Hey everyone! I'm currently writing a paper on Christian sexual ethics, and I wanted to elicit some different perspectives to give me some food for thought. To be clear, I'm not trying to argue against a traditional interpretation of Christian sexual ethics. But I am seeking some opinions on counter-arguments to the Christian left, particularly the idea that Scripture does not forbid pre-marital sex. I think this is a timely issue for the church today, because many people who identify as Christians are engaging in primatial sex and quite a few just openly see no problem with it. I am interested in arguments based on reason and logic, but the emphasis is on Scripture (because that will be my primary source of authority in the paper).
One view that I'm interested in addressing is that of Jennifer Knust, a professor of religion at Boston University and an ordained American Baptist minister. I'm working my way through her book, Unprotected Texts: The Bible’s Surprising Contradictions About Sex and Desire. To give you an accessible feel for what her view is, see this article: https://www.bu.edu/articles/2011/the...ons-about-sex/. Basically, she says that some biblical authors condemn premarital and extramarital sex, while others "present premarital sex as a source of God's blessing". She has in mind Song of Solomon, as well as the book of Ruth. Regarding Song of Solomon, she writes that sex and sexual desire is celebrated...and that, from the text, it appears as if the male/female subjects are NOT married.
Regarding Ruth, she asserts that Ruth and Boaz had premarital sex on the threshing floor, before they were married (or, indeed, knew that they could be married). I wrote a different thread a while back (I think it was in the general Christianity sub forum) about this interpretation of Ruth -- the short of it is, I wrote a paper on this a while back and discovered that the interpretation is surprisingly credible, for a number of reasons. At the very minimum, Naomi sent Ruth to seduce Boaz. The best I can tell, the sex is implied rather than stated explicitly, so there is some room for interpretation here. There's liberal use of euphemism by the author, and all of it implies a sexual act and circumstance (we can discuss the details later in this thread, if need be). And though it is problematic for my own systematic theology, my honest interpretation of Ruth is that the probable meaning of the text is that Ruth and Boaz did have sex before getting married. There's just too many data points for me to effectively argue against.
This is problematic for the rest of my understanding of Scripture, and it causes me to re-assess my assumptions. In doing so, I notice that most authors I have read (commentaries and academic articles) with a conservative perspective do not do a very effective job at arguing how the Bible forbids premarital sex. It seems to me that there's an over-reliance on the assumption that the Greek word porneia (πορνεία) includes premarital sex. Essentially, the term means "sexual immorality". So many authors engage in circular reasoning when they say that any passage using the term porneia potentially refers to premarital sex. Essentially the argument is:
A) Sexual immorality (porneia) is forbidden.
B) Premarital sex is sexually immoral.
C) Therefore, premarital sex is forbidden.
So we can see the problem with this logic. The very topic of discussion (whether or not premarital sex is immoral) is assumed to be immoral, and that assumption is used to "prove" it is immoral. Now, if anyone has some good sources (particularly extra-biblical) regarding the specific meaning in biblical times of porneia, I'd be very interested. So far, I've not read anything that can show that specific meaning (premarital relations) from Scripture alone. It seems as if the meaning to Paul was obvious enough that he didn't have to define it in detail, which itself might or might not be a clue.
On the other hand, there are arguments from the liberal Christian crowd that have a certain degree of logic (though I would really like to see sources for some of the assertions and/or academic critique of the assertions from both liberal and conservative perspectives... I've haven't quite gone down that rabbit hole yet). Essentially, the argument is that women in biblical times were viewed as property. Having premarital sex with an unmarried woman was wrong because you were violating her father's property rights. Having lost her virginity, her "market value" is diminished. To marry her off, her father will now have to accept a reduced dowry for her from a suitor. Therefore, the offender owes her father money and must marry her if her father allows. This argument is reasonably articulated here: http://www.thechristianleftblog.org/...t-a-sin-or-not. They're looking at verses like Exodus 22:16-17 (penalty for premarital sex), Deuteronomy 22: 28-29 (penalty for raping a virgin), and Deuteronomy 21:10-14 (marrying female captives and sending them away afterwards if you aren't pleased by them). Other places in Scripture give guidelines for sexual relations (marriage, it appears) with female slaves (Exodus 21:1-7).
And while the New Testament texts clearly show a preference for a monogamous marriage, even Biblical heroes had polygamous marriages. There's an argument that God allowed this practice, something less than his ideal for us, because of the social and cultural realities of the day. The problem with that argument is that it can be easily extended to the modern situation for Christians today. I don't see any biblical warrant for sexually promiscuous behavior, but if one accepts the liberal Christian argument that premarital sex was mostly about property rights, then one is left to wonder about the necessity for an all-circumstances biblical prohibition for premarital sex in today's age.
In my mind, one of the stronger arguments revolves around 1 Corinthians 7, wherein Paul says that if your 'passions' are strong, you should get married. He does not offer frequent premarital sex as a remedy to fend off 'sexual immorality'. However, this argument has two weaknesses as I see it:
1) In this section of text, Paul directly says that these instructions are from him because he has "no command from the Lord". It doesn't make his statements invalid, but it does weaken the argument. Additionally, in this letter Paul seems mistaken about how soon Christ's second coming will be, which highlights his own fallibility. Of course, others with a different eschatological understanding than I might not have an issue here.
2) Additionally, if we're keeping the whole cultural property rights argument in mind, one can pretty easily dismiss Paul's argument here by saying that he's giving instructions for the cultural and social circumstances at the time the letter was written. He might be, and he might not be. But we know that what he's saying is not a direct commandant from Christ.
So, does anyone have any thoughts here? I'm interested in:
A) What arguments do you find most persuasive (either way)?
B) Are there any good books/articles/commentaries you've read on this subject that you've found helpful? Particular emphasis on the meaning of porneia.
C) How credible do you find the Christian left argument from the property-rights perspective?
One view that I'm interested in addressing is that of Jennifer Knust, a professor of religion at Boston University and an ordained American Baptist minister. I'm working my way through her book, Unprotected Texts: The Bible’s Surprising Contradictions About Sex and Desire. To give you an accessible feel for what her view is, see this article: https://www.bu.edu/articles/2011/the...ons-about-sex/. Basically, she says that some biblical authors condemn premarital and extramarital sex, while others "present premarital sex as a source of God's blessing". She has in mind Song of Solomon, as well as the book of Ruth. Regarding Song of Solomon, she writes that sex and sexual desire is celebrated...and that, from the text, it appears as if the male/female subjects are NOT married.
Regarding Ruth, she asserts that Ruth and Boaz had premarital sex on the threshing floor, before they were married (or, indeed, knew that they could be married). I wrote a different thread a while back (I think it was in the general Christianity sub forum) about this interpretation of Ruth -- the short of it is, I wrote a paper on this a while back and discovered that the interpretation is surprisingly credible, for a number of reasons. At the very minimum, Naomi sent Ruth to seduce Boaz. The best I can tell, the sex is implied rather than stated explicitly, so there is some room for interpretation here. There's liberal use of euphemism by the author, and all of it implies a sexual act and circumstance (we can discuss the details later in this thread, if need be). And though it is problematic for my own systematic theology, my honest interpretation of Ruth is that the probable meaning of the text is that Ruth and Boaz did have sex before getting married. There's just too many data points for me to effectively argue against.
This is problematic for the rest of my understanding of Scripture, and it causes me to re-assess my assumptions. In doing so, I notice that most authors I have read (commentaries and academic articles) with a conservative perspective do not do a very effective job at arguing how the Bible forbids premarital sex. It seems to me that there's an over-reliance on the assumption that the Greek word porneia (πορνεία) includes premarital sex. Essentially, the term means "sexual immorality". So many authors engage in circular reasoning when they say that any passage using the term porneia potentially refers to premarital sex. Essentially the argument is:
A) Sexual immorality (porneia) is forbidden.
B) Premarital sex is sexually immoral.
C) Therefore, premarital sex is forbidden.
So we can see the problem with this logic. The very topic of discussion (whether or not premarital sex is immoral) is assumed to be immoral, and that assumption is used to "prove" it is immoral. Now, if anyone has some good sources (particularly extra-biblical) regarding the specific meaning in biblical times of porneia, I'd be very interested. So far, I've not read anything that can show that specific meaning (premarital relations) from Scripture alone. It seems as if the meaning to Paul was obvious enough that he didn't have to define it in detail, which itself might or might not be a clue.
On the other hand, there are arguments from the liberal Christian crowd that have a certain degree of logic (though I would really like to see sources for some of the assertions and/or academic critique of the assertions from both liberal and conservative perspectives... I've haven't quite gone down that rabbit hole yet). Essentially, the argument is that women in biblical times were viewed as property. Having premarital sex with an unmarried woman was wrong because you were violating her father's property rights. Having lost her virginity, her "market value" is diminished. To marry her off, her father will now have to accept a reduced dowry for her from a suitor. Therefore, the offender owes her father money and must marry her if her father allows. This argument is reasonably articulated here: http://www.thechristianleftblog.org/...t-a-sin-or-not. They're looking at verses like Exodus 22:16-17 (penalty for premarital sex), Deuteronomy 22: 28-29 (penalty for raping a virgin), and Deuteronomy 21:10-14 (marrying female captives and sending them away afterwards if you aren't pleased by them). Other places in Scripture give guidelines for sexual relations (marriage, it appears) with female slaves (Exodus 21:1-7).
And while the New Testament texts clearly show a preference for a monogamous marriage, even Biblical heroes had polygamous marriages. There's an argument that God allowed this practice, something less than his ideal for us, because of the social and cultural realities of the day. The problem with that argument is that it can be easily extended to the modern situation for Christians today. I don't see any biblical warrant for sexually promiscuous behavior, but if one accepts the liberal Christian argument that premarital sex was mostly about property rights, then one is left to wonder about the necessity for an all-circumstances biblical prohibition for premarital sex in today's age.
In my mind, one of the stronger arguments revolves around 1 Corinthians 7, wherein Paul says that if your 'passions' are strong, you should get married. He does not offer frequent premarital sex as a remedy to fend off 'sexual immorality'. However, this argument has two weaknesses as I see it:
1) In this section of text, Paul directly says that these instructions are from him because he has "no command from the Lord". It doesn't make his statements invalid, but it does weaken the argument. Additionally, in this letter Paul seems mistaken about how soon Christ's second coming will be, which highlights his own fallibility. Of course, others with a different eschatological understanding than I might not have an issue here.
2) Additionally, if we're keeping the whole cultural property rights argument in mind, one can pretty easily dismiss Paul's argument here by saying that he's giving instructions for the cultural and social circumstances at the time the letter was written. He might be, and he might not be. But we know that what he's saying is not a direct commandant from Christ.
So, does anyone have any thoughts here? I'm interested in:
A) What arguments do you find most persuasive (either way)?
B) Are there any good books/articles/commentaries you've read on this subject that you've found helpful? Particular emphasis on the meaning of porneia.
C) How credible do you find the Christian left argument from the property-rights perspective?
Comment