Premarital sex and the Bible (part 2 of 2)

Part 1: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2023/06/premarital-sex-and-bible-part-1-of-2.html

     Premarital sex in the New Testament

Although premarital sex was allowed in the Old Testament, it seems possible that this is one of the things that “Moses permitted... because of the hardness of [the Israelites’] hearts” (cf. Matt. 19:8) which was overturned in the New Testament, like divorce. So is there any explicit commandment against premarital sex in the New Testament? Most Christians believe so, citing the condemnation of “fornication” throughout the NT. [1] “Fornication,” according to Merriam-Webster, is “consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other.” [2]

    However, just as the teachings of the Old Testament on premarital sex, the precise meaning of “fornication” in the New Testament is more complicated than it appears at first. The Greek word which is translated as “fornication” in some translations of the NT is porneia, which literally means “prostitution” (derived from porne, “prostitute”). In classical Koine Greek, porneia never referred to all kinds of premarital/extramarital sex, but specifically sex with a prostitute, sometimes as a derogatory term for a sexually promiscuous man. [3]

    The use of porneia in Jewish intertestamental literature is more important for understanding its meaning to the New Testament authors, since that is the literary backdrop of the NT. In the Septuagint (the Greek OT translation used by the NT authors), porneia is used specifically to refer to prostitution, translating the Hebrew word zanah (prostitute) and its cognates. However, later in the Second Temple period, the usage of porneia was expanded to include every sexual act forbidden by the Torah, including incest, bestiality, and adultery. [3]

    With this background in mind, we should expect that porneia in the NT refers to prostitution, and more broadly to forbidden sexual activity. (It should be noted that neither of these includes premarital sex in general, since premarital sex was never forbidden by the Torah.) But what does the exegetical evidence from the New Testament itself say? As NT scholar Bruce Malina notes,

The N.T. evidence is not at all clear... [but] it would appear that in no case is pre-betrothal, non-commercial, non-cultic heterosexual intercourse (what is commonly called “fornication” today) prohibited! The obvious reason for this is that there is no injunction in the Torah prohibiting such “fornication”...

To sum up: porneia means unlawful sexual conduct, or unlawful conduct in general. What makes a particular line of conduct unlawful is that it is prohibited by the Torah, written and/or oral. Pre-betrothal, pre-marital, non-commercial sexual intercourse between a man and woman is nowhere considered a moral crime in the Torah... there is no evidence in traditional or contemporary usage of the word porneia that takes it to mean pre-betrothal, pre-marital, heterosexual intercourse of a non-cultic or non-commercial nature, i.e. what we call “fornication” today. [4]

The New Testament usage of porneia seems generally to accord with Malina’s assessment of the word. Each instance of porneia can be divided into two groups, either describing prostitution (commercial or cultic) or more generally Torah-forbidden sexual acts. Instances where it certainly or probably refers to prostitution are Matt. 5:32, 15:19, 19:9, Mk. 7:21, Acts 15:20, 29, 21:25, 1 Cor. 6:13, 18, 7:2, 10:8, Gal. 5:19. Instances where it probably or certainly refers to idolatry (figuratively prostitution) are Rev. 2:21, 14:8, 17:2, 4, 18:3, and 19:2. Instances where it probably or certainly refers to Torah-forbidden sexual acts are Jn. 8:41, 1 Cor. 5:1, 2 Cor. 12:21, Eph. 5:3, Col. 3:5, 1 Thess. 4:3, and Rev. 9:21.

    Modern translations tend to translate porneia as “sexual immorality” rather than “fornication” to reflect modern scholarship on this word. Unfortunately, this seems to create more confusion than it solves, since “sexual immorality” means vastly different things to different people. It’s probably best to view this word as condemning prostitution plus any sexual act forbidden by Leviticus 18/20. Yet as Malina notes, there appears to be no indication in any Jewish or secular text prior to the NT (including the NT itself) that porneia includes “pre-betrothal, pre-marital, heterosexual intercourse of a non-cultic or non-commercial nature” (i.e., premarital sex).

    There are several other NT passages sometimes adduced by Christians to support the view that premarital sex is sin. The first is Matthew 1:18-19, which states,

Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be pregnant by the Holy Spirit. And her husband Joseph, since he was a righteous man and did not want to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly. (Matt. 1:18-19 NASB)

Joseph believed that Mary had sinned by becoming pregnant prior to their marriage. Because of this, many Christians point to this passage to show that premarital sex is sinful. However, this misses one important factor: that the pregnancy in question began after Mary’s betrothal to Joseph. In the Mosaic Law, sex with a virgin who was betrothed to another man was considered adultery, and deserving of death (Deut. 22:23-24), as opposed to pre-betrothal, premarital sex which was considered merely a civil offense (Deut. 22:28-29). For this reason, the incident described in Matt. 1:18-19 is of a radically different nature than pre-betrothal, premarital sex with one’s significant other.

    Another text from the New Testament which is commonly considered to condemn any extramarital sex, including premarital sex, is Matthew 19:10-12:

The disciples said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” But He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by people; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who is able to accept this, let him accept it.” (Matt. 19:10-12 NASB)

In this passage, Jesus presents the alternative to marriage as being a eunuch (chaste). Many Christians believe that this implies that sex outside of marriage is discouraged, if not outright prohibited. However, it’s important to note that Jesus never says that one who does not marry must be a eunuch; rather, He simply presents this as the natural alternative to marriage.

    In the culture of the time, the only alternative to sex outside of marriage would have been prostitution or adultery, both of which are prohibited in the Torah; therefore, for a Jewish man in the first century, the only alternative to marriage would have been total chastity. Boyfriend-girlfriend, premarital relationships simply did not exist in that culture. Since Jesus never outright commands chastity outside of marriage, but simply presents it as the natural alternative to His first century Jewish audience, we can conclude that He wasn’t condemning modern pre-betrothal, premarital, non-commercial and non-cultic intercourse (which was never condemned in the Torah).

    Another text pointed to to support the traditional Christian sexual ethic is Hebrews 13:4, which states

Marriage is to be held in honor by all, and the marriage bed undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral [pornoi] and adulterers.

The traditional interpretation of this verse, however, depends strongly on the meaning of porneia and pornos, which as argued above referred to all sex forbidden in the Torah (which did not include modern premarital sex). Furthermore, it’s unclear how two individuals who never married could defile their “marriage bed.” For these reasons, there is no indication in the original text that premarital sex is being condemned.

    There is one last text to consider, which is often pointed to as a condemnation of ‘lust’ or sexual desire, and possibly a condemnation of premarital sex as well. See the following passage:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matt. 5:27-28 NASB)

Traditionally, this passage has been interpreted as saying that sexual desire for any woman is sinful and akin to adultery. This has even led to the Catholic doctrine that having sex for pleasure (including marital sex) is a ‘mortal sin.’ However, Greek New Testament scholarship has recognized for decades that this interpretation is badly flawed.

    For a discussion of the issues involved in interpreting Matthew 5:28, see this commentary on Matt. 5:27-30. The passage is not about lusting after just any woman, but about lusting after another man’s wife. Jesus begins this section of His speech by quoting Deuteronomy 5:18, which states, “You shall not commit adultery.” Compare the Septuagint’s translation of Deut. 5:18 with Jesus’ words in Matt. 5:27-28:

You shall not commit adultery [ou moicheuseis]... you shall not covet [epithumeseis] your neighbor’s wife [gunaika]. (Deut. 5:18, 21)

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery [ou moicheuseis].’ Yet I say to you that everyone looking at a woman [gunaika] to lust after [epithumesai] her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matt. 5:27-28)

The obvious parallelism between these passages is typically lost on modern readers, but it certainly wouldn’t have been lost on Jesus’ heavily Jewish audience, which would have been familiar with the relevant scripture. In light of this parallelism, Jesus’ statement should probably be translated as

“I say to you that everyone looking at a wife to covet her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

This translation better captures the meaning of Jesus’ words in light of Deut. 5:21. Jesus was not condemning all sexual desire — after all, why would He have done this? God created sexual desire as an emotion in the first place! — but rather, He was condemning the attitude of adultery (wishing to have sex with another man’s wife). This has no bearing on premarital sex, nor masturbation.

    Furthermore, it's not at all clear that this passage would have anything to say directly about premarital sex even if it did condemn all sexual desire. It's certainly not the case that all sex prior to marriage is solely based in sexual desire and not love, and that all sex after marriage is solely based in love and not sexual desire. If an unmarried couple had sex solely out of love for one another and a desire to procreate, this would not go against even the strictest Catholic interpretation of Matthew 5:28.

    In summary, the New Testament has little (if anything) to say on the issue of premarital sex, similarly to the Old Testament. Although the Greek word porneia used to be translated as “fornication,” which gives the impression that the NT condemns premarital sex, this word actually just refers to any sexual act forbidden in the Torah (which does not include premarital sex). Because of this, most modern translations now translate porneia as simply “sexual immorality,” which says nothing for or against the sinfulness of premarital sex.

    Premarital sex in 1 Corinthians 7

There is one last passage from the New Testament to consider on the issue of premarital sex, which is 1 Corinthians 7. Paul wrote this passage to teach the first-century church at Corinth about sexual ethics, since they were dealing not only with cultic and commercial prostitution (1 Cor. 6:13-20), but also with more serious problems like adultery and incest (1 Cor. 5:1). So did Paul have anything to say about premarital sex in this chapter, and if so, what did he say about it?

    There are two excerpts from this chapter which are typically thought to deal with premarital sex. We will cover each of them in turn:

Now concerning that which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.” Yet because of the prostitutions [tas porneias], let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. (1 Cor. 7:1-2)

Many Christians interpret this passage as stating that anything outside of a heterosexual marriage qualifies as porneia, or “sexual immorality,” and that in order to avoid sexual immorality one should marry.

    However, this interpretation fails to recognize the Greek euphemisms which are used in this passage. First, the Corinthians apparently wrote to Paul telling him that “it is good for a man not to touch a woman.” To “touch a woman” was a Greek euphemism referring to having sexual intercourse with a woman [5], so the Corinthians were apparently advising their church not to have sexual intercourse at all (even within marriage).

    In response, Paul rebukes them and tells them that “because of the prostitutions, each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband.” To “have” one’s wife/husband was a Greek idiom, occurring in both the LXX and NT, which meant to continue in sexual relations with one’s wife or concubine. This is in contrast to the idiom of “taking” a wife/husband which referred to the marriage itself [5]. So then, Paul is not speaking to those who are not yet married, but to those who are already married, telling them to continue having sex with one another (he continues this train of thought in vv. 3-5). Since Paul was not speaking to unmarried members of the church, but to married members, this passage cannot be referring to premarital sex.

    But then, what did Paul mean by referring to “sexual immorality” that one should avoid by continuing to have sexual relations with one’s spouse? From the previous chapter of 1 Corinthians, we know that the church at Corinth was having trouble with prostitutes, whether cultic or commercial (6:13-20). So when Paul speaks of tas porneias that the Corinthians should avoid by having sex with their spouses, he’s almost certainly referring to actual prostitution. It seems likely that the Corinthians were going to prostitutes to have sex because their church leaders weren’t allowing them to have sex with their spouses (as v. 1 tells us).

Now I say to the unmarried and to the widows, it is good for them if they may stay as I am. Yet if they do not have self-control, let them marry, for it is better to marry than to burn [with passion]. (1 Cor. 7:8-9)

Many Christians interpret this passage as saying that marriage is the only lawful way to experience sex, and that one should marry rather than have premarital sex.

    This interpretation contains the unspoken assumption that Paul is speaking to those who have not yet been married in this passage. But this is not at all clear. In fact, many scholars believe that the “unmarried and widows” in v. 8 are specifically referring to those who were already married. New Testament scholar Gordon Fee writes,

W. F. Orr pointed out several years ago that the agamois [“unmarried”] of v 8 are masculine and the cherais [“widows”] feminine, thus continuing the balanced pairs from vv 2-4. He further points out, from LSJ, that agamos is the ordinary word in Greek for “widower.” And since widows would already be included among the “unmarried” in the term agamos, why should they be singled out unless they are the female counterpart to the agamoi? This evidence... makes a strong case for “widower and widow” as the proper meaning of vv 8-9. This suggests therefore that all of vv 8-16 is addressed to people who are or who have been married. [5]

In other words, this passage is not addressed to never-before-married Christians, and so it makes no statement about premarital sex. Rather, it is speaking to Christians who have been widowed, to whom Paul gives the advice that they should remain unmarried, but if they burn with desire to be married then they are allowed to marry.

    But lest there be any more confusion about whether or not Paul condemns premarital sex in 1 Corinthians 7, he actually explicitly states that he has no commandment regarding never-before-married Christians in verse 25:

Now concerning the virgins, I have no commandment of the Lord, yet I give judgment as one having received mercy from the Lord to be trustworthy.

In other words, Paul has received no commandment from God regarding the conduct of never-before-married Christians, and so he merely gives his own advice which is trustworthy (though not divinely inspired). This is in line with the silence of the Torah and the rest of the New Testament on the issue of premarital sex.

    Most Christians will probably be surprised by the fact that the Bible is almost completely silent on premarital sex, and that Paul says that God gives no commandment to never-married Christians. But in light of the culture at the time, this is not surprising at all. At the time that the New Testament was written, young men and women were married off in their teens, just after puberty [6]. For this reason, early Christians wouldn’t have been particularly concerned about sexual ethics prior to marriage. Nor would they have had any concept of modern day boyfriend-girlfriend relationships. Therefore, it’s unsurprising that the Bible has so little to say on the issue of premarital sex.

    Conclusion

Most Christians believe that premarital sex is a serious sin, and that it is explicitly condemned throughout the Bible, but the truth is far more complicated. In Old Testament times, premarital sex was not considered an issue of morality, but rather a civil issue, due to the increased bride-price for virgins. There is not a single instance in the Old Testament where premarital sex is condemned due to its being premarital, and in fact, concubines (premarital/extramarital partners) were a regular occurrence in ancient Israel which was never condemned.

    Even in the New Testament, there is comparatively little to go on regarding the morality or immorality of premarital sex. Although the NT authors repeatedly condemn porneia, which used to be translated as “fornication,” modern scholarship indicates that porneia refers to prostitution and Torah-forbidden sexual acts, resulting in most modern translations translating it as simply “sexual immorality.” Since the Torah never forbade premarital sex, neither does porneia include it. In fact, Paul explicitly says in 1 Corinthians 7:25 that there is no commandment from the Lord regarding sexual ethics of never-married Christians.

    I will allow the reader to make their own conclusion about what this silence on premarital sex means, but for myself, the fact that premarital sex is never explicitly (or even implicitly) condemned in the Bible leads me to believe that it is not a sin. In fact, it seems that on the issue of premarital sex, the Christian church has fallen into the trap of legalism which Paul warned against:

If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of man? These are matters which do have the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence. (Col. 2:20-23 NASB)

______________________________

[1] Matthew 15:19; Mark. 7:21; Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25; 1 Corinthians 5:1; 6:9, 18; 7:2; 10:8; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3, 5; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; 1 Timothy 1:10; Hebrews 13:4; Revelation 9:21; 21:8; 22:15

[2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fornication

[3] See Wheeler-Reed, Knust, and Martin 2018, “Can a Man Commit πορνεια with His Wife?“

[4] See Malina 1972, “Does Porneia Mean Fornication?” For a counter-opinion, see Jensen 1978, “Does Porneia Mean Fornication? A Critique of Bruce Malina.” For a counter-counter-opinion showing that the meaning of porneia evolved to mean modern-day ‘fornication’ after the NT was written, see Harper 2012, “Porneia: The Making of a Christian Sexual Norm.”

[5] See Fee 1980, “1 Corinthians 7:1 in the NIV.”

[6] https://blog.adw.org/2017/03/marriage-family-time-jesus/

Premarital sex and the Bible (part 1 of 2)

     If there’s one sin that the Christian world is almost unanimous in condemning, it’s premarital sex (the act of having sexual intercourse before marriage). Even many liberal Christians tend to view sex as something only meant for the confines of marriage. However, it seems that few actually delve into the biblical texts and their historical context to find support for or against this view. Given the prevalent focus on this sin, and other sexual sins, one might think that it’s condemned repeatedly and emphatically throughout the Bible. But the truth is far more complicated and less straightforward.

    In this post, we’ll look at the teachings of the Old and New Testaments on premarital sex, for the purpose of clarifying the Bible’s varied stances on this subject (without making a judgment as to whether or not it is actually a sin).

    Premarital sex in the Torah

First, let’s take a look at what the Mosaic Law (found in Exodus through Deuteronomy) tells us about premarital sex. This law compiles all of God’s commandments to the nation of Israel. Although the New Testament abrogated many of the laws and commandments of the Mosaic Law, neither Jesus nor any of the NT authors ever added new commandments to the Law. According to David, “the Law of Yahweh is complete [tamim]” (Ps. 19:7 cf. Deut. 4:2), and so if we want to find God’s most stringent stance on any subject, the Mosaic Law is the place to look.

    As it just so happens, the law to Israel contains two lengthy sections describing each and every forbidden sexual sin, in Leviticus 18 and 20. See the following passages:

None of you shall approach any blood relative of his to uncover nakedness; I am Yahweh. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, that is, the nakedness of your mother. She is your mother; you are not to uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness. The nakedness of your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether born at home or born outside, their nakedness you shall not uncover. The nakedness of your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter, their nakedness you shall not uncover; for their nakedness is yours. The nakedness of your father’s wife’s daughter, born to your father, she is your sister, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s sister; she is your father’s blood relative. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister, for she is your mother’s blood relative. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s brother; you shall not approach his wife, she is your aunt.

You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son’s wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is your brother’s nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and of her daughter, nor shall you take her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness; they are blood relatives. It is lewdness.

You shall not marry a woman in addition to her sister as a rival while she is alive, to uncover her nakedness. Also you shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness during her menstrual impurity. You shall not have intercourse with your neighbor’s wife, to be defiled with her. You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am Yahweh. You shall not lie with a male who lies with a female; it is an abomination. Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion. (Lev. 18:6-23)

If there is a man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, one who commits adultery with his friend’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. If there is a man who lies with his father’s wife, he has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death, their blood is upon them. If there is a man who lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed incest, their blood is upon them.

If there is a man who lies with a male who lies with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood is upon them. If there is a man who marries a woman and her mother, it is immorality; both he and they shall be burned with fire, so that there will be no immorality in your midst. If there is a man who lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death; you shall also kill the animal. If there is a woman who approaches any animal to mate with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood is upon them.

If there is a man who takes his sister, his father’s daughter or his mother’s daughter, so that he sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace; and they shall be cut off in the sight of the sons of their people. He has uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he bears his guilt. If there is a man who lies with a menstruous woman and uncovers her nakedness, he has laid bare her flow, and she has exposed the flow of her blood; thus both of them shall be cut off from among their people. You shall also not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister or of your father’s sister, for such a one has made naked his blood relative; they will bear their guilt. If there is a man who lies with his uncle’s wife he has uncovered his uncle’s nakedness; they will bear their sin. They will die childless. If there is a man who takes his brother’s wife, it is abhorrent; he has uncovered his brother’s nakedness. They will be childless. (Lev. 20:10-21)

These two lengthy lists cover every sexual union that was forbidden for the Israelites. They condemn adultery between a man and another man’s wife, bestiality, incest, and sex with a menstruating woman, among other forbidden sexual acts. However, any mention of premarital sex is conspicuously missing [1]. This is certainly odd; if premarital sex is one of the most serious sins, forbidden under all circumstances, then why is it not mentioned even once in the only two lists of sexual sins of the entire Mosaic Law?

    The answer to this question is that, at the time that the Mosaic Law was written, premarital sex was simply not considered an issue of morality. Instead, it was considered entirely a civil issue. To understand why, it’s necessary to understand the historical and cultural context surrounding marriage and sex during the Old Testament period.

    At the time that the Old Testament was written, it was required that the groom pay a certain amount to the father-in-law of the bride before marriage. This was known as the bride-price. Today, the bride-price is considered antiquated, seen as commodifying women, but in ancient times it was meant to secure the future of a wife and her children in cases of divorce where the husband was at fault. Furthermore, the bride-price for virgins was somewhat larger; it was usually about three years’ wages, or fifty silver shekels (Deut. 22:29).

    This helps to explain why premarital sex was considered a civil issue in the Mosaic Law. If a man had sex with a virgin without marrying her and paying the proper bride-price, then he was in essence stealing money (fifty silver shekels) from the girl and her family. For this reason, a man who had sex with a virgin in ancient Israel was legally required to either marry her and pay the full bride-price, or pay the bride-price without marrying her. This law is set out in both Exodus and Deuteronomy:

And if a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he surely will pay the bride-price for her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he will pay money, according to the bride-price of virgins. (Exod. 22:16-17)

If a man finds a young woman, a virgin who is not betrothed, and he lays hold of and lies with her, and they are discovered, then the man who laid with her will give fifty silver [shekels] to the father of the young woman, and she shall be his wife; because he has afflicted her, he is not able to divorce her all his days. (Deut. 22:28-29)

These passages make clear that premarital sex was considered to be a civil issue, rather than a strictly moral one, in virtue of the extra bride-price of virgins (fifty silver shekels).

    There is one last passage to consider from the Mosaic Law which deals with the issue of premarital sex. This is Deuteronomy 22:13-21, which is sometimes considered to be prescribing the death penalty for instances of premarital sex:

If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her, and charges her with shameful deeds and publicly defames her, and says, “I took this woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a virgin,” then the girl’s father and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of the girl’s virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. The girl’s father shall say to the elders, “I gave my daughter to this man for a wife, but he turned against her; and behold, he has charged her with shameful deeds, saying, ‘I did not find your daughter a virgin.’ But this is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity.” And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city. So the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him, and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give it to the girl’s father, because he publicly defamed a virgin of Israel. And she shall remain his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days.

But if this charge is true, that the girl was not found a virgin, then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father’s house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you. (NASB)

Oftentimes, this passage is read as saying that (1) brides were expected to be virgins; (2) if a bride is thought not to be a virgin, this is grounds for divorce; (3) hymeneal blood is an effective indicator of virginity; and (4) execution is the divinely prescribed penalty for women who have premarital sex. Since these views are morally outrageous and sexist (and in the case of hymeneal blood, scientifically incorrect), this passage is often appealed to by atheists as an example of the Bible’s moral blameworthiness.

    However, this interpretation leaves many unanswered questions. Neither premarital sex, nor lying deserve the death penalty according to the Mosaic Law elsewhere (in fact, in Exod. 22:16-17 and Deut. 22:28-29, there is no punishment for the woman engaging in premarital sex). And why does this passage focus so much on the role of the parents, if the sin is solely on the daughter?

    The fact is that, if we read this passage in its proper cultural context, it is clear that the entire scenario deals with family honor rather than premarital sex. By accusing his bride of not being a virgin, the man charges both the daughter and her parents with fraud, accusing them of making him pay the full virgin bride-price when his bride was not a virgin (this is the “shameful deed” mentioned in v. 14). The parents are not the defendants of their daughter, but are actually prosecuting their son-in-law for slander before the city elders, as vv. 16-17 makes evident.

    It’s true that hymeneal blood is a faulty indicator of virginity, but in fact, this was already known in the ancient world [2]. So what could the author have possibly meant by including this clause, if they knew that hymeneal blood wasn’t an indicator of virginity? It’s likely that the hymeneal blood clause was included to allow the parents to more easily prosecute the offending husband, since hymeneal blood is easily faked. In fact, fake hymeneal blood was a common trope in ancient folk literature, with suggestions that it could be faked using bird or other animal blood [2].

    If the husband was found guilty of slander, the punishment was severe; not only was he forced to remain married to the woman that he wanted to divorce, but he was also required to pay double the virgin bride-price (one hundred silver shekels) and would be unable to divorce his wife throughout his whole life (v. 19). This triple punishment would be a great deterrent to husbands who would otherwise divorce their innocent brides by slandering their families.

    But if vv. 13-19 of this passage are entirely about family honor and prosecuting slanderous husbands, why is the death penalty prescribed for the guilty bride in vv. 20-21? After all, the death penalty was never prescribed for premarital sex or lying elsewhere in the Mosaic Law. But what was considered deserving of death was defaming one’s parents, whether through outright cursing them (Exod. 21:17, Lev. 20:9) or through repeated subversive action (Deut. 21:18-21). If the parents discovered that their daughter actually was acting as a prostitute in their house (“playing the whore in her father’s house”), this would be seen as a defamation of family honor, and deserving of death. The daughter would be stoned in front of her parents’ house.

    So, Deuteronomy 22:13-21 is a passage not primarily about virginity and premarital sex, but instead about family honor. If a son-in-law slanders his bride’s family by claiming that she is not a virgin, then he is greatly punished. Likewise, if a daughter defames her own family’s honor by acting as a prostitute in their house, she is deserving of death, just as the son who acts as a glutton and drunkard in his parents’ house (Deut. 21:18-21). Regardless of whether one thinks that such emphasis on family honor is moral or not, this interpretation (which is backed by much Jewish scholarship [3]) is far better than the other common interpretation.

    In summary, the Mosaic Law has surprisingly little to say about premarital sex. Not even a single mention of premarital sex can be found in the Leviticus 18 and 20 lists of sexual sins (which include every sexual union forbidden for Israelites). This is because it wasn’t considered a solely moral issue, but a civil issue, due to the greater bride-price for virgins. Since the Torah is the complete book of God’s Law to Israel, it doesn’t seem that premarital sex is considered a moral sin to God, nor to the ancient Israelites (see Deut. 4:2). But what does the rest of the Old Testament have to say about it?

    Premarital sex throughout the Old Testament

In addition to (or perhaps as a consequence of) the ambiguity of the Mosaic Law on the issue of premarital sex, there seem to be multiple instances in the Old Testament where premarital sex is looked upon neutrally. There is not a single instance in which a premarital sexual union is condemned in the Old Testament in virtue of being pre-marital (although there are cases of premarital rape and incest that are clearly condemned).

    First of all, in Genesis 16:1-4, Abraham has premarital/extramarital intercourse with his slave Hagar, with the permission of his wife Sarah. Although Sarah comes to regret this decision later on, and twice banishes Hagar from her husband’s nomadic group (Gen. 16:6, 21:10), God looks upon Sarah’s hatred of Hagar with scorn and promises Hagar that her and Abraham’s son Ishmael will grow to become a great nation (Gen. 16:10, 17:20, 21:18). For this reason, it appears that God condoned Abraham’s premarital/extramarital affair with Hagar (though not explicitly affirming its legitimacy).

    Another example is Genesis 30:1-13, in which Jacob has premarital/extramarital intercourse with his two wives’ slaves Bilhah and Zilpah, with the permission of his two wives. The four sons born of this affair grow up to become patriarchs of the nation of Israel, and God never condemns Jacob’s premarital/extramarital affair.

    In Genesis 38:6-10, Judah commands his son Onan to have premarital intercourse with Tamar, his late brother’s wife. When Onan ejaculates on the ground to avoid having a child with Tamar, God punishes him by killing him. This shows that God implicitly affirmed the premarital affair between Onan and Tamar, by condemning Onan’s failure to produce a child from the union.

    Another instance of (possible) premarital sex is found in Judges 16:1-3, in which Samson is said to spend the night with a prostitute. It seems that whatever he did was not particularly sinful, for he remained a Nazirite (one set apart to God) with the strength of God upon him (cf. Judg. 13:5). However, it’s not entirely clear that Samson actually had sex with this prostitute; it’s possible that he merely went with her to scout out the city, similar to what the two Israelite spies did with Rahab the prostitute in Jericho (Josh. 2:1).

    Finally, it’s worth noting that all throughout the Old Testament, many patriarchs and kings had concubines, a practice which was never condemned. For example, see Gen. 22:24, 25:6, 36:12, Judg. 8:31, 19:1, 2 Sam. 3:7, 5:13, 15:16, 19:5, 21:11, and Song 6:8. Concubines are defined in Jewish law as “a woman dedicating herself to a particular man, with whom she cohabits without [marriage]” [4]. If sex were truly only meant for the confines of marriage, it seems strange that God never condemned the practice of keeping concubines.

    In other cases where a sinful sexual union in mentioned in the Old Testament, God never hesitated to punish those involved and make an example of them. He punished David’s adultery with Bathsheba by causing their first child to die (2 Sam. 12:10-14), and Amnon’s rape of Tamar was punished when he was killed by Absalom (2 Sam. 13:28-29). Yet it appears that consensual premarital sex was never condemned or looked down upon throughout the Old Testament. What does the New Testament have to say about this? In the next post, we'll take a look at the NT teachings about premarital sex.

Part 2: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2023/06/premarital-sex-and-bible-part-2-of-2.html

______________________________

[1] Furthermore, if as many conservative Christians assert, sex is only meant to be within the confines of a heterosexual marriage, why did God not just say that and be done with it? Why outline every single forbidden sexual act, instead of merely saying that any sexual act outside of marriage is forbidden? Unfortunately, these questions are outside the scope of this blogpost.

[2] See Koller 2010, “Sex or Power? The Crime of the Bride in Deuteronomy 22,” pp. 280, 283.

[3] See the reference from footnote 2, as well as Fleishman 2008, “The Delinquent Daughter and Legal Innovation in Deuteronomy XXII 20-21”; Edenberg 2009, “Ideology and Social Context of the Deuteronomic Women’s Sex Laws”; and Pressler and Sakenfeld 1991, “The View of Women Found in the Deuteronomic Family Laws.”

[4] https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/concubine

The low Christology of John (part 2 of 2)

Part 1: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2023/06/the-low-christology-of-john-part-1-of-2.html

Disclaimer: By “low Christology” I in no way mean to degrade Christ or imply that John had a degrading view of Christ. I mean this in the sense that Jesus existed first as a human and was exalted from that position, as opposed to “high Christology” which means that Jesus existed first as a divine being and became a human (or took on a human nature). These are technical terms and do not mean that Christ’s current position as Lord of all is in any way lessened.

    “Making himself God”: The obedient Son in John

In two places in the gospel of John, the Jewish leaders accuse Jesus of “making himself God” (5:18; 10:33). Modern readers typically assume that this was actually what Jesus was claiming, and so John believed that Jesus was God. This is one of the reasons that John is thought to have a very high Christology, rather than an adoptionist Christology. But is this true? Let’s take a look at the first instance of the Jewish leaders’ accusation:

Because of this, therefore, the Jews were seeking more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was also calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God. (John 5:18)

The last part of this verse is typically taken to mean, “he was also calling God his own Father, thereby making himself equal to God.” However, this is an indefensible interpretation in light of the Jewish concept of sonship, which implies obedience, not equality (Deut. 21:18; Sir. 3.6-16; Philo, Decal. 118). [1]

    Furthermore, the title “son of God” was used by many non-God entities in the Old Testament, including angels, the Davidic kings of Israel, and Israel itself (Gen. 6:2; Exod. 4:22; Deut. 14:1; 32:8; 2 Sam. 7:14; 1 Chron. 28:5-6; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Psa. 2:6-7; 82:6; 89:6, 20, 26-27; Jer. 31:9; Hos. 11:1). According to Second Temple Jewish texts, anyone who does righteousness is “the son of God” (Wisd. 2.13-18; Sir. 4.10; 51.10; Philo, Conf. Ling. 145-147). The same situation holds in the New Testament, in which the title “son of God” is applied to Jesus by virtue of his being the rightful king of Israel (Luke 1:32-33; John 1:49). In fact, elsewhere in the gospel of John (8:41), the Jewish leaders themselves claim that God is their Father!

    Thus, John 5:18 cannot be interpreted to mean, “he was calling God his own Father, thereby making himself equal to God.” This is simply not what the title “son of God” implied. Rather, it must be taken to mean, “he was calling God his own Father and making himself equal to God.” In contemporary Jewish thought, making oneself equal to one’s father was the act of a rebellious son. [2] Therefore, by accusing Jesus of this, the Jewish leaders were implying that he was a rebellious son, and thereby deserving of death (Deut. 22:18-21).

    To respond to the Jews’ assertion that he is a rebellious son, Jesus assumes the role of the obedient Son. He answers them by saying, “The Son is not able to do anything of himself, but only whatever he should see the Father doing; for whatever He does, the Son likewise does” (John 5:19). Jesus then explains that all of his authority and prerogatives have been given to him by the Father, and none of it is of himself (5:20-30; cf. Philo, Decal. 118). This is in line with John’s view of Jesus as the agent and subordinate of God (13:16; 14:28).

    Thus, John 5:18 does not show that John believed Jesus “made himself equal to God.” On the contrary, this was a false accusation by the Jewish leaders, who were trying to make Jesus out to be a rebellious son. However, John’s view of Jesus was as an obedient son who is subordinate — not equal — to God.

    The second instance in which the Jewish leaders accuse Jesus of “making himself God” is found in John 10:30-36:

“I and my Father are one.” Therefore the Jews again took up stones to stone him. Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from my Father; for which work do you stone me?” The Jews answered him, “We do not stone you for a good work, but because you, being a man, make yourself God.”

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’? If He called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came, and the Scripture is not able to be broken, then why do you say, ‘You blaspheme,’ of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, because I said, ‘I am Son of God’? If I do not do the works of my Father, then do not believe me. But if I do, then even if you do not believe, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I am in the Father.”

In isolation, vv. 30-33 might indicate that John believed Jesus was God. However, in context, it is clear that this is precisely the opposite of John’s point. Jesus points out that in their own Scripture, non-God entities are referred to as “gods” and “sons of God” (Psa. 82:6). As such, his claim that “I am Son of God” is not blasphemous, precisely because he is not “making himself God” by claiming such.

    What, then, did Jesus mean by saying that “I and my Father are one,” and “the Father is in me and I am in the Father”? Later in the gospel of John, Jesus prays that all believers would become one with the Father in the same way that he is one with the Father (17:11, 20-23). Furthermore, in another Johannine text, it is said that “those who abide in love abide in God, and God in them” (1 John 4:16). Obviously, John did not believe that all believers are eternally pre-existent hypostases of God, so these statements imply a functional unity rather than an ontological unity. As such, Jesus’ statements in John 10:30-38 simply emphasize that he, as the obedient Son, does only what the Father does (cf. John 5:19).

    Therefore, in John’s gospel, Jesus never “makes himself God.” This is an accusation made against him by the Jewish leaders, yes, but in both instances he rejected this charge. John did not believe that Jesus was a rebellious son who made himself equal to his Father. On the contrary, the gospel of John presents Jesus as the obedient (and subordinate) Son.

    “I am”?

In several places in the gospel of John, Jesus refers to himself by saying “I am” (4:26; 8:24, 28, 58; 13:19; 18:5). Many trinitarian apologists claim that, by saying “I am” (ego eimi), Jesus was attributing to himself the divine name “I am what I am” (Exod. 3:14) or, alternatively, that ego eimi echoes several statements in Second Isaiah (43:10, 25; 48:12; 51:12; 52:6).

    However, in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the OT used by first-century Jews and early Christians, the name in Exodus 3:14 is translated as ho on (“The One Who Is”) rather than ego eimi, so this connection would not have been made by the original audience of John. Nor can Jesus have been claiming to be the God of Isaiah, because the same God who calls himself ego eimi in Second Isaiah also refers to the Messiah as “my servant” (43:10; 52:6, 13). Furthermore, Jesus repeatedly emphasizes his obedience to God throughout this discourse (8:16, 26, 28, 29, 38, 42, 50, 54), and “it is simply intolerable that Jesus should be made to say, ‘I am God, the supreme God of the Old Testament, and being God I do as I am told.’” [3]

    Instead of reading the divine name into the ego eimi statements of John, we should look at the gospel of John itself to determine what it meant to the author. Let’s look at each of these statements in turn:

In John 4:25-26, a Samaritan woman tells Jesus, “I know that the Messiah is coming, and when he comes, he will tell us all things.” Jesus responds, “I am he [ego eimi], the one speaking to you.“ In this context, ego eimi clearly means “I am the Messiah.”

In John 8:24, Jesus states, “If you do not believe that I am he [ego eimi], you will die in your sins.“ At the end of the gospel of John, we are told that in order to have life, one must believe that “Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God” (20:31). Therefore, ego eimi here must mean “I am the Messiah, the Son of God.”

In John 8:28, Jesus states, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he [ego eimi].” Based on the closest antecedent, ego eimi most likely means “I am the Son of Man.”

In John 13:19, Jesus says, “I know whom I chose, but that the Scripture may be fulfilled, ‘The one eating my bread lifted up his heel against me.’ From this time I am telling you before it comes to pass, so that when it comes to pass, you may believe that I am he [ego eimi].” In this context, ego eimi clearly means “I am the one who was prophesied.”

In John 18:4-5, several soldiers come to arrest Jesus, and say that they are looking for Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus responds, “I am he” (ego eimi). Here, ego eimi clearly means “I am Jesus of Nazareth.”

In all of these instances, the context shows that ego eimi isn’t a proper name like Yahweh. Rather, throughout the gospel of John, ego eimi is developed as a Messianic claim — “I am the Messiah.” In addition, there are several instances in which ego eimi is simply used as a self-identifier, such as “It is I” or “That’s me” (John 6:20; 9:9; 18:5). 

    But what about John 8:58, in which Jesus says, “before Abraham was, I am”? This verse is read by almost all commentators as a straightforward claim to literal pre-existence. But let’s look at the context:

Then the Jews said to him, “Now we know you have a demon! Abraham died, and the prophets, and you say, ‘If anyone keeps my word, they shall never taste death for the age.’ Are you greater than our father Abraham who died? And the prophets died! Who do you make yourself?”

Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing; it is my Father who is glorifying me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’ And you have not known Him, but I know Him. Even if I say that I do not know Him, I will be like you, a liar. But I know Him and keep His word. Abraham your father rejoiced to see my day, and he saw and was glad.” 

Then the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and yet you have seen Abraham?”

Jesus said to them, “Verily, verily I say to you, I have been [5] before Abraham came into being.” Then they took up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple. (John 8:52-59)

Jesus’ claim is a reply to the Jews’ incredulousness at the statement, “Abraham your father rejoiced to see my day.” It’s important to note that the Jews’ question is a misunderstanding of what Jesus had said; he didn’t say that he had seen Abraham, but that Abraham had seen his day. This follows the motif of misunderstanding throughout the gospel of John, in which the Jews repeatedly interpret Jesus’ teachings too literally and he has to correct them. [6]

    When Jesus said that Abraham had seen his day, he was not claiming that he had seen Abraham, contrary to the Jews’ misinterpretation of his statement. Rather, he was saying that Abraham had seen a prophetic vision of the Messiah, which is a concept found in canonical and non-canonical writings from this time (Gal. 3:16; Heb. 11:8-10, 13; 2 Esdras 3.13-14; Gen. Rabbah 44.22). Therefore, when Jesus says, “I have been before Abraham came into being,” he was not saying that he literally existed prior to Abraham, but that he existed in the foreknowledge of God as the Messiah [7] before Abraham. This concept of figurative pre-existence in the foreknowledge of God was common in ancient Jewish thought, and can even be found in the Old Testament (e.g. 2 Kgs. 19:25; Jer. 1:5).

    It was thought in ancient Judaism that particularly important people and things existed in the mind of God even before the world was created (Pes. 54a.8; Ned. 39b.4; Gen. Rabbah 1.1, 4). This was true of Abraham and Isaac, who were “created before any work” (Pr. Jos. 1.2); it was true of Moses, whom God “designed and devised... prepared before the beginning of the world” (Test. Mos. 1.14); it was true of Israel, which God “chose before all things were made” (Jos. and Aseneth 8.9); it was true of Jerusalem, which “was already prepared from the moment [God] decided to create Paradise” (2 Baruch 4.1-5). Most importantly, it was also true of the Messiah (Tg. Zech. 4.7; Pes. 54a.8; Gen. Rabbah 1.4).

    This concept is also found in early Christian thought: “the Messiah was indeed foreknown before the foundation of the world, yet manifested in these last days for your sake” (1 Pet. 1:20). In fact, it was thought by early Christians that all things were ‘created’ in some sense in God’s mind before they were created in the world (Rom. 4:17; Rev. 4:11; cf. 1QS 3.15-16), including people, such as the patriarch Levi and even all believers (Eph. 1:4; 2 Tim. 1:9-10; Heb. 7:9-10).

    Thus, Jesus’ claim that he was before Abraham does not mean that he literally existed prior to Abraham’s birth, but that he was already the Messiah (ego eimi) in God’s foreknowledge before Abraham. This statement carries with it the implication that Jesus is himself greater than Abraham, which was apparently a blasphemous claim to the Jews who thought that he was a false Messiah (John 8:53), causing them to try to stone him. As New Testament scholar J. T. Robinson has said,

To say that Jesus is “before” [Abraham] is not to lift him out of the ranks of humanity but to assert his unconditional precedence. To take such statements at the level of “flesh” so as to infer, as “the Jews” do that, at less than fifty, Jesus is claiming to have lived on this earth before Abraham (8:52, 57), is to be as crass as Nicodemus who understands rebirth as an old man entering his mother’s womb a second time (3:4). These are not assertions about the ego of the human Jesus, which is no more pre-existent than that of any other human being. [8]

    Another passage in John that uses figurative pre-existence is John 17:5, in which Jesus says, “And now, Father, glorify me with Yourself with the glory that I had with You before the world existed.” In Jewish thought, anything pre-existing in God’s foreknowledge could be said to exist “with God” or “in heaven” (Job 23:14; Isa. 49:4; Matt. 5:12; 6:1, 20; 19:21; Luke 12:33; 2 Cor. 5:1; Col. 1:5; 1 Pet. 1:4; 2 Baruch 4.2-6; Gen. Rabbah 1.13). Jesus’ glory was in God’s foreknowledge before the world existed, because God already loved the future Messiah Jesus at that time (John 17:24). The fact that John did not believe Jesus to literally have God’s glory at that time is shown by John 7:39, which says, “the spirit did not yet exist, because Jesus had not yet been glorified.”

    “My Lord and my God”

One last passage in the gospel of John that is thought to exemplify high Christology is John 20:24-29. In this pericope, Jesus’ disciple Thomas sees him after his resurrection and declares, “My Lord and my God!” It is typically thought that Thomas was declaring Jesus to be God (in an absolute sense), and therefore that John had a high Christology. Here is the passage in question:

Yet Thomas called Didymus, one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples were saying to him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “If I do not see the mark of the nails in his hands, and put my fingers in them, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

And after eight days, the disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. The doors having been shut, Jesus came in, and he stood in their midst and said, “Peace be with you.” Then he said to Thomas, “Bring your finger here, and see my hands, and bring your hand, and put it into my side; and do not disbelieve, but believe.”

And Thomas answered and said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen, and yet have believed.”

Considered by itself, Thomas’ exclamation seems to be a clear declaration of Jesus’ deity. However, in light of John’s theology as a whole, it is very unlikely that John would consider Jesus to be God in the absolute sense that the Father is God. Elsewhere in the gospel of John, it is said that the Father is the God of Israel (8:54; 20:17) even “the only (true) God” (5:43-44; 17:3) and as God He is distinguished from Jesus (8:40; 17:3). Furthermore, Jesus in John’s gospel consistently rejects the charge that he is “making himself God,” instead claiming only to be the obedient Son of God (see above).

    The immediate context of John 20:28 also undermines the interpretation that Thomas is calling Jesus “my God.” Throughout this passage, Thomas does not doubt that Jesus is God — this isn’t an issue under consideration at all — but rather that Jesus was resurrected. A declaration of Jesus’ deity would be wildly out of place, and Jesus’ response to him doesn’t indicate that this new issue has been brought into consideration by Thomas’ exclamation. In addition, if this were a declaration of Jesus’ deity, it would be tremendously downplayed by John’s statement just three verses later: “These things are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God” (not God).

    With these considerations in mind, it is very unlikely that Thomas was declaring Jesus to be God, nor that the John would endorse such a declaration (in view of his theology elsewhere). Instead, this passage is very likely alluding back to the discourse in John 14:

“Do not let your hearts be distressed. You believe in God, believe also in me.” (v. 1)

Thomas said to him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?” Jesus answered, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have also known my Father. From now on you do know Him, and have seen Him.”

Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and we will be content.” Jesus answered, “Have I been with you so long, and you have not known me, Philip? The one who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you, I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father abiding in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; otherwise, believe because of the works themselves.” (vv. 5-11)

“Yet a little while and the world will not see me, but you will see me; because I live, you too will live. In that day, you will know that I am in the Father and you in me and I in you.” (vv. 19-20)

In both John 14 and 20:24-29, there is an emphasis on seeing Jesus (and thereby seeing the Father) and believing him (that the Father is in Jesus). Furthermore, these happen to be the only two passages in the gospel of John in which the disciple Thomas plays a key role, and in both instances he fails to believe something — in John 14, that the Father is in Jesus, and in John 20, that Jesus has been resurrected.

    Therefore, when Thomas exclaimed, “My Lord and my God,” he was echoing Jesus’ commandment in John 14:1 to believe in God and believe also in Jesus. He finally believed that the Father was in Jesus, and so by seeing Jesus (his Lord) he was also seeing the Father (his God; cf. John 20:13, 17). Thus, this verse does not show that John believed Jesus was God. On the contrary, it continues the theme that Jesus reveals God, a theme which is found all throughout the gospel of John (1:18; 5:19; 10:38; 14:9-11; 17:26).

    Conclusion

The gospel of John does not have a high Christology, and it does not teach that Jesus pre-existed his birth, nor that he was anything more than a human being who was chosen, anointed, and exalted by God (as in the other three canonical gospels). In fact, John emphasizes the humanity of Jesus far more than the other three gospels, as well as his subordination to God as the obedient Son of God. The prologue to John’s gospel, rather than teaching that Jesus pre-existed his birth, teaches that the divine word “became flesh” and was embodied by the human Jesus after his baptism, when the spirit of God descended on and “remained upon him.” Jesus also consistently rejects the charge that he “makes himself God,” instead claiming only to be the obedient (and subordinate) Son. The supposed pre-existence passages in John should be understood as referring to figurative pre-existence in the mind of God, when read in light of contemporary Jewish literature (including biblical texts).

______________________________

[1] James F. McGrath, “John’s Apologetic Christology: Legitimation and Development in Johannine Christology,” Ph.D. diss. (University of Durham, 1998), 120-123.

[2] Hugo Odeberg, The Fourth Gospel Interpreted in Its Relation to Contemporaneous Religious Currents in Palestine and the Hellenistic-Oriental World (Chicago: Argonaut Publishers, 1929), 203.

[3] C. K. Barrett, Essays on John (London: SPCK, 1982), 12.

[4] “I heard the voice of the Holy One speaking, and He said, ‘Go, Yahoel [lit. “Yahweh God”], and by means of My ineffable Name raise [Abraham] and strengthen him’” (Apocalypse of Abraham 10); “And He called me [Enoch] ‘the Little Yahweh’ in the presence of all His heavenly household, as it is written, ‘For My name is in him’” (3 Enoch 12.5).

[5] Here, ego eimi should almost certainly be translated as a historic present, that is, “I have been” rather than “I am.” This is a typical Koine Greek construction in which a present tense is modified by a past time indicator (Luke 15:29; John 15:27; 1 John 3:8). See especially Testament of Job 2.1: “For I have been Jobab [ego eimi Iobab] before the Lord named me Job.”

[6] John 2:19-22; 4:10-14, 31-34; 6:41-45, 51-53; 7:33-36; 8:31-33, 51-53.

[7] Because, as explained earlier, ego eimi is developed as a Messianic claim throughout the gospel of John.

[8] J. A. T. Robinson, The Priority of John (London: SCM Press, 1985), 384.

The low Christology of John (part 1 of 2)

Disclaimer: By “low Christology” I in no way mean to degrade Christ or imply that John had a degrading view of Christ. I mean this in the sense that Jesus existed first as a human and was exalted from that position, as opposed to “high Christology” which means that Jesus existed first as a divine being and became a human (or took on a human nature). These are technical terms and do not mean that Christ’s current position as Lord of all is in any way lessened.

    The gospel of John is typically thought to have a higher Christology than the other three canonical gospel accounts. Whereas the first three gospels tend to emphasize the humanity of Jesus, saying little to nothing about his divine attributes, John is thought to focus much more on the divinity of Jesus, based on statements like “the word was God,” “before Abraham was, I am,” and “I and my Father are one.” However, it’s my conviction that John does not have a higher Christology than the other three gospels — at least, not to the extent that John believed that Jesus was God. In this post, I will defend this view by examining the statements about Jesus in the gospel of John (including Jesus’ own statements).

    ‘Low’ and ‘High’ Christologies

    In the study of the New Testament, a distinction is often made between ‘low’ and ‘high’ Christology. On this scheme, ‘low’ or exaltational Christology is the belief that Jesus was only a human who was exalted to become son of God at some point, whether at his baptism or resurrection. For example, the early creed in Romans 1:3-4 displays a low Christology:

God... promised beforehand... concerning His son, who was born of the seed of David, according to flesh, who was appointed son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.

    On the other hand, ‘high’ or incarnation Christology is the belief that Jesus was an angel or otherwise divine being who became a human, and was subsequently exalted back to his former position (or even higher) at his resurrection. A common example of high Christology is the early hymn in Philippians 2:5-11:

Let this understanding be in you which was also in the Messiah Jesus, who existing in the form of God considered it not something to be grasped to be equal to God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant. Being born in the likeness of humans, and having been found in appearance as a human, he humbled himself, becoming obedient until death (even death of a cross). Therefore God also over-exalted him, and gave to him the name over every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow (in the heavens and on earth and under the earth) and every tongue confess that Jesus the Messiah is Lord (to the glory of God the Father).

However, an alternate interpretation of Philippians 2:6-11 sees the first stanza of this hymn as referring not to the pre-existence of Jesus, but to his human life, parallel to the second stanza. [1] This being the case, a better example of incarnational Christology may be found in the Logos theology of the later second-century church fathers such as Justin Martyr and Irenaeus.

    The question here is, does John espouse a low/exaltational or high/incarnational Christology? Typically, the gospel of John is considered to be one of the best examples of incarnational Christology, with its claim that the word existed since creation and “became flesh” in Jesus the Messiah (1:1-18). However, as I will show, the gospel of John has a low, or exaltational, Christology. In fact, the gospel of John emphasizes the humanity of Jesus even more than the other canonical gospels.

    For one, John refers to Jesus as “a man” far more than the other gospel accounts. Matthew refers to Jesus as “a man” three times (9:8; 26:72, 74), Mark does so only twice (14:71; 15:39), and Luke does so four times (23:4, 6, 14, 47). In contrast, John refers to Jesus as “a man” no less than fifteen times (4:29; 5:12; 7:46; 8:40; 9:11, 16, 24; 10:33; 11:47, 50; 18:14, 17, 29; 19:5). In fact, Jesus refers to himself as “a man who has spoken to you the truth that I heard from God” (John 8:40). Throughout the Johannine literature, there is a repeated emphasis on the fact that Jesus came “in the flesh,” that is, as a human being (John 1:14; 1 John 4:2, 3; 2 John 7).

    In addition, John continually emphasizes the fact that Jesus is the agent of God, far more than the other gospels do. According to John, God has placed His spirit on Jesus, setting His seal on him like the prophets of old (3:34; 6:27). Jesus does entirely what God wills (4:34). Jesus does nothing on his own authority, but even speaks the very words of God (3:34; 5:19; 7:16; 8:28, 40; 12:49; 15:15). All of his miracles are done in the authority of his Father, God (5:19-30; 10:25). Because Jesus is the agent of God, whoever accepts and believes in Jesus also accepts and believes in God, in the same way that anyone who accepts Jesus’ disciples accepts Jesus himself (13:20).

    It is in this context that John says that Jesus was “sent” and “came into the world.” [3] Although these statements are often taken to mean that Jesus pre-existed his birth, the fact is that these were common idioms to refer to God’s commissioning of the prophets. In Jewish literature from this time, a prophet “comes into the world” when they are born, and they are “sent” when they are chosen by God to give a message. [4] John even explicitly states that this is what he means by saying that Jesus was sent:

Jesus spoke these things, and having looked to heaven, he said... “Just as You have sent me into the world, so also I sent them [the disciples] into the world.” (John 17:18)

With the blinders of incarnational Christology on, it is all too easy to see this language applied to Jesus as implicitly referring to his pre-existence, but when Jesus says that he sent his disciples into the world, it’s obvious that he means he commissioned them to preach the gospel. Saying that Jesus was sent into the world simply identifies him as an agent of God — indeed, the anointed agent of God, the Messiah.

    In addition to the emphasis on Jesus’ humanity and identity as the agent of God, the gospel of John also highlights Jesus’ subordination to God more than the other canonical gospels. This is based on the principle that “no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him” (John 13:16). Given that Jesus was a messenger sent by God, the Father, it follows that “the Father is greater than [Jesus]” (John 14:28 cf. 10:29). Jesus refers to the Father as “my Father and your Father, my God and your God” (John 20:17).

    Thus, in some ways, John’s Christology is lower than the other three gospels, not higher. John emphasizes the humanity much more than the other three gospels do; in fact, his is the only gospel in which Jesus refers to himself as “a man” (John 8:40). He also tends to emphasize the fact that Jesus is subordinate to God, the agent of God, and that he can do nothing apart from God’s command. Indeed, as Thomas Gaston says, “The Gospel of John contains some of the most explicit subordinationist statements in the whole NT.” [5] But does the gospel of John indicate that Jesus pre-existed his birth?

    Pre-existence in the prologue of John?

    One passage that is almost always appealed to by those who claim that the gospel of John teaches pre-existence is the first chapter of John. This passage states, “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was fully-divine. This one was in the beginning with God... And the word became flesh... Jesus the Messiah” (John 1:1-2, 14, 17).

    Looking at this passage from a modern perspective, it seems to clearly state that Jesus existed as a conscious being before his birth. However, this interpretation of the text actually involves a hidden assumption that is rarely acknowledged by commentators — namely, that “the word” has always been a conscious being. There are three different ways to view this passage:

1. That “the word” was a conscious being before “the beginning” — this is the assumption made by trinitarians.
2. That “the word” became a conscious being at “the beginning” — this is the assumption made by Arians.
3. That “the word” became a conscious being when “the word became flesh” — this is the assumption made by Socinians / adoptionists.

The text of the prologue itself does not support any one of these views over the others. John does use masculine pronouns to refer to “the word,” but this is merely an artifact of the original Greek grammar, as the word logos is masculine in Greek. These pronouns could be translated into English as either “he” or “it,” and in fact two early English translations used “it.” [6]

    The question of pre-existence — whether “the word” was a conscious being before he/it “became flesh” — cannot be answered from the text of John 1:1-18. The context of this prologue must also be taken into account. As it happens, the prologue of John contains dozens of allusions to Jewish wisdom literature (both canonical, like the Psalms and Proverbs, and non-canonical, like Philo’s writings). See the references in the table below.

John prologue	Wisdom literature parallels
In [the] beginning was the logos, and the logos was with God…	Job 12:13 Proverbs 8:22–30 Wisdom 9:9 Sirach 1:1, 4 Philo, Leg. All. 3.175 Philo, Ebr. 31 Philo, Deus 31–32
…and the logos was God. [theos]	Philo, Somn. 1.229–230 Philo, QG 2.62
All things were made through it and without it nothing was made.	Jeremiah 10:12 Psalm 33:6–9; 104:24 Proverbs 3:19–20 Wisdom 7:22; 8:6; 9:1–2 Philo, Sacr. 8 Philo, Fug. 109
That which was made in it was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.	Psalm 36:9; 119:105–107 Proverbs 6:23; 8:35 Wisdom 7:26, 29–30 Sirach 4:12 Baruch 4:1–2 Philo, Post. 69
The true light, which enlightens every man, was coming into the world.	Wisdom 8:1 Sirach 24:5–6
It [the logos] was in the world, and the world came into being through it, and the world did not know it.	Proverbs 1:20–33 1 Enoch 42.1–2
It came to its own, and its own [people] did not receive it.	Psalm 147:18–19 Psalm 105:24 [LXX] Sirach 24:8 Baruch 3:37–4:1
Yet to whoever received it, it gave them authority to become children of God, to those believing in His name.	Proverbs 8:32–35 Wisdom 2:13–18; 5:5; 6:12–19; 7:14, 27–28 Sirach 4:10–14; 6:22; 51:10 Philo, Conf. 145–147
And the word became flesh and tented among us…	Proverbs 31:10–31 Sirach 24:8; 50 Philo, Leg. All. 2.82; 3.46 Philo, Congr. 116 Philo, Mos. 1.162; 2.4 Philo, Det. 124
…and we have beheld his glory, glory as of an only-begotten of a father, full of grace and truth… Out of his fullness we all have received grace for grace. For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus the Messiah.	Proverbs 8:1–7, 18 Wisdom 3:9; 7:22–25; 9:11 Sirach 6:31; 24:16
No one has ever seen God; the only-begotten son, who is in the bosom of the Father, that one has made him known.	Proverbs 8:30 Wisdom 9:4, 10 Philo, Conf. 97; 147 Philo, Somn. 1.239 Philo, QE 2.67–68

Every single claim made about “the word” in the prologue of John finds parallels in the wisdom literature. Throughout Jewish wisdom literature, the “word of God” and the “wisdom of God” were used interchangeably (Wisd. 9.1-2; Sir. 24.1-3), and the same is true in Philo (Leg. All. 1.65; Somn. 1.65-66). The clear parallels between John’s prologue and the wisdom literature have long been recognized by New Testament scholars. [7]

    Although Wisdom is often personified in Jewish wisdom literature, just as the Word is personified in John’s prologue, neither the Word nor Wisdom are conscious beings. Throughout the wisdom literature, “the Word of God” is paralleled with “His command” and “breath of His mouth” (Psalm 33:6; 147:15; Wisd. 18.14-16), and “Wisdom” is paralleled with “understanding” and “knowledge” (Proverbs 3:19-20; Sir. 1.4). In Philo, as well, although the Logos (Word) is often personified, it refers to the impersonal reasoning capacity of God. [8] It is evident that the Word and Wisdom were not personal beings in Jewish wisdom literature, but personified attributes of God. There is no reason to think that it is any different in John’s prologue.

    The statement that “the word became flesh and tented among us” (John 1:14) would not have been particularly revolutionary in the context of Jewish wisdom literature, either. In the book of Proverbs, the ideal wife is presented as wisdom personified (31:10-31). [9] Similarly, using dozens of textual connections, the author of Sirach 50 identifies the high priest Simon as Wisdom incarnate. [10] The Law was commonly considered to be the embodiment of God’s word and wisdom (Psa. 119; Sir. 24.23; Bar. 3.37-4:1), and it was in the Law that Wisdom “pitched her tent” (Sir. 24.8). 

    Philo, a first-century Alexandrian Jew, took this one step further and claimed that Moses, to whom the Law was given, “was himself long previously a living and reasonable law” (De Moses 1.162; 2.4). He also believed that Sarah was the embodiment of Wisdom, and referred to Sarah as “Wisdom” on at least three different occasions (Leg. Int. 2.82; Det. Pot. 124; Congr. 1.12-13).

    The statement that “the word became flesh” in Jesus, then, does not mean that Jesus existed before his birth and was incarnated as a human, but that the ideal of the (impersonal) divine word and wisdom was embodied in Jesus. The idea that Wisdom could be embodied in a human being is not unique to John, but is found throughout Jewish wisdom literature. John’s objective in this prologue is not to describe Jesus’ pre-existence, but to show that Jesus is the embodiment of the Word, and consequently it is now through him that people become children of God (1:12-13).

    When, then, did the word become flesh in John’s view? According to the prologue, it was John the Baptist who “bore witness” to the word (1:6-8, 15). Later in the same chapter, the Baptist “bore witness and said, ‘I have beheld the spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and it remained upon him’” (1:32). This refers to Jesus’ baptism, when the spirit of God descended on him (cf. Isa. 42:1; Mark 1:9-11). According to John, the special status of Jesus is because God has “given of the spirit without measure” to him (3:34).

    It makes sense that John would equate the word becoming flesh with the spirit descending on Jesus, because in the Jewish wisdom literature, the word/wisdom of God was occasionally equated with the spirit of God (Psa. 33:6; 147:18; Isa. 11:2; Wisd. 9.1-2, 17; Sir. 39.6). Therefore, in John’s view, it was at the baptism of Jesus — not his conception or birth — that the word became flesh. [11]

Part 2: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2023/06/the-low-christology-of-john-part-2-of-2.html

______________________________

[1] Under this interpretation, the statement that Jesus existed “in the form of God” simply means that, like Adam, he was made “in the image of God” (cf. Gen. 1:26; 5:1). According to R. P. Martin, “morphe [’form’] and eikon [’image’] are equivalent terms that are used interchangeably in the LXX.” [2] This being the case, “existing in the form of God” is probably parallel to the first line of the second stanza, “being born in the likeness of humans.”

The second stanza of the first line, “he considered it not something to be grasped to be equal to God,” simply means that Jesus did not sinfully grasp at equality with God as Adam did (cf. Gen. 3:5, 22). Consequently, he “emptied himself... humbled himself” and “took the form of a servant” by emulating the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 and “becoming obedient until death.” This exegesis of the Philippians 2 hymn has the advantage of making the first and second stanzas entirely parallel to one another, and does not have an incarnational Christology.

For academic publications espousing this interpretation of Phil. 2:6-11 see: Charles H. Talbert, “The Problem of Pre-Existence in Philippians 2:6-11,” Journal of Biblical Literature 86 (1970), 141-153; George Howard, “Phil 2:6-11 and the Human Christ,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40, no. 3 (1978), 368-387; Scott A. Deane, “Obedience and Humility of the Second Adam: Philippians 2:6-11,” A Journal from the Radical Reformation 7, no. 1 (1997), 4-12.

[2] R. P. Martin, “Morphe in Philippians 2:6,” Expository Times 70, no. 6 (March 1959), 183-184.

[3] “Sent”: John 3:16, 17, 34; 4:34; 5:36, 38; 6:29, 57; 7:29; 8:42; 10:36; 11:42; 16:28; 17:3, 8, 18, 21, 23, 25; 20:21.

“Come into the world”: John 3:17, 19; 6:14; 9:39; 10:36; 11:27; 16:28; 17:18; 18:37.

[4] “Sent”: Exod. 3:14-15; 7:16; Judg. 6:8; 1 Sam. 25:32; 2 Chron. 36:15; Isa. 6:8; Jer. 35:15; 42:21; 43:1; John 1:6; 2 Cor. 2:17; Gal. 1:1; Tobit 14.4; Judith 11.16; Baruch 1.21; 1 Esdras 1.48-49.

“Come into the world”: John 16:21; 2 Esdras 7.21, 132; 8.5; 9.20.

[5] Thomas Gaston, “Does the Gospel of John Have a High Christology?,” Horizons in Biblical Theology 36, no. 2 (2014): 133.

[6] See the Tyndale and Geneva Bibles from the sixteenth century.

[7] Henry R. Moeller, “Wisdom Motifs and the Gospel of John,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 6, no. 3 (Summer 1963), 92-100; John Ashton, “The Transformation of Wisdom: A Study of the Prologue of John’s Gospel,” New Testament Studies 32, no. 2 (April 1986), 161-186; James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making, 2nd ed. (London: SCM Press, 1989), 239-247; Sheri D. Kling, “Wisdom became flesh: an analysis of the prologue to the gospel of John,” Currents in Theology and Mission 40, no. 3 (June 2013), 179-187.

[8] James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making, 2nd ed. (London: SCM Press, 1989), 220-228.

[9] Pete Frazier Wilbanks, “Identity crisis: Who is the woman of strength in Proverbs 31:10-31?,” Ph.D. diss. (New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 1999).

[10] Crispin Fletcher-Louis, “The Cosmology of P and Theological Anthropology in the Wisdom of Jesus ben Sira,” 8-10, 38-59.

[11] Francis Waston, “Is John’s Christology Adoptionist?,” in The Glory of Christ in the New Testament, eds. L. D. Hurst and N. T. Wright (New York: Clarendon, 1987), 113-124.