Why Shouldn`t Couples Live Together Before They Are Married?

RESPONSE: The most obvious reason to not live together from a Christian perspective, is that you can't live together without sleeping together and God reserves sexual intimacy for the committed oneness of marriage. I address the specific issue of why and where in the bible God reserves sex for marriage here.

Regarding the specific reasons for not living together, the case is a strong (if the goal is lasting marriages) even putting the "fornication" issue aside. Cohabitation is a big deal these days - the national rate is literally sky rocketing. In fact, some family experts were getting excited to see that the divorce rate seemed to be dropping quickly a few years ago. Then they found out that the reason the divorce rate was dropping was not because people were more committed to their unions. The reason was that people were simply delaying marriage, and opting to live together instead.

But contrary to popular myth, this does not help a couple prepare for a life of marriage. Instead, these cohabiting couples break up MORE frequently than married couples, yet they often share assets, homes and even children. Thus their breaks up are every bit as heart wrenching and damaging to themselves, others and society as a divorce, but it just doesn’t show up in the divorcee stats, because technically they weren’t married.

Let's look at the common wisdom which says, “you wouldn’t buy a car without first taking it for a test drive, right?” This has a ring of truth, but the facts don’t bear it out. The reason, is simply because you cannot “practice” commitment.  Marriage is not a car, it's not a product you can "test" because at the heart is not services you consume, it is a promise you fulfill.  In fact, a consumerist view of marriage is very much at the root of marriage breakdown, since it puts the emphasis in marriage on what I get out of it.  The Biblical picture is the opposite: the emphasis is on what you put into it.

Think about the ironic contradiction of a trial marriage where you are specifically and intentionally NOT committed, and yet you are trying to practice commitment.  Like all married couples, a cohabiting couple does not call off the "trial" when they reach a problem.  They try to work these through.  Despite not being legally 'committed' to each other, they practice 'commitment' by sticking it out despite the flaws that are uncovered.  So they are truly pretending to be married in every way, EXCEPT for the ACTUAL commitment part. They always have the escape hatch.

And that "hand on the door" nature of the relationship may explain in part why in a majority of cohabiting relationships, after a few years, the trial marriage turns out to be a trial divorce.  These are break ups every bit as awful as a real divorce emotionally, financially and relationally. Turns out, this wasn’t a test drive at all. Test drives don’t hurt like hell!  Cohabitation often does because it throws much greater insecurity into the normal ebbs and flows and conflicts of marriage. Christian courtship without cohabitation can end without soul rocking, life long consequences. Couples might think this potential cost worth paying if the 'test drive' increases the chance of an eventual marriage lasting and being happy. But it does not, as several studies have graphically shown.

What these stats prove, is that there is nothing to be discovered or proven during living together that magically increases the soundness or longevity of marriages. In fact, ironically, no matter how long a couple lives together, marriage often alters a relational dynamic in a way that cannot be tested in advance.

Testing sexual compatibility is seen as a critical reason for premarital sex and cohabitation. But this is an idea borne of an age were people expect to have a dozen or more sex partners in their lifetimes. In that kind of a world, comparisons about sex are terribly important to a relationship. But if a person has a monogamy mind set, then the only really important thing about sexual compatibility that needs to be known before marriage is fundamental attraction. If the attraction is there (and this can be known easily without sex) then everything else necessary to great sex is simply mechanics and selfless attitude. These can be LEARNED. 

In fact, these are best learned not by firing through sex partners, but in an stable, exclusive environment where I’m not comparing my partner to 5 past lovers to see if I can be compatible with that person for a lifetime. And let's be honest: one could be a great and selfless lover, but their partner's past with multiple sex partners sets them up to be dissatisfied with the one great lover, simply because it’s ONE lover and not a variety of lovers!  Couples who cite sexual incompatibility as reason for their break up may often mean, "incompatibility with monogamy."

This exposes the contradictory expectations that most cohabiting couples are not willing to admit to each other.  Rather than a "test drive", what cohabitation is really offering to the woman and the man is something quite different and may be mutually exclusive.  The man is promised more regular sex without having to bother with altering his long term plans.  The woman is promised a step towards a real marriage which she may never get.

What we're finding is simply this:  real commitment again is the key to long term happiness and fulfillment, not a “trial run”. Whatever needs to be “test driven” before you “buy” can be tested easily and best without cohabitation and even without premarital sex.

If the goal is a marriage that lasts, not only God’s Word, but also the best data shows that cohabitation is not the way to go.  You might have heard new studies said this was not the case, but after analysis by Jessica Cohen, the latest reports again indicate: "premarital cohabitation was not linked to marital stability for women or men"

Is it permissible for Christians to engage in premarital sex?

QUESTION: We are an adult Christian couple both soon to have final divorce documents complete. Our question is: When we are dating, is there any place for sexual intimacy in this budding relationship or is abstinence the only correct path. Please cite Hard Scripture in addition to any pastoral counseling experience you have on this matter.

ANSWER: I think that the Scriptures give a clear answer to your question, namely that sexual intimacy ought to be reserved for marriage.

The Bible says in Heb 13:4-5 that "marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral."  So this is the simplest description of how sexuality ought to be used by Christians in that it describes the two primary ways to MIS-use it: through adultery and sexual immorality.  One is the sexual indiscretion of married people (Adultery) and the other refers to the sexual indiscretions of unmarried people (Sexual Immorality).  In fact the Greek word used here and elsewhere, "pornea", is used for a wide variety of sexual sins.

This rule essentially puts a net around the act of sex, containing it's tremendous power within a safe zone.  Why is such a safety net needed?  Well, nothing can be clearer from the beginning of the Bible to the end than that sex is a powerful, spiritual joining (Genesis 2:25, 1 Cor 6:18).  Hence God's design for sexuality is that it be between a man and a women in a committed, covenant bond.  So the 7th commandment about adultery (Deut 20:14) and all other sex guidelines in the Law that follow (Leviticus 18) clearly reserve sexual intercourse for the relative safety of the marriage bed.

Since marriage was the norm in Jewish society, the only sex between unmarried persons addressed in the law, regarded virgins.  But here too we see again the underlying Scriptural premise that the bond of sex is in some sense permanent, because a man who deflowered a virgin would be required to marry her (Ex 22:16).

So you can see that you can't separate adultery from what is often called "fornication".  Which is why the same word is often used for ALL sexual indiscretion, because it's all essentially a violation of a single ideal - one man, one woman, for life.  From God's perspective, the act of sex is the act of marriage, for God looks at your sex partner as a "one flesh" partner.

This is what underlines Jesus teaching on sex.  The spiritual permanence of the sexual bond is why Jesus was so upset with the state of marriage in his own day.  He called out the Jews for their rampant divorce and remarriage culture.  He even called those who divorce and remarry adulterers!  Matt 19:9 "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Why would he do that?  It's not because divorce is an unforgivable sin.  He says this because the Jews weren't seeing ANY sin in divorce at all!  They thought that if they followed lawful and fair Mosaic procedures for divorce  that God was indifferent about the whole thing.  But Jesus wanted them to see that they were dead wrong.  Inherent in all divorce is a desecration of God's larger goals in sexuality, which is the creation of lifelong, one flesh bonds.  So while they wanted to talk about what was "lawful" (from Moses, Deut 24:1) Jesus wanted to talk about what brings Life from God's original creation design (Matt 19:4-6).  Therefore, because of that higher, creation design that says sexual intercourse forms spiritual bonds ("one flesh unions") , Jesus wanted us to see that divorce creates a situation where on one level, the divorcee, even if lawfully remarried is, by a life long bond, someone else's spouse - therefore is an adulterer.

Now, I do not teach (as some Christian leaders do) that Christians cannot ever get re-married.  But i do believe it's almost impossible that a Christian can divorce and remarry without some sin in the picture.  Only in exceptional circumstance (Jesus mentions the presence of sexual immorality as one exception, Paul mentions abandonment) can a Christian think that the dissolution of a marriage is a faultless, benign exercise.  HOWEVER, there is forgiveness in Christ for all sins, even the adultery caused by divorce and remarriage.  Like all sin, it should be confessed and repented of - but repentance would not include divorcing your second spouse!  Obviously, what you repent of in divorce is that you didn't follow God's creation design with sex as permanent bond... therefore, repentance would mean sorrow for marriage failure and a strong commitment to a remarriage that lasts.

In my experience, when a person justifies their divorce (except in cases of physical/sexual abuse) it's usually a guarantee that the issues that lead to the dissolution of the first marriage will follow you into the next.  Without a long period of mourning, confession, repentance and God's forgiveness and healing work and without needed counsel and wisdom inside the Body of Christ, a divorcee is not ready for remarriage.  If you're wanting to have sex without marriage, it tells me that you're probably not fully repentant yet... meaning you have not yet fully brought your mind in line with God's mind on sex.

How can I say that?  Because again, the whole premise of Scripture on sex is that it brings a deep spiritual bond and therefore must be accompanied by commensurate physical and emotional bonds of permanence - IE the marriage promise.   Paul says to those having sex outside of marriage "1 Cor 6:16-7:1  Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."  There is no such thing as casual sex in God's book.

So again Paul does what Jesus does:  he goes back to the creation design for sex and says the question a Christian should be asking about sex is not, "what is permissible?" but rather "what brings Life according to the benevolent design of the Designer of sex?"  Getting on God's page requires that we see sex through different lenses than pure pragmatism, or desire or expedience.  Paul concludes the matter with a fitting challenge for you and your partner:  "Flee from sexual immorality.  All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.  Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body."

I trust you'll find amazing amounts of LIFE down God's path, even if it means accepting the privation of abstinence in the short run.  God's way always means short term pain, but long term pleasure, if we, by an act of faith, will trust Him and obey.

Does 1 Corinthians 7:36 justify premarital sex for Christians?

Question:

I have a Christian friend who’s rendition of 1 Cor 7:36 roughly comes to "if a man is sleeping with his committed girlfriend/fiancé, they are of age, and need to, let him do the things he wants to with her (have sex), it isn`t sinful: let them be considered married." Does that interpretation have any merit?

Answer:

Thanks for the note. Glad you’re interacting with your friend on this, but I do think he’s very wrong about Paul in 1 Cor 7.

First problem in using 1 Corinthians 7:36 to justify anything, especially a very contentious idea (essentially he’s saying premarital sex equals marriage) is that this verse is notoriously difficult for Christians to understand/translate/interpret for just the 2000 years. It might not be expected of the average Christian to know this about this particular verse, but taking up just 4 or 5 different translations will show that the language here is far from clear. So making a bold statement about Christian sexual practise based on this one verse is ill advised out of the gate. The broad scope of possible meanings is shown in this sampling of translations:

NIV: If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married.

KJV: But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.

ASV: But if any man thinketh that he behaveth himself unseemly toward his virgin (daughter), if she be past the flower of her age, and if need so requireth, let him do what he will; he sinneth not; let them marry.

Darby: But if anyone think that he behaves unseemly to his virginity, if he be beyond the flower of his age, and so it must be, let him do what he will, he does not sin: let them marry.

God’s Word: No father would want to do the wrong thing when his virgin daughter is old enough to get married. If she wants to get married, he isn't sinning by letting her get married.

NLT: But if a man thinks that he's treating his fiancée improperly and will inevitably give in to his passion, let him marry her as he wishes. It is not a sin.

The key to understanding this is understanding three Greek phrases, translated “his virgin” and “past the bloom/flower” along with “needs require”. As you could see from the above translations, “his virgin” could have THREE possible meanings.

- It could refer to a man's daughter.

- It could refer to a man’s fiancé or

- It could refer to man’s own virginity. (Side note: when translations say “she” is “past bloom”, the gender is inferred from “virgin”, there is no gender assigned in the Greek. So it could be “his” virginity.)

Let’s look at the strength of each these interpretations: Darby sees this verse as a natural follow up to Paul’s whole conversation in chapter 7 about virginity where he promotes celibacy. This verse then, would be the “application portion” of that whole argument. So, if a man finds he is violating his own virginity (IE. experiencing the ‘burning with passion” Paul mentions 7:9) and he’s getting along in years, the man is free to marry.

This is probably weakest of the three because the possessive of virgin is almost never attached to one’s own virginity but to a person, usually (but not always) a woman whom you, in some sense, possess.

So the second idea is that “his virgin” is his fiancé. This is how most modern translations see it and your friend would agree. This is probably stronger than the first view, weaker than the last view. But even in this view, your Christian buddy has inserted two ideas that aren’t in the text and have never been inferred by any translators or commentators that I’ve read, ever. His assumptions are

- that behaving improperly means “having sex with” and

- that “let them marry” means “let them be considered married.”


Three things militate against this view. One is the question of why Paul would call premarital sex "behaving improperly" and then turn around and tell those engaging in it, "let them do as they please." This is very perplexing.

Two, is that the "behaving improperly" is connected to the “past bloom” in some way. The way early Christians did engagement” was through arranged marriages. Moderns assume that cohabitation was an option back then, but it was almost unheard of. Why? Because a man sleeping with a woman was always sleeping with someone else’s property. So no one willy nilly “shacked up” – a father wouldn’t allow it. It wasn’t just dishonorable, it was economically disastrous – unless he was paying for those services through prostitution. Yes, it was not unheard of (see John 4) but very rare, usually with widows (which precludes 'virgins' obviously).

So most men would be engaged to a woman, selected by their parents, sometimes for years ahead of matrimony. This implies that the “past bloom” comment is connected to not treating her marriage rights correctly, rather than “having sex” with her. The man in question is delaying marriage (because of Paul’s encouragement of celibacy) but he finds that his fiancé is getting older and “needs require” he do something. Again, why? Because she (or he) is not fit or suited for single life.

Therefore it needs to be said by Paul to such a man – you can go ahead and take her freely as your wife. Get married, it’s not a sin. The verb tense in Greek will not allow, “let them be considered married”. The context makes this obvious. He’s considering what a man WILL do, not renaming what someone has already done.

Third, your Friend has not understood other Scripture. There is no state of cohabitation that Paul ever endorsed as lawful sex. Widows were perhaps cohabitating with renegade elders in Ephesus (see 1 Timothy) and there he doesn’t say, “let them be considered married” if they want to make it right. He considers them fornicators, and calls them to repent, “settle down and get married” (1 Tim 5:14). The only other cohabitating we know of was the one that came under discipline when a man simply took his father’s wife (I Cor 5). If the marriage arrangement was so slippery to Paul that we could wave our wands over any two fornicators at will and say, voila, “married!”, then why not say that about the man who took his father’s wife and avoid the scandal? (We incorrectly assume that the scandal was that the father was still alive, in all likelihood he was not.)

After all is said and done, there's a strong case to be made that this isn't even about a man and his fiancé. It’s might be about a parent and “his virgin” which would be a daughter still under a father's authority. There's much to commend this view, since it takes historical context and all the language here into account. If a reference to a parent, the “behaving improperly” makes clear sense attached to “past bloom”. This would mean a Christian father has heard Paul extoll the benefits of celibacy, but the father knows this isn’t “proper” for his daughter. And seeing that she is moving past marrying age, this requires him to make a decision. And Paul then grants such a parent the freedom to do as he sees fit: Give her in marriage, let her be married to her affianced, despite the benefits of the single life.

Most early commentators saw this as the obvious meaning (Paul had talked to singles, marrieds and divorced, it makes sense that he apply his message to one final group: Parents!) As one example, this is John Calvin on this passage:

But if any one thinketh that it were unseemly for his virgin. He now directs his discourse to parents, who had children under their authority. For having heard the praises of celibacy, and having heard also of the inconveniences of matrimony, they might be in doubt, whether it were at all a kind thing to involve their children in so many miseries, lest it should seem as if they were to blame for the troubles that might befall them. For the greater their attachment to their children, so much the more anxiously do they exercise fear and caution on their account. [439] Paul, then, with the view of relieving them from this difficulty, teaches that it is their duty to consult their advantage, exactly as one would do for himself when at his own disposal. [440] Now he still keeps up the distinction, which he has made use of all along, so as to commend celibacy, but, at the same time, to leave marriage as a matter of choice; and not simply a matter of choice, but a needful remedy for incontinency, which ought not to be denied to anyone. In the first part of the statement he speaks as to the giving of daughters in marriage, and he declares that those do not sin in giving away their daughters in marriage, who are of opinion that an unmarried life is not suitable for them.

In all likelihood then, this isn’t even about engaged couples at all, but about fathers and daughters and reflects the authority in 1st century culture that father’s had over “their virgin daughters” until marriage and the responsibility they took in seeing them well wed in that culture – in conjunction with Paul’s encouragement of singleness. In any event “do has he please” cannot be referring to two unwed people continuing to sleep together and have it ‘considered’ marriage. This is a pretty blatant example of reading into the text what you want it to say, instead of letting it speak for itself.