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/
No comments:
Post a Comment