Virginity is Not a Virtue
Did I get your attention? Great! Now, please hear me out because I know it might sound questionable to someone with a Christian belief system. Rest assured, I do support the traditional belief that we should remain virgins until marriage, and that sex outside of marriage is sinful.
But I still believe that virginity is not a virtue, at least not in and of itself. So how do we reconcile those seemingly incompatible statements? I’m glad you asked!
Virginity simply means someone hasn’t had sex before. In and of itself, that’s not a good thing, nor a bad thing. So then why is it associated with sexual virtue? After all, the Bible seems to use virginity as a symbol of purity. But I think virginity is just that—a symbol. I think the illustration of a virgin bride waiting for her groom is used to symbolize how Old Testament Israel was supposed to wait for union with her husband, the Christ who was to come.
As a symbol, virginity is not a technical measurement of purity. A virgin is no more pure than someone who has partaken of sex according to God’s design (having it in marriage). In this case, you are a virgin until you first have sex with your spouse. After that, you’re no longer a virgin, but you’re still “sexually virtuous” because married sex is not sinful. It’s just as virtuous as abstaining before marriage.
But just as you can be sexually virtuous and not be a virgin, you can be a virgin and not be sexually virtuous. It’s certainly possible to sin sexually, through pornography or lust, for example, and still not have had sex.
Here’s the important distinction to note: one kind of virtuous behavior (abstinence) results in maintained virginity, and another kind of virtuous behavior (married sex) does not. At the same time, one kind of sinful behavior (pornography) results in maintained virginity, and another kind of sinful behavior (extra-marital sex) does not.
So if you can be a virgin with or without sexual sin, and you can be a non-virgin with or without sexual sin, what does that mean? It means that virginity alone doesn’t actually tell us anything at all about someone’s purity. Since it has no direct relation to whether or not you’ve sinned, the state of virginity is inherently no better or worse than the state of non-virginity.
Again, virginity simply indicates whether or not you’ve had sex. That’s different from the true moral standard, which is whether or not you’ve sinned (such as by having illicit sex). And as I explained, that true standard can be kept regardless of whether someone is a virgin or not.
This is why I say that virginity itself is not a virtue. It’s merely the byproduct of a certain kind of sexual virtue.
So what are the implications of this? Well, there are several.
1. We should not see “losing” our virginity as a negative thing.
This is, of course, assuming we’re doing it the right way by having sex only with our spouse.
We shouldn’t see it as a negative thing because we’re not actually losing anything of value. On the contrary, we’re gaining something of value! We’re gaining and consummating a beautiful, God-designed marriage relationship. We’re becoming part of a “profound mystery,” as Paul calls it; a divinely-inspired work of living art designed to represent the unimaginable, glorious, deeply loving relationship between Christ and his bride, the church (Ephesians 5:32, ESV).
So, perhaps “shedding” virginity is a better term, just as a butterfly sheds its old form when it enters its final, beautiful adult form. It’s a totally normal and beautiful thing. It’s supposed to happen! It’s a natural progression, one phase of life moving into another (singleness into marriage), just as God designed (Genesis 2:24-25, ESV).
2. We need to go beyond merely protecting our virginity.
We need to understand why that is temporarily the best way to handle our sexuality according to God’s design.
Yes, remaining a virgin is the first phase of God’s design for sexuality, but it’s not the end goal. Preserving virginity is a means, not an end in itself. So what is the actual end? Unburdened, unadulterated, unobstructed, unblemished, and unbelievable married sex! God wants us to avoid sexual sin (and therefore preserve our virginity before marriage) in part because that sin will make it harder to enjoy married sex as fully as he wants us to.
In one sentence: virginity is good not for its own sake, but as a God-designed means to the God-designed end of beautiful married sex.
We shouldn’t be focused on protecting our virginity; we should be focused on protecting our future married sex. The action may be the same (abstinence), but it has very different implications for our conscious and subconscious beliefs.
When we protect something, our subconscious logically concludes that it has value. So when we frame the issue as protecting virginity instead of married sex, we run the risk of mixing up what is truly valuable in our subconscious beliefs. We can easily start to think that virginity is itself the valuable thing when it’s really just one of the many layers of defense that are supposed to protect married sex. (That’s my hypothesis as a non-psychologist, anyway.)
Here’s an analogy, perhaps imperfect but hopefully useful. Armor is meant to protect a soldier. Its job is to keep the soldier alive. But why? So that the soldier can keep carrying the armor? So that the soldier can protect the armor? No! So that he can avoid injury and get to a safe place where he can take off the armor! He wears it when there is danger but sheds it willingly and happily when the time is right.
So it should be with virginity. It’s one piece of the armor, one layer of defense against sexual sin. It’s dangerous to remove it in battle, but it’s a good and natural thing to remove it in the right context: in a peaceful and protected castle, like the covenant of marriage.
Without a proper biblical understanding of sexuality, we might not have proper motivation to save sex for the right time. We might feel the armor is heavy and unnecessary, take it off in an unsafe place, and get hurt. Or when the right time comes, we can fail to enjoy sex as God intended because we’re scared of “losing” the virginity that we protected for years with a wrong focus. We might be scared to take off the armor because we’ve forgotten it’s merely a tool, meant for a certain place, time, and task, and not something we’re meant to carry forever.
So, once again, for emphasis: virginity is only a means, not an end. The end is unhindered, intimate, and ecstatic enjoyment of sexuality, protected within the covenant of marriage as God designed.
Now, if the real goal is actually to keep sex within marriage, that logically means…
3. It’s not okay to have sex outside of marriage simply because you’re not a virgin.
I’ve seen this argument made several times, even in some comments here on MarriageHeat. People have said that if they were hypothetically going to get remarried, they wouldn’t wait until that new marriage was sealed to have sex. The reasoning was, “we’re not virgins anyway, so why wait?”
I respectfully but very strongly disagree.
God’s design is “sex goes within marriage,” it is not “losing virginity goes within marriage.” They are very different things! If sex belongs within marriage, that logically requires that losing virginity also belongs in marriage. But if the standard you use is based on when and where virginity is lost, then you might not see the only-within-marriage standard as being so important.
Illicit sex is not a one-time thing. If you’re no longer a virgin, that doesn’t mean you can say, “oh well, it’s already done, so doing it again won’t make a difference.” Wrong! Every time you engage in illicit sex, it’s a sin, whether or not it was your first time doing it.
So, in summary, sex belongs only within marriage, whether it’s a first or subsequent marriage.
4. If you’ve been sexually abused or assaulted, you’re no less virtuous.
No matter how you define virginity, you are no less virtuous if you have been sexually abused or assaulted. Personally, I think that real sex requires consent and that survivors of sexual assault have not actually had sex, even if it involved penetration. But even if you think that does make you “no longer a virgin,” well, guess what? Virginity itself isn’t a virtue, so you aren’t any less virtuous! You haven’t done anything wrong. You aren’t at fault. You haven’t sinned.
5. The gift you give your spouse on your wedding night isn’t your virginity.
This is a less critical point, but I wanted to address it. I think the sentiment behind this “gift” idea is right, but it can reinforce the erroneous idea that virginity, as the gift, should be the focus instead of sexual purity, which, as I explained, is distinct from virginity.
Waiting for marriage, and therefore being a virgin on your wedding night, is both biblical and wise for many reasons. And it is a gift to your spouse for you to display wisdom and avoid sexual baggage that could harm your relationship. I would frame it that way instead of saying that the virginity itself is a gift because, once again, it doesn’t mean much by itself.
But virgins or not, that first sexual union is a gift, right? And surely, it’s a far more emotionally meaningful gift than just “biblical morality” and “wisdom,” right?
Don’t get me wrong, the importance and value of those cannot be overstated, but they’re not exactly romantic ideas that tug on the heartstrings for most of us.
However, the answer is yes, I think it’s much more special than that.
Whether or not two new spouses are virgins when they beautifully (if awkwardly) consummate their marriage, virginity isn’t the true gift that they’re giving.
They’re giving themselves.
They’re opening themselves up to the deepest, most intimate human relationship there is, specially designed by God to be the earthly representation of Christ and his church.
The wedding night is a husband and wife giving themselves to each other and having intimate communion, just as Christ and his church will in heaven (Revelation 19:7, ESV).
The new spouses are saying, “I love you so much, I am giving you myself as a gift; a living, breathing image of God, who will love you, cherish you, and be your companion as long as we live.” What could possibly be more special than that? And that special gift can get obscured if we focus too much on the technicality of virginity.
So in our own thoughts and in how we teach our children, let’s focus on the much more vital aspects of sex: covenant commitment, unconditional love, and mutual passion and pleasure!
(Thoughts, comments, disagreements, questions? Let me know! I’m always interested in discussions that help us all be better TruthSeekers.)
This post has been updated with a few clarifications at the original author’s request. 4/21/2021
Hello. I’d like to point out this analysis is not biblical. The Lord told us “For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person,” Matthew 15:19. Having sex with anyone who is not your spouse is a sin, it is not an irredeemable sin, but it is sin nonetheless, and many marriages have born the consequences of that sin when the parties bring the emotional baggage of unchastity to the marriage bed. There can be healing and the Lord may heal us of the scars of sexual sin, but we need to be truly sorrowful first, acknowledging and repenting our sin. You may also want to ponder the meaning of James 3:1. “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness”. I think you mean well with this post, as your fellow Christian I need to point out that it may be leading people astray from Gods word. Peace be with you.
I'm sorry, but I disagree. I think the "is not a virtue" might have thrown you off because the author clearly advocates maintaining virginity until marriage, just not for it's own sake. What he's pointing out is that virginity isn't the goal in and of itself—purity is. And sex within marriage is *just as pure* as virginity pre-marriage. So the goal is purity both before and after marriage, and sex within marriage is to be thought of as a blessing and source of unity, not a "concession for the flesh."
I'd like to make clear that I agree: "Having sex with anyone who is not your spouse is a sin." I tried to make that clear throughout the article, though I never stated it in exactly that way.
However, the title was definitely intended to appear controversial and get readers thinking, so I fully understand how that could prejudice someone against the rest of the article. I hadn't thought about that angle! I'll keep that in mind for the next time I write a title like this. Thank you for the helpful feedback! 🙂
Also, thank you CHL for the excellent, concise summary of the core idea! That's exactly the main point I'm getting at.
TruthSeeker, I agree with pretty much everything you said. I especially appreciated #4. My wife and I were both victims of childhood sexual abuse. We appreciated your point that being a victim of any kind of sexual assault does NOT make the victim less virtuous!
I think your post is spot on but I want to add something that is VERY important for true Christians to remember:
Jesus paid the price for our sins so that we can be with God one day. The Atonement of Jesus Christ makes repentance possible and His sacrifice cleanses and purifies us. Yes we all sin in many ways. And we should definitely avoid sexual sins… but for those of us who have commuted sexual sins there IS forgiveness and cleansing…if we have faith in Christ and repent and strive to live clean moving forward. Jesus told the woman caught in adultery that he did not condemn her. He did not condone her immoral behavior but he gave her the opportunity to repent by telling her, “Go thy way and sin no more.” And the Lord had Isaiah write: “Though your sins be as scarlet they shall be white as snow…” so total forgiveness IS possible. When we have repented we are pure… even if we are no longer virgins. Again, avoiding sin is better because repentance is difficult… but the cleansing power of Jesus can not be overstated!
Spouses who know their husband or wife had sex with someone else before marriage may have emotional baggage to deal with. And the person who sinned may have trouble forgiving themselves for their past behavior, but I honestly believe that we can be cleansed and purified through faith in Christ and repentance. We should NEVER hold someone’s past sins against them if they have repented and been purified by the blood of Christ.
If we can’t forgive and accept that God also forgives and cleanses then we are not true Christians! True Christians understand that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is a message of repentance and Change!
So a Christian that has sinned and repented need not feel impure even if they are no longer a virgin due to sexual sin before marriage.
Your statement that we give ourselves as a gift to our spouse is beautiful!
One final thought is that my wife and I agree with you that marriage sex is pure. It is not losing innocence to have a rocking sexual relationship with your spouse! On the contrary, it is a commandment of God to be one flesh. And that relationship between husband and wife is a source of righteous ecstasy!
I wanted to add that we need to be willing to forgive ourselves when we have repented. We say we believe IN Jesus and his teachings… but do we BELIEVE Him when His scriptures say we can be forgiven and our scarlet sins made white as snow?
Of course we also need to forgive others as Jesus said 70 x 7. Jesus taught that need to forgive others in order for God to forgive us.
Agree that one of the negative consequences of the virginity is everything teaching is the shame it brings onto a girl who has been raped. Because of flawed emphasis on having something to give her future husband, she now has the tragedy of having that gift stolen from her. It also treats sex like a commodity she plans to give to the man who wins the bidding and marries her. There was a big emphasis in the Torah about how loss of Birgitta lowered her bride price and the man who violated her had to pay her father money to make up for it. All of these virginity emphasis needs to be reevaluated, because the bride doesn’t give her virginity, she gives herself.
So weird that this passage in the OT (dealing with consensual pre-marital sex and not rape, though) was part of our family's "read through the Bible in a year" section yesterday. I paraphrase: if a man entice a virgin and lay with her, he will surely pay her father the bride price and marry her. If the father refuses to give her to him as a wife, he still must pay the bride price. Does this then imply that virginity is more valuable and highly honored by God than marriage? I don't see that at all. But having shown this disrespect to the father, one could see why he might not be deemed a worthy addition to the family. And her acquiescence (signified by "entice and lay") would have reduced the likelihood of another suitor choosing her. Today, when the father plays much less of a role in choosing a woman's spouse, the respect shown by waiting is to each other, to the sanctity of the marriage itself, and to God as our heavenly Father with the authority (and love) to tell us how things should be done.
Especially lately, I am baffled by the truly non-Biblical teaching that sexual sins are somehow elevated above “white collar” sins. What is wrong with our culture? No one thinks legalism is the answer… but we spend so much time focusing on “is this or that a sin or not a sin.” We actually make rule-following an idol… and to top it off, we call the best rule-following “purity.” YUCK! This is the opposite of the Gospel. This kind of teaching has screwed up a lot of people. Even in the comments of this post, we are bickering about what perspective is truly “Biblical.” This is exactly what the Pharisees and Sadducees would be doing 2,000 years ago. The whole book of Galatians is saying “Go ahead… define your righteousness by the rules and laws… and trust me [says Paul] you will fail.”
Bickering? Nah. Just disagreeing. But that is allowed when done respectfully. I don't think the point is to elevate one sin above another; sex is just the focus of this site.
I agree with you that "rule-following" isn't the measure of purity; love is. But I also believe what Paul said to Timothy: All scripture is inspired by God (God-breathed) and useful for… training in righteousness—right behavior, i.e. love. So of course, we will discuss with each other—in love—how we put Biblical teaching into practice in our lives (or haven't, in the case of some of us) and how that has impacted our marriages. In doing so, we can hope to encourage others to consider what the Holy Spirit is saying to them through the living Word, and make choices consistent with their faith.
Anyone who's read my testimony knows that I didn't wait and wasn't pure even within my marriage for a time. I learned the hard way that God's plan for sex is not "legalistic," it's practical. He knows the hearts of humans, knows our fallibility and propensity to seek our own will above His and above the good of others. He knows that sex is one of the ways we could use each other, even though we'd miss out on the amazing connection and unity it can build between people committed to each other for life. Of course, as our loving Father, he would teach us how best to share it.
I don't think there has actually been any disagreement on what is biblical, just a misunderstanding about what I was actually trying to communicate in the article. We all seem to agree that sex is meant for marriage, and having it outside of marriage is wrong.
As for the problematic emphasis on rules and legalism, I'm right there with you! The desire behind this article was to try to speak against legalism around virginity. We need to have a deeper understanding of the topic, rather than blindly accepting incomplete and detrimental teaching simply because, "well, those are the rules." Just like you, I want to get the focus off the rule. I want to take the rule and say, "Here's why it's right in some ways, but but wrong in others, and how we need to change our thinking."
“I believe” and “I think” does not constitute correct interpretation and meaning of God’s Word. Are your thoughts and beliefs about Scripture in context and in agreement with hundreds of years of accepted interpretation of the Word?
I understand the point you are making, however, in doing so you may be misleading or misguiding others who don’t have the spiritual maturity (and age maturity) to properly understand it.
This website is better when sharing stories of married sex. The opinion articles…not so much, in my opinion.
We are glad that the stories bless you. Feel free to avoid the posts tagged Advice Offered, Bible Study, or Discussion Questions if you'd rather. We'll continue to offer them as they are submitted, though, for those who benefit from and enjoy them. We strongly believe that our members have much insight to offer each other and that discussing our beliefs and understandings is part of building community. We can't support hot Biblical monogamy without talking at all about the whys and wherefores.
You're definitely right that "I think" and "I believe" doesn't mean I'm right in those thoughts and beliefs. That's precisely why I state them as thoughts and beliefs: to make clear that my opinion is not absolute biblical truth, and may very well be flawed. If you can point out the flaws you see and help me correct them, I would genuinely be more than happy to have the help. My goal is to know and spread truth, not just to be right or win an argument.
As for misleading and misunderstanding, I don't think we should refrain from sharing or teaching a concept simply because some cannot understand it, or might be misled by it. I see the value of your point, but people can misinterpret anything. So using that standard, we'd only ever be able to teach "milk" and never get to the "meat" (1 Corinthians 3:2, Hebrews 5:12-14). We must teach the "meat," the more difficult and technical topics, but I think we'd agree that we also must do our due diligence to minimize the potential for that teaching to mislead anyone.
That due diligence sounds like a strong reason for me to make a little addition at the beginning making explicitly clear that I still adhere to the belief that you shouldn't have sex until you're married. (I'll talk to MH to see about making that edit.) I did uphold the traditional view pretty strongly throughout the article, though:
Sec.2: "[Virginity] is temporarily the best way to handle our sexuality according to God's design."
Sec.2: "Yes, remaining a virgin is the first phase in God's design for sexuality…"
Sec.2: "Virginity is good… as a God-designed means to the God-designed end of beautiful married sex."
Sec.2: "[Virginity is] …one of the many layers of defense that are supposed to protect married sex."
Sec.2: "[Virginity is] one piece of the armor, one layer of defense against sexual sin."
Sec.3: "God's design is 'sex goes within marriage'…"
Sec.3: "…sex belongs only within marriage…"
I'm not sure I can make it much more clear than that, at least not without being annoyingly repetitive. But given the concerns raised by 2 commenters now, I see that it would be wise to make it clearer at the very beginning of the article. Thanks for the feedback and helping me improve my communication style! 🙂
We have to be careful about which "accepted interpretation" of the Word we use. That is a very slippery slope. I find it far better to now worry about 'accepted interpretation' and rather read the Word, study the Word, meditate and cogitate on the Word, knaw on it as our Lord told us to do, chew on it day in and day out, think and think and think about it. And let Holy Spirit lead us and interpret the word to us.
The problem with trying to find an accepted interpretation is I can find accepted interpretations from different sources/churches that are very much in error with the Bible, the Inspired Word of God. A deeper understanding of the Bible is a personal journey for each believer, the Holy Spirit interprets and leads us to understanding and a fuller knowledge of who God is, what He has done for us, and the worship due Him.
Good iron-sharpening-iron thoughts from the above article. There truly is nothing new under the sun. Some of the meanderings in the article can also be found in the writings by St. Thomas Aquinas. I fully understand where the author is pointing in this article; however, I think there is much attempts at splitting gnat hairs. Virginity is truly a virtue………in certain contexts. As has been succinctly explained in the article, there is no need to consider virginity in a covenant marriage because sexual activity is a duly significant and appropriate part of that marriage. So, marriage is not the context when it comes to virginity and virtue. That said, in contexts where a covenant relationship (marriage) is not the subject, virginity is certainly a virtue. It is a virtue because of the purpose of observing perpetual integrity. Augustine said that "by virginity, integrity of the flesh is vowed, consecrated and observed in honor of the Creator of both soul and flesh." So, virginity, like all other diligence to observe our Creators precepts and constitutions for living, is a virtuous act before a Holy and righteous God.
A quote from the article: “ Again, virginity simply indicates whether or not you’ve had sex.” Well, virginity is more than just an indicator of abstinence or engagement. The fact that virginity is chosen and continued is a direct indicator of devotion and compliance with a Holy God’s desires for our lives. Virginity is not just some by-product. It is a symbol, it is an indicator, it is a proclamation, it is an open revelation of commitment.
Another quote from the article is: “Since it has no direct relation to whether or not you’ve sinned, the state of virginity is inherently no better or worse than the state of non-virginity.” Well, outside the context of marriage, virginity does have direct correlation to sin. When virginity is discussed, the usual context surrounds unmarried people. I have never heard a discussion of virginity in any other context than an unmarried context; whereby it, virginity, would be a moot point. Thusly, virginity, in that context, is a better state. So, what do we say about murder? Is the state of not-being-a-murderer inherently good or bad? Contemplating murder and committing murder are both sinful. Obviously one of those sins has farther reaching impacts as does sexual promiscuity.
I get the point of the article and appreciate the offering. There are just some points of argument presentation that I think blur the Biblical vision and inadvertently lessens the significance of commitment via virginity. Virginity should always be considered a positive and righteous virtue/personal trait to have if one is of youth, maturing into adulthood and never married, or continuing in adulthood and not married. All along the life continuum, virginity is virtuous. It is not an absolute moniker of purity but it does show a portion of one’s life as having some commitment to the Creator’s constitution.
@1blessedman: "A quote from the article: 'Again, virginity simply indicates whether or not you’ve had sex.' Well, virginity is more than just an indicator of abstinence or engagement. The fact that virginity is chosen and continued is a direct indicator of devotion and compliance with a Holy God’s desires for our lives. Virginity is not just some by-product. It is a symbol, it is an indicator, it is a proclamation, it is an open revelation of commitment."
Wouldn't you have to say "*If* virginity is chosen…"? It is *choosing* virginity that you are referring to and not the virginity itself. And I think that's what the OP was saying: Like faith without works is dead, and we show our faith by our works, virginity before marriage is *virtuous* to the degree that it is accompanied by an attitude of worship and obedience.
And while I agree that virginity is usually only addressed in the context of pre-marriage, the attitude that "I was pure until I had sex" does continue to bear consequences into married life for those who don't understand the purity of sex within marriage. If one was raised to believe that sex itself or the desire for it sullies you, one can carry that negative (even subconscious) attitude forward into the marriage and have a resistance to enjoying it or feel "dirty" for doing so. Maybe worse is to feel "holier than thou" towards one's spouse because you don't need sex the way he or she seems to.
Thanks for your critique, 1blessedman. I truly do appreciate the help in improving my ability to communicate my ideas.
It seems the disagreement I've been getting isn't on the main message, but on the way it's presented. Apparently I went a bit overboard in my attempt to frame the discussion with a thought-provoking title, and inadvertently lost people.
I agree with a lot of the points you make, like how "virginity is more than just an indicator of abstinence or engagement," and how virginity is indeed a virtue in certain contexts. I did try to acknowledge those ideas (hence the parts about virginity being a symbol of purity in the old testament, and how virginity is a good thing as God's design for pre-marriage sexuality). Unfortunately I only have so much space to work with. I have an issue with writing in a very expansive way, and I didn't want readers to get lost in miles of text where I say the same thing in 100 different ways. I guess this is an exercise in learning to be concise while still painting just the right picture.
The thought behind that highly technical/logical section was to show that virginity alone was not enough to judge someone's purity. We need more context to determine purity, such as whether they're single or married, as you rightly mentioned.
The main point was to show how certain mindsets legalistically place too much value on virginity and not enough value on understanding biblical sexuality as whole. Instead, our goal needs to be pure behavior before God rather than simple rule-keeping. In other words: follow the rule, but understand why it's there.
It seems I need to fine-tune the presentation of that idea, though. Thanks for your help in that regard! 🙂
And thank you again to CHL for being able to see my message through what is obviously a somewhat obscuring title. Once again, you nailed the underlying issues I was hoping to address.
Right on TruthSeeker. I agree and appreciate your message of heart-felt intent before a Holy God is the priority versus just trying to maintain a long list of rules. Although, what is interesting in God's realm is that rule-keeping is a part of the relationship. We are diverse beings that exist as flesh and spirit. As spiritual beings we yearn for a pure relationship with the King and we wrestle with the flesh and demand that there be rule-following behaviors. 1Peter2 and Galatians 5 tells us about this situation. Even in salvation Peter indicates that there is something that we submit to (Acts 2). And, our Lord himself said that those who endure to the end shall be saved (Matthew). So, there is this rule-keeping and diligent behavior that we engage in that is part of this journey to become Holy–pure, pristine, set-apart. I definitely agree with you that a wicked heart that just does outward things is still a wicked and lost heart.
A point here that I have learned and still try to remember as I write and teach is that there is only one absolute and He sits on His throne of grace, mercy and judgement. If I offer a thought in a manner that delivers the notion of absolute, it is a red flag for me; unless it is God's word in context.
All of that said, I am 100% with you that just because a person chooses to not have sex before marriage does not mean that they have a moral purity pleasing to God. Though, I do realize that, in that sexual-hunger struggle with the flesh, one might delve into porn or other impure venues and thoughts that are not spiritually healthy. In such circumstances, I still do commend them for the one part of their journey to not engage in sex with another person. As I offered above, the actions are far-reaching that engage and hurt others while the thoughts stay contained—-impure as they are—-but contained. That shows some victories in their journey; small ones maybe, but still victories. And, you are correct. We must offer the broader message of complete purity and help them to win the other battles.
I think you raise some very interesting thoughts, as one comment said and I like this is very iron-sharpening-iron stuff. I think you have described something that does affect us all, a form of legalism that is very subtle. We can find a word that is easy to define (like virgin) and easy to determine (have or have not), and if you are a virgin we can automatically assume the virtue comes with the act. But as you say, sin comes from the heart, and it has become so easy to use virginity to say we are virtuous (or conversely to say if you are not a virgin that you are not pure) that we have forgotten the heart issue. Perhaps God's word to Samuel fits best: The Lord does not look at the outside of a man (or woman) but at his/her heart.
Thank you for writing this!!!
OK, I know I'm late to comment here, but hold on a second.
I'm not disagreeing with the point the author has made about virginity not being a virtue, but one must be careful calling pre-marital sex a sin. I've written about this before because I started studying the Bible in Greek, and it's vastly different to what we've read in English because Greek is essentially more specific than the English language.
Thus, I implore you to study these relevant issues in Greek first. And before you say I'm twisting the Bible to suit my needs; I'm not. I just prefer to let the Bible speak for itself by studying it as best I can.
That whole thing about paying the father the bridal price – that's not a sin concerning premarital sex. That's an issue of theft against the father, because the father had the right to sell his daughter's virginity to a man. Not any man could just take a woman's virginity without the father's consent and paying the father. This was in a nutshell how marriage worked back then. I'm stating all this as an example. Please go and research this for a better understanding on sex.
I'm not saying I know it all; that is why I started studying in the first place.
Kind regards,
southernmost
I understand there are some disagreements about what the term "fornication" means in the New Testament (I think that might be part of what you're referencing). I agree, there does seem to be a difference between "pre-marital sex" as we understand it in modern times, and the "fornication" they dealt with in biblical times.
I don't think you're necessarily "twisting" the Bible. I've heard from multiple sources that "fornication" as used in the original language doesn't match up with our modern idea of pre-marital sex, and was intended more to speak against prostitution. So I agree it likely isn't speaking directly to the situation of modern pre-marital sex. (And admittedly, I've done almost no original-language research myself.)
However, I'm concerned that your viewpoint might come from focusing too much on details and definitions and not enough on the overall design. Believe me, I put a VERY high value on details and definitions, but remember that a big theme in the Bible is that God is more interested in the state of our hearts than how well we follow rules (Isaiah 1:11, Matthew 15:8-9). The spirit of the law is just as important as the letter. The big-picture design is just as important as the details. Even if there is an apparent "loophole" in the letter of the law, that doesn't make a certain act acceptable, because it can still violate the spirit of the law.
Whether or not the Bible explicitly says that our modern understanding of pre-marital sex is sinful, I think it's pretty clear that sex is intended to be kept only within the context of marriage.
To step back and understand the intent of God's design, think of it this way: does the Bible ever portray sex in a positive light in any context except marriage? Not to my knowledge. Perhaps when it comes to sex-related topics, it sometimes takes a neutral, objective approach in telling a story or defining legal procedures rather than explicitly saying "this is wrong." But I don't believe it ever approves of sex in any context but marriage.
Also, what is Paul's advice for young people who experience strong sexual desire? Get married. He says it's either that or burn with passion (1 Corinthians 7:8-9). If you want to have sex, get married. He doesn't give another option.
Is marriage just God's suggestion? I don't think God says, "Hey, I made this thing called marriage, and I think it's the best place to cultivate sexual intimacy and pleasure, but if you have a different idea, go for it." This would mean we're taking the choice into our own hands of whether or not to follow God's design. And I think "choosing not to follow God's design" is a pretty good definition of sin.
So if we're going to follow God's design for marriage and sex, that's Genesis 2:24: "Therefore a man shall… hold fast to his WIFE, and the two shall become one flesh" (ESV, emphasis mine). Not to his girlfriend, not to his betrothed, not to his fiancée, his WIFE. The person he is utterly and inextricably committed to for life.
Those are the things that make me believe pre-marital sex is wrong.
As for the virginity/bride price issue, I would note that we can sometimes, but not always, use Old Testament law to draw conclusions about how we should live now that we're under the New Testament. There are many things in OT law that were compromises, not God's true design, such as allowing divorce. In the NT, Jesus said divorce was allowed because of Israel's hardness of heart—their sin—and "from the beginning it was not so" (Matthew 19:8). It was against God's design. So just because something was allowed or practiced in the Old Testament, that doesn't necessarily mean we can always draw principles from it to apply to our own lives.
Thanks for the comment, I appreciate the discussion! 🙂
Hi there Truthseeker,
Firstly I would like to say that your concern is welcomed, but unnecessary.
My study into the Bible came as a result of listening to Jesus when He said: "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you".
My attention to detail came because I fell in love with Christ, the Bible, and the way the Father had designed everything. I started discovering a whole new world when I started studying and I make it my goal to learn as much as I can. No doubt I've made mistakes in my learning and I will never know it all, but I truly want to know God's heart on any given subject.
And sex is important. I would argue it's one of the basic things that make us human. It's been with us from the beginning, so why not study it more? Now, just because I have found that it's not sinful to have pre-marital sex doesn't mean I am endorsing people to have sex before marriage, let me make that clear. But I would like to ask you, what is worse – rushing into sex or rushing into a marriage just to have sex? Is it also not the purity culture of today that anyways drives people to premarital sex, but in perverse ways?
I think as much as it is possible, people should wait for marriage. But I don't think it's helpful calling them sinners if they don't wait, especially if that may not even be a sin. In fact, the word "sin" is a "sin". The Greek word used for our word "sin" means mistake, or to make a mistake. And it doesn't really have the gravity that "sin" does. In fact, our understanding of sin is far removed from what Jesus taught, at least so I've seen in my research.
But back to the point, there is a great song in the Bible which may reference a celebration of sex that occurs before marriage, and that is the Song of Songs. Upon first glance, it may not appear so, but the Hebrew tenses seem to indicate that the sexual acts described are happening before the marriage has taken place. I mention this for interest sake. Then there is the story of Tamar who slept with her widowed father-in-law Judah (who mistook her for a prostitute). She disguised herself as such to seduce him to bear a son to continue the family name of Judah. Thus, she basically had premarital sex in a very sneaky way to bring about an heir to continue a blood line, because Judah would not give his last son to her in marriage. And she was called righteous for this act. Now I'm not using this to argue anything, I mention it once again for interest sake.
God did create the ideal when He created marriage for a man and woman, and sex to be enjoyed in that union. But we're humans. And not all of us will meet that ideal. I think if our hearts are in the right place, we will try our best, but our best doesn't always cut it.
Kind regards,
Southernmost
Interesting to read yet another set of beliefs on virginity and when it’s acceptable to have intercourse and when it’s not. A virgin is a young female prior to having her first menstrual cycle. I think we can all agree having sex before that is not a good idea. As far as sex after a first marriage ends. I think it’s very difficult to make a logical argument to wait. Especially when both are of an age when children will no longer be the result.
I've never run into that definition of virgin anywhere, Marge. Would love to know your source. Most of mine (for the Hebrew word almah—maiden— translated as parthenos—virgin—in the Septuagint) say a woman of childbearing age who hasn't yet borne.
As an exciting (for me, anyway) side note, I saw in my news feed that there's a new ancient Greek lexicon coming out that gives a less euphemistic turn to the translations. Needless to say, I've preordered my copy of The Cambridge Greek Lexicon already.
This from the article:
The new dictionary’s editors “spare no blushes”, Diggle said, when it comes to the words that “brought a blush to Victorian cheeks”. The verb χέζω (chezo), translated by Liddell and Scott as “ease oneself, do one’s need”, is defined in the new dictionary as “to defecate” and translated as “to shit”; βίνέω (bineo) is no longer “inire, coire, of illicit intercourse”, but “fuck”; λαικάζω (laikazo), in the 19th-century dictionary translated as “to wench”, is now defined as “perform fellatio” and translated as “suck cocks”.
(Sorry about the language, but this is in a very academic usage.)
Like CHL, I'm curious where that definition of virginity comes from, because it doesn't fit any other definition or usage that I've ever heard. The usage in some Old Testament laws makes pretty clear that virginity is related to sex, not menstruation or childbearing. (Deuteronomy 22:13-21, for example. I'm sure there are more.)
But more importantly, I'm curious about your view that it's okay to have sex after the end of a first marriage. That doesn't compute for me. But I don't want to just attack your view, I want to understand where it comes from. Why do you think the usual view of "sex goes only within marriage" is incorrect? For those of us who hold that view, what do you think we are missing?
Hi Second Marge!
I always love seeing your feedback in the discussions!
I think that there's a lot on sexuality that just doesn't get discussed openly enough, such as what you have mentioned here as well as in older posts.
I actually replied to one of your comments to a very old post of mine but I was late to reply so I don't think you saw it. I would like to re-ask what I did in that reply and hear your opinion on it. It had to do with family nudism. I will post my original question below:
[From MH: Rather than start this discussion here in the comments of an unrelated post, we created a discussion post with your questions for SecondMarge but open them up to response from other nudists in the community, as well. It's currently scheduled for 7/12/21, but we are considering a change to the frequency of "question" posts, so it may move up soon.]
Kind regards!
Southernmost
Words which don't occur in the Bible, by the way.
At one point, I was involved in a friends with benefits relationship with a close friend during university. Intially, my friend was just like some of the other women that I have been close to at times that was just playfully smacking by ass, grabbing my nipples, and really flirty with me. I loved the attention and we really got along well and I was attracted to her. I wanted to be more that friends with benefits, and so did she. We both considered getting married, and wanted to be really sure if this was the best course of action to take. We decided to have a cooling down period in order to gauge if the desire for marriage was 100% real or just a product of the emotional high from going beyond just flirting/ touching and hugging to sex. We decided to give it a year and then we would get married. Unfortunately, she eventually met another guy and the conclusion was that it was better to just be friends. I was a sad conclusion to a situation that looked like it had much promise for the future. Do I regret the pre-marriage/ pre-engagment sexual activities? Yes and no. I wish that had waited until we were married or atleast dating/ engaged like Leigha95 giving her my husband head in a movie theater they while we were dating or the like the comment on the story Cum Swallow, where Gwll saw the manager of the theater that he worked at in 1969 screwing his fiance/ future wife. On the other hand, I really like and we both wanted to get married at one point. Finally, it was not a one-night stand. I could never do a one-night stand. There was a relationship and we had good intentions, but sadly it did work out. On the other hand, the interactions both from the relationship/ friendship, will be very helpful with my future wife. In conclusion, this situation was both positive and negative at the same time, with a sad outcome that I did want to happen. If being a Christian/ or a decent human being was about being 100% perfect and never making mistakes, then everyone fails and no one is worthy of God's grace or a second chance.