The verses to be discussed proceed as follows.
--Exodus 22:16-17--"If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps 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."
Initial observations:
1. These verses have nothing to do with any kind of adultery. Both participants are unmarried and unengaged.
2. There is no rape in this passage.
3. There is no punishment for their actions.
If two married people or one unmarried person and a married one slept together, they would be executed for adultery (Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22). If someone had consensual sex with an engaged person, both individuals would be killed (Deuteronomy 22:23-24). If someone sexually forced themselves on another person, only the aggressor would die (Deuteronomy 22:25-27). If a man or a woman had sex with an animal, the judges would kill the one guilty of bestiality (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 20:15-16). So when people committed sexual abominations, God did not obscure his indignation and did not fail to disclose the appropriate punishment.
But in Exodus 22:16-17 there is no punishment assigned to either participant. Why? People need to consider that the answer is perhaps because their actions are not intrinsically sinful.
 |
| An unmarried and unengaged man and an unmarried and unengaged woman can sleep together under Mosaic Law--but they are obligated to marry each other unless a parent objects. |
Most evangelical Christians oppose premarital sex, but their reasoning is circular and based on human tradition, not a legitimate exegesis of Scripture. For instance, many people will point to scattered New Testament prohibitions of "sexual immorality" to argue that the Bible obviously condemns premarital sex. But people can read into the phrase "sexual immorality" whatever they dislike or feel repulsed by without inspecting the context or Greek word in question. What the Bible means by sexual immorality is the full spectrum of sexual acts condemned in the Old Testament by God. Of course, the Old Testament explicitly and undeniably categorizes adultery, sex with an engaged person, bestiality, rape, homosexuality, and prostitution as depraved behaviors, but it never condemns all premarital sex as objectively wrong. Assuming that it does because most pastors teach so on a consistent basis is fallacious.
Could a single man and woman consensually sleep together without sinning? Yes. Did God reveal that they should get married afterwards? Absolutely. These two things are not logically exclusive. The passage also notes that marriage may not be best and may be refused, which would make the premarital sex irresponsible and damaging. The text is not encouraging premarital sex, but instead it explains how to handle cases of it. It is clear that if the revealed procedure is adhered to, the man and woman did not sin: they could sleep together and get married and not violate Mosaic Law at all.
No, pre-marital sex does not by necessity have to be an act of lust or objectification. Sexual objectification is reducing someone to only their sexuality and viewing them as only an object for one's pleasure, and lust in the Bible is coveting what belongs to someone else. It is simply incorrect to say that all premarital sex will fall under one or both of these definitions. Actually, a married individual could sexually objectify his or her spouse, and an unmarried person can truly love someone else. No, just because Exodus 22:16-17 does not condemn premarital sex in the case law presented does not mean Scripture does not condemn promiscuity or that casual sex should be encouraged. It does not logically follow that there are therefore no moral boundaries for premarital sex. First of all, Exodus 22 is clear that two people who sleep together must at least consider marriage and should get married unless the parents object. Second, promiscuity can lead to horrific STDs and emotional distress from the absence of true intimacy. Third, casual sex is dehumanizing, as it separates sex from commitment thus can involve objectification. Some people use this same argument against premarital sex, but it simply is not true that all couples who are not married in the legal eyes of the modern state lack genuine love and commitment. For instance, there is no Scriptural condemnation of an engaged man and woman sleeping together, though there is a severe penalty for an engaged person who sleeps with someone else outside of the engagement relationship (Deuteronomy 22:23-24).
Interchangeably using the phrases casual sex and premarital sex is dishonest and overly simplifies the issue. Some Christians will say it is "just wrong", but Christians have used this statement, which begs the question (therefore committing a prominent logical fallacy), to defend their unbiblical beliefs that all slavery [1] and capital punishments [2] are sinful. You can literally argue against anything with the weak premise that the act in question "is just wrong." Ask these people why it is "just wrong" and they will say because the Bible teaches it is. Ask them where the Bible teaches this and they will likely appeal to the New Testament condemnations of sexual immorality. Ask what sexual immorality means and they will say any sexual behavior that is objectively wrong--any that are sinful and condemned by God. Ask them where God condemns premarital sex and they will say that it's just wrong. See how inescapably circular this is?
For the conservative Christians who will no doubt deny that their own Old Testament would ever contain a teaching like that of Exodus 22:16-17, I have the following question: how do you think people became married in ancient times? Did the descendants of Adam and Eve rely on standardized wedding ceremonies authorized by a civil government to get married? Did a preacher articulate a certain phrase or word that somehow altered a couple's marital status from single to married? Of course not! Sometimes sex was the very event that legitimized the relationship a man and woman shared and initiated marriage. There are Christians who would propose that premarital sex is not necessarily a sin partly because all marriage ceremonies are purely social constructs and that the act of a man and woman sleeping together elevates them to a status of marriage in God's eyes, and therefore calling sex premarital is a misnomer. Sex is either what commences a marriage or it is extra-marital and therefore adultery. A signed paper or a verbal vow does not make one truly married, but sexual intimacy does, according to this position. And this understanding conforms far more to the Biblical evidence than the traditional stance against premarital sex that supports itself with vague references to sexual immorality in the New Testament. Yet the Bible never says that sexual relations between two singles makes them married, only that they should pursue marriage if they already have created a sexual bond.
 |
| In early Biblical times marriage was not necessarily formalized as it is today. Sometimes sex itself, not a ceremony with friends and extended family members present, might have initiated the actual marriage. |
In Exodus 22:16-17 no one violates a spousal relationship, no one forces sex on anyone else, and no one is simply engaging in casual sex only to abandon their partner for the next willing person. Christians may generally believe premarital sex to be one of society's greatest evils, and yes, abuses of it do offend God and should trigger our moral revulsion. But Christians might also believe in plenty of other erroneous positions, like that God issued moral revelation that tolerated sin to Moses in the Old Testament, that a proper understanding of the Genesis creation account doesn't really matter very much, that subjective emotional experiences verify Christianity, that there is a specific amount of clothing someone must wear in public in order to be "modest" and not sin or cause others to [3], that Jesus revoked Mosaic Law in the Sermon on the Mount [4], that God's existence must be accepted on blind faith, and that quoting Bible verses or using bizarre Christian phrases that are unhelpful and amusing will somehow persuade an atheist or other unbeliever in a conversation.
Don't assume that your theology is true just because you've always believed it or because you can't imagine the truth being different. No tradition, agreement, feelings, or preferences mean something is valid. A Christian rationalist will simply assess the text of the Bible without imposing a foreign view on it or forcing one into the words. Do not find passages like Exodus 22:16-17 and mistakenly arrive at two false conclusions--that God really hates all premarital sex even though there is no universal Biblical condemnation of it or that if premarital sex isn't necessarily wrong that all forms of it are permitted (like casual sex, promiscuity, irresponsible relationships, and premarital sex without intent to marry and actions taken towards marriage).
[1]. To see why Biblical slavery (more like consensual temporary servanthood) was not abusive, see here: https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/06/bible-on-slavery.html
[2]. To find more details on Biblical capital punishment, see here: http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/capital-crimes-part-3.html
[3]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-folly-of-modesty-part-1.html
[4]. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/jesus-and-paul-on-mosaic-law.html
I appreciate your willingness to address a difficult topic. I did my own study on the issue of what the Bible teaches about premarital sex and came to a somewhat different conclusion. It's too long to fit in comment. If you're interested in reading it, you may find it here:
ReplyDeletehttps://parresiazomai.blogspot.com/2017/05/what-does-bible-say-about-premarital-sex.html
There are various non sequitur fallacies in your arguments. It does not follow at all from someone not knowing if they will marry a specific person, for example, that all premarital sex is sinful or should be avoided. At most, this would mean that people should be very careful about having premarital sex, if they have it at all. Exodus 22:16-17 clearly condemns noncommittal sex, but not all premarital sex: sex prior to a legal marriage is amoral in itself. A man and woman who have consensual sex and then enjoy a committed marital relationship have not sinned. Ultimately, a legal document or procedure is irrelevant to whether a relationship is legitimate to begin with.
DeleteThe idea that sex before a legal marriage is sinful is just one of numerous ways that evangelical Christians demonize sexual expression. Furthermore, even if premarital intercourse was sinful, it would not follow that other premarital sexual activities involving a partner are sinful. New Testament condemnations of "sexual immorality" do not condemn what the Old Testament does not, with Jesus rebuking those who neglect the Torah's demands while enforcing extra-Biblical rules (Matthew 15:3-9). Many Christians tend to ignore God's actual commands in favor of the very legalistic additions that the Bible prohibits (Deuteronomy 4:2).
What about 1 Corinthians 7:2?
ReplyDeleteLifelong romantic commitment does not require a legal marriage to begin with. Moreover, 1 Corinthians 7:2 does not contradict anything Mosaic Law says about premarital sex. Exodus 22:16-17 is clear that sex before a legal marriage is not sinful on its own, and 1 Corinthians 7:2 teaches that it is better to marry than to commit sexual immorality. Nothing about one passage opposes the other.
DeleteHi Cooper, what would you say to someone who says exodus 22:17 does not require marriage after sex because it is up to the father of the girl if she marries the man. Therefore it's not God who has the final say, it's the father, so if it was a sin God would have a the final say.
ReplyDeleteWhether a human has the "final say" in how to handle something is ultimately irrelevant to whether it is sinful, amoral, or obligatory. For instance, even though the Bible says to execute kidnappers in Exodus 21:16--meaning that it is Biblically obligatory in all cultures and times to kill kidnappers because God's core nature does not change--an abduction victim could choose to show mercy. Mercy is never obligatory by its very nature, but every person has the "final say" in whether they will show mercy, and they do not sin if they always withhold it. As for whether fathers decide to obstruct such a marriage as the one in Exodus 22:16-17, it is not as if a parent's wishes supercede those of an adult child who is rational. Neither fathers nor mothers have any special intellectual, moral, or spiritual abilities. The Old Testament and New Testament alike are thoroughly egalitarian and do not base their commands on stereotypes of men and women. Thus, many people who latch onto the mention of the father in Exodus 22:16-17 likely approach the Bible with complementarian assumptions that are both logically false and Biblically flawed. Either way, if marriage wasn't required by default when a single, unengaged man and woman have sex, there would be nothing of weight for a parent to decide against. I would basically tell someone with the positon you described that they have a completely invalid understanding of what the concept of sin is.
DeleteDoes this passage apply to a virgin as in never been in a sexual relationship or any woman?
ReplyDeleteThe concept of casual sex being discouraged/condemned by the Bible would apply to all single men and women. Exodus 22:16-17 is a case law with ramifications that go beyond the specific scenario it describes. A similar example would be Exodus 21:18-19's prescription of financial damages when one person assaults another without causing permanent injury (which is addressed later in the chapter): the case law specifically refers to assault with hands or with a stone, but assault with a brick, pipe, or other object would reduce down to the same moral category. Moreover, Deuteronomy 22:25-27 gives a case law prescribing the execution of men who rape women, but the sin and punishment remain the same when women rape men. There aren't grand moral obligations based around gender or whether someone is a virgin, as an immoral act or motive is sinful because of its own nature and not because of who is doing it.
DeleteIn that case why do you say the couple only needs to be in a committed relationship and not marry right away?
ReplyDeleteMarriage as a legal status is nothing but a social construct that has nothing to do with moral validity. Homosexual marriages would be Biblical as long as they were legal if this was not the case! The first humans also would not have been able to go to a government or church in order to become married, so legal marriage was not an option. God did not create human governments or the church; people did. Was it wrong for the first humans to have sex if they were in committed relationships? Of course not, or else sin would have been necessary to keep the human race in existence! Thus, legal standing has no ultimate connection with the validity of a marital relationship. Mutual lifelong commitment is what binds a husband and wife together, not a social title.
DeleteAlso why would the man have to pay a bride price to the father if this wasn't a restitution law? It is ensuring the woman can be provided for. This dosen't happen today as woman work and provide for themselves.
ReplyDeleteSo either way she is provided for whether she marries the man or gets the bride price. Women who were mot virgins had a harder time finding a husband because they were not as desirable. Not saying that is what God thinks of them, but that is what the culture of the men thought then. But the fact that the father can refuse the marriage and have the man just pay (so she isnt without the support of a husband's money) means God put the outcome in the father's hands for his daughter. If God absolutely required them to get married after and if it were a sin for them not to avoid the marriage, it wouldn't allow the option for the father to refuse.
ReplyDeleteSorry for not replying to the other comment earlier! Work and other things sometimes get in the way of replying to comments as quickly as I want. I have daily posts scheduled out for the next 40 days, so new articles are automatically published at set times without my direct involvement, but I have to periodically check for comments and type replies out on the spot or they won't be saved.
DeleteThe sin would be having casual sex, not in ending up unmarried under any circumstances whatsoever. It would be very stupid for an intellectually immature man and woman to marry even though they are not ready even if they had sex, for example. Lifelong commitment is the prescription otherwise. The moral issue is in having sex without sincere commitment when a person is individually ready to formalize their relationship.
Sex outside of legal marriage isn't automatically sinful regardless of the father's role in Exodus 22:16-17, but the Bible is explicitly egalitarian from the first chapter onward. It never teaches that men and women are anything other than co-rulers of creation (Genesis 1:28) and metaphysical equals, allies, and potential friends on an individual level. Cultural norms are objectively meaningless, so it would be asinine to say that financial burdens should fall on men and that women should be looked after by male relatives or their fathers in particular because a society expected it. The whole rest of Mosaic Law contradicts any idea that Exodus 22:16-17 is ultimately about some extensive gender-based hierarchy of family authority. Men and women receive the same punishments for sins that qualify as crimes and have the same rights as victims (as verses like Exodus 21:26-27 exemplify). The point of the case law on premarital sex is that noncommittal sex is discouraged either way.
I know you are saying that the sin would be in the casual sex itself but what I'm saying is if it were God's command that they get married or stay committed after then it wouldn't allow the father to intercept because it's God's law and a human being cannot change that. Because the father CAN interpret proves it's not a command that they stay together after the uncommitted sex
ReplyDeleteThere would be no default marriage for a parent to object to if marriage wasn't the general prescription for couples who have premarital sex. Even if it was not a default obligation to remain committed unless the relationship is toxic or premature in some way, which is the only legitimate basis for parental concern as it is, premarital sex still wouldn't be sinful on its own, so little else would change about Biblical morality.
DeleteI get what you're saying. The man still has to pay which proves it's a restitution law, which makes sense because the verses before it are about giving one what is owed to them.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, I'm sorry for the delayed response! The past few days have been very busy for me.
DeleteExodus 22:16-17 comes right around when the chapter shifts from restitution case laws to more general aspects of Biblical morality, such as clarifying several of the capital crimes within Christian ethics. The complementarian concepts in the background of what you are saying aside, men and women are far more than sheep, grain, or silver, so Exodus 22:16-17 is objectively distinct from the previous laws in the chapter on one level. What would your point establish beyond itself even if it was fully accurate? The morality of premarital sex as a whole would be unaffected. Again, those two verses wouldn't strongly push people towards marriage/serious commitment if parents were supposed go dictate all of this anyway, as if the preferences of one's parents have anything to do with one's moral obligations.
Unprotected penis-vaginal ( as opposed to oral-oral, oral-ear, oral-foot, oral-X, manual-X & .... “other” varieties ) can result in Pregnancy/Pro•Creation; & thus, within & far beyond Christianity, there is a popularized moral deterrent to non-PROs ( immature & ill-equipped financially emotionally psychologically spiritually morally socially paternally/maternally etc ) to something until ( despite biological capabilities initiated at ages 10-12y/o ) they have reached the age of marriage ( back then, as in Spain & other Lands today ) ... a ripe “14” ( fourteen ) years old, “16” in the #USgovt jurisdiction of Washington DC — solely to protect ¿our? “representatives” their staff & corporate cronies from the ramifications of their persistent extensive predatory paedophilia against the legions of seasonal “under-age” high-school & college interns & pages flocking, during their peak period of sexual energies & other curiosities, to explore the CULT/ure of National mechanisms of population control — unlike most other #USgovt jurisdictions where that number is squarely set at “18.”
ReplyDelete“#PARENTS” are the only authorities, or their substitutes, who should be authorized to guide children in these matters, not law enforcement, cours/judges, & surely not ¿our? “ paedophiliac” law makers.
“I got a woman, you got a man
So we got to do what's right
You'd get BEHEADED in other lands
If I were in your arms tonight
Quit tryin' to get me under that icy plunder
Boy, oh boy, what a scare, ooh”
— @Prince O(+>, “What Do U Want Me 2 Do?” album “Musicology”