How should we interpret Paul’s sexual ethics in
today’s context?
Discuss in relation to premarital sex.
By Andreana Reale
Many Christian
leaders and Biblical commentators declare that the Bible provides a
straightforward answer to the question of premarital sex, with the letters of
Paul cited most frequently. Paul, it is often asserted, has a healthy, robust
view of human sexuality, as long as it is kept within the confines of the
marriage bed. In this essay I challenge the assumption that this is a Pauline
view. Paul is, indeed, concerned with preserving the marital bond, but is an
even greater advocate for celibacy. Sex, passion and desire are in no way
framed positively – and in some places, I argue, they are seen as something for
the Christian to avoid. The most pervasive aspect of the Pauline sexual ethic
is the concept of porneia, or sexual
immorality, which in 1 Corinthians pertains less to individual sexuality than
to the integrity of the communal body of Christ. Porneia is the threat, and marriage is a mechanism that helps to
guard against it.
Applying such an
ethic to a modern context in which sex between unmarried persons is the norm is
no easy task. Inhabitants of modern Western societies hold radically different
assumptions about human sexuality as did Paul – even the Christians. Paul,
moreover, never addressed a context in which dating was usual behaviour amongst
unmarried people. In fact, the most comprehensive teaching on sex that we have
of Paul’s, in 1 Corinthians 6.12 – 7.40, is far from a theological treatise,
speaking only into the specific dynamics of a particular Christian community in
Corinth in the first century.[1]
Despite the difficulties, this essay guesses what Paul might say if he were to
address the sexual practice of 21st century moderns. I then (dare
to) ask the question of whether we should take Paul’s suggestions on board.
Key tenets of
the Pauline sexual ethic
(1) The threat of porneia to the community body
We are accustomed
to thinking of sexual ethics in individual terms, probably because the
normative framework for sexuality in the 21st century Western world
places the happiness and wellbeing of the individual at its centre. The
individual is at the core of ‘relationships’ – ‘relationships’, assessed by the
strength of an emotional and sexual bond, having relatively recently replaced
‘marriage’ and ‘family’.[2]
The individualisation of sexuality – and individualism generally – has been so
pervasive that it frames the way that Christians read Paul’s writings on ‘sex’.[3]
Yet Paul is less
concerned with an individual sexual ethic and its effect on individual bodies, than sexual behaviour
that threatens the unity of the communal
body. 1 Corinthians 6.12 – 7.40 covers sexual immorality, marriage, sexual
relations in marriage, and celibacy. However it should not be read as discrete
laws for discrete situations, but as part of a wider letter whose main thesis
is unity within a Christian community:
I encourage you, brothers,
by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that you allow no
schisms to exist among yourselves, but that you be mended together in the same
mind and the same opinion. (1 Cor 1.10 –
translation from Martin, The Corinthian
body, p. 39).
The purpose of the
first letter to the Corinthians is to encourage unity where there are
divisions. Margaret M Mitchell demonstrates that the letter is in the style and
follows the form of a harmonoia
speech – common in the Greco-Roman world – which encourages unity or ‘concord’
for the body politic.[4] It utilises
the metaphor of the body – embellished most fully in 12.12-31 – which also has
a long rhetorical tradition. Within Greco-Roman rhetoric, the polis or
city-state is often portrayed as a body, and strife, discord and civil
disobedience are diseases that must be eradicated.[5]
When Paul
reprimands men in the Corinthian community for visiting ‘prostitutes’[6],
he utilises the metaphor of the body:
Do you not know that your
bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ
and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 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.” But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him
in spirit. (1 Cor 6.15-17, NIV)
For Paul, the
sexual transgressions are less of a concern for the individual involved than
for the communal body of Christ. In fact, the bodies of the individual men have
“no independent ontological status”, but are defined in terms of their
participation as “members of Christ”.[7]
It is their (plural) body (singular) that is the temple of the holy spirit
(3.16) – in other words, the holy spirit dwells in the communal body. The
categories of individual and communal are blurred.[8]
“You are not your own; you were bought at a price,” says Paul at 6.19b-20,
invoking in the first-century Mediterranean mind an image of Christ as a slave-dealer,
buying individual people – an image explored more fully at 7.21-23. Slaves do
not own themselves, and have no independent status on their own. They are owned
by their master – in this case, Christ.[9]
A Christian’s
copulation with a prostitute thus constitutes Christ’s copulation with the
prostitute – which as a boundary-transgressing activity threatens the unity of
the group.[10]
“He who commits porneia (sexual
immorality) sins into his own body”, contends Paul at 6.18, although
most translations translate into as against. In fact the Greek word
encompasses dimensions of both: another context could be, “The soldiers came
against/into the city”. Thus there are connotations of invasion or penetration
– porneia effectively infiltrates the
body.[11]
In a similar way, Paul is not concerned about the fate of the man who slept
with his stepmother – the community is told to “hand this man over to Satan”
(5.5). The concern is for the community at large, which is likened to a lump of
dough, and the offender’s body as polluting leaven (5.6b-9).[12]
Porneia has invaded the body, and must to eradicated.
Porneia is
critical because it concerns the body, and the body’s significance – implied in
6.14 – is the fact that it will be resurrected.[13]
The same does not seem to apply to food: “‘Food for the stomach and the stomach
for food’ – but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for porneia, but for the Lord, and the Lord
for the body,” says Paul at 6.13. Rejecting porneia
seems to be a strong boundary-setter for Paul and the Christian body, as it was
in Jewish circles by designating porneia as
something ‘they’ (i.e. Gentiles) engaged in.[14]
For Paul, food did not have that same boundary-setting force, probably because
it had a great capacity to divide
communities that were diverse in terms of dietary practices (e.g. 1 Cor 8 and
Rom 14.14-23). On the other hand porneia went
to the root of a believer’s status as a member of Christ’s body.[15]
Intercourse with a prostitute (1 Cor 6.15-16) entailed a competing union – becoming
part of another, competing body (“The two will become one flesh”).[16]
In summary, unity
of the communal body of Christ is of upmost importance for Paul. Christians in
Corinth are warned against porneia because
of its threat to this body, with its capacity to infiltrate, pollute and
jeopardize the group boundaries.
(2) Celibacy as the ideal
Paul reiterates
throughout chapter 7 that while it is not a sin to marry, celibacy has better
value than marriage – see 7.8-9; 7.25-26; 7.28; 7.32-35; 7.38 and 7.39-40.
Many scholars have
attributed this preference to a philosophy of sexual asceticism.[17]
Will Deming argues convincing against this connection, given that sexual asceticism
was hardly mentioned in either the Greco-Roman or Jewish sources before the second
century CE.[18]
It was later Christian ascetics that imbued Paul’s words with their theology.
Instead, the preference for singleness seems predicated on a positive
evaluation of celibacy rather than a negative view of sex.[19]
Deming suggests that Paul takes a position similar to a ‘hybrid Stoic’. That
is, that under normal circumstances it is one’s moral obligation to marry, but
special circumstances (such as war or poverty, or for the Christian the imminent
return of Christ) could force a person to forego marriage in order to pursue
philosophy and achieve virtue and wellbeing – or in the case of Christians,
serve the Lord.[20] Indeed, the
explanation for Paul’s preference for singleness in 1 Cor 7.32-35 does not
relate to the evilness of sexual relations, but to the benefits of celibacy in
terms of one’s ability to please God.
(3) Preservation of the marital bond
Another factor
shaping Paul’s sexual ethic is his commitment to preserve the marital bond.
Despite his preference for celibacy he contends that people should “remain as
they are” (7.27), and explicitly cautions people against divorce (7.10-13, 27).
Importantly, Paul even commands that believers must not divorce their
unbelieving spouses (7.12-13) – despite the fact that sex with outsiders constitutes
a union that competes with the body of Christ (as in 6.15-17).[21]
Paul clearly holds marriage in high regard, so that its presumptive value
trumps even the threat to group boundaries. Sex with an unbelieving wife, it
seems, does not constitute porneia.
The primary
purpose of marriage is not, as some might suggest, for companionship,
procreation or even sexual release (despite 7.9 – see below). In chapter 7,
“one looks in vain for a positive appreciation of love between the sexes or of
the richness of human experience in marriage and family”.[22]
Marriage, as Martin argues, is the appropriate mechanism for protecting the
boundaries of the Christian body from porneia.[23]
“Since there is so much immorality,”
concedes Paul, “each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own
husband” (7.2). Marriage, it seems, inoculates against porneia.
(4) Negative view of desire
Martin also
contends that Paul has a negative view of desire. The evidence is compelling.
Take 1 Cor 7.8:
Now to the unmarried and
the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they
cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to
burn with passion.
Phipps remarks, referring
to this verse: “Paul explicitly states that he does not regard it morally bad
for a boy and girl to marry if they are ‘aflame with passion’.”[24]
On the contrary, Martin argues that Paul is suggesting people marry in order to
avoid passion, not because of passion.[25]
It was part of the common sense of Greco-Roman culture that desire constituted
internal burning, and that burning was a bad thing.[26]
Martin suggests that modern people, who believe that sex without desire is
bizarre and certainly not preferable, read 7.9 as condemning uncontrolled or
illicit desire, rather than desire per se. This reading is based, says Martin,
on the mistaken notion that Paul must have had in mind different kinds of desire: licit and illicit.[27]
Paul, however, does not differentiate – in fact, he never refers to sexual
desire in anything but negative terms.[28]
In 1 Thes 4.3 Paul writes:
For this is the will of
God, your holiness, that you abstain from porneia, that each of you know how to possess his
own vessel, in holiness and honor, not in the passion of desire as do the
Gentiles who do not know God.
For Paul, says
Martin, “Desire and passion are the characteristic sins of the Gentile world
‘out there’ and are linked to porneia and idolatry. Christians are to avoid
desire completely, and to do so by marrying if necessary”.[29]
Key tenets of
the modern Western sexual ethic
In order to
determine how Paul’s sexual ethic might speak into the premarital sex of today,
it is helpful to touch briefly on tenets of our own dominant sexual ethic:
(1)
Sex freed from family and procreation
There has always
been extramarital sex, but now its place outside of marriage and family is
normative. Sex is no longer grounded in the objective framework of ‘marriage’;
its appropriate place is now a ‘relationship’ whose value is determined by the
couple involved.[30] The advent
of modern, reliable contraception has all but eliminated children and
childbearing from adult sexual relations.[31]
(2)
Individual is the centre
Late twentieth
century capitalism – which replaced the nuclear family with the individual person[32]
– has collided with modern contraception to place the individual at the centre
of these relationships. The relationship is assessed in terms of the pleasure
it affords the individuals who participate.[33]
(3)
Sexuality as an identity
Sexuality is now something
each of us ‘has’, or cultivates; it “functions as a malleable feature of self”.[34]
Sex is no longer just something one does, but is “one of the major fulfillments
of human life”.[35] Sexuality
is an integral part of our self-identity, going to the core of who we are.
(4)
Sex as a product
Sex is a
pleasure-giving product, transacted between free individuals in the “sexual
market”.[36]
We judge a relationship based on its ability to deliver this product – if it
fails, “its raison d’etre is thought
to be over.”[37]
(5)
Sex as intrinsically natural and good
The modern
discourse of ‘sex’ proclaims itself to be natural and good, and to be enjoyed
without shame.[38] We should
be at home with our bodies, for “to be embodied is to be innocent not guilty”.[39]
As Watson contends, the word ‘sex’ itself only came into existence in the
English language in the last 50 to 60 years – asserting its right to have its
own proper name, announced “in all its nakedness”, shameless and with at least
the guise of neutrality.[40]
So how would
Paul view premarital sex?
It should be
stated from the outset that Paul does not address the question of premarital
sex. This may come as a surprise to many, who read ‘premarital sex’ into the
word porneia, which Paul warns
against on a number of occasions in his epistles.[41]
This was surely not helped by the translation of porneia as ‘fornication’ in many English versions of the Bible.
However, as we have seen from the above discussion, porneia often refers to sexual intercourse with a commercial or
cultic prostitute, and in first-century Christian literature was also used to
refer to the unlawful sexual conduct in Lev 18.6-23, including incest (seen
also in 1 Cor 5), sexual relations with a menstruating woman, sacrifice to Molech,
men having sex with men and bestiality.[42]
Porneia may also have referred to the
sexual idolatry that permeated the Greco-Roman world, “which becomes manifest
in abusive, promiscuous, exploitative and obsessive sexual behaviour,”
involving “the exploitation of dancing girls, boys and animals” at the “orgies
and dinner parties amongst the rich and famous”.[43]
While a high
premium was placed on virginity in the Hebrew Bible (see e.g. Deut 22.13-21),[44]
there is no evidence that this is a part of a Pauline sexual ethic: rather it
is part of the property ethic inherent in family structures in the ancient Near
Eastern world.[45] Although
similar family structures were the norm in the first century Greco-Roman
empire, Paul is not concerned with recreating or maintaining these structures
within the Christian community.
Paul simply never
addressed a context in which people ‘dated’ each other prior to engagement and
marriage. To suggest that sex between dating couples is inherent in the word porneia – as the translation ‘fornication’
suggests – is to overlay a much later Christian reading, which disapproves of
sex between dating couples, onto the text. The ‘dating scene’ – where people,
particularly young people, orientate their social lives around romantic,
semi-permanent relationships – arose only relatively recently. It is the norm
for couples to spend time away from other groupings, like family or peers,
which fosters sexual exploration.[46]
This context did not exist in Paul’s time; thus he never addressed sexual
interaction between dating couples.
If Paul were to address randy teenage (or older)
couples, however, he would be unlikely to approve of their sex lives. The
reason is because there is a disjuncture between Paul’s negative view of
desire, steeped in first century Greco-Roman culture – and the modern discourse
of ‘sex’ as healthy, natural and good that underpins modern sexual
relationships. If Paul disapproves of passion within marriage, he is not going to approve of passion outside of marriage! The ‘sexual
liberation’ inherent in ‘dating’ relationships, with its promise of “a
restored, natural, prelapsarian sexuality” is something Paul would be deeply
suspicious of.[47] Desire, for
Paul, is not good and natural, and he might critique the modern ‘sex’ discourse
on this basis.
Paul would bring
up the issue of porneia, and while he
may not consider premarital sex to fit under the porneia umbrella, he would stress the importance of marriage to
guard against it. For this reason he might suggest our unwed couples get
married. However, he would be unlikely to make this recommendation to people
outside of the Christian community, since the threat of porneia is to body of Christ.
Paul would also be
likely to stress the value of celibacy, although he may be less committed to
the idea given it has been two thousand years and Christ has not yet returned–
i.e. the time is not as “short” (1 Cor 7.29) as he once thought.
Should we take
on Paul’s sexual ethic?
If we are
committed to the modern notion of possessing a healthy sexuality, we should be
aware that we are departing from Paul. If I am correct in my guess that Paul
would disapprove of premarital sex because he disapproves of desire generally,
then if we are to ‘follow Paul’ in also disapproving of premarital sex, we must
also take on his first century Greco-Roman worldview on desire.
Yet this is only
partially true, since Paul also recommends that Christians get married because
of the threat of porneia to the body
of Christ. I would argue that porneia
continues to be a threat to the Christian community. If porneia does involve “abusive, promiscuous, exploitative and
obsessive sexual behaviour,”[48]
then I make the bold claim that this is something the modern Western sexual
ethic fosters. In the belief that all fun sex is good sex[49]
and that not engaging in it leaves one unfulfilled, people can end up feeling
hurt and robbed when they make themselves sexually vulnerable in a relationship
that lacks respect and trust. When sex is seen primarily as a pleasure-inducing
product, transacted between individuals who see their own happiness and
wellbeing as the primary value, it leaves people entirely open to abuse and
exploitation. Sex should not be combined with rampant individualism. The modern
Western sexual ethic, when left un-buffered, can lead to adultery, rape and
incest.[50]
This is porneia, and it cuts at the
fabric of the Christian community.
Like Paul
suggests, marriage[51] may help
guard against this, but unlike Paul, not by providing an antidote for desire (I
depart from Paul by adhering to a modern notion that values healthy sexuality).
Marriage has the effect of giving sex a place that is wider and deeper than the
individual. Sex is part of marriage, and it is marriage that holds the primary
value, not sex. This leaves us outwardly focused: looking face to face with our
spouse, not down at our own genitals. Surely this is a better place to start
from, as we look to build and cement the body of Christ. Marriage may not be
the only way to guard against porneia,
and it will not always be effective, but it may be our best bet.
Conclusion
Paul does not
provide any clear answers on the question of premarital sex. However he does
make a firm case on the threat of porneia
to the body of Christ, and suggests marriage is the antidote. I argue that porneia, in the form of sexual
exploitation and abuse, is also a
threat to the modern Christian community, and marriage may help to reduce this
threat by changing we way we value sex. It would be wrong to suggest, however,
that marriage is the only way to
address porneia – a topic that
exceeds the sexual ethic of Paul, but is worthy of further exploration.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bornkamm, Gunther. Paul. New York; Evanston, Ill: Harper
and Row, 1971.
Countryman, L William. Dirt, greed, & sex: Sexual ethics in the New Testament and their
implications for today. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007.
Davies, Jon. 'Sex these days, sex those days: Will it
ever end?' In Sex these days: Essays on
theology, sexuality and society, ed. J. Davies and G. Loughlin. Sheffield,
UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. 18-34.
Deming, Will. Paul
on marriage & celibacy: The Hellenistic background of 1 Corinthians 7.
Michigan; Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004.
Dyer, Keith. 'A consistent biblical approach to
'(homo)sexuality''. Interface: A forum
for theology in the world 9.1 and 2 (2006).
Giddens, Anthony. The
transformation of intimacy: Sexuality, love & eroticism in modern
societies. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1992.
Grenz, Stanley. Sexual
ethics: A biblical perspective. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press,
1990.
Horrell, David. Solidarity
and difference: a contemporary reading of Paul's ethics. London: T & T
Clark International, 2005.
Jensen, Joseph. 'Does porneia mean fornication? A
critique of Bruce Malina'. Novum
Testamentum 20.Fasc. 3 (1978): 161-184.
Malina, Bruce. 'Does porneia mean fornication?'. Novum Testamentum 14.Fasc. 1 (1972):
10-17.
Martin, Dale. The
Corinthian body. New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1995.
Mitchell, Margaret M. Paul and the rhetoric of reconciliation: An exegetical investigation of
the language and composition of 1 Corinthians. Louisville, Ky: Westminster;
John Knox Press, 1993.
Phipps, William. 'Is Paul's attitude toward sexual
relations contained in 1 Cor. 7.1?'. New
Testament Studies 28.125-131 (1982).
Treggiari, Susan. 'Marriage and family in Roman
society.' In Marriage and family in the
biblical world, ed. K. M. Campbell. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity
Press, 2003. 132-182.
Watson, Francis. Agape,
eros, gender: Towards a Pauline sexual ethic. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2000.
Woodhead, Linda. 'Sex in a wider context.' In Sex these days: Essays on theology,
sexuality and society, ed. J. Davies and G. Loughlin. Sheffield, UK:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.
[1] Will Deming, Paul on marriage &
celibacy: The Hellenistic background of 1 Corinthians 7 (Michigan;
Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004), p. xx.
[2] Jon Davies, 'Sex these days, sex those days: Will it ever end?', in Sex these days: Essays on theology,
sexuality and society, ed. Davies and Loughlin (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1997), p. 18.
[3] I place ‘sex’ in
inverted comers because the discourse on ‘sex’ is relatively a new arrival. The
category of ‘sexuality’ “is a modern one, heavily indebted to psychology,
psychotherapy, and the medicalization of the self so important to modern
culture” – but foreign to Paul. Dale Martin, The Corinthian body (New
Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1995), p. 211.
[4] Margaret M Mitchell, Paul and the
rhetoric of reconciliation: An exegetical investigation of the language and
composition of 1 Corinthians (Louisville, Ky: Westminster; John Knox Press,
1993).
[6] The Greek word
is ‘porne’, meaning ‘woman who engages in improper sexual relations’ - David Horrell, Solidarity and
difference: a contemporary reading of Paul's ethics (London: T & T Clark
International, 2005), p. 145; could be referring to cultic or commercial
prostitution.
[8] David Horrell, Solidarity and
difference: a contemporary reading of Paul's ethics (London: T & T
Clark International, 2005), p. 145-146.
[13] David Horrell, Solidarity and
difference: a contemporary reading of Paul's ethics (London: T & T
Clark International, 2005), p. 151.
[15] David Horrell, Solidarity and
difference: a contemporary reading of Paul's ethics (London: T & T
Clark International, 2005), p. 151.
[17] Will Deming, Paul on marriage &
celibacy: The Hellenistic background of 1 Corinthians 7 (Michigan;
Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004), p. 43.
[21] David Horrell, Solidarity and
difference: a contemporary reading of Paul's ethics (London: T & T
Clark International, 2005), p. 149.
[22] Gunther Bornkamm, Paul (New York;
Evanston, Ill: Harper and Row, 1971), p. 208. Cf. Ephesians
5.25-28, where husbands are admonished to love their wives.
[24] William Phipps, 'Is Paul's attitude toward sexual relations contained in 1
Cor. 7.1?', New Testament Studies
28.125-131 (1982)., p. 129.
[30] Jon Davies, 'Sex these days, sex those days: Will it ever end?', in Sex these days: Essays on theology,
sexuality and society, ed. Davies and Loughlin (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1997), p. 18.
[31] Ibid., p. 26.
[32] Ibid.
[33] Linda Woodhead, 'Sex in a wider context', in Ibid., p.
100.
[34] Anthony Giddens, The transformation
of intimacy: Sexuality, love & eroticism in modern societies (Stanford,
California: Stanford University Press, 1992), p. 15.
[35] Linda Woodhead, 'Sex in a wider context', in Sex these days: Essays on theology, sexuality and society, ed.
Davies and Loughlin (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), p. 99.
[36] Jon Davies, 'Sex these days, sex those days: Will it
ever end?', in Ibid., p. 18.
[37] Linda Woodhead, 'Sex in a wider context', in Ibid., p.
100.
[38] Francis Watson, Agape, eros, gender:
Towards a Pauline sexual ethic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2000), p. 93.
[41] e.g. Galatians
5.19, 1 Thessalonians 4.3, Ephesians 5.3, Colossians 3.5.
[42] Bruce Malina, 'Does porneia mean fornication?', Novum Testamentum 14.Fasc. 1 (1972): 10-17. Cf. Joseph Jensen, 'Does porneia mean fornication? A critique of Bruce
Malina', Novum Testamentum 20.Fasc. 3
(1978): 161-184.
[43] Keith Dyer, 'A consistent biblical approach to '(homo)sexuality'', Interface: A forum for theology in the world
9.1 and 2 (2006)., p. 13.
[44] Joseph Jensen, 'Does porneia mean fornication? A critique of Bruce
Malina', Novum Testamentum 20.Fasc. 3
(1978): 161-184.
[45] L William Countryman, Dirt, greed,
& sex: Sexual ethics in the New Testament and their implications for today (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 2007), p. 154.
[46] Stanley Grenz, Sexual ethics: A
biblical perspective (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1990), pp. 202-3.
[47] Francis Watson, Agape, eros, gender:
Towards a Pauline sexual ethic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2000), p. 119. Watson
cites Romans 7.7-25 to show Paul’s anxieties around sexuality. Freud, a
‘reader’ of Paul, may (on one reading) also regard such a promise with
scepticism.
[48] Keith Dyer, 'A consistent biblical approach to '(homo)sexuality'', Interface: A forum for theology in the world
9.1 and 2 (2006)., p. 13.
[49] Linda Woodhead, 'Sex in a wider context', in Sex these days: Essays on theology, sexuality and society, ed.
Davies and Loughlin (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), p. 99.
[50] This is not to
say that alternative sexual ethics do not.
[51] I would like to
widen the definition of ‘marriage’ to include de facto marriage, since not
everybody is able or willing to get legally married e.g. homosexual people.
Similarly, in Paul’s time, not everybody could get married e.g. slaves – see Susan Treggiari, 'Marriage and family in Roman society', in Marriage and family in the biblical world,
ed. Campbell (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2003), pp. 170-1.
