For too long pastors and Christian leaders have neglected to provide definitive instruction about the appropriate boundaries of premarital relationships. Telling singles that the Bible has nothing explicit to say about premarital sexual activity beyond its prohibition against intercourse is an unacceptable fulfillment of our pastoral responsibility. Sexual ethics are simply too important. We must say something. And as I have labored to show in these posts, the Scriptures have more to say about premarital ethics than many of us have been led to believe.

While “thou shall not make out” is not as explicit as “thou shall not commit adultery,” the Bible does indeed offer us a clear sexual ethic: sexual activity is to be reserved for the marriage relationship. When we combine this sexual ethic with an intuitive understanding that sexual activity includes more than sexual intercourse, we can confidently conclude that all forms of sexual activity—even sexual forms of kissing—must be reserved for the marriage relationship.

The reigning premarital sexual ethic of evangelicalism is muddled and unclear. The pressing need of the moment is for evangelical pastors and leaders to articulate a clearer, more pastorally responsible premarital ethic—one that is biblically authoritative, theologically robust, and sufficiently objective. And that is the very thing we’ve tried hard to do in our book.

For all the posts in this series, see below:

• Sex, Dating, and Relationships, Part 1: An Introduction to the Problem
• Sex, Dating, and Relationships, Part 2: Theological Foundations
• Sex, Dating, and Relationships, Part 3: Thou Shall Not Make Out?

Yet despite the lack of an explicit statement about “how far is too far” in premarital relationships, the New Testament does offer us a clear sexual ethic: sexual relations are to be reserved for the marriage relationship. Adultery (Romans 2:22), homosexuality (1 Corinthians 6:9), prostitution (1 Corinthians 6:12-20), fornication (1 Thessalonians 4:3-8), and polygamy (1 Timothy 3:2) are all explicitly condemned in the New Testament. Additionally, the New Testament uses the term πορνεία (sexual immorality) as a “catch all” term to forbid all extra-marital sexual activity. As has been shown by New Testament scholars, πορνεία is properly understood against the backdrop of the Torah, and thus adultery, fornication, bestiality, incest, homosexuality, and prostitution—all condemned by the Torah—fall within its semantic range.[1] We find a working example of this basic ethical framework, specifically as it relates to premarital sexual activity, in 1 Corinthians 7:1-9. Discussing celibacy and marriage, Paul writes,

I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.  To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion (ESV).

Here Paul is responding to a series of questions posed to him by the Corinthians. Many at Corinth viewed celibacy as the ideal Christian state. Even married individuals, it seems, were attempting to live a celibate life.[2] Paul notes his own commitment to celibacy and agrees that celibacy is indeed ideal for increasing one’s capacity to serve in Christ’s kingdom. Yet Paul rec­ognizes that the ability to live a chaste and celibate life is a unique gift from God—one that God has not given to everyone. Given the ever-present temptation toward sexual immorality, Paul instructs those who have a strong desire for sexual intimacy (i.e., “burn with pas­sion”) to fulfill that desire within the context of a marriage relationship. The implications here are clear: the marriage relationship is the only legitimate context for sexual activity. Given the clear teaching of the New Testament, the church—broadly construed—has historically viewed sexual relations as appropriate only within the context of a monogamous, permanent, heterosexual marriage.[3]

Thus far we have broken no new ground. Nearly all evangelical pastors and ministry leaders agree that sexual activity should be reserved for the marriage relationship. [4] But it is here that evangelical sexual ethics begin to flounder. Our problem is not that we have failed to recognize the New Testament’s prohibition against premarital sexual activity; rather we have failed to fully reckon with the reality that there is more to sexual activity than intercourse. Oral sex, fondling, and mutual masturbation, for example, are all sexual activities. It is inconceivable that the New Testament’s ethic—in as much as it is an extension of the Torah—intends to leave room for such activities outside of marriage. Once we embrace the biblical ideal that sexual activity must be reserved for the marriage relationship, the question, “How far is too far?”—a perennially vexing question for singles—is easily answered. If an activity is sexual, it is to be reserved for the marriage relationship.

Yet for the sake of clarity we must press this farther. Beyond the seemingly obvious activities above, there is real confusion among evangelicals about what constitutes sexual activity. There are a wide array of physical activities that are inherently non-sexual; holding hands, a kiss on the cheek, a peck on the lips, hugging, walking arm in arm, etc., are all non-sexual activities. While sexual arousal may indeed accompany such activities, the activities themselves are not inherently sexual. But there are other physical activities that are exclusively sexual. It is these activities (at least) that must be reserved for the marriage relationship. But how are we to tell which is which?

Perhaps the most objective way to determine the sexual nature of an activity is to consider it against the backdrop of the family relationship. Within the context of family relations, there are certain physical forms of affection that are inappropriate (fondling, oral sex, etc.). And the reason they are inappropriate is precisely because such activities are sexual. Thus we can quickly intuit which activities are sexual by considering an activity within the context of the family relationship. If an activity would be sexually inappropriate to do with a biological relative, then that action is clearly of a sexual nature. Or again, the activities that we intuitively exclude from family relationships because those activities are sexual, are, in fact, sexual activities. To clarify, note here that this way of identifying sexual activity is not primarily concerned about what I would (or would not) do with my mother, but rather about what is deemed to be generally appropriate between biological relatives. While a particular man might never hold hands with his mother (given the interpersonal dynamics of their relationship), that same man would not view it as sexually inappropriate for a mother and son to hold hands. If Genesis 26:28 is any indication, even ancient pagan cultures have distinguished between sexual and non-sexual activity via the context of the family relationship.

This criterion becomes enormously helpful when considering appropriate premarital boundaries, particularly as it relates to one of the most common activities in contemporary dating relationships: passionate kissing. Many (perhaps most) Christian dating couples regularly engage in passionate kissing. And for the most part, evangelical pastors and leaders have not provided definitive, biblical counsel here. Clearly some forms of kissing are non-sexual. Fathers kiss their children, and sons their mothers. But there are other forms of kissing that men reserve exclusively for their lovers. And the reason they do so is because such forms of kissing are sexual. When we consider passionate kissing against the backdrop of the family relationship it quickly becomes clear that passionate kissing is not merely affectionate, but sexual. Under no circumstances would it ever be appropriate for a brother and sister to engage in passionate kissing. Thus we may properly conclude the following:

1) All sexual activity must be reserved for the marriage relationship.

2) Some forms of kissing are sexual. Therefore,

3) Sexual forms of kissing must be reserved for the marriage relationship.

The logic of the above is, I believe, inescapable. In order to legitimize sexual forms of kissing in a premarital relationship, one would need to, 1) provide a cogent rationale for why passionate kissing is not sexual; or alternately, 2) legitimize at least some sexual activity outside of the marriage relationship. The first is counter-intuitive to the way human sexuality actually functions. The second runs counter to the ethic of the New Testament.

The objective definition provided by the family test is not the last word on sexual purity. There is, of course, more to purity than how one behaves with the body (Matthew 5:27). And every “objective” boundary can be worked around by sin-inspired creativity. But in spite of its limitations, it does provide a solid framework for clearly identifying which bodily activities are inherently sexual. Humans are embodied beings; as such, we need an embodied ethic. While it may be a sexual act for a particular man to look at (talk to, etc.) a particular woman, it is always a sexual act when he does something with her that would be sexually inappropriate between blood relatives. To be sure, there may be good reasons to refrain also from non-sexual acts of intimacy outside of the marriage relationship.[5] If Jesus condemns even the look that leads to inappropriate sexual desire, how much more the touch (sexual or not) that leads to inappropriate sexual desire. But while wisdom may often call for a more restrictive posture than what is required by the family ethic, it never calls for less.

Pastors and ministry leaders have been sending a mixed message about premarital sexual activity. On the one hand, in keeping with the sexual ethic of the New Testament, we’ve clearly articulated that sexual activity should be reserved for the marriage relationship. But on the other hand we’ve largely ignored—or actually legitimatized—sexual forms of kissing. We are in effect saying that while sexual activity is not permissible in premarital relationships, sexual activity is permissible in premarital relationships. If the preceding sentence doesn’t make sense to the readers of this post, it’s not making sense to singles either.

At its heart, the New Testament ethic calls for premarital relationships to be completely non-sexual. Sexual forms of kissing fall afoul of this ethic, likewise any activity that is sexually inappropriate between blood relatives. Simply put, if an activity is inherently sexual, it is to be reserved for the marriage relationship.

[2] My brief reconstruction here follows the standard interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7, i.e., that Paul is addressing a form of asceticism. For interpretations along these lines, see Tom Wright, Paul for Everyone: 1 Corinthians (Louiseville, KY: Westminster, 2004), 77, and Raymond F. Collins, First Corinthians, ed. Daniel J. Harrington, S. J., SP (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1999), 253. Contra this reading, see Barry Danylak, Redeeming Singleness: How the Storyline of Scripture Affirms the Single Life (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2010). In either case, my central point above remains valid regardless the extent to which the ascetic question is resolved.

[3] Only in relatively recent times has this sexual ethic been questioned. The contemporary rise of homosexuality, combined with a post-modern way of reading texts, has raised questions about the church’s traditional sexual ethic. For a detailed analysis of the New Testament’s sexual ethic, see Collins, Ethics and the New Testament; Loader, Sexuality in the New Testament; Countryman, Dirt, Greed, and Sex.

[4] The Colorado Statement on Biblical Sexual Morality offers us a standard evangelical articulation: “Sex outside of marriage is never moral. This includes all forms of intimate sexual stimulation that stir up sexual passion between unmarried partners.”  Quoted in Heimbach, True Sexual Morality, 370.

[5] Even non-sexual touch can arouse sexual desire. Further, physical affection (whether sexual or not), makes a statement about one’s intentions, and often creates misplaced expectations. For a discussion about the mixed messages men and women send to each other via non-sexual interaction, see my Raising Purity, 53-100.

God’s goal in creation was always that humanity, in dependence on his grace and obedience to his word, should advance, with all creation, from square 1 (immaturity) to square 100 (maturity, glory)—”Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion”. However (and here’s why our version of the game matters!), the snake got Adam, and he slid, not just back to square one, but off the board completely (and here’s where the illustration stretches, or maybe breaks!).

The Word became flesh, as the Last Adam, not to put us back to square one. Salvation doesn’t take us back to Eden. The end is better than the beginning. Jesus’ obedience and death does get us back on the board, but because of his resurrection, not at square one, but at 100, the goal of the game. He fulfilled Adam’s role and atoned for Adam’s sin advance us to full, glorified, mature humanity.

I have opinions (of course!) about the church in the US as compared to the church in the UK. But I still don’t feel competent to comment too strongly or broadly; two weeks ago I was at a conference for Anglicans in my denomination, and was struck how different the conference and its attenders felt compared with similar events in England. This was in part cultural. But in significant part it was also due to the different histories, influences, and cultural locations of the Church of England compared with the Episcopal church and continuing Anglican denominations, and of evangelicals within those different denominations.

All this is to say, I really appreciated Don Carson’s comments on the church in the UK, not least because they come from a seasoned Christian leader who has a lot of experience of what he speaks, and a broad knowledge of the church in many parts of the world. His experience enables him to speak thoughtfully, charitably, and wisely, and encouragingly about the great gospel needs across the pond and also the signs of God’s great grace to us.

When it comes to sexual ethics, constructing a  theological, Christocentric framework need not take us long. As it happens, Paul provides us with an obviously Christocentric reading of sex in Ephesians 5:30–32. In what is certainly the New Testament’s most developed treatment of sex and marriage, Paul pointedly describes the sexual relationship within marriage as an image of the spiritual relationship between Christ and the church.  For Paul, sex and marriage typologically point beyond themselves to an ultimate fulfillment in Christ’s marriage to the church. Which is to say, sex is fundamentally about Christ and the gospel. Note carefully the significance of the last sentence of verse 32 within its context.

For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church (ESV, emphasis added).

Paul is here discussing the relational dynamics of Christian marriage.  And as he gives instruction to husbands and wives about how they are to treat one other, he draws a tight parallel between human marriage and Christ’s relationship with the church. The way Christ treats the church, Paul tells us, serves as the pattern for the way in which a husband is to treat his wife.  And the way the church relates to Christ is the way a wife is to relate to her husband. But by what logic does Paul ask husbands and wives to relate to one another as Christ and the church?  The answer is found in verse 32. The sexual oneness of human marriage, Paul tells us, “refers to Christ and the church.” Drawing upon the ancient marriage formula of Genesis 2:24, Paul reveals that sexual oneness within marriage was created by God to serve as a typological foreshadowing of the spiritual oneness that has now begun to exist between Christ and his church. The New Testament’s many references to the church as the “bride” of Christ, and to Christ as the “bridegroom” further highlights this parallel.  Additionally, many of Christ’s parables use the wedding motif as an illustration of his return and consummate union with the church. And the book of Revelation explicitly refers to the wedding supper of the Lamb as inaugurating the dawn of the eternal age.[1]

What Paul says here about marriage is equally true about sex itself. True Christian marriage cannot be constituted apart from sexual union. The phrase “οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν” (the two shall be one flesh), used in 5:31 speaks specifically about sexual union, not simply marital union in a general, legal sense. (See 1 Corinthians 6:16 where Paul deploys the identical “one flesh” phrase to denote sexual union with a prostitute.) Within the context of the Ephesians passage, the metaphor of bodily union (i.e., head to body) is tied intimately to the sexual relationship. For Paul, sex establishes and creates the bodily union upon which true marriage is based.[2] Thus Paul’s statement that marriage is a type of Christ’s relationship to the church is at the same time a statement that sexual union is a type of Christ’s spiritual union with the church (again see 1 Corinthians 6:16-17 for this close parallel).

And of course this makes sense when we consider the relational dynamics of sex. Sex, when understood from a Christocentric framework, is the mutual self-giving and joyful receiving of the husband and wife. When a man pursues a woman sexually he is seeking her surrender, the complete yielding of herself to him. But what he desires in her surrender (even if he does not realize it) is not simply the surrendering of her body as a material object, but rather her openness to receive him as gift. In sex the man offers himself to the woman; he seeks to place himself within her—both his physical body and his seed, his life. In this offering of his seed, he offers himself. He offers himself to her as gift, and he finds his joy in her opening herself to receive him as the gift he offers of himself.  And she, for her part, finds her joy in yielding herself to another before whom she is vulnerable, who is greater in power, but who uses this power and sovereignty not to seek his own ends, but to seek her joy in the giving of himself. And in this way she too is gift to him, for she gives herself as gift to him in that she opens within herself a place for him to dwell; she makes a home for him within herself and joyfully receives him. It is in this “room making” within herself whereby she welcomes him as gift, and thus gives herself as gift to him. In sum, the man gives himself as gift to the woman in the giving of himself, and she gives herself as gift to him in the joyful receiving within herself of him as gift to her. And it is this mutual self-giving and joyful receiving that constitutes the martial union.[3]

All of this finds its deepest meaning in Christ’s relationship with the church. We give ourselves as gift to Christ in the free surrender of ourselves to him, that we might joyfully receive him as gift. He himself is the gift of grace that we receive, and we ourselves are the gift that we give to Christ. We find our joy in opening to him and making room for him to dwell within us, and he finds his joy in placing himself—and thus his life via his Holy Spirit—inside of us, and being joyfully received by us. Thus Paul frames up for us a view of sex and marriage whereby they are not ends in themselves, but rather are types of something higher, pointing to the deeper reality of the believer’s union with Christ. Just as the sacrifice of the Passover Lamb in the Old Testament foreshadowed Christ’s atoning sacrifice in the New, so too the mutual self-giving and joyful receiving of spousal love “refers to Christ and the Church” (Ephesians 5:29).[4]

Even without considering the explicit imperatives in the New Testament, Paul’s Christocentric reading of sex provides us with a theological framework for thinking about the whole of sexual ethics. In as much as sexual union functions as a living witness of the spiritual oneness between Christ and the church, our sexual conduct should be patterned after the way in which Christ and the church relate spiritually. The prohibitions against homosexuality, polygamy, incest, prostitution, fornication, bestiality—indeed all forms of πορνεία—find their ultimate explanation against the backdrop of this reality.[5]

And most significantly, it is within this Christocentric framework that we can begin to think constructively about premarital sexual activity. In as much as God has ordained sex as a means of foreshadowing the one-spirit relationship between Christ and the church, we misuse our sexuality when we express it outside the context of the marriage relationship. Most fundamentally, our sexuality has not been given to us simply for our own use and pleasure. We are not self-referential. As eikons made in the image of God, all of our humanity—not least our sexuality—exists as a means of representing the One in whose image we have been made. Premarital sexual activity therefore, must be assessed in light of this fundamental context of meaning. Given the theological and typological import of sexual relations, it is difficult (if not impossible) to justify any amount of sexual activity outside the context of the marriage relationship, even if that sexual activity stops short of intercourse. The man who uses his sexuality in a premarital relationship fails to use his sexuality in a way consistent with the ordained intent of sex. God calls us to reserve our sexuality for the marriage relationship, because it is only in the marriage relationship that the image of Christ’s relationship to the church can be lived out.

[2] In the ancient world—far more than today—sex was viewed as the means by which a marriage was constituted. However, even in the ancient world there was more to marriage than sex (e.g., see John 4:18 and the woman at the well). Marriage in the ancient world began at betrothal—generally a formal agree­ment between the families of the bride and groom. For more on marriage in the ancient world, see Ken M. Campbell, ed., Marriage and Family in the Biblical World (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2003).

[3] I am indebted to John Paul II’s work on marital love as the gift of self for this way of framing sexual relations. See his Man and Woman.

[4] This typological reading of sex can be found throughout the church’s history. Among the Fathers, Origen is noteworthy; see his Commentary and Homilies on the Song of Songs. Medieval exegetes likewise read spousal love in this way. See especially St John of the Cross’, Spiritual Canticle, and Bernard of Clairvaux’s Sermons on the Song of Songs. For recent interpretations, see John Paul II’s, Man and Woman, especially pp. 500-03, and Peter Leithart, “The Poetry of Sex,” published online at http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/01/the-poetry-of-sex, accessed Jan 17, 2012.

[5] In brief, homosexuality fails to denote the union of the masculine and the feminine (i.e., the strong and the vulnerable); prostitution, divorce and adultery fail to denote Christ’s single-minded fidelity to his bride; incest fails to portray the union of dissimilar natures (i.e., the divine and human). See Gerald Hiestand, Raising Purity, Helping Parents Understand the Bible’s Perspective on Sex, Dating and Relationship, Third Edition (Rolling Meadows, Ill.: Iustificare Press, 2010), 156.

Somehow I always had in the back of my mind–vague, to be sure–that Joseph’s righteousness was evident in his unwillingness to marry an adulterous woman. But the point of this verse, when read more carefully, is that Joseph’s righteousness was evident in his not wanting to expose Mary to public shame.

Which is to say, mercy is as a native part of righteousness.

“You may want me to tell you, in much more detail, exactly what’s right for you when it comes to secular boundaries [in dating relationships]. But in the end, you have to stand before God. That’s why you must set your own boundaries according to His direction for your life. . . . I want you to build your own list of sexual standards” ( Clark, I Gave Dating a Chance, 108-09).

But do we really mean to say that Christian singles should “build their own list of sexual standards?” Certainly this can’t be right. Is oral sex permissible? Fondling? Mutual masturbation? Passionate kissing? No one seems to really know. Certainly Christian singles don’t know. And the confusion here is no small matter. There is every reason to suspect that our lack of clear direction regarding premarital boundaries is putting singles in a precarious position. The September/October 2011 edition of Relevant Magazine includes a remarkable update regarding evangelical sexual ethics. In the article, “(Almost) Everyone’s Doing It” author Tyler Charles, drawing upon data gathered by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unwanted Pregnancy, informs us that forty-two percent of evangelicals between the ages of eighteen and twenty-nine are currently in a sexual relationship, twenty-two percent have had sex in the past year, and an additional ten percent have had sex at least once. Assuming the accuracy of Charles’ data, this means only twenty-percent of young evangelicals have remained abstinent.

Even if the survey’s data were wrong by half (see DeYoung’s comments), the numbers would still be concerning. And as a pastor, I am indeed concerned. In my own experience, I see a significant amount of confusion and compromise among Christian teens and singles, particularly as it relates to premarital sexual ethics. Sometimes Christians flounder because the Church fails to address crucial issues; sometimes they flounder because the leaders of the church address crucial issues wrongly. Both the former and the latter, I believe, are at work here. On the one hand, evangelical scholars and theologians have devoted a paucity of attention (if any) to the issue of premarital sexual ethics; we’ve left it to popular-level books to plumb the Scriptures teaching on this matter. And when pastors do speak explicitly to this issue, we send a confusing and mixed message. We’ve told Christian singles that it’s fine (or at least might be fine, or at least we can’t say it’s not fine) to prepare the meal, set the table, put the food in their mouth, and chew—just as long as they don’t swallow. We’ve left the door open to sexual foreplay, while insisting that singles refrain from consummating that foreplay. In essence, we’re telling Christians singles that it is (or might be) permissible to start having sex, just as long as they don’t finish. It is little wonder then, that many Christian singles—while largely agreeing that intercourse should be reserved for marriage —find themselves unable to live out their own ideal.

Does the Bible really have nothing definitive to say about premarital sexual ethics, beyond a narrow prohibition against sexual intercourse? Can we construct a theology of sexual relations that informs the question of premarital sexual boundaries?  What implications would a more objective view of premarital sexual ethics have for contemporary dating relationships?

Answering the above questions is the aim of my new book, written along with my friend Jay Thomas, Sex, Dating, and Relationships: A Fresh Approach (Crossway, 2012). The book comes out at the end of February and is written at a popular level, targeting Christian singles between the ages of 18-35. (I thought about doing a provocative book trailer, but decided against it. I can see it now… Did Ghandi believe in dating? Really?). Anyway, while the book won’t be as controversial as Bell’s book on Hell, it will, I’m certain, generate some discussion among those who read it. Jay and I worked hard to offer a biblical, objective premarital sexual ethic that is consistent with a larger theological understanding of sexuality. The conclusion we reach is pretty counter-cultural even within our evangelical sub-culture. By way of teaser, let me give the punchline: making out between unmarried men and women is a sin, and represents the first stages of sexual immorality.

I’ll be using the next few posts to lay out the basic argument of the book, in anticipation of the book’s release. Stay tuned.

The matter is quite simple. The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand, we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. My God, you will say, if I do that my whole life will be ruined. How would I ever get on in the world? Herein lies the real place of Christian scholarship. Christian scholarship is the Church’s prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close. Oh, priceless scholarship, what would we do without you? Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of the living God. Yes, it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament. (Søren Kierkegaard, Provocations)

In John 13:26-28, Judas fails a food test and satan enters him. Then, in John 18, in the person of Judas, satan enters a garden again, this time with an army.  Jesus steps forward and identifies himself, commanding the soldiers to let his disciples go. The new Adam protects the bride in the garden, and so goes to his death.

The Giant picked up the trembling Sophie with one hand and carried her across the cave and put her on the table.

Now he really is going to eat me, Sophie thought.

The Giant sat down and stared hard at Sophie. He had truly enormous ears. Each one was as big as the wheel of a truck and he seemed to be able to move them inwards and outwards from his head as he wished.

“I is hungry!” the Giant boomed. He grinned, showing massive square teeth. The teeth were very white and very square and they sat in his mouth like huge slices of white bread.

“P…please don’t eat me,” Sophie stammered.

The Giant let out a bellow of laughter. “Just because I is a giant, you think I is a man-gobbling cannybull!” he shouted. “You is about right! Giants is all cannybully and murderful! And they does gobble up human beans! We is in Giant Country now! Giants is everywhere around! Out there us has the famous Bonecrunching Giant! Bonecrunching Giant crunches up two wopsey whiffling human beans for supper every night! Noise is earbursting! Noise of crunching bones goes crackety-crack for miles around!”

“Owch!” Sophie said.

“Bonecrunching Giant only gobbles human beans from Turkey,” the Giant said. “Every night Bonecruncher is galloping off to Turkey to gobble Turks.”

Sophie’s sense of patriotism was suddenly so bruised by this remark that she became quite angry. “Why Turks?” she blurted out. “What’s wrong with the English?”

“Bonecrunching Giant says Turks is tasting oh ever so much juicier and more scrumdiddlyumptious! Boncruncher says Turkish human beans has a glamourly flavour. He says Turks from Turkey is tasting of turkey.”

“I suppose they would,” Sophie said.

“Of course they would!” the Giant shouted. “Every human bean is diddly and different. Some is scrumdiddlyumptious and some is uckyslush. Greeks is all full of uckyslush. No giant is eating Greeks, ever.”

“Why not?” Sophie asked.

“Greeks from Greece is all tasting greasy,” the Giant said.

“I imagine that’s possible too,” Sophie said. She was wondering with a bit of a tremble what all this talking about eating people was leading up to. Whatever happened, she simply must play along with this peculiar giant and smile at his jokes.

But were they jokes? Perhaps the great brute was just working up an appetite by talking about food.

“As I am saying,” the Giant went on, “all human beans is having different flavours. Human beans from Panama is tasting very strong of hats.”

“Why hats?” Sophie said.

“You is not very clever,” the Giant said, moving his great ears in and out. “I thought all human beans is full of brains, but your head is emptier than a bundongle.”

“Do you like vegetables?” Sophie asked, hoping to steer the conversation towards a slightly less dangerous kind of food.

“You is trying to change the subject,” the Giant said sternly. “We is having an interesting babblement about the taste of the human bean. The human bean is not a vegetable.”

“Oh, but the bean is a vegetable,” Sophie said.

“Not the human bean,” the Giant said. “The human bean has two legs and a vegetable has no legs at all.”

Sophie didn’t argue any more. The last thing she wanted to do was to make the Giant cross.

“The human bean,” the Giant went on, “is coming in dillions of different flavours. For instance, human beans from Wales is tasting very whooshey of fish. There is something very fishy about Wales.”

“You means whales,” Sophie said. “Wales is something quite different.”

“Wales is whales,” the Giant said. “Don’t gobblefunk around with words. I will now give you another example. Human beans from Jersey has a most disgustable woolly tickle on the tongue,” the Giant said. “Human beans from Jersey is tasting of cardigans.”

“You mean jerseys,” Sophie said.

“You are once again gobblefunking!” the Giant shouted. “Don’t do it! This is a serious and snitching subject. May I continue?”

“Please do,” Sophie said.

“Danes from Denmark is tasting ever so much of dogs,” the Giant went on.

“Of course, “Sophie said. “They tast of great danes.”

“Wrong!” cried the Giant, slapping his thigh. “Danes from Denmark is tasting doggy because they is tasting of labradors!”

“Then what do the people of Labrador taste of?” Sophie asked.

“Danes,” the Giant cried, triumphantly. “Great danes!”

“Aren’t you getting a bit mixed up?” Sophie said.

“I is a very mixed up Giant,” the Giant said. “But I does do my best. And I is not nearly as mixed up as the other giants. I know one who gallops all the way to Wellington for his supper.”

“Wellington?” Sophie said. “Where is Wellington?”

“You head is full of squashed flies,” the Giant said, “Wellington is in New Zealand. The human beans in Wellington has an especially scrumdiddlyumptious taste, so says the Welly-eating Giant.”

“What do the people of Wellington taste of? Sophie asked.

“Boots,” said the Giant.

“Of course,” Sophie said. “I should have known.

Sophie decided that this conversation had now gone on long enough. If she was going to be eaten, she’d rather get it over and done with right away than be kept hanging around any more. “What sort of human beings to you eat?” she asked, trembling.

“Me!” shouted the Giant, his mighty voice making the glass jars rattle on the shelves. “Me gobbling up human beans! This I never! The others, yes! All the others is gobbling them up every night, but not me! I is a freaky Giant! I is a nice and jumbly Giant! I is the only nice and jumbly Giant in Giant Country! I is THE BIG FRIENDLY GIANT! I is the BFG. What is your name.”

“My name is Sophie,” Sophie said, hardly daring to believe the good news she had just heard.

(From The BFG by Roald Dahl.)