The Society for the Advancement of Ecclesiological Theology

February 2, 2012 by Gerald Hiestand

Sex, Dating, and Relationships, Part 3: Thou Shall Not Make Out?

Given the cultural dynamics of the ancient world, New Testament proof texts on premarital sexual ethics are in short supply. In a culture that prized female virginity, utilized arranged marriages, and often practiced cloistering, the authors of the New Testament had no need to be overly specific regarding chastity rules for premarital relationships. Simply put, the reigning ethic—even in the pagan culture—was, “keep your hands off my daughter.” Thus we cannot expect the Bible to offer us a detailed list about which activities (e.g., fondling, kissing, oral sex, etc.) are permissible in premarital relationships.

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.

Categories: General | Gerald Hiestand | SAET Fellow Publications | sexuality