literally, who once held the common assumption that it condemns homosexuality. I don’t change my views to appease anyone, but I always try to be polite towards and tolerant of people with different views, including those who may disagree with me on this. My views on this matter changed as a result of my carefully studying (with the guidance of the Holy Spirit) all of the passages of Scripture relevant to this issue.

Before I explain everything in detail, here is the gist of it. Most of the passages are dealing with Pagan Goddess worship rituals involving Anal intercourse. And the Sin of Sodom was in-hospitality.

Now, I also want to make clear, that even when I did hold the common assumption, I was still very different from your typical Fundamentalist on the issue. I never obsessed over it as though it was the main spiritual problem facing the nation; in my view, that’s always been Darwinism. And I’ve never liked homophobes. Nothing is more offensive or blasphemous to me than to accuse God of hating anyone. “God is Love”- 1 John 4:8; and Jesus said to “love your enemies”. As Chuck Missler often says, “there is no sin God doesn’t hate but no sinner God doesn’t love“. He gave his only begotten Son to die for us, hatred is not in his vocabulary. It is of course only a loud minority of Christians who make the offensive statement that he hates homosexuals. But the majority of “conservative” Christians are also under the common misconception that the Bible condemns homosexuality, which is why I’m doing this.

Details matter.

Some will say I’m twisting things around to try and change what to them is the clear plain reading of the text. Many of these same Christians however will be unlikely to defend the out of context plain reading of many other verses in the KJV and other modern English translations as they're frequently cited by unbelievers to allege contradictions or make God look cruel. I believe that the design of God’s Word is perfect and precise, and every detail both of what it does and does not say is important.

Matthew 5:18 “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” The Jot/Yot/Yod is the smallest and most frequently used letter of the Hebrew alphabet. It would look to us like an apostrophe. A tittle is a small decorative hook on many letters. One doesn’t really need a brief Hebrew lesson to understand this, the point being that every detail of God’s Word matters, even the little ones, because seemingly insignificant details can make a world of difference, as any good detective would tell you.

Independent Baptists who are KJV-Only are the Christians most likely to be hostile to this interpretation. This is what makes my holding this view even more surprising, because I do basically consider myself an Independent Baptist. But being Independent means I don‘t just blindly follow what a Pastor tells me the Bible says, but rather I look it up for myself. I’m also basically KJV-Only, since I absolutely consider the King James Authorized Version to be the best English translation; it’s always the one I default to using. And I absolutely reject the changes made in modern translations based on the Alexandrian Manuscripts and the textual criticisms of Wescott and Hort, such as removing many critical occurrences of the word 'Blood'. Unlike some KJV-Only believers however, I do acknowledge certain imperfections of the KJV. It is in fact impossible to perfectly translate either Hebrew or Greek into English. NONE of those imperfections effect the Gospel, but some will be relevant to passages I will discuses on this issue. Unlike many KVJ-Onliers I do not discourage studying the original Hebrew and Greek; in fact I encourage it. I believe the Masorectic should be used for the Hebrew, and the Textus Receptus for the Greek (the sources for the KJV) are what should be relied upon.

Thing is though I do also believe even the KJV renderings are not blanket condemnations of all homosexual or even all male homosexual affection. And in some cases it's simply a matter of understanding the context of what those words meant in 1611 rather then what man has changed them to mean today.

In fact in some cases the modern versions are more blatantly anti Homosexual then the KJV.  Which tells me the perception that The Bible condemns Homosexuality is something Satan really wants to promote.  There is a popular meme out there that a "Lesbian goddess worshiper" helped write the NIV and that's why it removed Sodomite.  Regardless of if such a person was involved however the NIV does blatantly condemn Homosexuality in the New Testament.  In verses where the KJV is more ambiguous.

The point is, the common understanding of the relevant verses is based on just casually reciting the way they're usually rendered in modern English without putting much thought into them. What I have done is put a lot of thought and study into it - always under the starting premise that the Bible is the inspired, infallible, inherent Word of God, using Scripture to interpret Scripture and doing so logically and consistently.

I've written other articles about sex and marriage in the Bible, and in general, which would be useful to cross reference here.

Part 2: The Sin of Sodom
Part 3: Leviticus 18 and 20
Part 4: Romans 1
Part 5: Corinthians and Timothy
Part 6: Condoned Homosexual Affection
 I also have this Dissertation on MyTumblr. So if you have a Tumblr account, feel free to Re-blog parts of it to spread the word.  Also to view them all together on one label on this Blog.

Does The Bible condemn all Sex outside Marriage?

The first question we need to address on the subject of Biblical sexual morality, is how do we define Sex? and how does The Bible?

In the modern western world, it can often be outright offensive to suggest that only actual penetrative sex (vaginal or anal) technically qualifies. One reason being it implies Lesbians can't have "actual sex" at all. But like it or not, for most of human history that has technically been the assumption. The Hebrew Bible doesn't have any word that simply translates to "sex" how we use it today.  And there is plenty of evidence that in antiquity Lesbians took pride in being called virgins, looking at homo erotic myths related to Artemis/Diana and perhaps also Anath.

Biblical terms like "Lie with" or "Know" or "Uncovering Nakedness" are not strictly limited to sex in their literal definition anyway, so it's hard to determine without context.

The term "Lie Carnally" is more explicit, the word translated "Carnally" is Zera` [(zeh'-rah); Noun Masculine, Strong #: 2233] which means "seed", and can literally mean "sperm" or "semen". Technically the Strongs will give the impression in one occurrence that another word is what's translated Carnally. But that verse also uses Zerah, the order of words being changed in translation simply caused confusion here.

We tend to think of Carnally as meaning "fleshly" or "of the flesh". And in it's one New Testament appearance in the KJV of Romans 8 that is what the Greek word means there. But the Old Testament usages are different.

Now when a male orgasms his "Seed" comes out. So you might think that doesn't make it very specific at all. But in English we too have created a verb form of one of our terms for that substance. "Inseminate", and what we mean when we say "inseminate" isn't putting the semen anywhere, it's usually about putting your semen in a woman's reproductive organs making it possible a child could be conceived. Possibly with conception being the explicit intent. I think it's perfectly reasonable that Moses meant something similar, and that it's specifically reproductive sex those verses are about.

You may have heard of the principle that the Intent of the law is more important then the letter of the law, well that concept is in fact Biblical.   Mark 2:27 "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath". There is a reason for every law God gives, and the details are important because they help us understand the intent.

Only two not even potentially reproductive sexual acts are ever condemned. A very specific male act in a very specific pagan context, and Bestiality.  Both initially occurring in Leviticus 18:22-23.  Later verses are just repeating that commandment.   The context of being after verse 21, as I've explained elsewhere means they're condemned because of Pagan rituals involving those acts.

The Bible also does NOT condemn Masturbation. That line you often hear (comedian Ron White says in one of his bits that his Grandmother quoted it to him) spouted which sounds Biblical, "It's better for thy seed to land in the belly of a whore to fall on the floor", really isn't, it's made up. In the Strongs you can easily tract down every occurrence of "Seed" as well as the other key words of that sentence (and synonyms for them), and it doesn't appear.

The story of Onan in Genesis 38 is the only basis people have for condemning masturbation, but it's not about that at all, Onan's Sin was breaking his agreement to produce offspring for his brother.  And Masturbation isn't even what he did, but rather "pulling out".

Leviticus 15:16 has been cited as relevant to Masturbation.  That is a part of Leviticus not about Sin at all but about hygiene, the only actual command here is to clean up afterwords.

When Jesus said in Matthew 5:28 "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." It is important first to know that the word translated "Woman" here is the Greek "Gune" which like the Hebrew "Ishshah" also means "Wife". In the context of being about adultery "Wife" is clearly the intended meaning here. That's still incidental to my point, though. People often cite that verse to sound like it means you've sinned every time you observe a woman's attractiveness, or get turned on, or simply don't immediately look away. That's not Jesus' intent, the intent is just to show that God judges thoughts as well as actions.  But that doesn't mean being tempted itself is Sin.  Jesus himself was Tempted and He's without Sin.  It's indulging in those thoughts that makes it a Sin.  He's really not introducing something new, but folding the Tenth Commandment into the earlier ones.  Looking is fine, leering is not.

Now I've shown elsewhere that "Fornication" doesn't mean what you think it means, it means Prostitution.

The "Strange Woman" passages the occur throughout Proverbs are often cited by people as condemning any non-martial sex.  The woman in question may or may not be a Prostitute of some form, but the greater point is that both words translated strange mean "alien" or "foreign", they don't mean bizarre or weird.  And in these kinds of contexts it's being spiritually or religiously foreign, not ethnically or nationally that is the concern, (as we see with Ruth's marriage to Boaz being okay).  Her not worshiping the True God is why she should be avoided.

It is popular for Christians to insist any non-reproductive sex is a sin, but that as you can see is not Biblical. In fact it has become my conclusion studying the Bible, that besides the Blasphemy of Pagan ritual sex acts, it's chiefly reproductive sex God desires to limit. Yes we were commanded to "Be Fruitful and multiply" but we are still supposed to do so carefully to give each new child a healthy stable family to raise them in.

The Song of Songs or Song of Solomon has three verses that poetically allude to what we today would label Oral sex. The woman on the man in 2:3, and the man on the woman in 4:16 and 8:2. The last of which is also proceeded by a verse describing the man suckling his lover's breasts.

Conservative commentators insist the Song of Songs only condones sexual activity between a husband and wife, because the book revolves around a marriage. But that ignores the chronology of the book, the wedding is in chapter 4 at the soonest, the end of chapter 4 is indeed the first allusion to actual intercourse, but they're Intimate in ways we'd today deem sexual well before then.

The idea that sex is only for reproduction is not Biblical, it is an expression of love, and also a basic physical need. Lack of moderation with anything can lead to problems and thus be sinful, since our Bodies are the Temple of God we should take care of them.

The basis for saying all sex outside Marriage is prohibited, is an assumption that adultery being a sin, combined with the verses on the importance of virginity makes all extramarital sex a sin.

Number One, a woman who's already lost her virginity outside marriage is certainly not addressed, and in the culture of the time she was probably not going to get married. So should she be denied that pleasure for life based on one indiscretion? Which she might not have even consented to?

Number Two, what about a widow?  Widows were allowed to remarry, that's the only time a non virgin could ever get married. And nothing directly condemning a widow having extra marital sex exists in The Law.

Number Three, how is adultery defined? First of all like it or not it only goes one way in the Biblical laws about it, (Even in the New Testament) only the woman's fidelity is addressed. Leviticus 20:10 "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife".  Even in Matthew 5:28 condemning even the coveting there is no gender reversal equivalent.

 It's undeniably unfair to women, but it was an unfairness necessary in the ancient world lacking DNA testing to verify paternity.  And there are medical reasons why it's good to know who your a kid's biological parents are, even though that has nothing to do with the real definition of being a mother or father.

The actual wording of The Ten Commandments doesn't define adultery, just labels it a sin. It's Leviticus 18:20 and Numbers 5:12-13 that defines it, and the term used is "Lie carnally" (or "lie with her carnally") the definition of which I discussed on above.

Only one statement of Jesus, recorded in each Synoptic Gospel (it may be he said it more then once, since they seem to be at different chronological points), seems to imply a Man can commit Adultery against his Wife by being involved with another woman. Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11 and Luke 16:18. "And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her." But this passage exists in the context of condemning Divorce, and also remarriage after Divorce.

In the Sermon on The Mount when Jesus discuses the same matter, he possibly clarifies what he meant. Matthew 5:32 "That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of prostitution, causeth her to commit adultery".  Unlike Men, Women more or less needed to be married to survive back then, so when a man divorced his wife back then he forced her to remarry.  So he's guilty of the sin of adultery because he forced someone else to commit it.  Not because Jesus was suddenly defining Adultery in gender neutral terms no one ever heard of before.

"But it's also his taking another wife Jesus refereed to?" you may respond.  Regardless of what Jesus thought of Polygamy, even in Polygamous cultures most men were Monogamous because supporting more then one wife was difficult.  So the man marrying a new wife means the chances of the rejected one being taken back are severely decreased.

So it's an old gender double standard that isn't as needed anymore because of modern technology. Yet modern society has chosen to try to make this double standard right by giving men the same restrictions women have always had. As a supporter of freedom, I think it should have been the opposite approach. The emotion of Jealousy is the basis for being so bothered by infidelity, Envy is a Sin.

Cheating is a Sin, but not a sexual sin, if it's part of the agreed terms of your relationship to be monogamous then yes failing to do so is a violation.

How is virginity defined? Many would argue it's absurd to purely base it on the modern clinical definition. I reject the traditional view of Tokens of Virginity.  But again the implied intent came down to the man needing to know he's the father of any child conceived.

So basically, there is no Biblical Basis for condemning non Reproductive sex acts between unmarried individuals.

In summery, Sex is only truly Sinful if it's motivated by something other then Love, or forced on someone against their will, or done in Pagan worship. But it is certainly preferred you try to avoid reproducing unless you know you can provide for the potential offspring.

I've seen one website (which argues many things I agree with) say that maybe sex outside marriage was fine under the Old Testament but not the New.  Nothing is more wrong to me then suggesting the NT condemns something the OT doesn't. The things the OT tolerated that the NT doesn't seem to anymore still had God's true disapproval apparent in the Old.  Even my Capital Punishment argument was not without OT basis.

Jesus came to remove a heavy yoke, not to add a greater burden.

1 Corinthians 7 is the key passage to their argument.

"Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.  Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.  Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.  Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency."

Notice how it goes both ways on your body now being owned by your spouse.  No notion here of the Wife as merely property of the Husband which so many assume The Bible condones.

It is also overlooked that most of what begins this is not Paul's words, he's quoting a question he was asked "ye wrote unto me", and I'm afraid it's not easy to tell where the question stops and his response begins.  And his answer to the question is not entirely a yes or a no.

But going on to verses 8 and 9.

"I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.  But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn."

There is an insistence that the terminology here treats marriage as the only alternative to being single (which they just assume is synonymous with celibacy).  And that there would be no point to this if one is simply allowed to have extra martial sex, even in a loving context with a fellow believer.

Fornication is a key word here, it's important not just to understand that it doesn't mean all Sex outside Marriage.  But that it is, no matter how many times it may be used more loosely, first and foremost a word for prostitution.  It's not just any random sex Paul wants them to avoid.

It is also important to know that this is a place where Paul is letting his personal opinions influence him, not enough to undermine the Divine inspiration, but it's there.  "But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment."  "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord".  It is not the full testimony of Scripture that single-hood is preferable to marriage, in fact Jesus seemed to have the opposite opinion.  God did not want Adam to be alone.  The Bride of Christ is a vital Biblical doctrine.

The statement that it is better to marry then to burn with lust is not about avoiding any sexual fulfillment, you could condemn masturbation with that flawed logic, which is absurdly stupid. It's for people who need deeper intimate companionship.  A need that only a committed relationship can truly fulfill.  But if not fulfilled by that could lead to a certain kind of Prostitution.  A kind that is not as well known today as it used to be, but you see in films and literature about older times like, The Egyptian or Baccarat and Torquise in the Rocambole novels.  Where the mark winds up seeking a quasi-romantic relationship with a Courtesan.  And where actual physical intimacy may not even happen.

The word "lust" is not used in this chapter, but it's always inserted by commentators.  Even if it were lust can refer to more then just physical desire, in fact it can be used in contexts not sexual at all.  The desire Paul is speaking of people burning with is not just the desire for physical release, it's a desire for something more.

I will also disagree with those who say this instruction is only for those "in the ministry", I do not support Organized Religion.  All Believers are servants of Christ.

Update May 2020: A fun Twitter thread I had recently.
https://twitter.com/JaredMithrandir/status/1260267274142920707