| Premarital Sex & Unwed Mothers Moses' Final Solution(s?) "If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and lies with her, he must pay the bride price, and she shall be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins" (Ex. 22:16-17; Book of the Covenant, 1300-1000 B.C.?). "If a man meets a virgin girl who is not pledged to be married and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, then the man lying with her shall pay the girl's father 50 shekels of silver. She must become his wife, because he oppressed her; he can never send her away (divorced)" (Dt. 22:28-29; 700 B.C. or earlier). "If anyone thinks that he is behaving dishonorably toward his betrothed virgin, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. Let them marry. But he who stands firm in his heart, being under no necessity, but having authority over his will, and who has decided in his heart to keep her as his betrothed virgin, he will do well. So then, he who marries his betrothed virgin does well, and the one not marrying her does even better." (1 Cor. 7:36-38) Everyone who advocates going "Back to the Bible" for sexual "morality" would do well to try it for a change and study carefully the above texts and what they teach regarding "premarital sex." It is symptomatic of the acute embarrassment of ideological Fundamentalism on this question that the Biblical texts most directly addressing the question often are totally ignored. Thus John White flatly rejects all premarital sex as sin and gives as his only proof text a reference in Ephesians 5:3 to porneia, which he understands as "fornication" (1977;56-58). Even Smedes, in a lengthy and psychologically sensitive treatment of premarital sex, arrives at a negative conclusion only by skimming over the most pertinent texts and arguing from 1 Cor 6:12-20, where Paul speaks not of premarital sex, but against (mainly) married Christians who visit prostitutes (1976:109-136). The texts cited above on violated virgins enable us to see both the limitations and helpful historical continuities of the Bible in the sexual area. Both Exodus and Deuteronomy make clear the kind of patriarchy that was dominant throughout Biblical history: the virgin girl is virtually a property value (Countryman 1988:157-159) to be passed from father to husband (in the earlier law the price set on her virginity is not stipulated as it is later--50 shekels). The inferiority of women is presupposed in such legal provisions. In the earlier text the father can take the money and withhold his daughter from marriage; in the later text his right to refuse disappears--but in neither case does the girl have the right to refuse the marriage. Although not explicit in the texts, it is important to remember that until modern times, for the woman involved, sex meant babies. Also, throughout Biblical history, parents normally married off their children as soon as they reached sexual maturity--"adolescence" and long years of premarital schooling were not the practice. Vigilance for the virginity of the sexually mature daughter thus would usually be a parental concern for a few months, not a decade. For those who want to go "Back to the Bible" for sexual morality, we must then ask if they are ready to ditch birth control and have all parents marry off their children as soon as they reach adolescence, so as to avoid undue pressures for premarital sex? As in countless other areas, the directly pertinent texts in Exodus and Deuteronomy treating the question of premarital sex, are commonly ignored because ideological Fundamentalists don't like to be reminded of the diversity in the Bible. If the whole Penteteuch is supposed to come from the pen of Moses, why does Moses keep changing mind? Instead of offering us eternal ethical absolutes on all matters sexual (the common pulpit--neoplatonic--view), Moses begins to look like the epitomy of James "double-minded man, unstable in all his ways" (James 1:8). Exegetical commentaries that really take the Bible seriously, of course, are not bothered by the diversities--they remind us of the Bible's historical character and (if we hold to the Bible's inspiration) of God's capacity to adjust his standards to our changing historical circumstances. The fundamental Biblical continuities of freedom, justice and love can be illuminated, not obscured, by close attention to the diversity. Craigie (1976:294-295) may well be correct in finding in the Deuteronomy text a concern to protect the woman and expected child (underscored by ruling out the common male prerogative of divorce in these cases of forced marriage). Even in the much earlier Exodus version, the following context speaks strongly of God's wrath against all who oppress poor immigrants, widows and orphans (22:21-24). Notably, in neither Exodus nor Deuteronomy is the premarital sex condemned as sin; the texts simply insist on "requiring full responsibility from the male as consequence of his act" (Childs 1977:477). The freedom of the patriarch and his virgin daughter have been violated; the offending male's freedom is correspondingly curtailed. Neither text is mindlessly "sex-negative" but reflect positive concerns for human freedom and justice in a patriarchal context. And even within that context, when Deuteronomy eliminates the patriarch's right to refuse the marriage and haggle over the price of his daughter's virginity, but protects the woman from divorce--all this may represent moves toward more justice for women (Mayes 1979 gives many examples of this cautious trend in Deuteronomy). Finally, according to the above provisions of Exodus and Deuteronomy, there should have been no unwed mothers in Israel, but Deuteronomy faces up to reality sufficiently to exclude "bastards" from entering into the assembly of Yahweh (23:2; III.14 below). Ideological fundamentalists might ask whether they really want to take us back to the days of "shotgun weddings" when every violated virgin was forced to marry the first male she had sex with. In the New Testament no text speaks so directly to the general question of premarital sex (prompting Smedes to seek support for his sexual ideology in a text on prostitution). In the most relevant text in 1 Corinthians 7 Paul addresses only the situation of those already betrothed/engaged (7:36-38; Fee 1987:349-357), not premarital sex in any general way (cf. 7:25-35 on virgins and 7:8-9, probably referring only to widows, III.13 below). In the relevant texts Paul is remarkably close to the perspectives in Exodus and Deuteronomy: he seems to take it in stride that some widows (7:9) and betrothed men (7:36) will not be so gifted as to avoid intimate human relations with a sexual dimension. When a betrothed man proves unable to walk the fine line between maintaining an intimate relationship without sex with his betrothed virgin, Paul labels such behavior "dishonorable" (v.36), not sin; and as in Exodus and Deuteronomy, in such cases Paul simply recommends marriage, not excommunication or any other church discipline. He does not forbid the bride to wear a white dress in such weddings--or any other modern moralistic nonsense. While mutuality and justice for women is stressed in 7:3-5, in the decision of betrothed couples to marry, Paul seems to assume simple male prerogative in the decision, as if the betrothed woman's emotional and sexual needs would never justify marriage (7:36-38; Countryman 1988:211). Taking the Bible seriously, with careful interpretation of the texts most directly related, thus clearly leads us to the conclusion that the New Testament nowhere directly addresses our broad modern question of "premarital sex." The Old Testament gives us 2 texts in a strongly patriarchal cultural context where sexual intercourse with the patriarch's virgin daughter represents primarily a theft of the patriarch's property. This obviously is very differerent from the situation of a modern professional woman who is no one else's property and no longer a virgin! The New Testament, still representing a patriarchal culture with very few unattached young people floating around, addresses the question most relevant at the time: what to do when the intimacies of a betrothed couple become sufficiently sexual to be considered "dishonorable" in their cultural context? Paul is not trying to deviously dodge our modern questions; he simply addresses the questions dominant in his cultural context. Hence the necessity of hermeneutics: we cannot simply assume that Paul's answers to his questions represent answers to our very different questions in a very different historical context. In seeking to relate the few isolated Biblical texts to contemporary questions about "premarital sex" we also need to remember that the Bible has no word for "sex" (which is a modern category), and how marriage has changed drastically (see III.1 above and III.13 below). Modern ideological confusion is again illustrated by the fact that solitary masturbation is now commonly approved (III.6), but is not considered premarital "sex." Smedes and other evangelical writers wrestle at length with the question of "how far" expressions of affection and petting (including mutual masturbation) can go without becoming "fornication." And whether a couple can ever consider themselves "married" in the Biblical sense without going through the common church or civil services. All this does make Scripture irrelevant to the modern question, but it does mean that Fundamentalist prooftexting is in fact proof positive that the Bible is not being taken seriously. Intimate relations with a condom that does not produce babies, in a cultural that is not patriarchal, was as much off Paul's sexual map as Galileo's heliocentric universe was off Paul's astronomical map (Phlp. 2:10 etc.) and Latin America was off his geographical map (Col. 1:6,23). Several Scriptural texts (including 1 Cor. 6:12-20 on relations with prostitutes) may provide perspectives and considerations that are pertinent. But contemporary, non-virgin, independent, professional women will not automatically agree that in questions regarding their sexual activity, a Scripture forbidding relations with first-century (cult?) prostitutes provides an adequate prooftext (pace Smedes)! "Wisdom from above" may also be prayerfully sought from parents, experienced counselors and psychologists (James 1:5). But we cannot simply close our minds to arguments and factors the lead many to question traditional pat answers: godly wisdom is "open to reason" (James 3:17-18). |
 |
 |