Alan Marshall - September 1992

Before you baulk at this suggestion, let me state that I am not considering all cases of premarital sex, nor do I wish to raise questions from the past for people who are already married. What I am considering is the situation where a couple who were virgins at the time they slept together, are still unmarried and in contact with one another, and are christians will accept God's will.

Common wisdom is that they do not need to marry unless they want to. If they choose not to, all they need to do is seek God's forgiveness (for having slept together). I am not casting doubt on God's ability to forgive them, but I question whether having received God's forgiveness, there still may be temporal consequences to their actions. For example, if pregnancy results, the child must be born. Abortion is not an option (Exodus 21:22-24). Similarly, a marriage may be unhappy, but exept for one or perhaps two circumstances, divorce and remarriage are not permitted. Does, then, the situation I first described carry a temporal consequence, namely the obligation to marry? The Mosaic Law suggests that it does:

Exodus 22:16-17 (NIV) 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. {17} If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.

Are we not released from the Mosaic Law, I hear you ask? The position of the church throughout the ages has been that we are released from the outward, ceremonial aspects of the law, for these relate to the sacrificial system, which was fulfilled and replaced by Christ's sacrifice. Neither are we saved by carefully following the moral aspects of the law. Nevertheless the moral aspects are still our guide to holy living (2 Timothy 3:16).

As far as Exodus 22:16-17 is concerned, the bride-price is a matter of custom, but the obligation to marry seems to be a moral precept. This section of Exodus (21:1 to 23:19) is called the "Book of the Covenant" (Exodus 24:7), and together with the Ten Commandments, was given to Moses by God on Mount Sinai. It is basically an elaboration on the Ten Commandments, possibly based around actual cases that Moses had to deal with or which he hypothesised about. (There is a similar, though less just law to 22:16-17 in the Assyrian law.) I have gone through this section and found material relating to all the Ten Commandments except the tenth. Does Exodus 22:16-17 fall within the domain of the sixth commandment? The Mosaic Law contains long passages on sexual morality in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. The principles, though not the punishments, seem to still apply. They define our positions on adultery, incest and homosexuality. Can we then contend that the law concerning sexual relations between virgins does not apply?

The passage in Deuteronomy also includes a law similar to Exodus 22:16-17:

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (NIV) If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, {29} he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

The obligation here is on the rapist, not the girl. The Talmud allows the father's right to refuse to give her to him as in Exodus 22:17.

What explanation can we give that justifies these laws? If the reason was, as some suggest, that the moral obligation flowed from the woman's greatly reduced marriage prospects, then that is a reason which would not carry much weight in today's culture. Deut. 22:29 includes a reason, "for he has violated her", but this is not very iluminating. Could it be that sex is so linked to marriage, so sacred to it, that if a couple sleep together they are actually engaged in part of the marriage process, and so have an obligation, for the sake of the institution, to complete the process by formal commitment?

There are a couple of verses in the new testament, quoting Genesis, which are relevant to this:

1 Corinthians 6:16 (NIV) Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."

Matthew 19:5-6 (NIV) and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ? {6} So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

Note that Paul uses the same two phrases to describe a sexual relationship, namely "unites" and "become one flesh", that Genesis uses to describe marriage! Now I am not saying that a prostitute is married to her clients (most of whom are adulterers), but perhaps she is profaning that which should be part of the marriage process.

The tradition of the church is silent on this issue (*1 see note below). It's view of the nature of marriage was defined in the twelth century, when commitment was seen to be the primary element, and consumation the secondary element, though the validity of a marriage could be questioned if consumation had not taken place.

I find that the view people take on Exodus 22:16 depends on their view on what constitutes marriage. Those who think of marriage as commitment alone, do not think the verse still applies. Some of those who see consumation as a very important element in marriage, thinks the verse still applies. What do you think?

Notes:

*1: So I thought at the time. In fact, Athenagoras, Clement, Tertullian, Augustine and Luther lend some support to this thesis. Tertullian, in particular, endorses the continued application of Exodus 22:16 / Deuteronomy 22:29. It is a side reference (his subject is divorce), but his principles for applying Old Testament law are the same as those I have proposed above.

Feedback: