An example of lewdness," the bishop replies, "is when a man and woman look at one another and lust in their hearts." (The New Jerusalem Bible with the Apocryphal deuterocanonical books, p. 2113.) No sex, so to speak. At least I cannot remember of a canonical Scripture that commands "marry" as this one does. The expression used is "found a husband". The concept being expressed is that the Christian partner is to have sexual intercourse and conceive as part of the process, but not as the primary goal. It may be worth noting that this interpretation of Scripture is not a post modern invention, but goes back to very early Christian writers, e.g. Origen, the fourth century. I do not think that these verses are the most relevant for our discussion, but they are worthy of notice. As I understand it, Paul in his argument against marriage does not make a distinction between fornication and "unbelieving sexual intimacy". You do not ask how an unbeliever would enter into a covenant of sexual abstinence. I have no clear cut way of answering that question, but one possibility would be to say that it cannot be done, or if it is done it can never be called a covenant of sexual abstinence. If the Christian couple are in abstinence, their sexual relation with one another would involve no covenanting. Even if a couple should not follow the teaching of the apostle, it is not clear to me that they would be committing fornication if they should begin sexual relations with each other as husband and wife. For that reason I would think that Paul would distinguish fornication from a covenant of sexual abstinence. Hi Joe,As per our discussion on this thread, I went through my commentary on marriage and I could not find such verses in the Old Testament. Though some commentaries have these verses I feel it does not mean much because most of these comments are only from few church fathers or theologians or philosophers. In my case I have no intention of proving Paul's stance wrong. But just wanted to know more and if possible bring this to your attention. You want a proof that abstinence is in the OT and not just an isolated comment by a few? In Genesis 19 we read the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in which God is said to have turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt because of her not giving him any sexual relations. It has always been a mystery how that could happen because Lot did not give her any sexual relations at all. But the text there is not "abstinence is in the OT" but it is called fornication in Genesis. It is a general term that the Torah uses to describe almost anything you would be against. It is a broad enough category that it can be used for almost anything. "Let him that is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her." (v. 7) The Torah is even more broad in its use of fornication. The use of this term by our Scriptures seems to be different and is probably unique because it focuses more on the sexual aspect of it. I don't think we can simply make up a case that all sex outside of marriage is wrong, only that it is wrong to take any of it personally. So I ask: Do you agree with this? I've never seen the scriptures used this way in any commentary or Bible study. Hi Joe,I am not saying the Torah uses it's sexual relationship with all marriages, but in its broadest meaning as defined in Hebrew it can be used for sexual relations outside marriage. Again this has been explained very well in all the commentary, which I do not have at hand right now but hopefully I can give a link to you. One commentary I really like is Brazos's commentary on the Torah. In his commentary this is what he has to say. "Since the broadest term in the Torah for illicit sex is “fornication,” it is necessary to understand what constitutes it. When the Torah calls a man and woman “lovers of your own soul” (Deut. 13:6), for instance, the phrase is understood to mean that the two persons are married to one another. In the same vein, a statement such as “do not commit adultery” (Lev. 20:10) refers to having sexual intercourse with a married woman outside of marriage." I did not read all the verses, but I see the word often used for sexual relations other than between a husband and wife. In fact, Proverbs 7:10-13 says: The words of Agur son of Jakeh—an oracle. A man's steps are from the Lord; How then can a man understand his own way? Even in the darkest days, When a man's life is at its lowest ebb, He must not make friends with an influential person, Who is after his own profit, and does not even fear God. For a man of high degree is a friend of the powerful And gives gifts even while living among the poor. He makes a show of his riches rather than of the poor. When he gives, he is generous to the needy, As one might expect: He does so from his overflowing treasury, While an honorable man does not become an extortioner. A dishonest man with his tongue will wound himself; A man of evil character will reap the consequences. In reference to sexual relations, Proverbs 21:9 says: Listen, my sons, to a father’s instruction; Indeed, give attention to your father’s wisdom, For it is as if you were one of the wise men. And also Proverbs 25:18 says: The man who finds a wife finds what is good and receives favor from the Lord. But find for yourself a woman who will love you All your life. This is one of a few verses where sexual relations outside marriage is encouraged, so even the Bible says that it is sometimes permissible to have sex outside of marriage. I think we can make a very big case that sex outside marriage is wrong, but this is not necessarily the implication of these verses, at least I do not think so. Thanks for this post which provided a good point of reference for an interesting exchange between us on the topic of sexual ethics. I am intrigued by the questions concerning the use of the Greek term porneia. The translation in question is to be found in the LXX which dates to the second century A.D. The use of that particular word to convey sexual relations outside of marriage is quite different from any other usage of the term in the NT. This has been pointed out by many commentators on this passage of Scripture. There is another problem with your argument which is that in every other instance in which porneia is employed to denote sexual relations outside of marriage it is clear that a previous covenant relationship existed between husband and wife. (Leviticus 18:18; Deuteronomy 25:1; Proverbs 5:18). On the contrary, there is absolutely no pre-existing covenant relationship between the two people involved in this episode of sexual relations between Lot and his daughters. So it would seem to me that your argument can only stand in light of a post-facto rationalization which is clearly not supported by the NT. I am interested to hear your point of view in this debate. However, I am not persuaded that Scripture allows for the interpretation of its plain text which makes "abstinence" and "fornication" mutually exclusive categories. I am intrigued by the questions concerning the use of the Greek term porneia. The translation in question is to be found in the LXX which dates to the second century A.D. The use of that particular word to convey sexual relations outside of marriage is quite different from any other usage of the term in the NT. This has been pointed out by many commentators on this passage of Scripture. I know you say I cannot use this, but I have no problem using it. The question that I cannot answer is about their lack of a covenant relationship between them. In every other instance in the Scriptures it is clear that there was a covenant relationship between husband and wife, but not between Lot and his daughters. So it would seem to me that your argument can only stand in light of a post-facto rationalization which is clearly not supported by the NT. Again I have no problem with the NT making that claim. The way the NT is written is in conflict with the OT. I think what you're saying is that in every other instance, a pre-existing marriage agreement exists between one man and one woman, but that is not the case here. That does not necessarily make fornication a bad thing. It just makes Lot a bad example of how to show the folly of fornication. I feel sorry for myself as I'm married, and not sure I would have sex with my spouse if they were to tell me no. I mean, if I were to make my wife feel uncomfortable, not good. She doesn't make me do anything I don't want to do. Thank goodness she doesn't read