In Search of a Biblical Sexual Ethic

by Ken Griffith

The following article is a discussion submitted to the Internet discussion group known as the Knox Ring.

From: Mcc9500@aol.com
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996
To: jbutler@sirinet.net
Subject: Knox Ring: Biblical Sexual Ethic

Dear Knox Ringers,

I posed a question several weeks ago, asking for someone to explain the underlying ethical principle governing the romantic behavior of an unmarried couple. Since no one has ventured a reply, I have attempted to tackle the question myself. I would like to put it out for discussion. Before doing so, I would like to put forth one condition for the discussion: please stick to Biblical proof and leave personal experiences and stories out of the discussion.

I have only recently come to the conviction expressed in this essay, and cannot claim absolute purity by the standards set forth here. However, my goal is to find the Biblical truth so that I might obey God, condemning though it may be of my own past and that of others.

ATTEMPTING TO FIND THE BIBLICAL SEXUAL ETHIC

1. The Bible recognizes an inherent heirarchy in the family, wherein the father is the covenant head over his wife and unmarried sons and daughters, and has the right to nullify any vows they make, to include marriage against his will (eloping)(Deut 22:28). Further, a father has the right to give his daughters in marriage or withhold them from marriage(1 Cor 8:36). When a man marries a woman, this covenant authority is passed from her father to him; hence, the ceremonial "giving" of the bride by her father in the Christian wedding.

2. The Bible condemns sexual immorality prior to betrothal (fornication) and after betrothal (adultery), although the civil penalty is different, recognizing the difference between theft (seduction) and sexual fraud/covenantal murder (adultery).

A: When an unmarried man seduces or rapes an unbetrothed virgin, it is as if he "stole" her from her father, but he did not break a covenant; therefore the civil penalty is not death, but a large fine (equivalent to a high bride price) and the father's option on whether the man must or must not marry the girl (Deut 22:28, Ex 22:16).

B: In the case of adultery or sexual fraud, a mortally binding covenant has been broken which is spiritually equivalent to murder; thus calling for the death penalty (Deut 22:12-23).

3. Betrothal is when THE binding covenant is made between a man and woman (through her father as mediator). This is evident because:

A: The Mosaic Law presribed death to any betrothed man or woman who had sexual relations with someone other than their betrothed, thus making it equivalent to adultery(Deut 22:22-23).

B: Joseph planned to "divorce" Mary, after discovering that she was with child, indicating that their betrothal covenant was already considered binding before the actual marriage ceremony had taken place(Matthew 1:18-19).

4. The hinging point of the debate concerns the intended definition of "sexual immorality", or "to lie with". There are essentially two positions, one considering "to lie with" to mean exclusively intercourse, the other considering "to lie with" to be the entire spectrum of sexual activity or any part thereof, ranging from caress to intercourse. I will call these two cases the minimalist and maximalist positions, respectively. All of the shades of gray in between are philosophically untenable because they are purely arbitrary, as I will demonstrate.

I hold the maximalist position which I believe reads the principle behind the case law. God made us as whole beings, in His image. Our sexuality is a part of the whole, and any attempt to dice it up into forbidden and unforbidden parts does violence to the nature of sexual intimacy, forcing us to stop five yards short of a touchdown, in a game that was designed to be played from start to finish by husband and wife.

The minimalist makes the arbitrary distinction that everything up to the x-yard line is ok for two people who are not formally playing the game (ie. unmarried), but everything beyond that line is verboten. You can run a couple of plays, but you had better not make a long pass, because you might cross the invisible line onto the fornication side of the field. Finding two minimalists who agree on the same limit is nigh unto impossible; one says its the thirty-five yard line on your side, another says it is the thirty-five closer to a touchdown. There is no consistent underlying principle by which the minimalist sets his limit, except that it has to be one that keeps the couple from becoming pregnant, ie. it must fall short of intercourse.

By contrast, the maximalist says that if you aren't married, you have no right to be on the playing field, at all. This position makes intuitive sense, when one considers how a man would feel if his wife engaged in hand holding, caressing, or deep kissing with another man. The man intuitively feels that he has been cheated on, although by the minimalist definition, his wife has not committed adultery.

IF this kind of "light" sexual intimacy with a non-spouse is adulterous for a married person, then why is it not considered to be fornication when engaged in by an unmarried couple? This is a fundamental double standard, which persists almost universally in the church today.

5. The next point of debate is the status of a betrothed couple before the public oath and consummation of their marriage. Since, the Bible clearly considers them to be covenantally bound, what is the proper attitude for them to display toward each other? Joseph was planning to divorce Mary even though they had not yet been wed. But Mary asked the angel how she could have a child when she had no husband. Clearly betrothal was considered the beginning of the binding covenant, but they were not considered husband and wife until the marriage ceremony.

The minimalist usually would claim that some degree of sexual intimacy is warranted for a betrothed couple, but draws the line somewhere before intercourse. This line varies arbitrarily from person to person, and is usually relegated to "a matter of conscience". Making out isn't sinful unless one or both parties are secretly "lusting" after the other in their heart. The difference between an "affectionate kiss" and a "sexual kiss" is the heart attitude. This idiotic position is an oxymoron, yet I have heard it defended adamantly on many occasions. The question arises, that if they aren't "lusting" while making out, what exactly are they doing, engaging in a platonic pharyngeal examination? Defenders of this position maintain that the desire to kiss between an emotionally intimate couple can be non-sexual. These people clearly belong on a Star Trek episode! True, it may not necessarily lead to sexual intercourse, but it is undoubtedly an integral part of human sexuality. It is sexual, period.

The maximalist position would hold that the betrothed couple may not consummate their vows in any way until the conditions of the marriage contract have been met, and the pair has taken their vow publicly. Thus the maximalist holds premarital physical intimacy to be like unto fornication. It is akin stealing fruit from an orchard for which you have a contract to buy. You are bound by your contract, but until you pay for it, it is not yours, and you have no right to its fruit. A contract gives the holder the exclusive right to buy, but in the case of a marriage contract, it also mutually prohibits both parties from making any other contracts. Stealing fruit from the contracted orchard is still theft, even though you intend to buy it. "Intend" is the key word. Men see the future as through a fog, we cannot predict it absolutely, as God does, having written it. Thus a man may not partake of the fruits of marriage until he and his wife have taken their public vows, because he cannot forsee with 100% certainty that the marriage will take place in the future.

CONCLUSION:

Betrothal is where the marital contract/covenant is made.
Marriage is where the contract/covenant is fullfilled and then consumated.
Pre-marital physical intimacy in any degree is like unto fornication.
"Cheating" by a betrothed person is adultery.

If any brother can find fault in this reasoning, please correct me.

Coram Deo,

Ken Griffith
Layman,
Calvary Reformed Presbyterian Church
Newport News, Virginia


If you are interested in participating in the Knox Ring discussion group, click here for their web page, where you can find instructions for signing up. We heartily recommend that you do!