Gerald Hiestand convincingly argues that the answer is yes:
Gerald Hiestand, “A Biblical-Theological Approach to Premarital Sexual Ethics: or, What Saint Paul Would Say about ‘Making Out,’” Bulletin of Ecclesial Theology 1 (2014): 13–32.
This article expands on the first two chapters in Gerald Hiestand and Jay Thomas, Sex, Dating, and Relationships: A Fresh Approach (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012).
Here’s the article’s thesis:
[F]idelity to the trajectory and ethic of Scripture necessitates reserving any and all sexual activity for the marriage relationship. Or to state it again, the New Testament conveys—both theologically and exegetically—that all premarital relationships are to be completely non-sexual. Or one more time: premarital “making out” is a sin. (p. 14)
The logic is compelling:
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. (p. 19)
You can read the whole article here.
Hi Andy. Very interesting argument; since I like analyzing them, I have to say that premise one is ambiguous at best; what counts as “sexual activity” is left undefined. For example, is hand holding a “sexual activity”? For some couples, it might be, but it might not for others. Thus, we circle back to the original pastoral problem: leaving it up to couples to decide. I suppose the author goes into these sorts of objections in his article?
Why must Christians constantly push the boundaries of purity? Whatever happened to demanding purity from all romantic relationships? Why can’t a small kiss goodnight suffice to show your commitment? Some thoughts:
1) will you regret making out with your girlfriend when you end up marrying someone else?
2) why do you want to sensualize your relationship? Or even dare to push the boundaries?
3) are you presenting your brother/sister in Christ in a blameless fashion?
4) are you salt and light while making out in a movie theatre?
5) are you lusting while making out?
Is 1 Corinthians 7:1 not to be taken literally?
I presume that you are thinking of how the KJV translates 1 Cor 7:1b: “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.”
There are at least two issues here:
1. That is a euphemism. That’s why most modern translations render it like this: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman” (ESV).
2. Paul is not making that argument. He’s responding to a letter that the Corinthians wrote him, and that line is apparently a slogan they used. That’s why modern translations place that line in quotation marks: