Mosaic Christology and the human Messiah

Previous: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2023/07/adamic-christology-and-human-messiah.html

    Throughout the Old Testament, the human representatives of God are depicted in exalted terms, sharing in God’s honor, attributes, and authority. This provides a framework in which to understand the exalted depiction of our Lord Jesus Christ in the New Testament. In the last post, we saw how Jesus is described in the same terms as Adam; because of his obedient death, he became the glorious ruler of all things, just as Adam was prior to his sin. In this post, we’ll look at another one of God’s representatives in the Old Testament: the prophet Moses. Moses was the agent through whom God saved Israel out of Egypt, and the mediator who brought the Law to the people of Israel. Because of his exalted station, he shared in many of God’s honors and attributes, and the New Testament authors deliberately draw upon this when describing the Messiah.

    Note: The idea for this series is from J. R. Daniel Kirk’s book A Man Attested by God: The Human Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels, as well as episodes 48 through 55 of Dustin Smith’s Biblical Unitarian Podcast. It wouldn’t have been possible without their extensive research, so please check out their work for a fuller treatment of the high human Christology of the New Testament!

    Moses in the Old Testament

    Because Moses was God’s chosen agent to enact Israel’s salvation from Egypt, the miracles associated with the Exodus are not only attributed to God, but to Moses as well. This can be seen in the following passages:

“Thus says Yahweh, ‘By this you shall know that I am Yahweh. Behold, with the staff that is in My hand I will strike the waters in the Nile, and they will be turned to blood’” ... Moses and Aaron did just as Yahweh commanded. In the sight of the pharaoh and his servants, he [Aaron] lifted up the staff and struck the waters in the Nile, and all the waters in the Nile were turned to blood... Seven days passed after Yahweh had struck the Nile. (Exod. 7:17, 20, 25)

Then Yahweh said to Moses, “Say to Aaron, ‘Stretch out your staff and strike the dust of the earth, so that it may become gnats throughout all the land of Egypt.’” And they did so; Aaron stretched out his hand with his staff and struck the dust of the earth, and it became gnats on man and on beast. All the dust of the earth became gnats throughout all the land of Egypt... And the magicians said to the pharaoh, “This is the finger of God!” (Exod. 8:16, 17, 19)

“Yahweh will fight for you while you keep silent.” Then Yahweh said to Moses, “Why do you cry out to Me? Tell the Israelites to go forward. But you lift up your staff, and stretch out your hand over the sea, and divide it”... Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and Yahweh swept the sea back by a strong east wind all night, and turned the sea into dry land, and the waters were divided. (Exod. 14:14-16, 21)

In each of these three instances, the actions and miracles of God are variously attributed to Moses, Aaron, and Yahweh Himself. Because Moses (and Aaron) are the ones through whom God is accomplishing the miracles, they can be attributed to either Yahweh or Moses and Aaron. When the Israelites saw that God was working miracles through Moses, this was their response:

Israel saw the great work which Yahweh had done in Egypt; so the people feared Yahweh, and put their faith in Yahweh and His servant Moses. (Exod. 14:31)

    Moses not only performs the miracles of God, but he is also given the honor due to God. Because Yahweh parted the Red Sea by the agency of His servant Moses, the people put their faith not only in Yahweh, but in Moses also. This is in spite of the fact that God is supposed to be the sole object of faith for Israel (Psa. 40:4; 118:8; 146:3, 5; Isa. 42:17); nonetheless, as God’s prophet, Moses is also worthy of faith (cf. 2 Chron. 20:20).

    Finally, he also shared in God’s glory:

Afterward all the Israelites came near, and he gave them in commandment all that Yahweh had spoken to him on Mount Sinai. When Moses had finished speaking with them, he put a veil over his face; but whenever Moses went before Yahweh to speak with Him, he would take the veil off until he came out. And when he came out and told the Israelites what he had been commanded, the Israelites would see the face of Moses, that the skin of his face was shining, and Moses would put the veil on his face again until he went in to speak with Him. (Exod. 34:32-35) 

This is in spite of the fact that God said He would give His glory to no other (Isa. 42:8). Evidently, the non-sharability of God’s unique attributes does not extend to His empowered agents.

    In summary, Moses was given the glory and honor of God, and was allowed to perform the actions and miracles of God, even speaking the very words of God (Exod. 4:15). Because of this, he was even given the very name of God (Elohim), although only in a limited sense:

“And he [Aaron] will speak to the people for you, and he will be like a mouth for you, and you will be like God for him.” (Exod. 4:16)

Then Yahweh said to Moses, “See, I have made you God to the pharaoh, and Aaron your brother will be your prophet.” (Exod. 7:1)

In these verses, God says that Moses will “be like God” to Aaron and that he will “be God” to the pharaoh of Egypt. It’s no wonder that this is the case, since Moses was performing the very actions of God and speaking His own words to the pharaoh. This shows that Yahweh can invest his own title “God” into human beings in specific instances.

    Mosaic Christology in the New Testament

    According to Deuteronomy 18:15-18, another prophet like Moses would be raised up from among the people of Israel; according to Peter, this prophet is the Messiah Jesus (Acts 3:20-23; cf. John 6:14; 7:40). Moses and Jesus are explicitly compared and contrasted throughout the New Testament, and he is said to be greater than Moses (John 1:17; 6:32; 2 Cor. 3:7; 4:6; Heb. 3:1-6). Thus, we should expect that Jesus is presented in the same terms as Moses by the New Testament authors, and that is in fact what we see.

Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing on his own authority, but only whatever he sees the Father doing, for whatever He does, the Son likewise does. The Father loves the Son and shows him everything that He does, and He will show him works even greater than these, so that you will marvel.” (John 5:19-20)

“Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you, I do not speak on my own, but the Father who dwells in me does His works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, but if not, then believe because of the works themselves.” (John 14:10-11)

“Men, Israelites, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene [was] a man attested by God to you, by miracles and wonders and signs which God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know” (Acts 2:22)

God was in the Messiah reconciling the world to Himself (2 Cor. 5:19)

    These passages show that all of Jesus’ authority and miracles came from God, the Father, who was dwelling in him. As with Moses, God uniquely empowered His Messiah to perform miracles, so as to confirm to Israel that he was the true Messiah. We can see specific examples of this in the gospel accounts: Jesus was given authority to forgive sins on behalf of God (Matt. 9:2-8), just as Moses was (Exod. 32:7-13, 30-33), and he was given control over the waters of the sea (Mark 4:39-41; 6:49-51), just as Moses was (Exod. 14:16).

And Jesus cried out and said, “Whoever believes in me, believes not in me but in Him who sent me.” (John 12:44)

“Let not your hearts be troubled; believe in God, believe also in me.” (John 14:1)

And having brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household.” (Acts 16:30, 31)

    According to these passages, Jesus is a worthy object of faith in addition to God, because he was sent by God; compare this with Exodus 16:31, in which the Israelites believe in “Yahweh and His servant Moses.” In fact, in one instance, belief in Jesus is actually compared with belief in Moses (John 5:46).

After six days, Jesus took with him Peter and James and his brother John and led them up a high mountain by themselves. And he was transformed before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as bright as light. Suddenly Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with him. (Matt. 17:1-3)

For we do not proclaim ourselves, but we proclaim Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your servants on behalf of Jesus. For it is the God who said, “Light will shine out of darkness,” who shone in our hearts for the radiance of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of the Messiah. (2 Cor. 4:5, 6)

    Here, the glory of God is said to shine in the face of Jesus, just as it did on Moses’ face. In the first passage, the glorification of Jesus takes place on a mountain, which was probably a deliberate connection to Moses’ glorification atop Mount Sinai (Exod. 34:29). In the second passage, Paul explicitly connects the glorification of Jesus to the glorification of Moses (2 Cor. 3:7-4:6).

    Finally, just as with Moses, the very name and title of God were given to Jesus:

“I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me” (John 5:43)

“Holy Father, protect them in Your name which You have given me, that they may be one just as we are. When I was with them, I protected them in Your name which You have given me.” (John 17:11, 12)

Thomas answered and said to him, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28)

Because Jesus is the agent of God, performing His miracles and bearing His glory, he is even allowed to bear the title “God” along with the divine name. This is similar to when Moses was said to “be God” to the pharaoh. Since Jesus is greater than Moses, he is “God” to a wider range of people in a wider range of situations; nonetheless, this does not infringe upon the uniqueness of his Father, who remains the only true God (John 5:43, 44; 17:3).

    Conclusion

    In the New Testament, our Lord Jesus is depicted in similar terms as earlier exalted human figures like Adam and Moses. Just like Moses, he is shown performing the actions and miracles of God, bearing the glory of God, and even being called “God.” Yet this does not equate Jesus with Yahweh, because the same prerogatives were given to Moses; in fact, the New Testament authors intentionally draw upon the Old Testament depiction of Moses in their descriptions of Jesus. Because the Messiah is a “prophet like Moses” (Acts 3:22) and “worthy of greater honor than Moses” (Heb. 3:4), it is no wonder that he is depicted in such exalted terms.

Next: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2023/07/elijah-elisha-and-human-messiah.html

Adamic Christology and the human Messiah

    Throughout the New Testament, Jesus is consistently presented as an exalted human, who was given all authority upon his resurrection. Jesus is presented in such a highly exalted fashion that many Christians have concluded he must be more than a human — in fact, that he is the one true God. After all, he shares the honor, the attributes, the name, the deeds, and even the throne of God! [1] However, this is not inconsistent with him being a ‘mere man’ (by which I mean an exalted human without a divine nature). In fact, nearly all of the exalted attributes and deeds of Jesus are found (to a lesser degree) in the human agents of God in the Old Testament. In this series of posts, we’ll examine how the New Testament intentionally draws upon these other exalted human figures in its presentation of the human Messiah, beginning with Adam.

    Note: The idea for this series is from J. R. Daniel Kirk’s book A Man Attested by God: The Human Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels, as well as episodes 48 through 55 of Dustin Smith’s Biblical Unitarian Podcast. It wouldn’t have been possible without their extensive research, so please check out their work for a fuller treatment of the high human Christology of the New Testament!

    Adam in the Old Testament

    As the first-created human being, Adam is also considered in the Old Testament to be the ideal human being in many ways (at least prior to his sin). This can be seen at the end of the first chapter of Genesis, which describes the creation of humanity:

Then God said, “Let us make man [’adam] in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea, and the birds of the heavens, and over the livestock over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” So God created man [’adam] in His image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea, and the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” (Gen. 1:26-28)

    In this passage, the dominion of primeval humanity (including Adam) is said to extend over the sea, the heavens, and the earth. “Heavens, earth, and (the sea) under the earth” is a Hebraic idiom meaning “all things” (Exod. 20:4; Psa. 69:34; 146:5-6; Acts 14:15; Phil. 2:10; Rev. 5:3, 13). Furthermore, this capacity to rule over all things is connected in some way to Adam being “in the image of God.” He was intended to be the visible representation of God on earth, ruling over all things on His behalf.

    The same extremely exalted depiction of Adam is also found in Psalm 8:

When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars which You have ordained, what is man [’adam] that You are mindful of him, the son of man [ben-’adam] that You care for him? Yet You have made him a little lower than God [or: the gods]; You have crowned him with glory and honor. You gave him dominion over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet: all sheep and oxen, and all the livestock of the field, the birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea which pass through the paths of the seas. (Psa. 8:3-8)

    This psalm is a description of ideal humanity; although this is not yet true of all humans (Heb. 2:8), it is God’s intended purpose for humanity. Here, the same Hebrew idiom is used as in Genesis 1:26-28, saying that Adam ruled over heaven, earth, and (the sea) under the earth, that is, “all things.” Furthermore, he was “crowned with glory and honor,” even though those are the unique attributes of God (Job 40:10; Psa. 96:6; 104:1; 111:3; 145:5; Isa. 42:8). Being the image of God, Adam was allowed to bear these divine attributes, even though he was (obviously) not God Himself.

    Nonetheless, we humans do not bear this exalted status at the present time (Heb. 2:8). Why is this? Genesis sheds some light on this question:

The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you will die.’” But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not die, for God knows that when you eat of it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God [or: the gods], knowing good and evil.” 

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate... Then Yahweh God said, “See, the humans have become like one of us, knowing good and evil, and now they might reach out their hands and take also from the tree of life, and eat and live forever.” Therefore Yahweh God sent them forth from the garden of Eden, to till the land from which they were taken. (Gen. 3:2-6, 22)

Adam was not content with his exalted station as the ruler of all things, and sought to be “like God” by eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Because of this sin, he both lost his dominion over the earth and became mortal (Gen. 3:17-19). Although it’s not explicitly said that he lost the image of God, the image must have been at least severely distorted, because Adam lost the glory and dominion associated with it.

    Adam in Second Temple Judaism

    The concept of Adam evolved further in Second Temple Jewish tradition, as can be seen in the writings from this period. Although these writings are not included in the traditional Protestant canon of Scripture, they provide an important historical and literary background for the writings of the New Testament. There aren’t many references to Adam in the literature of this period, probably because he wasn’t a significant character in the Old Testament (apart from the first few chapters). However, the references which do appear show the exalted status which Adam had in Second Temple Judaism:

Shem and Seth and Enosh were honored, but above every created living being was Adam. (Sirach 49.16)

Wisdom protected the first-formed father of the world, when he alone had been created; she delivered him from his transgression and gave him strength to rule all things. (Wisdom 10.1-2)

It was necessary that man should be the last of all created beings; in order that being so, and appearing suddenly, he might strike terror into the other animals. For it was fitting that they, as soon as they first saw him, should admire and worship him... the Father... established him as the king of all the animals beneath the moon, whether terrestrial or aquatic, or such as traverse the air. For every mortal thing which lives in the three elements, land, water or air, did He “put in subjection to him” [Psalm 8:6], excepting only the beings that are in heaven [angels], as creatures who have a more divine portion...

And so the Creator has made man to be, as it were, a charioteer and pilot over all other animals, in order that he may hold the reins and direct the course of every thing upon earth, having the superintendence of all animals and plants, as a sort of viceroy of the principal and mighty King. (Philo, Opif. 83-84, 88)

    These writers believed Adam to be the pre-eminent created being, subordinate only to God and the angels. [2] His pre-eminence, however, was not shared by any other human, because his glory was taken from him when he sinned (Gen. Rab. 12.6). Nonetheless, the glory of Adam will be restored to all redeemed humans in the age to come, after the Messiah (1 Enoch 85.4; 90.37-38; 1QS 4.22-23; Gen. Rab. 11.2). This idea, that the Messiah would restore what Adam lost, later became a major part of New Testament Christology and soteriology.

    Adamic Christology in the New Testament

    According to Paul, Adam “is a type of him who is to come [i.e., the Messiah],” and the Messiah is therefore “the last Adam” (Rom. 5:14; 1 Cor. 15:45). Through his death and resurrection, Jesus regained precisely what was lost in Adam, so that all humans will be restored to a sinless state (Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:20-22). Because Jesus is the antitype of Adam, we should expect the exalted Messiah to be presented as the image of God and ruler of all things, just as Adam was. This is indeed what we find throughout the New Testament.

For it befits him [Jesus] to reign until He has put all the enemies under his feet. The last enemy being abolished is death. For “He has put all things in subjection under his feet.” [Psalm 8:6] But when it says that all things have been put in subjection, it is clear that He who put all things in subjection to him is excluded. Now when all things have been put in subjection to him, then also the Son himself will be put in subjection to He who put all things in subjection to him, so that God may be all in all. (1 Cor. 15:25-28)

In this passage, Paul presents Jesus as the fulfillment of Psalm 8:6 (which was originally about Adam), because God has put all things in subjection under his feet. Jesus is still subordinate to God, of course, because “it is clear that He who put all things in subjection to him is excluded;” however, he rules over the universe on behalf of God, just as Adam did.

    In Paul’s next letter to the Corinthians, he also refers to Jesus as “the image of God” (2 Cor. 4:4), and says that we are being transformed into that same image (2 Cor. 3:18; cf. 1 Cor. 15:49; Phil. 3:21; Col. 3:10). This confirms that the Messiah has regained what was lost in Adam, becoming the visible representation of God’s rule over the universe, and we too will be conformed to this ideal human state.

Let this mind be in you which was also in Messiah Jesus: who, though he was in the form of God, did not grasp at equality with God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant. Becoming in human likeness, and being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even death of a cross. Therefore also God highly exalted him, and gifted him the name above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, whether in heaven or on earth or under the earth, and every tongue confess that “Jesus the Messiah is Lord,” to the glory of God the Father. (Phil. 2:5-11)

There is a lot of debate among scholars about whether this hymn from Philippians 2 is Adam Christology. However, my personal opinion is that it is. The ‘Second Adam’ reading of Phil. 2:5-11 has been proposed by both trinitarian and unitarian scholars, [3] and seems to make better sense of the hymn in context of the entire letter to the Philippians, which is an exhortation to earthly obedience (2:5, 17, 25-30; 3:4-10).

    According to this reading, Jesus’ being “in the form of God” (en morphe theou) is equivalent to Adam’s being “in the image of God” (Gk: en eikon theou). The Greek words morphe and eikon are synonymous, and are used interchangeably in the Septuagint and early Christian texts. [4] However, unlike Adam who tried to be “like God” (Gen. 3:5), Jesus “did not grasp at equality with God.” Instead he voluntarily emptied himself and took on the form of the Suffering Servant who “poured himself out unto death” (Isa. 53:12). [5] He came in the likeness of fallen, mortal humanity (cf. Rom. 8:3) and obediently died.

    Because of Jesus’ act of obedience, God exalted him and restored him to Adam’s original position. He was given authority over the things “in heaven and on earth and (the sea) under the earth,” just like Adam was (Gen. 1:26-28; Psa. 8:6-8; cf. Exod. 20:4). Because of what he did, we all will also be “conformed [symmorphon] to the body of his glory” (Phil. 3:21). This reading of Philippians 2:5-11 confirms that Jesus’ rule over all things is a return to Adam’s original state, and that he rules over all things as the ideal human (not as God Himself).

Now God did not subject the world to come, about which we are speaking, to angels. But someone has testified somewhere: “What is man that You are mindful of him, or the son of man that You care for him? You made him a little lower than the angels; You crowned him with glory and honor, and You have appointed him over the works of your hands. You have put all things in subjection under his feet.” (Psalm 8:3-6)

For in subjecting all things to him, He left nothing unsubjected to him. Yet at present we do not see all things having been subjected to him; but we do see Jesus, having been made a little lower than the angels, “crowned with glory and honor” because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. For it was fitting that God, through whom and for whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, should make perfect the archetype of their salvation through sufferings. (Heb. 2:5-10)

    In this passage, the Hebraist applies Psalm 8:3-6, which was originally about Adam’s ideal humanity, to Jesus the Messiah. He explains that all things are not yet subject to humanity, but all things are subject to the highly exalted human Messiah. Because of his death, Jesus was “crowned with glory and honor” and “made perfect,” in order that “many sons” might be brought “to glory.” Again, this shows that the Messiah regained the glory which Adam lost, so that we can be conformed to his ideal humanity.

    Conclusion

    The figure of Adam in the Old Testament is central to New Testament Christology. Adam was originally created to be the ruler of all things, as the functional representative of God on earth, crowned with the divine glory; but because he was not satisfied with his station, and tried to be “like God,” his glory and rule was taken from him. Christ’s obedient death reversed this, and so he was exalted to Adam’s former position, as the glorious ruler of all things. Thus, when we read that Jesus is/has the glory of God (Mark 8:38; John 1:14; 12:41-43; Tit. 2:13; Heb. 1:3), or that he is the ruler of all things (Matt. 28:18; Eph. 1:20-21; Col. 1:18; 2:10; 1 Pet. 3:21-22), we shouldn't conclude that he is God Himself; rather, he is the ideal human, exalted even greater than Adam because of his obedience to God.

Next: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2023/07/mosaic-christology-and-human-messiah.html

______________________________

[1] Robert M. Bowman and J. Ed Komoszewski, Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2007).

[2] They believed Adam to be subject to the angels because of the Septuagint’s translation of Psalm 8:5, “You have made him a little lower than the angels.” 

[3] Charles H. Talbert, “The Problem of Pre-Existence in Philippians 2:6-11,” Journal of Biblical Literature 86 (1970), 141-153; George Howard, “Phil 2:6-11 and the Human Christ,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40, no. 3 (1978), 368-387; James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making, 2nd ed. (London: SCM Press, 1989), 114-121; Scott A. Deane, “Obedience and Humility of the Second Adam: Philippians 2:6-11,” A Journal from the Radical Reformation 7, no. 1 (1997), 4-12.

[4] R. P. Martin, Carmen Christi: Philippians 2.5-11 in Recent Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 106-119; James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making, 115.

[5] R. P. Martin, Carmen Christi, 182-189.

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/