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.”
Genesis 2:24: A Model for Heteronormative Marriage?
In the last few posts on this blog, we’ve been taking a look at the Bible passages that are commonly used to condemn homosexual relationships. All of the passages that we’ve examined so far fail to actually condemn such relationships, contra the mainstream Christian interpretations.
For one, it’s ridiculous to claim that the Sodom narrative of Genesis 19 condemns male homosexuality as a whole; rather, it’s obviously a condemnation of rape, paralleled by Judges 19-20 which also condemns heterosexual rape. The Leviticus verses (18:22 and 20:13) and the Pauline vice lists (1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10), are actually ambiguous in their original languages and have been mistranslated to support homophobic views. One last passage, Romans 1:26-27, also has many alternate interpretations, each of which seem individually more likely than the traditional interpretation on textual and contextual grounds.
However, there is one last passage to examine, which is perhaps the Bible verse most commonly used by Christian opponents of gay marriage. This is Genesis 2:24, which states, “Therefore a man forsakes his father and mother and clings to his woman, and they become one flesh.” Doesn’t Gen. 2:24 prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that only male-female marriages and relationships are approved by God? In this last post on homosexuality and the Bible, we’ll examine this claim by taking a look at Gen. 2:24 in its larger context.
Prescriptive or descriptive?
The main question surrounding Genesis 2:24 is whether it is meant to be prescriptive or descriptive. If this verse is prescriptive, then it is saying that only men and women can marry, and that anything outside of this design goes against God’s precepts. But if it is descriptive, then it is simply saying “this is why men and women marry,” without passing judgment on any marriages that go outside of this ‘one man + one woman’ layout.
In the immediate context of Genesis 2, the verse seems to be merely descriptive; that is, it is saying that loneliness is what causes men and women to come together and marry. See the following passage:
And Yahweh God said, “It is not good that the man is alone. I will make a corresponding companion [1] for him”... And Yahweh God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, and he slept, and He took his side and closed up the flesh in its place. And Yahweh God formed the side which He had taken from the man into a woman, and He brought her to the man. And the man said, “This one is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. This one will be called ‘woman,’ for this one was taken out of ‘man.’” Therefore a man forsakes his father and mother and clings to his woman, and they become one flesh. (Gen. 2:18, 21-24)
This passage emphasizes romantic loneliness as a problem for humanity, and marriage as the solution. Verse 24, then, is simply stating that “this [loneliness] is why men and women marry,” without saying anything about marriages that don’t fall into this pattern. In fact, this would seem to support the idea of non-heterosexual marriage, since there are people for whom loneliness is not solved by heterosexual relationships, who are attracted to the same sex instead.
However, the issue is somewhat more complex than this. This is because Gen. 2:24 is quoted in the New Testament by Jesus as a prescriptive text, condemning divorce.
And having come to him, the Pharisees were demanding of him if it is lawful for a husband to divorce a wife, testing him. And answering, he said to them, “What did Moses command you?”
And they said, “Moses permitted to write a scroll of divorce, and to send her away.”
Yet Jesus said to them, “He wrote you this commandment because of the hardness of your heart. Yet from the beginning of creation He ‘made them a male and a female.’ [Gen. 1:27] ‘Because of this, a man will forsake his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and the two will be for one flesh.’ [Gen. 2:24] Therefore they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has united, let no man separate.” (Mark 10:2-9)
Here, Jesus interprets Gen. 2:24 as both descriptive and prescriptive. Because this verse says that those who are married have become “one flesh,” Jesus concludes that divorce goes against the will of God. Although the context here is clearly divorce and not gay marriage, this does set a precedent for interpreting Gen. 2:24 as prescriptive, which lends more credence to the anti-gay-marriage interpretation of this verse.
This seems conclusive in favor of the view that Gen. 2:24 is prescriptive, at least in addition to being descriptive. Nevertheless, it is also true that the authors of the New Testament often took liberties with the Old Testament texts, interpreting them in ways that don’t make sense within the original context. [2] For this reason, let’s take a deeper look at Genesis 2:24 in its context, to determine what the original author may have meant.
A closer look at Gen. 2:24
At the beginning of this passage, Yahweh declares, “It is not good that ha-adam is alone. I will make a corresponding companion for him” (v. 18). God then creates the birds and land animals and brings each of them to Adam for him to determine whether they are suitable for him. Nevertheless, “for ha-adam no corresponding companion was found“ (vv. 19-20). Because of this, God created a companion (the woman) out of Adam himself (vv. 21-22). When the woman is brought to Adam, he joyfully cries, “This one at last is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh” (v. 23). “Therefore,” the author concludes, “a man forsakes his father and mother and clings to his woman, and they become one flesh.” To understand the author’s intent in writing this verse, we must take a look at the original Hebrew text of Gen. 2:24.
First, what did the author mean when he said that a man “forsakes” (azab) his parents? Although azab is often translated here as simply “leave,” it typically conveys the more severe concept of complete abandonment. God often warns Israel not to “forsake” (azab) Him and follow other gods (e.g., Deut. 29:25; Josh. 24:20; Judg. 10:6). God also comforts Israel by saying that He will not “abandon” (azab) them despite their constant backsliding (Deut. 31:6; 1 Kgs. 6:13). In fact, in the KJV, azab is translated as “forsake” 129 times as opposed to simply “leave” only 72 times. [3] Genesis 2:24 is not merely conveying the straightforward idea of leaving one’s parents’ home, but is saying that this reason (loneliness) is why men abandon or forsake their parents to follow women.
What did the author mean by saying that a man “clings to” (dabaq) a woman? Again, this isn’t as straightforward as it might seem. Dabaq has the meaning of “cling to” or “cleave to,” and like azab, it is often used in a religious context to refer to Israel’s clinging to Yahweh (Deut 4:4; 10:20; 11:22; 13:4; 30:20; Josh. 22:5; 23:8; 2 Kgs. 18:6; Jer. 13:11; Psa. 119:31). However, dabaq is only used to refer to marriage four other times in the Old Testament, and in each instance it describes intermarriage (marriage between Israelites and other groups) rather than simply marriage (Gen. 34:3; Josh. 23:12; 1 Kgs. 11:1-2; Dan. 2:43). [4] Thus, the author of Gen. 2:24 was alluding to intermarriage — not all types of marriage — when writing this passage.
The historical context of this passage helps to explain why it alludes to intermarriage. Most scholars agree that the entire pericope of Genesis 1 through 11 was written during the Exilic or post-Exilic periods of Israelite history, due to dozens of anachronisms within these chapters. [5] Based on the other biblical books written during this period, [6] we know that intermarriage was a major issue during this period, with different authors taking various stances (Ruth 1; Ezra 9-10; Neh. 13; Mal. 2:10-12). Therefore, it is likely that the author of Gen. 2:24 was taking a stand in favor of intermarriage by tying it back to the very beginning of creation.
Thus, in its original context, Genesis 2:24 was not creating a normative definition of marriage. On the contrary, the author seems to have been making the point that people can marry in spite of cultural norms — “forsaking their father and mother” and marrying the woman they love, even if that woman is not an Israelite. Although this certainly is no argument in favor of gay marriage (since gay marriage was not an issue at the time that Gen. 2:24 was written), neither does it support the case against gay marriage.
Genesis and Ruth
Interestingly, the strongest parallel with Genesis 2:24 in the Old Testament is found in the book of Ruth, where it refers not to marriage between a man and a woman, but to the strong bond that was formed between the Moabite woman Ruth and her mother-in-law Naomi.
Naomi said, “Turn back, my daughters! Why would you go with me? Are there still sons in my womb that they may be your husbands?”... but Ruth clung to [dabaq] her... Boaz said to her, “It has been fully told to me, all that you have done for your mother-in-law since the death of your husband, and that you forsook [azab] your father and mother and your native land and have come to a people that you did not know before.” (Ruth 1:11, 14; 2:11)
The author of Ruth states that Ruth “forsook [her] father and mother,” and uses the verb daqab to describe Ruth’s relationship with her mother-in-law. The parallel with Genesis 2:24 is so strong that it seems that the author of Ruth must have been alluding to Gen. 2:24, or vice versa. However, this does not refer to a relationship between a man and a woman, but between two women.
To be sure, Ruth and Naomi were not lesbian lovers. Both of them had been married to a husband previously (Ruth 1:2, 4), and the statement that Ruth “clung to” Naomi does not imply marriage, merely a strong bond between the two women. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Genesis 2:24 — which is used by many Christians to condemn same-sex relationships — finds its strongest parallel within the Hebrew Bible in a passage that describes a relationship between two women. Truly ironic.
“Marriage” is “One Man + One Woman”?
In response to the legalization of gay marriage in the United States, many Christians have pushed back by claiming that the Bible defines marriage as “one man and one woman.” In support of this, they almost invariably quote Genesis 2:24, even though (as we saw above) this verse in its original context was addressing the issue of intermarriage, not gay marriage. However, is there anything else in the Bible to support a normative definition of marriage as “one man + one woman”?
On the contrary, rather than supporting this view of marriage, the Bible repeatedly undermines it. Many of the heroes and patriarchs of the Old Testament had multiple wives, including Abraham (Gen. 16:3; 25:1), Jacob (Gen. 29:21-30:13), Esau (Gen. 26:34; 28:9), Elkanah (1 Sam. 1:1-2), and David (1 Sam. 25:42-44; 2 Sam. 3:2-5; 5:13). In none of these instances were the marriages condemned. Similarly, in the Mosaic Law, allowances are made for multiple wives, with regulations for how wives and heirs are to be treated in polygamous marriages (Exod. 21:10-11; Deut. 21:15-17). In fact, it was required for a man to marry his brother’s wife if his brother died (Deut. 25:5-10). Presumably, this would apply even if the brother was already married, in which case polygamy would not only be permitted but commanded.
There are a few passages that are often considered to condemn polygamy, but these do not stand up under examination. First, Genesis 2:24 is often appealed to, as it states that “two” shall become “one flesh.” However, as we saw above, Gen. 2:24 was not originally written to provide a normative definition of marriage, but to refute those who condemned intermarriage. Furthermore, even if Gen. 2:24 were defining marriage, there is no indication that a man cannot become “one flesh” with multiple women.
Another passage that is sometimes considered to condemn polygamy is 1 Kings 11:1-10, in which God punishes Solomon for his marriages with 1000 foreign women. However, the point of this passage is not to show that polygamy is wrong, as it was permitted in the case of Solomon’s father David. Rather, it is clear that “Yahweh was angry with Solomon because he shifted his allegiance away from Yahweh“ (1 Kgs. 11:9). By marrying hundreds of foreign women, Solomon had been drawn away to worship other gods above Yahweh. Therefore, this passage does not condemn polygamy, either.
Finally, three passages from Paul’s letters are often appealed to, as these passages state that leaders in the church must be “the husband of one wife” (1 Tim. 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6). However, these passages use an unusual Greek phrase (mias gunaikos andra) which could be translated either as “one wife man” (prohibiting polygyny) or “a wife man” (requiring that a leader be married). Even if it is correctly translated as “the husband of one wife,” this requirement is only made of leaders in the church, not of all people everywhere.
Therefore, the concept of marriage being "one man + one woman" is certainly foreign to the Bible, as the Bible repeatedly condones polygamy, and possibly even commands it under special circumstances. I'm not suggesting that polygamy should be made legal, but this shows that there is no single normative definition of marriage throughout the Bible. As such, it's ridiculous to claim that "God's definition of marriage" precludes same-sex marriages.
______________________________
[1] The Hebrew word ‘ezer is often translated here as “helper” or “helpmeet.” However, this conveys the idea that the woman was originally created in a position of lower authority than the man, which is incorrect. ‘Ezer does not imply a position of lower authority, as God is often referred to as our “help” (‘ezer): see Exod. 18:4; Deut. 33:7; Psa. 33:20; 70:5; 115:9-11; Hos. 13:9. “Companion” better conveys the idea of what is meant by ‘ezer in this verse.
[2] One of the most well-known examples is the Immanu’el prophecy of Isaiah 7:14, which originally applied to a child that was born in the time of Isaiah (7:13-17), but was applied to Jesus by Matthew (1:23). There are many other examples as well, of which the following are only a sample: Matt. 4:14-16 cf. Isa. 8:1-10:19; Rom. 9:24-25 cf. Hos. 1:10-11; Rom. 9:26 cf. Hos. 2:21-23; 1 Cor. 9:9-10 cf. Deut. 25:4; 2 Cor. 6:2 cf. Isa. 49:8-18; Gal. 3:16 cf. Gen. 12:7; Gal. 4:22-31; Eph. 5:29-32 cf. Gen. 2:24.
[3] https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h5800/kjv/wlc/0-1/
[4] Megan Warner, “‘Therefore a Man Leaves His Father and His Mother and Clings to His Wife’: Marriage and Intermarriage in Genesis 2:24,” Journal of Biblical Literature 136, no. 2 (2017), 277.
[6] There is a general consensus, based on multiple textual considerations, that the book of Ruth was written between the time of Josiah and Ezra-Nehemiah, although there is debate about when exactly. See https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/who-wrote-ruth
Leviticus and Paul on Homosexuality
You shall not sleep with a male as one sleeps with a female; it is an abomination. (Lev. 18:22 NASB)
If there is a man who sleeps with a male as those who sleep with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they must be put to death. They have brought their own deaths upon themselves. (Lev. 20:13 NASB)
When these verses are considered in isolation, it seems at first glance to be fairly obviously stating that male homosexuality is an abomination and deserving of death. However, some scholars have noted that, in context, these passages appear to be part of a larger discourse condemning the cultic activities of the pagan Canaanites, and therefore they may be condemning specifically male cult prostitution. This is clearest from the context of Lev. 18:22:
You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am Yahweh. You shall not sleep with a male as one sleeps with a female; it is an abomination. Also you shall not have sexual 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. Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these things the nations which I am driving out from you have become defiled. (Lev. 18:21-24 NASB)
Thus, because these actions are explicitly connected to cultic activity, and Lev. 18:22 is encompassed by condemnations of other pagan atrocities like infant sacrifice and bestiality, some have argued that the sin being referred to in Lev. 18:22 is specifically male cult prostitution, and “as one sleeps with a female” refers to the act of female cult prostitution. The second passage is likewise encompassed by condemnation of cultic activities like the sacrifice of infants to Molech (Lev. 20:2-5), mediums and spiritualism (vv. 6-8), sex with both a woman and her mother (v. 14), and bestiality (vv. 15-16), all of which are said to be the practices of the pagan Canaanites (vv. 22-23). For this reason, it is entirely possible (even probable) that Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 are condemning male cult prostitution specifically, and not all homosexuality in general.
However, there is another interpretation of these two passages which I, personally, find even more likely than the “male cult prostitution” interpretation. To understand this interpretation, we need to take a look at the original Hebrew of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Just for reference, here is the usual translation of these passages:
You shall not sleep with a male as one sleeps with a female; it is an abomination. (Lev. 18:22 NASB)
If there is a man who sleeps with a male as those who sleep with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they must be put to death. They have brought their own deaths upon themselves. (Lev. 20:13 NASB)
You may be surprised to learn this, but the parts of those two verses that I bolded are entirely an interpolation of the translator. The word “as” is not present in either the Hebrew or Greek (LXX) text at all. An entirely literal translation would, instead, look like this:
And you shall not lie with a male lyings of a female; it is an abomination. (Lev. 18:22)
The word which I translated “lyings of” above is mishkebe in the Hebrew, which is the masculine plural construct of the word shakab (meaning “to lie with”). The fact is, no one is entirely sure what this word actually means in this context. This specific form of the word is only found three places in the Old Testament; apart from Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, it is only found in Genesis 49:4. Here is that verse:
“Uncontrolled as the waters, you [Reuben] shall not excel, because you went up lyings of your father, then you defiled it. He went up to my bed.”
Here, Israel curses his firstborn son Reuben because he previously had sex with his father’s concubine Bilhah (see Gen. 35:22). In this context, “lyings of your father” refers to one who had lain with his father: Bilhah, his father’s concubine. Thus, the word mishkebe must mean “one who sleeps with”, not “as one sleeps with.” If this word were translated consistently “as one sleeps with”, as it is translated in Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 in most Bible versions, we would have to conclude that Reuben “went up as one sleeps with your father,” then “defiled it.” But this is clearly a meaningless and ridiculous translation.
If we use Genesis 49:4 - the only other place where the word mishkebe is used - to translate Lev. 18:22 and 20:13, we would end up with the following translations:
And you shall not lie with a male, one who sleeps with a female; it is an abomination. (Lev. 18:22)
And if a man lies with a male, one who sleeps with a female, the two of them have committed an abomination. Surely they shall be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (Lev. 20:13)
Thus, these verses are not condemning all male homosexuality indiscriminately. Rather, they are condemning the very specific action of a man having sex with another man who “sleeps with a female,” possibly referring to a heterosexual man having sex with another man, or else referring to adulterous homosexual sex [1]. This may have had some cultic significance at the time, explaining its inclusion in the condemnation of Canaanite paganism.
Paul’s “Sin Lists” and Homosexuality
Two more passages which are often used to support the condemnation of homosexuality are from Paul’s epistles, in his “sin lists” from 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10. Here are the passages in question:
Or do you not know that [the] unrighteous will not inherit [the] kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither male prostitutes, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor malakoi, nor arsenokoitai, nor theives, nor greedy, nor drunkards, nor abusers, nor swindlers will inherit [the] kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 6:9-10)
...knowing this, that [the] Law is not set forth for righteous, yet for lawless, and unruly, for impious and sinful, for father-killers and mother-killers, for murderers, for male prostitutes, arsenokoitais, for enslavers, for liars, for perjurers, and if anything else is opposed to sound teaching. (1 Tim. 1:9-10)
I purposely left two words untranslated in the above passages: malakoi (the plural of Greek malakos) and arsenokoitai (the plural of greek arsenokoites). The word malakos literally means “soft,” and was often used in the ancient world to describe those who were “weak/soft in morals” or even “womanly,” and sometimes referred to men who had too much sex with women (the ancient equivalent of the word “womanizer”). It was also sometimes used to describe young male prostitutes who participated in the practice of pederasty. Overall, this word had a wide semantic range and we cannot be entirely sure of what it meant to Paul [2].
The second word, arsenokoites, is far rarer and most scholars believe that it was a neologism coined by Paul himself. This word literally means “male-bedder” and thus refers to some sort of sexual act which involves a male. One theory is that Paul coined this word from the Greek text of Leviticus 20:13 (LXX), which states “kai hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gynaikos.” If this is true, then Paul was probably condemning the same thing that the book of Leviticus condemns: lying with a man “who sleeps with a female” (whatever that may mean).
However, in my opinion, the way that this word is used in post-Pauline literature does not support this idea. The two earliest occurrences of arsenokoites (apart from Paul’s epistles) can be found in the Sybilline Oracles and the Acts of John, both of which link arsenokoites to forms of economic exploitation:
Do not steal seeds. Whoever takes for himself is accursed (to generations of generations, to the scattering of life). Do not arsenokoiten, do not betray information, do not murder. Give one who has laboured his wage. Do not oppress a poor man. Take heed of your speech. Keep a secret matter in your heart. (Make provision for orphans and widows and those in need.) Do not be willing to act unjustly, and therefore do not give leave to one who is acting unjustly. (Sybilline Oracles 2.70-77)
So also the poisoner, sorcerer, robber, swindler, and arsenokoites, the thief and all of this band, guided by your deeds you shall come to unquenchable fire... (Acts of John 36)
If we take the context to govern the meaning in these passages, we would have to conclude that arsenokoites refers to some form of sexual exploitation for economic gain. Both of these texts also have lists of sexual sins (in Oracles 2.279-282 and Acts of John 35 respectively) and yet arsenokoites is conspicuously absent from those lists. Another example of arsenokoites as exploitation may be found in Theophilus’ To Autolycus (1.2, 1.14), where it is listed with a number of other forms of economic and violent exploitation.
However, it would be incorrect to say that arsenokoites does not have a primarily sexual aspect. Polycarp, the first-century bishop of Smyrna, lists arsenokoites alongside other sexual sins like “male prostitutes” and “adulterers” in his epistle to the Philippians (5.3). Hippolytus describes a third-century heresy which claimed that the serpent of Eden, named Naas, seduced and raped Eve and Adam, “from whence has arisen adultery and arsenokoites” (Refutation of All Heresies 5.21). Eusebius, the fourth-century church historian, seems to indirectly equate arsenokoites with having a male lover (Preparation for the Gospel 6.10.25).
One of the more interesting uses of arsenokoites in ancient literature can be found in a sixth-century penitential attributed to John the Faster. This text describes arsenokoites as an action which can be performed regardless of gender (possibly anal sex), and is despised in all circumstances, though some more than others:
Likewise one must inquire about arsenokoitia of which there are three varieties. For it is one thing to get it from someone, which is the least serious; another to do it to someone else, which is more serious than having it done to you; another to do it to someone and have it done to you, which is more serious than either of the other two. For to be passive only, or active only, is not so grave as to be both... In fact, many men even commit the sin of arsenokoitia with their wives.
Here, arsenokoitai definitely cannot mean “homosexuality,” because it is something that can be done between a man and his wife. However, this text is probably too late to have any bearing on Paul’s meaning in his epistles.
Finally, one last clue as to the possible meaning of arsenokoites is the fact that, whereas this word was often grouped with “male prostitutes” and “adulterers” in early Christian texts (e.g., Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians 5.3), other texts from the same time period group “male prostitutes” and “adulterers” with “pedophiles/pederasts” [3] (e.g., Epistle of Barnabas 19.4; Didache 2.2). This suggests that arsenokoites was considered to have a meaning similar to “pedophile” or “pederast” in the first century.
So then, what is the meaning of arsenokoitai in 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10? I don’t think we can really know for sure. There is quite a lot of ambiguity due to the fact that this word was first coined by Paul, and only appears in a handful of texts after him. However, the few texts in which it does appear suggest that it was some form of sexual activity connected to economic exploitation, probably related to the ancient practice of pederasty. Perhaps this word was used to refer to those who sold young male prostitutes for economic gain.
Unfortunately, modern translations do not acknowledge our uncertainty about the meaning of this word, and translate it simply as “homosexuals” [4] or, at best, “men who have sex with men,” without so much as a footnote informing the reader of the ambiguities of this word. This translation is entirely unwarranted — there are known Greek words which refer to male lovers (erastes and eromenos), so Paul would not have used entirely unrelated words like malakos and arsenokoites which have more nuanced meanings. However, ultimately, we simply don’t know exactly what Paul meant here, other than it was a sexual activity related to economic exploitation, and modern translations obfuscate this ambiguity when they translate it simply as “men who have sex with men.” Most modern readers of English translations have no idea of the nuances of this word.
It is also worth noting that, if Paul were condemning all homosexuality in these verses, that would go against one of the central messages of his epistles, which is that we are free from the Mosaic Law and are instead under the law of Christ. Under the law of Christ, the only commandment is to love one another (Rom. 13:8-10; Gal. 5:14) and any other commandment is merely “the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion” (Col. 2:23). So arbitrarily condemning homosexuality, which does not go against the commandment to love one another, would be entirely contrary to Paul’s message elsewhere. Instead, arsenokoites must describe some form of exploitative sexual activity which is rightly condemned as unloving.
Conclusion
With the Sodom narrative, we saw how modern readers often read their own prejudice against homosexuality into the text, even when there is no indication at all that homosexuality in general is being condemned. Likewise, in these four passages from Leviticus and Paul’s epistles, modern Bible versions translate the ambiguous words mishkebe and arsenokoitai in such a way as to make it appear that the Bible explicitly condemns homosexuality. However, the usage of these ambiguous words from elsewhere in the Bible and other ancient texts indicates that they did not refer to all male homosexuality in general, but instead to specific, exploitative forms of homosexuality (possibly pederasty). This is not at all comparable to consensual, loving homosexual relationships.
______________________________
[1] See this article for more support for this interpretation.
[2] For a more detailed discussion of the meaning of malakos, see here and here.
[3] Παιδοφθορησεις, lit. “child-corrupters”
[4] Translating this word as “homosexual” is certainly incorrect, even if it is taken to refer to homosexual men, since that implies that lesbians are being condemned alongside gay men. But lesbianism is not mentioned even once in the entire Bible.
The Sin of Sodom: A Study in Homophobic Interpretation
In my last post, I explained how the common interpretation of Romans 1:26-27, which sees it as declaring that all homosexuality is inherently sinful, is merely one of several possible interpretations - and not even the most likely one. It is far more likely that this passage, in context, was repudiating pagan temple prostitution specifically (both male and female) and not homosexuality in general. Another possible interpretation is that Paul was taking the specific events of the Watchers’ sin (see Genesis 6:1-2) and Sodom and Gomorrah (see Genesis 19:4-7) and applying them to paganism as a whole. Either way, it is not likely that Paul was declaring all homosexuality to be sinful. The only reason to see the traditional interpretation as necessarily true is because of homophobic bias [1].
Although this Romans passage is certainly one of the most common “clobber passages” [2], it is by far not the only one. Another passage which is just as commonly used (if not more so) to ‘prove’ that homosexuality is a sin is the Sodom and Gomorrah narrative of Genesis 19:1-29. Many Christians believe that the reason that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed is because of rampant homosexuality, and this has even led to male homosexuality being called “sodomy.” But this is far from what the Bible teaches. In this post, we’ll take a look at what scripture actually has to say about the sin of Sodom.
Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis
We first hear of Sodom in Genesis 13:10-13, where we are told that the men of that city were “exceedingly wicked and sinful against Yahweh.” This city does not appear again until five chapters later, when an angel of Yahweh appears to Abraham to tell him that Sodom and Gomorrah will be destroyed, because “the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and their sin is exceedingly grave” (Gen. 18:20). Abraham then barters with God, asking if 50, 45, 40, 30, 20, or even just 10 righteous people are found there, will God still destroy the city? God promises that if even 10 righteous men are found there, the city will not be destroyed. So far, there is no mention of what the sin of Sodom actually is.
Now, we have arrived at the main part of the narrative which is often used to condemn homosexuality. Let’s examine it to see what the Bible actually says:
And two angels came in the evening to Sodom, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. And when Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and he bowed with his face to the ground. And he said, “Here now, my lords, please turn in to the house of your servant, and spend the night, and wash your feet. Then you may rise early and go on your way.” And they said, “No, for we will spend the night in the public square.” But he insisted strongly, so they turned in to him and entered into his house, and he baked unleavened bread and made a feast for them, and they ate.
Now before they lay down, the men of the city of Sodom encompassed the house, from young to old, all the people from every quarter. And they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.” So Lot went out through the doorway to them, and shut the door behind him, and said, “Please, do not act wickedly, my brothers. Lo, now I have two daughters who have not known a man, please, let me bring them to you and you may do to them as is good in your eyes. Only do not do anything to these men, for they have come upon the shadow of my roof.”
And they said, “Stand back.” And they said, “This one came in to sojourn, and now he is continually acting as a judge! We will deal worse with you than with them.” So they pressed hard against the man Lot, and came near to break down the door. But the men reached out their hands, and pulled Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. And they struck the men who were at the door of the house with blindness, from small to great, so that they wearied to find the door.
And the men said to Lot, “Who else do you have here? A son-in-law and your sons and your daughters and whomever you have in the city, take them out of this place. For we will destroy this place, because the outcry against them has grown great before the face of Yahweh, and Yahweh has sent us to destroy it.” (Gen. 19:1-13)
If this is supposed to demonstrate that all homosexuality is sinful, it does a terrible job of doing so. Of course, it shows that the men of Sodom tried to gang-rape Lot’s angelic guests, which is unequivocally wrong and sinful. But how does that show that all homosexuality is sinful? To say that homosexual gang rape being wrong means that all homosexuality is sinful is equivalent to observing that heterosexual rape is also wrong, and concluding that all heterosexuality is wrong and sinful. It should be immediately apparent that this is fallacious reasoning. Any rape is wrong, regardless of who is involved, but this has no bearing on the sinfulness of any type of consensual sex.
Despite this fact which should be obvious, some apologists have still argued that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality in general. One such article is “Sodom and Gomorrah: What Was the Primary Sin?“ by Answers in Genesis, in which they claim that their sin must have been homosexuality, because they did not take up Lot on his offer to rape his daughters instead. Certainly, it is possible that the men of Sodom were homosexual. But regardless of their sexual orientation, it should be clear that the rape is what was wrong here, not the sexual orientation itself.
The Benjaminites of Gibeah
The fact that it was the rape, and not the sexual orientation itself, which God considered sinful can be seen in Judges 19-20. But this time, the passage is not directly about Sodom or any of the other cities on the plain. This narrative is, instead, about a very similar sequence of events which took place in Gibeah of Benjamin during the Judges era of Israel’s history. In this passage, there are many similarities with the story of Sodom. For example:
- The visitors enter the city and go to a meeting place: the town square and the city gate respectively (Judg. 19:15 cf. Gen. 19:1).
- The visitors meet their host at that meeting place (Judg. 19:16-19 cf. Gen. 19:1).
- The host is not originally from that city (Judg. 19:16 cf. Gen. 13:12-13).
- The host invites them to spend the night in his house (Judg. 19:20 cf. Gen. 19:2).
- The visitors object and offer instead to spend the night in the town square, something which should not be done (Judg. 19:20 cf. Gen. 19:2).
- The host nevertheless takes them into his house (Judg. 19:21 cf. Gen. 19:3).
- The host feeds the visitors (Judg. 19:21 cf. Gen. 19:3).
- The men of the city encircle the house (Judg. 19:22 cf. Gen. 19:4).
- The men of the city get the attention of the host and say, “Bring out the men/man that we may know [i.e. rape] them” (Judg. 19:22 cf. Gen. 19:5).
- The host comes out and says, “My brothers, do not act wickedly” (Judg. 19:23 cf. Gen. 19:6-7).
- The host objects that the men/man inside are his guests and offers two women to rape instead (Judg. 19:23-24 cf. Gen. 19:8).
- The host says, “Please let me bring them out... do to them whatever you like” (Judg. 19:24 cf. Gen. 19:8).
- The crowd rejects the offer (Judg. 19:25 cf. Gen. 19:9).
- The guest(s) move someone through the door; at Gibeah, the Levite guest pushes his concubine through the door, whereas at Sodom, the two angels pull Lot through the door (Judg. 19:25 cf. Gen. 19:10).
Look, the iniquity of your sister Sodom was this: she and her daughters had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness, but she did not strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were proud and committed abomination before me, and therefore I took them away as I saw fit. (Ezek. 16:49-50)
The reason that Sodom and her “daughters”, the cities of the plain, were destroyed was not that they had rampant homosexuality, but that they failed to “strengthen the hand” of the poor among them despite being materially wealthy [4].
Now, some people have claimed that the unnamed “abominations” which Ezekiel also cites for the destruction of Sodom might include homosexuality. It’s important to recognize that this is merely circular reasoning, because in order to see homosexuality as a possible “abomination,” one must presuppose that homosexuality is an “abomination.” But fortunately, we have a list of all the things which God considers to be an abomination, so we can test this claim that homosexuality was Sodom’s “abomination”.
There are six things which Yahweh hates, and seven are an abomination to Him: a proud look, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that are swift in running to evil, a false witness who speaks lies, and one who sows discord among brethren. (Prov. 6:16-19)
Homosexuality is conspicuously missing from this list. Thus, homosexuality in general cannot have been one of the “abominations” of Sodom, because homosexuality is not an abomination! [5]
The other two major prophets of the Old Testament, Isaiah and Jeremiah, also provide their own commentary on the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah. See the following passages:
Unless Yahweh of hosts had left us a small remnant to us, we would have become like Sodom, and we would have been made like Gomorrah. Hear the word of Yahweh, you rulers of Sodom; give ear to the law of our God, you people of Gomorrah... Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; put away the evil of your doings from before my eyes. Cease to do evil, learn to do good, seek justice, rebuke the oppressor, defend the fatherless, plead for the widow. (Isa. 1:9-10, 16-17)
And in the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen a horrible thing. They commit adultery, and walk in lies; they strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that no one turns back from his wickedness. All of them are to Me like Sodom, and her inhabitants like Gomorrah. (Jer. 23:14)
Again, conspicuously absent from either of these sin lists is homosexuality. If the primary sin of Sodom was homosexuality, none of these ancient prophets had any knowledge of this. Instead, we are told that their sin was inhospitality and a failure to care for the poor and needy among them, just one symptom of which was their attempt to rape Lot’s angelic guests.
The sin of Sodom in the New Testament
Some, who will still claim that Sodom’s sin was homosexuality - to the exclusion of virtually all the biblical evidence - point to the New Testament instead. Supposedly, the book of Jude demonstrates that Sodom’s sin was homosexuality. Let’s take a look at the passage thought to prove this:
...just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, [in] like manner with them having committed prostitution and having gone away after other flesh, are set [as] an example, undergoing a penalty of age-during fire. (Jude 7)
It is thought by many that “having gone away after other flesh” refers specifically to the homosexuality of the men of Sodom. But if you really think about it, this interpretation arises not from sound exegesis but from unconscious bias. After all, in what other context would “other flesh” possibly mean “males”? Rather, if we remember that the men who were staying at Lot’s house were angels, we can see that the “other flesh” referred to here is specifically angelic beings. This is even more clear when this passage is put into context:
And angels not having kept their dominion, but having left their own habitation [cf. Gen. 6:1-2], He keeps to [the] judgment of [the] great day in imperceptible chains under darkness, just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, [in] like manner with them having committed prostitution and having gone away after other flesh, are set [as] an example, undergoing a penalty of age-during fire. (Jude 6-7)
This passage, like its parallel in 2 Peter 2:4-7, compares the sinful actions of the male angels of Genesis 6 who had sex with female humans with the likewise sinful actions of the men of Sodom who attempted to rape the angelic guests of Lot. Both of these groups are said by Jude to have “gone away after other flesh.” Yet the Genesis 6 account involves sinful heterosexual relationships.
Like with the Gibeah narrative, if those who believe that Jude 7 condemns all homosexuality applied a consistent hermeneutic, they would need to conclude from Jude 6 that all heterosexuality is likewise condemned. Of course, this is a ludicrous interpretation. The sin of Sodom highlighted by Jude is not all homosexuality in general, but specifically the act of sex with angels, who are the “other flesh” mentioned here.
Conclusion
So, just to reiterate, according to the Bible:
- The men of Sodom attempted to rape a guest of Lot, a male angel, after being condemned to destruction.
- The same thing occurred hundreds of years later in Gibeon, where a woman was raped instead, and it was considered just as much of an abomination.
- The sin of Sodom was explicitly said by the prophets of the Old Testament to be inhospitality, pride, and other abominable acts, not homosexuality.
- In addition, Jude wrote that another sin of Sodom was trying to have sex with angels.
And name what sin you will, none will you mention equal to this lawlessness [homosexuality]. And if they that suffer such things perceived them, they would accept ten thousand deaths so they might not suffer this evil. For there is not, there surely is not, a more grievous evil than this insolent dealing... You have not made yourself a dog out of a man, but an animal more disgraceful than this... But nothing can there be more worthless than a man who has pandered himself... you that were more senseless than irrational creatures, and more shameless than dogs!
Should we really accept John Chrysostom’s interpretation of the Sodom narrative as sound exegesis, when he was so clearly biased on this issue? No, especially since the biblical commentary on the story itself repudiates this conclusion by explaining that Sodom’s sin was specifically their attempt to gang-rape an angel (along with general inhospitality), not homosexuality in general.