The Bible’s view on premarital sex – is the remedy always “get married”?
Barbara Roberts ♦ June 15, 2012 ♦ 9 Comments
Christian women sometimes believe they must marry their boyfriend because he has pressured them into sex before marriage. The reason they believe this is because the Old Testament has a case law saying that if a man has sex with an un-betrothed virgin, he is to marry her. If people in the church become aware that a young couple are having premarital sex (e.g. the girl gets pregnant) they often tell the girl, “You are committing the sin of fornication and you can can stop it if you want to.” But the guy won’t stop, no matter how hard the girl tries to talk him out of it. So she ends up marrying him to stop the sin, because she is afraid of going to hell.
And abusive boyfriends can use this same line to pressure their girlfriends into marriage.
In Deuteronomy 22:23-29 there are three case laws about what to do when a man has sex with an unmarried virgin. Two of the cases deal with a woman who is betrothed, and the third deals with a woman who is not betrothed.
23 “If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, 24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor’s wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.
In ancient towns and cities of Israel, houses were close together, there was little traffic noise or other audio distractions like we have today, and the cry or scream of a victim of crime would generally be responded to. In a city like this, if a woman did not cry out in objection to the sex, then the inference is she agreed to have sex with this guy. She bears guilt because was betrothed to another man. Likewise, the fellow who had sex with her bears guilt because he had “taken his neighbor’s wife” – he had sex with a woman who had been promised to another man.
Of course, we must remember this is case law. Mosaic case law didn’t set out every possible legal case in precise detail; its intent was to set down principles which could be applied with wise common sense to particular situations. Consider a variation to the case above; let’s imagine that an abusive man pressured a betrothed woman into having sex with him ‘in the city’ and she was unable to cry out because he had gagged her, or threatened her life, or intimidated her by some other threat. So she underwent the rape silently without crying out. A reasonable person would not claim “She didn’t cry out, so she must have been complicit.” God didn’t intend case law to be applied in such a wooden way; that kind of rigidity is anathema to the spirit of the Law, and one of the hallmarks of the abusive mentality. Common sense would say it was a case of rape because of the threats and intimidation, and the innocent woman would not be penalised (see below).
25 “But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 26 But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offence punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, 27 because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her.
Here we have a different case. The woman is still betrothed, but this time the sex happens in the open country where her cries would not be heard, so the woman is given the benefit of the doubt and is not condemned. Only the man is condemned. It is classed as rape, the man is guilty and the woman is innocent.
28 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.
In this third case, the woman is not betrothed; she has no prior commitment to another man, and a fellow ‘seizes her and lies with her’. Commentators are divided about whether this is a case of seduction or rape. The verb in verse 28 contains the idea of grasping but not necessarily that of overpowering. It stands in contrast to verse 25 where a different verb definitely means overpowering. Verse 28 also contains the phrase “they are found out”.
If verse 28 is about seduction it may be another version of the case in Exodus 22 and the father’s veto applies. (Exodus 22:16-17 If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins. ) The girl’s father had the right to veto the marriage, and if the father vetoed the marriage, the guy who had sex with her still had to pay the bride price.
If Deuteronomy 22:28 is about rape, does it mean the woman is compelled to marry her rapist? It cannot mean that, when only two verses beforehand the Bible clearly exonerates and gives freedom to victims of rape! We may suppose that the father can veto the marriage (and might well do so at his daughter’s request). Philo, a Hellenistic Jewish Biblical philosopher in the 1st century AD said that the choice whether to marry lay with the woman. The Jewish historian Josephus (also 1st century AD) taught that the father could veto the marriage and, if he did, the man had to pay fifty shekels as compensation for the outrage. (For references, see Appendix 5 of my book Not Under Bondage.)
The law in verses 28-29 did not compel the man and woman to marry, it only compelled the man to pay the high bride price, and if he married her it forbade him divorcing her later. So it provide the no-longer-virginal woman with husband & breadwinner for the rest of her life – if she were happy to marry the fellow. If she wasn’t willing to marry him, then the fine could have been imposed anyway, even without the marriage. The fine would then render the woman relatively wealthy, which would make her more desirable as a marriage partner to some other man, thus counteracting the negative factor of her no longer being a virgin.
To us it seems bizarre for a virginal, un-betrothed woman to marry the man who had forcefully taken her virginity. However we need to bear in mind that the woman might have considerable difficulty in finding another husband in a society where virginity was much more highly prized than it is today. Some women were willing to marry the man who violated them, as we see from the story of Tamar and Amnon (2 Sam. 3:16).
If such a marriage took place, the man was forbidden from ever divorcing the woman. By his lack of sexual restraint, the man could find himself married to the woman for the rest of his life. This law probably acted as something of a deterrent to illicit sex. But as with all of God’s laws, we must interpret it in conjunction with other laws dealing with the same subject. Although the man was forbidden from divorcing her “all his days”, we cannot take this to mean that divorce was prohibited if abuse, adultery or desertion arose in the course of the marriage, for these are the three grounds for disciplinary divorce (see Not Under Bondage). Even Rabbinic Judaism recognized the right of such a husband to divorce his wife if she were unchaste after the marriage (Mishnah, Ket. 3.5). The prohibition on the man divorcing his wife was there to guarantee the wife’s long-term security. A man who had not restrained his impulses before marriage could be quite likely to be impulsive after marriage as well. The prohibition on divorce was to restrain such a man from immorally and unjustly discarding his wife. The prohibition was never meant to condemn the wife to the inescapable tyranny of an abusive husband!
Bottom line: If a couple are having sex before marriage, the best solution is not necessarily for the couple to get married. Like any sin, fornication can be renounced and repented of, and the guilt can be cleansed by Christ. If the man insists on having sex against the woman’s wishes (= rape) the church should support the woman and discipline the man, assist the woman to get protection from him, and if she wishes, make a statement and have him charged with rape. To marry the man one has had pre-marital sex with is not always wise, and it’s never wise if he’s showing red flags of being an abuser.
Related posts:
Do you tell others about the sexual abuse?
Sexual abuse in marriage – what should a Christian wife do?
The unique nature of sexual intimacy makes its abuse uniquely destructive
Share this:
- Posted in: Victims
- Tagged: Barbara Roberts, Deuteronomy, divorce, getting free, interpreting Scripture, pregnancy, premarriage counseling, protecting victims, sexual abuse
Reblogged this on Speakingtruthinlove's Blog.
So when is getting married a solution? Is it ever? If no, then what does the scripture from 1 Corinthians 7:9 really mean? Thanks for the post.
Oh help! I should have anticipated this question, but I didn’t. I think I’ll handball this one to Ps Crippen!
…well maybe I can attempt an answer; but truly, don’t take it as gospel.
1 Cor. 7:8-9 8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
Firstly, let’s get the context clear in our minds. Paul is writing to the Corinthian church, and he speaks to them as if the vast majority of them are regenerate Christians, true believers. (The man Paul referred to chapter 5 is ‘not for real’ as a Christian, and Paul has told the congregation to excommunicate him.) So Paul is talking to believers who have functioning consciences. He’s not talking to unbelievers in general; nor is he talking to sociopaths who have impaired or absent consciences. Therefore, Paul is not talking to the kind of person who would pursue their sexual lusts for their own gratification without any regard to their duties to others and to God. He’s talking to believers who may be struggling with the question “How do I handle my sexual desire in a way that is morally pure and which takes into account my other duties and obedience as a follower of Christ and my particular calling in His work on this earth?”
And Paul says to them (paraphrased and extended) “If you remain single as I am, that’s good.” Now, the Jewish religion upheld the ideal that every man should marry and have children, because the commandment to Adam and Eve in Genesis said be fruitful and multiply. For any member of the Corinthian church who knew that Jewish precept (and some of the Corinthian believers were Jews, not all were gentiles) this instruction from Paul would have been decisive: Paul was declaring that the single life is just as virtuous, and just as obedient to God, as the married life.
Paul then went on “If they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” If the unmarried and widows (and he’s not solely talking about people who are already coupled-up here, he’s talking about any adult who is not in the married state) find it difficult to exercise self control, let them marry. This does not have to apply only to those who have actually slipped into an act or acts of fornication. It could also apply to persons who have resisted fornication but find that they are regularly… well, shall we say ‘preoccupied’? with their sexual feelings. They find that their sexual desires are so strong that they are distracting them and impeding them from fully getting about the rest of their kingdom work and no matter how much or how well the keep it all under control, it still is there, the desires are still pretty strong. I think you get the drift. It’s hard to be too specific here, and Scripture often leaves these specifics unspoken because there are grey areas and individual situations vary. As a woman, I can talk from personal experience about ‘yearning’ – not so much for sex per se, but for marriage with all its companionship, emotional intimacy, support, as well as the physical intimacy.
I think Paul is saying, “If you are going through that kind of thing, hey, it’s okay to get married. Marrying is not a sin! It will bring its own bag of different distractions and issues, especially if you are living in a time of persecution (v. 28b), so bear that in mind, but it’s not a sin to marry, and it’s God’s good way of providing a channel for all those desires, sexual urges, yearning for intimacy, etc.”
Remember, all this is not specifically directed at coupled-up but unmarried people. It’s advice for any adult who is not in the married state.
So what about coupled-up people who are not married? Boyfriend and girlfriend. Should they get married? The question is the same as any time one is asking “would it be a good idea for these two people to marry each other?” And the same criteria should be used to evaluate what to do. Are they both believers? – that is, true believers, not one believer and one hypocrite phoney christian. Are there any red flags of one of them being an abuser? Are they likely to be compatible as a married couple? Do they both show the desire to commit in marriage to each other? If they do, does each of them feel this desire freely? Or have any of their desires been tainted with coercion, or infused with false guilt, or constrained by the kind of sub-biblical morality that majors on secondary issues (heavy patriarchal churches are often hot beds of this).
If the answers to such questions all come out okay, then sure, the couple can marry.
That’s my two bob’s worth.
Barbara did a great job here with this article and with her answer. Nice work. These situations are never easy to sort out because sin always twists and complicates the good that God has ordained, i.e., marriage in this case. When people start living and sleeping together without entering into the marriage covenant before God and witnesses, you have a short-cut that leads to nothing but trouble. Let me further complicate things. Let’s say we are dealing with a couple who have been living together and have actually birthed children together. So, here are these little ones Jesus said that He particularly cares for. And now the couple decides, “well, I just am not sure about this relationship anymore.” And let’s say that there are no real signs of abuse in the relationship — maybe the woman for example complains that her guy-friend is selfish. And maybe he is. So, the two profess Christ. What are they to do in order to do right? I have to say that in a situation like this (which I have faced in real life scenarios more than once) that they should get married, grow in Christ, become the husband/wife and mother/father they need to be. They could break up — but there does come a point, doesn’t there, when the children need to be the primary concern? Remember, I am not talking about a case where one spouse is a certified abuser, but a scenario where the woman, for instance, wonders if she really wants to be married to him. She could leave, and she is thinking of doing so. But what then of the children? This is really sticky, isn’t it? And it is sticky because of the sin of immorality being entered into in the first place.
In such cases where there are no children, then I would tell these people that they have two choices in repentance: 1) Get married in the sight of God, or 2) Separate for good.
An additional note on the nature of marriage is necessary here. Many such couples claim that because they have been living together for a long while, they are married “in the sight of God.” Not so. The Scripture is very plain that marriage is a covenant, and that covenant is made between a man and a woman with God as witness.
Pro 2:16 So you will be delivered from the forbidden woman, from the adulteress with her smooth words, 17 who forsakes the companion of her youth and forgets the covenant of her God;
Eze 16:8 “When I passed by you again and saw you, behold, you were at the age for love, and I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness; I made my vow to you and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Lord GOD, and you became mine.
Mal 2:14 But you say, “Why does he not?” Because the LORD was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant.
In addition, I find the account of Jesus’ encounter with the woman at the well to be instructive here:
Joh 4:16 Jesus said to her, “Go, call your husband, and come here.” 17 The woman answered him, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “You are right in saying, ‘I have no husband’; 18 for you have had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband. What you have said is true.”
Living together or being in “coupled up” relationship did not make this woman the wife of her latest man. (By the way, as Barbara has pointed out, this woman may not have been the culprit in this case. She may have been the victim of the current legalized wife-swapping of the day).
Thanks Jeff! I knew you would have some wisdoms to add. And nothing beats real life experience to flesh this kind of thing out into actual case examples.
I like this “1 Cor. 7:8-9 8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion”.Thanks for sharing the word of God here.
He may not divorce her all his days.
This is not quite in the center of the point of the article, but in light of the fact that I have been exposed (it was suggested by implication in a sermon) somewhat recently to the doctrine that divorce is allowed only during the betrothal period, I want to say here that such an idea is obviously bunk. Had God only meant divorce for the betrothal period He would never have said “all his days.” Obviously, these people are not to be stuck in perpetual betrothal! Divorce may have been the term and understanding of the severing of the contract prior to the exchange of vows, but clearly it extends into the “finalization” period of the contract too. Any normal reading of this passage demands that understanding.
Can you please explain why there are these two choices and the biblical premise for it? What if you think there is potential in the relationship and do wanna marry but have reservations is it better to break up and then start again and date at a later time?
Hello Ons, welcome to the blog.
I am assuming by ‘these two choices’ you mean the choice to marry or the choice to end the relationship. I did not mean to imply that they are the ONLY two choices available. So if you got that impression, please forgive me.
I think your alternate suggestion is quite reasonable: if you think there is potential in the relationship and do want to marry the person but have reservations, it would be better to break up and then start again at some later date, but this time have good boundaries for avoiding sexual intimacy during dating. That could be a way of testing to see whether this relationship is sound, good for both of you, healthy, mutually respectful and able to lead to a wholesome and God-honoring marriage.