Arguments Against Open Marriages
While I am fairly liberal as relates to many aspects of morality that most Christians would consider far too liberal, I do draw a very clear and strong line at Open Marriages.
Paul in 1 Corinthians 5 addresses an issue to the contemporary Corinthian Church. He was speaking into in a moral climate that had to have been an incredible challenge for him and them to work through. Corinth was known worldwide as a city of intense sexual openness. With the Temple of Aphrodite being on the Acro Corinthus above the city, continually staffed with over 1000 temple prostitutes—both male and female—and Corinthian believers growing up with a degree of sexual openness unlike almost any other city in that period of time, moral issues were undoubtedly very difficult to grasp and resolve for these early Christians. Into this moral climate, Paul speaks, and I believe that what he taught directly addresses open marriages throughout human history and even the present day.
Those Christians today who favor open marriages and swinging do so believing that the ultimate test of sexual permissiveness should be based on the principle of love expressed in consensuality. They would do well to seriously consider Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 5. In this passage Paul seems to be addressing what amounts to a young adult man having sex, with his father’s permission, with the young man’s stepmother who is also his father’s new wife. Apparently a large section of the Church believed that because it was consensual, the father and mother both approving of the sexual relationships they all had with one another, that it was “OK.” If you read this passage you will easily see that everyone knew what was going on, because Paul said most of them were boasting that they knew about it and tolerated it. This would mean the young man’s father knew about it since the whole Church knew about it, and therefore because it was an ongoing thing we can conclude he approved of it, as did his wife. They were effectively a “threesome.” They were practicing an “open marriage” and “full consensuality” but God was not in agreement with it.
Paul’s terse confrontation of it no doubt caught the Church off guard to some degree. When he said that it was so outrageous a behavior that even most unbelieving Gentiles didn’t do it and that he was going to judge it, condemn it, and turn especially the young man over to the Devil who would then be given permission by Paul to have this young man’s entire protection from demonic powers stripped off of him and become vulnerable to just about any attack the Devil would like to bring on him, we can only imagine how painful that might have become for this young man, and likely the woman and the father as well, though the focus was initially and primarily on the young man, since it seems evident he was the only one in this consensual relationship that was directly connected to the Church in Corinth.
The Church was having to learn that Corinthian permissiveness was not a permissiveness that God supported. Why doesn’t God support a “Consensual Sexuality” approach to all of life? Because the Bible makes it clear there is a very clear line that God defines, upholds, and stands by. That line is simply, “If you are going to have sex with someone, you must be in a permanent committed marriage relationship with them.” All sex outside this arrangement is sin…period! Even if all that was involved was sexual touching. While sexual intercourse is clearly the culmination of sex, it is simply a form of denial to consider sexual touching acceptable as long as it doesn’t culminate in intercourse. Bill Clinton knew he was lying when he spoke the now infamous statement, “I did not have sex with that woman…” Paul knew this line of actual sexual engaging existed, and he was called upon by God to speak of this line to them and, indirectly, to all believers in the future. There is no way we can look at the principle of “consensual sexuality” and give it any credence when Paul clearly addressed its fallacy here in 1 Corinthians 5.
Paul references this fact again in chapter 7:
1Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations (the use of his ‘plural” here indicates he was referring to more than just intercourse as being true sex) with a woman.” 2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.
1Corinthians 7:8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
These four verses make it as clear as anyone should need for clarity that sex outside of a marriage relationship is wrong. I find it an amazing deception that some have bought into believing all that matters is that it be consensual or “by agreement.” That is not at all what God is saying through Paul in this passage.
I know there are those Christians who maintain that “sexual touching” is not “SEX,” but they do so without solid biblical evidence to support such a conclusion. Certainly intercourse represents “SEX” but because all sexual intercourse is preceded by sexual touching it is very hard to imagine that God would tell a dating couple that it was just fine for them to perform oral sex on each other just so long as it didn’t progress to intercourse. Such an approach would be foolish at best. If you turn up the sexual temperature through such an intense sexual expression as oral sex you can fairly well anticipate that the vast majority of couples will move forward to intercourse long before they actually marry. Argue with this logic all you want, but statistics don’t lie…people who do oral end up doing the full thing. And, even if they didn’t, it is indefensible to conclude that sexual touching outside of marriage isn’t a form of sexual relations. Why? Because it crosses the line of mental behavior into physical behavior. It is one thing to admire the sexual beauty of another person, be turned on by them, and desire sex with them, and an entirely different thing to actually touch them sexually. The Bible makes clear distinctions in this area.
So why would God oppose a love that valued consensual sex? Because He knows that He created all humans in one way, and that one way says, “You will only flourish, and sex will only be healthy and good for people when they engage in it in committed relationships.” Outside of this approach, we see sexually transmitted diseases increasing, feelings being hurt, unwanted pregnancy, damaged children from such relationships, fights developing, marriages dissolving through jealousy, and a relationship with God being either tarnished or destroyed. Open marriages will never work, either in that culture or any culture in the future because God didn’t set up things in the human personality for it to work. He could have, but He didn’t. Because He didn’t it can never be a healthy thing for the majority of mankind. Just because a small percentage, perhaps 4% (according to modern statistics I retrieved from an article on open marriages on a website called Psyche Alive) appear to get away with it without directly experiencing destructive results, that doesn’t justify it being considered acceptable by the majority who would never experience it in healthy ways. Some behaviors are just too risky, too dangerous, and too kinky to be good for the majority.
I know we’d all like to think that the only measure of a behavior’s rightness or wrongness should be based around the “loving/consensual” test, but this test, while being an important one, is not the only test. And while a couple might think they are honoring the principle of love by using the consensual approach, what they fail to realize is that they can’t know, with any certainty, there won’t be seriously negative results of an open marriage at some point and to some people. They might think, going into it, that a consensually open marriage will be a good thing, but as time goes by most people will discover it doesn’t work well, and in the wake of its failure will be disease, ruined marriages, ruined families, ruined reputations, lost financial stability, etc. It is just too risky for God to permit it, and nowhere in Scripture do we see examples of Him doing so.
God permits polygamy, enjoying sexual sights, sounds, and literature, but He does not permit open marriages or consensual sex. All sexual acts must be in the confines of a committed marriage relationship. This does not mean the marriage must be sanctioned by a governmental or Church system, but it must be a commitment firmly entered into in the presence of God which is intended to last a lifetime. Even if that marriage does ultimately fail, at least at its beginning there must be a commitment by the couple that it never fail and to do all they possibly can to maintain its longevity. I believe that to approach marriage in any other way is to dishonor human beings and God Who created them.
If you carefully read over 1 Corinthians 5 you will see Paul’s clear rejection of the open marriage consensuality approach to sex. It angered him, and we see God’s anger expressed through him. If you love God and desire to honor Him and His creation you cannot allow for an open marriage.
However, before this article “appears” to be saying all things sexually edgy are sinful, I want to be completely clear what I do believe the Bible allows and why.
1) Pornography: while I believe porn lives at the edge between permitted and not permitted sexuality, I do believe that for the majority of Christians it is permissible. Where I don’t think it is permissible is for the person who lacks clear boundaries or has emotionally imbalanced factors in their personality such that porn leads them into sex outside of marriage or towards a compulsive use of it. In these cases, porn represents the sinful side of the edge and is something some godly Christians must abstain from. Not only should they refrain from porn, but if they find TV, with its ever-growing sensuality and nudity, leading them towards fornication or adultery, they should abstain from that medium as well. It is either hypocritical or evidence of denial to say all porn is bad but TV that expresses sexual scenes is ok. Additionally, I think those who show significant psychological problems with eroticism most certainly should seek out counsel to discover and overcome the emotional bondage they must have that makes them vulnerable to immorality. I know some forms of porn are less desirable or more destructive than others, and each person must decide for themself what hurts or helps them, but in general no one can produce clear evidence from Scripture that God would forbid all porn for all believers for all time. It is absurd to believe that enjoying watching a couple have sex, without engaging with them sexually, is sinful. It is a normal biological and mental response to seeing something erotic taking place.
2) Images of naked people: While some would say these are always sinful the Bible in no way implies that or directly states that, so to make such a pronouncement is to speak beyond what is written and is, therefore, a violation of Christian liberty and the sanctity of God’s Word.
3) Oral and Anal sex: Again, many Christians still think these are sinful practices, but nothing about them violates anything having to do with godliness of sex in marriage as defined by the Bible. Those who reject it do so without biblical support and based on conditioned ideas from those terribly off course in their understanding of God’s nature.
4) Nudity: This is not something I would be comfortable enjoying in the presence of other people, but it is something we enjoy away from the eyes of others – out in the woods where there is no one else, on a hidden and private beach, in the car on a quiet and fairly untraveled road, etc. Nudity is fun, exciting, freeing, and enjoyable in such contexts and endangers no one. Nakedness is a completely neutral moral issue unless it leads a person to seek out immoral connections with others. This means clothing-optional beaches and resorts, hiking naked in the mountains, or other places specifically designated as clothing-optional environments are all just fine.
5) Masturbation: This is a practice I believe to be entirely healthy and good for almost all Christians, except those who, when engaging in it, find they are powerfully drawn towards fulfilling their sexual fantasies used during masturbation with other than their spouse. Sexual fantasy is common to all people and only wrong or dangerous when a person fails to separate fantasy from reality.
6) Erotic Literature: The place of literary sexual fantasy is hard to deny when the Song of Solomon exists as a testimony to God’s acceptance of such a medium for eroticism. It serves to increase sexual desire in marriage, inspire couples towards inventive ideas for keeping their sex lives spicy, and presents no reasonable dangers to moral purity.
In each of these six areas, there is no danger to one’s marriage if both partners are fully on board with them. In our case, we have discussed them exhaustively and fully agree with each other enjoying them. We both thoroughly enjoy all six equally, yet neither of us wants to rely upon them for our experience of sex or allow any of them to become a compulsive or obsessive behavior. Used in moderation, they bring a spice and health to our relationship and our personal lives that we have found greatly helpful to our marriage.
I certainly understand why many believers today are trying consensual open marriages. Sex is fun! I’m as close to 100% certain God opposes it as I can be, but I stop short of the 100% mark because I believe it is God’s right to assert this and not mine. He may permit it for a period of time, while a new believer is maturing, but ultimately I believe He would call them to end it and refrain from it. Sex is a wonderful thing, and the heart knows its goodness is amazing. It feels like if a little is good with one person a lot could be good with multiple people. Because of this God allows for polygamy, but polygamy is very different from an open marriage because it is based on a committed permanent relationship. While I am not an advocate for Polyamory or Throuples, I can theoretically imagine God permitting it for those who make full long term marriage commitments in the context of their sexual relationship. I see no reason to believe that these Polyamorous relationships couldn’t include two men and one woman or two women and one man all enjoying sex together, since there is nothing wrong with sex in an of itself. They do not represent fornication because of the marriage commitment involved in such relationships.
The Church is morally in transition and has been for many years. Little by little it changes its allowances, but I don’t see the Bible ever condoning open marriages no matter how much Christians think they might enjoy it. It is just too risky.
So, does the Bible provide any additional indication of what might make consensual sex and an open marriage a very dangerous proposition and something God would universally forbid? I think it does, but I admit it shades more into “supposition” than absolute biblical proof. It has to do with the “One Flesh” principle we see from the very beginning.
Genesis 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Matthew 19:4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
1 Corinthians 6:16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” 17 But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.
Notice Paul’s connection between oneness that takes place between two people who have physical intercourse together and believers who experience a oneness that takes place with the Lord as they enter into an intimate spiritual relationship with Him. To say that Paul is simply referring to only a physical coupling that happens in intercourse misses the way he talks to the Corinthian believers who are failing to understand that there is an invisible dimension to our beings that transcends our physicality. As such, when we receive Christ “into” our hearts (Galatians 4:6 And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” ), a very mystical bonding takes place. We learn from this that when we experience physical intercourse with someone other than our spouse we are also going to experience a mystical connection with them because physical sex and spiritual sex both partake of mystical bonding elements, whether we are comfortable with admitting it or not.
Each of these passages seem to clearly reference some form of “mystical” connection that results from intercourse. If in fact they do, then they imply to us that the very moment a married person engages in sexual intercourse with someone they do not intend to marry that they risk a mystical “one flesh” event taking place that easily could and most likely would damage the existing marriage relationship. Any other biblical meaning that could be assigned to this phrase escapes me. Almost universally, throughout biblical commenting history, commentators have recognized this meaning for the phrase.
I think a reasonable concept for this could be the principle of a “Love Connection.” Sex creates a love connection between two people. I know millions of people over thousands of years claim that their many sexual escapades never created anything like a “love connection” just from having had sex together, but very few who have allowed themselves to experience multiple sex partners emerge from those many partners into a strong and permanent bond with just one person for the rest of our their life. They will generally struggle with an exclusive relationship with their spouse. In fact, I’d go even further by suggesting that the current interest and fascination that is developing over “Polyamory” among some couples is almost surely directly connected to those who have experienced multiple prior sexual relationships that didn’t culminate in marriage but did culminate in a longing for multiple sexual bondings. These can only reasonably be explained by something in their soul becoming transfixed on, needy for, and hungering for yet another and another and another sexual coupling to take place even after having married the person they are living with. I’m sure there will be exceptions to this, but in general, I think statistics will eventually bear out the reality that those who favor polyamory do so due to having been sexually active prior to or in the context of their marriage. I don’t think this means that polyamorous relationships can’t work, but I do think it means it will make them very difficult to maintain long term.
Here are a few quotes from Theologians who are expounding the meaning of this phrase:
Jay Adams: “Men and women were designed to become “one flesh” (Gen. 2: 24). But there can be no oneness apart from a male and a female partner who approximate one another at every point. This “oneness” is not to be thought of merely as sexual union (though it certainly includes that). Rather, in Hebrew thought, the term “flesh” referred not only to the physical body but also to the whole person. When Moses described the destruction of the entire human race (Noah and his family excepted), he described this catastrophe as “the end of all flesh” (Gen. 6: 13). Surely, he had reference to more than bodies when using this phrase. Rather, in a manner similar to our use of the word “everybody” (by which we refer to more than flesh and bones), he used the Hebrew word “flesh” to mean “person.” To become “one flesh,” then, is to become “one person.” Male and female marriage partners not only make an exact “fit” sexually but their maleness and femaleness “fill out” or “complete” one another in every respect. The two constitute a “whole.”
“In Genesis 2:24, the term “one flesh” has a definite sexual connotation, but relational intimacy is also a key factor. Getting to a level of relational intimacy in a marriage that is referred to as one flesh involves a great deal of work. It does not occur automatically with marriage. It involves becoming transparent with one another and emphasizing communication and trust, which oftentimes can be difficult. This is an aspect of the one-flesh relationship that is frequently overlooked.” (William Tillman – Understanding Christian Ethics)
The FirstThings website writes the following: “Like Jesus, Paul the apostle quotes the teaching of Genesis that, when a man leaves his parents and cleaves to his wife, he is united with her in one flesh. But Paul also teaches that the bond between man and woman in marriage is a great sign of the union between Christ and the Church. It is, the apostle writes, a profound mystery that signifies the intimate relation between Christ and his bride the Church (Rev. 21:2) and proclaims Christ’s unifying power, which in his death and Resurrection “has broken down the dividing wall of hostility” between Jew and Gentile (Eph. 2:14), making the Lord himself “our peace.” In this bond of peace, the Church comes together as one body, sharing “one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all” (Eph. 4:5–6). Marriage, similarly, is a bond of peace, in which male and female find their intended unity. In Christ Jesus, marriage serves as a redemptive sign that the great chasm separating creature from Creator has been bridged, and the original unity intended by God has been restored, both among us and between humanity and its Creator.”
I think this last quote says the most substantive things about the true meaning of “becoming one” that we read of in Scripture. Because human marriage is such a type and shadow of spiritual marriage to Christ, how we conduct our “oneness” experiences with humans speaks loudly of the importance we place on our oneness with Christ. As we don’t involve ourselves intimately with other idols and demons that despise God, so also we don’t involve ourselves sexually with other humans with whom we are not creating a permanent covenant relationship. Covenant is EVERYTHING and the covenant of human marriage and the New Covenant of spiritual marriage to Christ are dovetailed together in Scripture. For this reason, we are extremely careful with whom we are having sexual intercourse.
So, in the absence of any substantive alternative understanding of this phrase, I am prepared to accept this as the obvious implication of this statement and let it guide my conclusion that one of the primary reasons God clearly forbids an open marriage concept is because of its strong likelihood of destroying the mystical bond between a husband and wife as a result of allowing a “sex for play” concept into their marriage.
I know we’d all like to think of sex as simply being “play” or “entertainment” but sex appears biblically to be just too strong of an act to think of it merely as “play.” We might wish God had made it something to play with, but He didn’t. He clearly didn’t. From Genesis to Revelation, over and over again, God makes it clear sex is never something to play with as it is just too capable of burning the players. Because He loves His creation and desires the best for them, He guides them towards a sexual approach that “works” rather than “destroys,” and sex as play, while it seems to work for a very small percentage of people, doesn’t seem to work for anything near the majority of people.
There are some websites that are discussing the growing trend towards “Open Marriages” within the Church, sometimes simply referred to as “Polyamorous” relationships, and also known as “consensually non-monogamous relationships.” Some promote this lifestyle choice and others oppose it, but make no mistake—it is being talked about, considered, and tried by a growing number of Christians, and it is my conclusion that this is a very dangerous approach to sexuality and one I am personally convinced is opposed by God Himself, with the exception of committed polygamy and polyamory. Each believer must decide for themselves.
I fully believe that the very moment two people have sex together a bond far beyond just the physical takes place and their souls have been forever altered. Does this mean it ruins them? Not necessarily. But, could it change their capacity to experience the fullness of what God desires for married couples? I think the answer is “undoubtedly, yes!” Your marriage will never be the same again. That may end up being a good thing, but it is more likely to be a bad thing, or else we would see God promoting it instead of condemning it. I’ll stick with God’s assessment, over the desires of my flesh and what my culture is finding acceptable.
You defined it early on in the article that 'sex' isn't just intercourse, but more or less all things sexual, and I agree. You mention the term 'sexual intercourse a few times near the end in regards to 'one flesh'. I like to refer to the 'mystical' connection made with sex as being a 'soul tie' (both holy and unholy). However, I don't think intercourse is necessary in order to create a soul tie. Like you said near the beginning, sex can mean sexual touching, oral, etc. I believe soul ties are made during the experience of sexual conduct, and for sure at the point of orgasm. And orgasm doesn't need intercourse in order to take place. Just wanted to clarify.
In regards to the one flesh principle and it ramifications think of this word picture. I can make some pieces of toast. On one piece I can put peanut butter (man). On another I can put strawberry jam (woman). Both are toast, but distinctly different in taste (human but individual). If I join both pieces together (sex) into a toast sandwich I get a whole new creation were the two ingredients mix together. Now I can pull the two pieces apart, however a bit of jam will remain on the peanut butter, and some peanut butter will also stay on the jam piece and they will forever be marked with evidence of the other. Then, if I take a 3rd piece of toast and put honey on it (a 2nd woman) and connect it briefly to the original peanut butter toast, the original piece will now have some honey on it. I can continue to briefly join more pieces of toast to that first piece, each with the following ingredients, mayonnaise (3rd woman), mustard (4th woman), ketchup, pickles, bananas, cheese, sauerkraut, etc, and each new ingredient will leave a remnant of itself with that original piece. It doesn't take long and that 1st piece of peanut butter toast becomes spoiled and unappetizing (a troubled individual).
HeSaid-SheSaid
Thanks for your comments. In general I think I you are accurate, that intercourse may not alone be the place of "one flesh" taking place, and might actually precede it in sexual touching. Because the Bible doesn't appear to define the entire spectrum of "one flesh" actions we can only be certain that intercourse accomplishes that, but it may be other sexual touching does as well.
Genesis 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Here God describes, in limited fashion, the "one flesh" concept.
Genesis 4:1 Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD.”
Is "knowing" the place at which "one flesh" clearly happens? Perhaps…seems so…
Mark10:8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh.
General imagery connects most closely to the physical bonding that takes place in intercourse, but I think it could be reasonably argued that it actually begins prior to intercourse.
Thanks!
I’ve had to come back and read this article multiple times today. The author’s embrace of pornography overshadows the good points he makes about marriage sexual relations remaining between the husband and wife. Even non-Christian researchers, psychologists, counselors and others have said pornography is harmful.
I would like to say that I’m surprised that a teacher of the Word wrote this article saying porn can be acceptable for followers of Jesus, but I’m not. I believe too many teachers, denominations and churches have progressively changed into organizations embracing the world.
I cannot imagine Paul writing a letter implying viewing pornography is acceptable to God.
JJ
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and concerns. I believe I understand where you are coming from, and I honor your perspective. All I can tell you is that I have spent thousands of hours, using all the original language skills available, considering history and culture, and the best hermeneutics I know of, to come to the conclusions I have. But, if all your study leads you in a different direction then certainly you do best to follow that until such time as you are led by God to see something else.
I know the historical Church, from at least the time of Augustine and Jerome forward, have come to the conclusion you have. I just think their conclusions are based more in Gnostic Dualism errors, and fail to describe God's actual perspective on the matter. The naked body is glorious. It is erotic. Both are dimensions designed by God. Scripture universally indicates that sex outside of a committed marriage relationship is sin, but it doesn't anywhere describe the naked body or a couple sharing their enjoyment of their God given sexuality visually for others as being sinful, so unless it leads one to commit fornication I think it an unreasonable stretch to conclude God would always reject it for all believers.
Certainly some believers are best to never allow these things to touch their lives, much like some are best to never even drink one alcoholic beverage, and for those who know these things lead them to sinful behavior they are wisest to avoid them. For most though no harm comes of it. Each must know their limitations, and no one should ever violate their conscience.
Thanks
JJ
Just out of curiosity… Leaving aside for the moment that you are shocked that I, a teacher of the Word, support “some” forms of porn, it would be interesting to hear why you believe biblically that “all” porn is bad. I’m well aware there are articles on both sides of the argument, but from your personal studied analysis of Scripture would you care to explain why you believe God opposes all forms of porn?
The main focus of this discussion is on whether there is biblical support for Open Marriages, but since I mentioned that while I do not support open marriages I do support some forms of porn, and this seems to have derailed you from the topic at hand, perhaps it would be helpful to hear what you have concluded from Scripture as to why all porn is bad.
“What the heart loves, the will chooses, and the mind justifies.” -Thomas Cranmer
ATrain
This does seem so often to be true. To bend Scripture to satisfy the desires of the flesh is never a good life direction. Over the years of study on these subjects I have found myself often needing to look up to God and say something like the following: “Lord, you know how easily mankind twists Scripture to see in it what the flesh desires. Have I done this at any point? Certainly you indicate You are willing to guide us into all truth, and You have given us Your Spirit in part for this, so at every point I diverge from Church tradition please guide my thoughts, studies, and desires so that what I conclude to be true truly reflects your heart and mind.” At the end of the day ATrain it seems this is all we can do.
I have found that in so many areas Christians seem unaware of how much they are guided by the conditionings of their past than truly being guided by the truths of Scripture itself. Why do we believe what we believe? Is it because a respected Teacher convinced us? Or because we fear the sense of insecurity in not following the general herd? Deep study and reflection are not easy, and so often it seems we humans are prone to “going with the flow” rather than investing the time and energy to discover the truth as it really is “in Jesus.”
Ephesians 4:17 Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. 18 They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. 19 They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. 20 But that is not the way you learned Christ!— 21 assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, 22 to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23 and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24 and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.
Clearly the Spirit in Paul recognizes the tendency of mankind is to justify the desires of the flesh, and the area of sensuality is certainly one major example of this, but is he saying that the enjoyment of erotic pleasure is of necessity a “giving up to sensuality”?
Thayer defines the Greek word here – aselgeia as “unbridled lust, excess, licentiousness, lasciviousness, wantonness, outrageousness, shamelessness, insolence”.
Vincent’s word studies says of aselgeia that the derivation is unknown. It includes lasciviousness, and may well mean that here; but is often used without this notion. In classical Greek it is defined as violence, with spiteful treatment and audacity. As in this passage its exact meaning is not implied by its being classed with other kindred terms, it would seem better to take it in as wide a sense as possible – that of lawless insolence and wanton caprice.
It does not sound, by the historical and contextual use of this word – aselgeia – that he would class sensuality (as we have come to know it as all things erotic) with the simple enjoyment of the naked form or two people visually representing the joy of sexual relationship. Modern Christians have come to think of “sensuality” as “being turned on,” but this word in Paul’s day seems to be addressing something far more intense, violent, and an abandoned commitment to wild immorality than simply “being turned on” covers in meaning. Culturally it leans far more towards an outrageous support of wild orgies, a commitment towards flagrant and wild fornication, a lifestyle of “screw and be screwed” no matter the consequences or who is hurt. The things discussed here at MH have been described by other Christians as being aselgeia, but are they right? Or, are they simply conditioned to apply this word aselgeia to things that are far less flagrant than what Paul is using it for?
So, yes, it is possible we humans tend to “justify” sins we take some pleasure in, but equally true we Christians tend to “read into” Scripture what either others have told us to see there or other life conditionings have convinced us of rather than deriving the positions we hold from solid study and prayer. Do you see this as a possibility?
My God, is open marriage really a thing now? God help us!
It seems to me that an open marriage defeats the primary purpose of marriage. I mean really, if you want to have sex with a bunch of different people, why get married?
ILoveMarriage
I wouldn’t say it has become a “big thing” yet, but there are some within certain Christian circles that favor it. As the Catholic Church implodes and the Evangelical Church manifests its legalistic tendencies towards anything that leads to “being turned on” millions of believers are leaving the Church in favor of more reasonable and honest approaches to sexuality and Christian living in general. We live in a day where many no longer trust that “just because my pastor says something is true that it is really true.” This has good elements in it and not so good ones. I think taking a fresh look at eroticism is a good thing, but taking it to the place of Open Marriages is taking things too far. But this is often the case. Once people realize they’ve been lied to, as regards to things like “all things sexual” they tend to cast off all restraints and run a bit wild. While this is a dangerous overreaction it is certainly an understandable response to the line they’ve been fed all their lives.
In all things, balance has its place. As the pendulum swings towards taking fresh looks at erotic media and literature there are those who believe the Church is passing through a season of intense destruction, while others, like myself, see it as a season of fresh insight into the nature of God and how that affects our perceptions of our sexuality. I believe we are going to have some fairly significant blinders taken off of our eyes as we discover that while He has solid boundaries in sexual areas those boundaries are no where near as constrictive as we have been led to believe. Initially the lifting of these blinders are causing distress, in some cases excess, and in other cases fresh and important discussions about things that affect our marriages, our emotional stability, our relationship with Who God really is, and what things are appropriately and inappropriately erotic. Sometimes its easier to run through life with our hands over our ears and eyes shouting “No no no, don’t confuse me with the facts…I prefer ignorance and just following the crowd…don’t make my life more difficult by urging me to rethink things I thought I had all sown up!”
So, yes, to some degree open marriage is a bit of a “thing” but hopefully that wide swing (pun intended) will swing back into a healthier place, where our permissions for erotic pleasure are reasonable and not so destructive. We’ll see how the flow of cultural change develops…
There is something called balance. We can discuss and discuss and everyone will not agree. I think people have their own convictions and yet use these discussions to justify what they know for them is wrong. Some can view occasional erotica or even porn and it not become a big problem for them. That isn’t to say that those images don’t stay in your thoughts. The mind is our spiritual battlefield. If these things don’t help our marriage and our relationship with Christ, then it’s best to avoid them. Seems religion goes from being legalistic where everything is wrong to "Oh, we don’t want to offend anyone so let’s just say everything is acceptable." Neither of these is the answer. We must draw closer to our Creator and seek his guidance in all things. I have been redeemed, and God has been so faithful to me, so it’s my desire to please him in the way I live my life, and that’s the bottom line for me.
I meant to say some can occasionally watch erotica or porn and it not hinder their relationship or cause addictive behavior. However, you can’t unsee something; that’s why the Bible says to renew your mind daily. We just need to be responsible in our decisions according to our own convictions.
Southernheat
I very much agree with you. In our marriage we turn to erotic videos very seldom and we are very discriminating in what we watch…almost exclusively one woman with one man in what appears to simply be a couple enjoying sex together…can't tell if they are married but they appear married. If it is obvious they aren't married we shy away from it. To our way of thinking, while some Christians would consider it all to be unacceptable porn, we see it as just a couple enjoying sex and sharing their enjoyment visually with others.
Thanks for the cautions you shared…
I see this, churches are businesses, just like colleges and any other business. The church needs money to stay in business and in order to attain more paying customers, what do businesses do? They cater and market to the largest segment of the population because that is where the money flows. The new generation is less conservative than the old and therefore open marriages are being discussed in some churches. Soft swinging has been discussed among the members at the church I attended. Sex is fun and swinging sounds fun and even though I have never engaged in swinging, I am sure it would be fun. The problem is the aftershock and how that would impact our marriage. That is why the Bible points to avoiding open marriages or swinging. I know a couple that is in their 50's and have engaged in soft swinging with the same couple for 10 years and they are avid church members and good people. It seems to work for them, but they only do it with one couple. This is a very rare situation and result. I think it is best to follow your spirit and do what you think is right but really weigh the aftershock and really consult scripture and then make your decision.
One thing to consider is 1 Corinthians 7 and Paul stating the principle that each spouse has jurisdiction over the other spouse’s body and what is done with it. In context, he is talking about sexual activity. So if there is full permission and/or participation by all spouses involved, is the covenant really broken?
It is one thing for couples to have sexual intercourse in the presence of another couple, and learn from them what things can be done to please their spouse. It is another thing to swap partners. But with permission, perhaps the covenant is not violated.
Regarding porn (which is usually vaguely defined), God put an entire book of erotica in the Bible. In spite of attempts to make it an allegory about Christ and the Church, it’s not that.
Decisions, decisions. All I would say is these are things to decide before you get married to each other, not afterwards.
NoahZark
I hear your question, and personally I'd like to take the approach that if no one "appears" to be hurt by it then what is the harm, and the answer is probably there would be no harm. BUT…what can't be known prior to trying it is "will anyone – not just the couple involved – be hurt by what we are about to try"? This is what can NEVER be known prior to trying it. It seems God's perspective is that humans are just too precious to take that "what if" chance.
When God establishes His standards for sexual behavior between two people it seems He has no problem with them imagining what the person they are interested in looks like undressed, or what sex with them might be like, and to be intensely turned on by them, but He seems everywhere in Scripture to draw a very bold line between being turned on towards one's spouse and having sex with them outside marriage. I believe His standards in this area are all "love of people" determined. Because God loves people He doesn't desire to see them hurt with sex. He loves sex. But He also is sooo aware that, outside the boundaries He set, much damage can come from it.
As for whether it would destroy one's covenant with their spouse if everyone agreed to give it a try? I really don't know. Probably not if everyone was on board, but I don't think destroying the covenant is the only vulnerability in these scenarios.
Just my understanding of what God has clearly said… I know others see it differently.
I do think it "might" be just fine for two couples to get together, never touch one another sexually, enjoy watching each other have sex with their spouse, and be incredibly turned on by it. But, if in doing so they find themselves nearly giving in to touching then probably it is not a good choice for them to try it again. Pretty risky… Each couple will experience this differently. My wife and I have pretty much decided not to try it.
HQ, I always appreciate what you write. It's obvious that you have done a lot of study and thought, digging deep into the scriptures and other Christian writers. I agree with most everything you wrote here (and none of us agree exactly on every point on these areas where there is much freedom for individual believers to arrive at their own Spirit led positions). One small point where I differ with you is in where I draw the line for "what level of physical activity crosses the line" for unmarried people. Is it the same line for engaged couples who are fully committed to marrying each other, and for married couples who have a close relationship with another couple? When my wife and I were engaged, we "engaged" in a wide variety of physical pleasures with each other, but we had a very clear commitment to "no sexual intercourse" and we never were really even tempted to cross that line because we knew for us it would be wrong. But would it be okay for us now (as a married couple) to draw the line in that same place in regard to having physical intimacy with others? There are lots of questions here, and one is "when is a couple married in God's eyes?" Is it when they have the marriage ceremony, when they sign the legal license, or when they have made a true heart commitment to each other? (As a pastor who has done a lot of weddings, I can tell you that those 3 often happen at widely different times.) Surprisingly the Bible is fairly silent in regard to a command about having a wedding ceremony.
Mercury7
First off…thanks for your kind words! So appreciated!!!
Your question about whether it is "ok" with God for engaged couples to either enjoy sex minus intercourse, or sex with intercourse, is one that has been hotly debated for eons. So what I would say here merely represents my best guess since Scripture no where outlines what is sexually permitted prior to marriage and what actually constitutes marriage in God's sight.
I generally take my cues in this area from what Paul spoke into the Corinthian Church in 1 Corinthians 7:
1 Corinthians 7:2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.
1 Corinthians 7:8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
In this passage we see 8 key words "temptation, sexual immorality, wife, self-control, marry, and burn. I think they answer most of the questions you pose.
1) Temptation to do what? Sexual immorality. The Greek word for immorality is porneia. Most commentators are in agreement that it certainly covers "intercourse," but whether it extends beyond that to passionate kissing, fondling, oral sex, and anal sex, is less certain. I lean towards believing it covers all of the elements mentioned and not just intercourse. Therefore couples, even those who are engaged, can commit immorality by overstepping moral bounds and marriage is God's answer for that.
2) Wife and marry. Both indicate the answer is to take a spouse by marrying them. It seems, from a general study of the biblical concept of marriage, that it includes a few key elements: a formal covenant ritual that includes the presence of others ratifying it, the giving and receiving of gifts, statements of commitment, and culminated by sexual intercourse. I do not think it needs the sanctioning of an Institutional Church, special clergy, or the State. But if a couple in modern America want the benefits the State can confer to their marriage then they need a recognized officiant and a State provided marriage license. Before God those last two elements don't make one more or less married, but I do suspect the previously mentioned elements have merit to them in His presence.
3. Self Control and Burn. These two speak to the issue, along with the term "immorality" to perhaps increase the scope of what might not be allowed during engagement. Surely having intercourse would describe "a lack of self control," but the word "burning" is very interesting to our consideration. Thayer's lexicon describes burning as – to burn with fire, to set on fire, kindle. Now that sounds like fondling and the other non intercourse related activities. It implies a stimulating process…burning in an increasing way with a full blown fire being intercourse. And, since the way God made humans, once the fire begins to burn it is a common experience to feel almost drunk with sexual passion, and in that drunken state of being, good judgment sooo easily goes out the window and intercourse "just happens…". The next thing the couple experience is "oh no…we just did the deed…now what???" I know some couples seem to be able to do all the other things short of intercourse, but I'm not sufficiently convinced, both by what Paul has said here and the meaning of porneia that he is only talking about intercourse. That's my take on it…
I think absolute dogmaticism in these areas is something that has sooo characterized Church history in unhealthy ways. I lean towards walking these things out closely before God. After all, why is it He is likely setting standards in these areas? Is it not to avoid wounding the heart of another, possibly damaging them emotionally if they don't end up being one's spouse, perhaps damaged reputations, etc.? I think the history of premarital "non-intercourse" related sexual history tells us that many people have been significantly wounded by not waiting for all of it until marriage. Can couples heal? Absolutely! But, if wounding can be avoided then it seems the wisest and most loving thing to do.
Does this all make sense? It would be good to hear others weigh in on these questions too…
Seems like quite a bit of soul searching and perspective seeking in this thread, and no name-calling or judgmental commentary—Nice job everyone.
If Open Marriages is the subject here, it depends upon what the definition of that term is. If Swinging, Spouse Sharing or participating in Orgies—we don’t think those are good ideas. Too many negatives there and probably not pleasing to God.
We don’t object to watching married couples make love together, or ourselves being watched by dear special friends. […]
I don't see any support for open marriage in the OT or NT but I do see that it is permitted for a man to be married to multiple women. In the NT Paul discusses the restriction around a man with multiple wives cannot be an elder. At the same time, in the US I don't think the Lord would want a man to be married to more than one woman because polygamy is currently outlawed and the Lord calls us to submit to the authorities placed over us (with certain caveats, of course). I have wondered recently if the Mormon church will seek to overturn the law of the land now that homosexual "marriage" is lawful in the majority of states.
TPC
I agree, polygamy could be a viable option in the US if it were legal. I don't think the government would likely step in if someone wanted to have a polygamous marriage so long as it didn't include girls under the age of 18 and the women were not in any way forced into it or abusively controlled. However, unless the government makes it legal, all civil marriage benefits would be denied such a family.
I think the Lord allowed polygamy, but [the Bible] never indicates He favored it. It wasn't sin for those who lived in it, but it is a very hard set of relationships to maintain. I personally can't imagine navigating through all that would be involved in maintaining a happy home with multiple wives…whew…that would be challenging beyond imagination, though I suppose the sex might be a great deal of fun. I think if we could bring back Abraham, Jacob, and David and ask them if they'd do it all over again they might say no.
I'm very happy with my one wife…she fills my cup to overflowing…her breasts fill me at all times with delight; I am intoxicated always in her love – Proverbs 5:19
HQ, Thanks for you very thoughtful, scriptural, and considerate response to my comments about where the boundary lines are for sexual activities that are outside the husband and wife relationship. I well understand the points you make, and they tend to be very similar to the traditional views (i.e., almost no physical contact at all before the marriage ceremony). In theory that is an excellent position to take and a strong case can be made for it from the Bible. However, to say that things like passionate kissing are out of bounds…seriously now, what percentage of couples do you think do or could honor that kind of boundary? What's the point if we are making rules that the vast majority cannot or will not follow? I think it's very difficult to make specific rules about what level of touching is right or wrong for every couple (and if we try to make rules like that we are in danger of following in the footsteps of the Pharisees!).
Then, as a related question, what level of contact is permissible for a married person to have with someone other than their spouse? First, let's be clear that if the spouse is not aware and fully consenting to that contact, then any type of sexual contact is wrong. Again, so many questions here. At what point does it become "sexual" contact? A handshake, a touch on the arm or shoulder, a hug, a kiss on the cheek – it is a long spectrum of interactions we have with others, that range from the "everyday courtesies" and going on to things that are unarguably sexual. Where is the boundary, and is that different for each couple, and for each person they interact with? As a pastor I hugged a lot of women (and men!) but some women I would not hug, either because I knew they did not want it, or because I knew I was attracted to that woman and for me (internally) it would cross the boundary to be more than just a friendly, social hug. (It was difficult terrain to navigate because I was also aware that by not hugging a particular woman I was leaving open the possibility that she would be hurt or offended, "Why does he show pastoral warmth to almost everyone else in the congregation, but not to me? Is there something wrong with me?") For many reasons I am relieved to be "retired" and no longer in the pastoral role that comes with so much treacherous terrain to navigate!!
Mercury7
I hear you…I really do, when you write "However, to say that things like passionate kissing are out of bounds…seriously now, what percentage of couples do you think do or could honor that kind of boundary? What's the point if we are making rules that the vast majority cannot or will not follow?"
I doubt Passionate/French kissing should be considered "immoral" but…I do think it clearly advances the "burning" Paul references, stresses the temptation factor, and as such, while virtually "all couples" do it, at the very least it seems it should be reserved for those who have settled in their hearts they are going to marry, are formally engaged, and are planning on marrying as soon as reasonably possible. Long engagements seem like such a dangerous approach to engagement.
I think Deuteronomy 22 speaks to these things: Deuteronomy 22:28 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.
Higher Quest,
I agree with your additional thoughts. Like you I am content to enjoy life with the wife of my youth.
Song of Songs the ultimate endorsement for open marriage or at least multiple partners. With hundreds of wives and hundreds more concubines and no condemnation by the Lord. Not only no condemnation but his own book in the Bible showing his recruiting another wife for the harem.
The concept of men having multiple wives, allowed to have threesomes, concubines being accepted in the Bible makes sense in ways because with multiple men in the harem the father of the children would be unknown. Also remember women were pretty much property then.
Sex when it’s tied to having children is different than sex merely for pleasure. Go forth and multiply. When multiplying is no longer a factor do we stop having sex? Or go forth and have fun? Once it’s just an act of pleasure between consenting adults the question of having others involved becomes an interesting discussion. There are many good reasons for being married. Just so it’s “OK” to have sex is not one.
Viagara and longer life spans have retirement homes filled with widows and widowers that find partners to still enjoy sex. Bless them.
SecondMarge
I think your point on polygamy is an interesting one. I have often thought about the implications of polygamy, God's permission of it, and the use it received in the ancient period. It seems to me it sooo clearly evidences God's respect, acceptance, and plan for the enjoyment of sex.
Certainly polygamy was a business tool used to increase the size of the family business, but far beyond just that it seems to clearly portray God's awareness and plan that people enjoy sex, lots of sex, varieties of sex as expressed in varieties of personalities and temperaments, that would have characterized polygamous marriages. We certainly see this in the case of Solomon. He didn't need another wife to increase his financial holdings, or even his international alliances…he was wealthy beyond description and held world dominance in political power in his day. But he clearly was one hell of a sexy guy. It is hard to fathom the amount of sex and variety he must have enjoyed. To imagine God looking down on all his sexual escapes and smiling as He watched Solomon with his hundreds of wives, is an interesting testimony of just how sexually acclimated God must be.
We tend to think of God as being something of "too holy" for sex, or "prudish", or entirely "monogamous" but its just not possible that those images are correct, otherwise He would have forbidden polygamy which He never did. And, while the "Bride" of Christ concept is described as a singular "Bride" it is clear she is multiple in her singularity. Does this make Jesus the ultimate polygamous husband? I suspect it does, and not in any kind of kinky, weird, or disrespectful sort of way. He has billions of men and women as His bride and according to Paul His concept of sex extends to a spiritual version of it with His Bride.(see 1 Cor. 6). This is incredibly exquisite and almost surely defines why we ALL love and are fascinated with all the dimensions of our sexuality, which include a "plural" dimension.
I don't ever intend to "actually" have sex with another woman than my wife, but I have had sex with many women in my mental fantasies, as has my wife with other men. Why? I think the answer is because we had built into our DNA a plural dimension to our sexuality, that while it is safest to be physically confined to the concept of committed marriage relationship, certainly extends far beyond that in our minds and fantasies. I think this is why we enjoy a measured amount of sexual media. It's all fantasy but it is very pleasurable. When Christians decry such pleasures I truly believe they are attempting to deny their Creator's obvious design for the enjoyment of sex.
Just some of my personal ponderings…
One size fits all?
Reading a few different topics of discussion here I have to wonder if marriage is for everyone? At least in the traditional definition.
If we look at the wide variety of situations we see people living their lives, often happily, we need to examine the possibilities. From remaining alone through polygamy, open marriage, same sex couplings, are all becoming as common place as two virgins being joined and no man putting asunder. Serial monogamy seems to be the most common.
Even in monogamy a significant number fantasize about others often even during sex with their marriage partner.
The spectrum is wide. Rejoice over those that find their version of happiness.
While Solomon had lots of wives and a large harem it is noted in the OT that his non-Jewish wives led him away from full devotion to the Lord so I don't think Solomon's sexual choices are fully blessed.
Also, I think it is important to make a distinction between what is acceptable for people that have confessed their sin and ask Jesus to be their Lord and Savior and for people who have not. The sexual standard for the two groups is different. Just like the standard for conducting business in the market place is different for the two groups. Christians are called to be different and set apart not to restrict their enjoyment or fun but rather to be God's light in a dark world. I am thankful that MH is a forum that encourages Christians to fully enjoy their sexuality within the Bibical framework but the Lord wants our "sexual freedom" to be another way we can share the Gospel with a lost world.
Hi there HigherQuest,
I greet you in peace and love.
I want to start out by saying that I am in agreement that God does not condone open marriages, or swinging, as some would call it, and that it is sinful. You are also correct in saying that just because something is consented to, does not make it right in God's eyes. Even if there was willing consent from both spouses in a marriage to swing, it is still considered adultery to have an open marriage, because the marriage covenant is broken. However, there is an interesting point in that the only person who cannot commit adultery is a single woman, at least according to my research of the Bible. The reason for this I believe is that if a married man has sex with a single woman, in theory he can take her as a second wife, provided his marriage vows were not strictly monogamous with his wife.
I do want to point out a few things that I do find contradictory, at least to my study of the Bible.
Firstly, and this is not a clear contradiction as it could be ambiguous, but in 1 Corinthians 7:1 where it says it is better for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman, the Greek verse actually says "fasten to" or "lay hold of" (haptesthai in Greek), instead of sexual relations. Now this could mean to sexually touch, but also, it could mean to marry, as it was a term used in Hebrew culture to marry (a man will cling to his wife).
However, when you mentioned that sex outside of marriage is always sinful – that is where I will start disagreeing. And I'm talking about premarital sex here specifically. Nowhere in the Bible is there a law against it. Now, premarital sex is not God's ideal, and sex should be reserved for marriage, a monogamous marriage ideally. But to call it a sin is unbiblical, because God does not call it a sin in any of His laws. You rightly mention all the dangers that come with it, like the spread of disease or the breaking of hearts, and this is the result of going against God's ideal sometimes, but, it's still not a sin, although, it can be used sinfully, of course. So, I'm not promoting premarital sex, but I do think we should guard against calling something a sin, which isn't. We see Sampson and Judah both have sex outside of marriage, both with prostitutes – albeit that Tamar pretended to be a prostitute, and we do not read of a sin being committed. Sampson did not lose God's Spirit when he had sex and Tamar was actually called righteous for what she did, and that was to bring an heir into the family (by the way, she is in Jesus' genealogy).
Thirdly, you say that you do not see all polygamous marriages being a probably. It is true God did permit polygamy, but only between a man and more than one woman – never between a woman and more than one man. So while polygamy is not God's ideal, it is permissible for a man to have more than one wife. But there can never be two men in the same marriage covenant, or even bonded to the same woman. For who will then lead the house? Who will be the rightful father of what heir? And if two men are married to the same woman, this would violate the law that a man cannot lie with another man (if they have a threesome) and, by extension, if the one man sleeps with the woman, he has uncovered the nakedness of the other man, as to sleep with a married woman exposes another man's nakedness, which you will read is a sin. So I cannot see how such a union between one woman and multiple men can harmonize with Scripture. But, one man can have more than one wife because it follows the natural order. David, a man after God's own heart, had eight wives.
This is not a disagreement on my part here, but to comment on, the Song of Solomon is probably our best guide to what is good erotica. There are various examples of sexual intercourse in the book and it promotes a healthy view of sex, I would say. And what is interesting to note in that the couple engage in some of these sexual acts before they are married, at least to my knowledge of the book.
In conclusion, I would like to state that we should all strive for God's ideal, that is sex in a monogamous marriage. Even if you are divorced (legally by God's standard) or you are widowed, it is better to marry first, because it is God's ideal and it avoids many heartaches and complications.
Kind regards,
Southernmost
Southernmost
Thanks for your excellent comments! I found them full of good insight.
In my discussion of Polygamy and Polyamory I do agree with you that I likely erred in my description of acceptable combinations of acceptable genders. Because God has so established the headship of man in the home (not in any cruel or abusive ways of course) to have a Polygamous arrangement with two men in that arrangement would certainly create confusion in the relationships, especially in a "whose child was sired by which man" issue, so I would agree that if one were to accept a polygamous marriage arrangement it would need to be comprised of one man and many women, and not two or more men and many women.
You commented "However, when you mentioned that sex outside of marriage is always sinful – that is where I will start disagreeing. And I'm talking about premarital sex here specifically. Nowhere in the Bible is there a law against it. Now, premarital sex is not God's ideal, and sex should be reserved for marriage, a monogamous marriage ideally. But to call it a sin is unbiblical, because God does not call it a sin in any of His laws." I think once again I would have to agree with you. In fact, I find myself chagrined by my throw back to previous moral knee jerk ideas about what is sexually sinful and what isn't. In other words, I find it kind of funny that while I see so many things permitted now that in previous years I didn't, that I made the mistake of calling something that is likely "wrong" to be "sinful." It shows me how I am still so in transition away from the negative Gnostic effects Christianity has unwittingly bought into the Church as relates to our sexuality. I do think I agree with you that there are some things that are unwise, wrong, foolish, etc., but that those things are best not referred to as "sinful". Thank you for helping me see more accurately again…
Finally, (and I know this departs from MH beliefs, so I will handle it carefully here) I do find myself having to respectfully disagree with you in your statement "And if two men are married to the same woman, this would violate the law that a man cannot lie with another man…". While I will not venture into a full discussion of the possibility that Leviticus 20:13 is likely not at all referring to "same sex marriage" I will at least say that after much study I'm inclined to believe that what the OT is addressing is a blatant idolatrous practice of male cult idolatrous same sex worship as opposed to two men who love each other and desire to live a lifetime in committed marriage relationship to one another. I now see these issues very separately, and do not believe either the OT or the NT ever address or forbid such a relationship of the second kind I mentioned. There is so much going on historically and culturally in both these time periods that are very hard for us moderns to grasp that I tend to think the modern Christian negativity towards same sex love relationships is based on a deep misunderstanding of what was actually being addressed in both the OT and NT. I think we've read "into" Leviticus 20 and Romans 1 cultures (and other NT passages) things that simply do not match what is happening in our day. I 100% agree that men with men, as described historically and culturally in the context of idolatrous practices, should always be considered sinful, evil, and God rejecting, but I do not believe (any longer) that two men or two women that love one another and desire to spend a life in committed relationship to each other are violating any OT or NT teaching. While I'm not prepared in this context of writing to go into much depth on the following point, I will make it for you to ponder…it is this, notice how in Exodus there is no mention of women with women. If same sex sin is SUCH an "always evil thing" to God why would He have not made any OT reference to the abomination of two women being with each other? The Jewish Rabbis and Sages of past generations, while they didn’t favor it, placed no sanctions against it. They seemed to believe it was pretty much a neutral issue with God but because it was incapable of procreation they didn’t favor it, and because it was so wildly accepted in Egypt, and Egypt was so universally despised by Israel, the Rabbis generally attached a negative attitude towards it and in some cases only suggested mild discipline for women involved in it, and in other cases saw nothing wrong with it at all. In other words they said what you said about some things being "wrong" but not being "sinful." They hesitated to call something sinful that God Himself had not designated as sinful. I do not think Paul, in Romans 1:26, is addressing lesbianism. He has something very different in mind there. I tend to think that God sees love between two people of the same sex exactly the same way He sees two people of the opposite sex loving one another. If it is love, and not idolatry or connected to abominable practices, then it is simply love and is therefore very different than what Israel was dealing with. I will let that be all I say in this context, but I encourage you to carefully rethink and restudy this area if you haven't already…
So Southernmost…You have been a great blessing to me in helping me distance myself in yet another couple of areas where the negative Gnosticism of Church history programmed me incorrectly and I love that! I continually find Jesus setting me free from past errors of thinking and I want to be free indeed.
Hi there HigherQuest,
Thank you for your comment and I am glad mine was of value to you. Bible study is of utmost priority to us believers as it brings us closer to the mind and heart of Christ, the Father and His Holy Spirit, and I think we all seek a deeper connection to Him.
Regarding homosexuality; indeed I have researched it and it's not as straightforward a topic to study and I acknowledge the arguments you've presented as they're valid.
Let me divulge what I have studied.
I know of the argument that Leviticus is only prohibiting male-to-male sex in the context of idol worship. However, if this is true, then are we to assume that incest and bestiality are also only being condemned in light of idol worship? This is the question I ask when looking at the argument. I do not believe that gay sex is being condemned only in the idol-worship sense because in context it seems grouped together with all the other sexual laws like incest and bestiality.
Secondly, the only marriage unions approved of in the Bible are of that between a man and a woman, we do not read of other such unions being sanctioned. Now, it is true that men shared very close bonds in the Bible, but we never see these men progress to marriage, nor do we read about them having sex. I realise that this is not a hard-fast rule against gay unions, but it is telling when paired with other Biblical data.
Thirdly, in a marriage of two men, who would be the head of the house and lead the family? How would one even start a family? How would a child, have all the needs he or she requires some of which can only be supplied by a mother? God is very concerned with the family unit.
Fourth, regarding lesbian sex, I full agree that neither Romans or Leviticus is speaking about a law against it. However, I believe this is because of polygamy. Because, if a man lay with two women, and there was a law against lesbian sex – then the threesome would be blatant sin. So I think that God did not make a law against lesbian sex because He sanctioned polygamy as acceptable marriage. In the way I see things, God would have contradicted Himself if He condoned polygamy but outlawed lesbian sex. Now, we do not read about threesomes in the Bible, at least to my knowledge, but one must think that if there is no law against lesbian sex, that a man could have had a threesome or whatever-some with his wives.
What I've come to learn is that the Bible is not equal with the genders. It seems that for some genders certain things are permitted and expected because God has a natural order of things.
In conclusion, I think this area needs much more study and prayer. But Jesus did say that His burden is light, and I believe there are simple answers to these questions.
Kind regards,
Southernmost
SecondMarge
I love your comments! You are such a free soul and your freedom is sweetly infectious…thank you!
However, and very respectfully expressed, I find myself unable to agree with your following comment "If we look at the wide variety of situations we see people living their lives, often happily, we need to examine the possibilities. From remaining alone through polygamy, open marriage, same sex couplings, are all becoming as common place as two virgins being joined and no man putting asunder. Serial monogamy seems to be the most common." I agree that many of these are becoming commonplace, but that fact in and of itself doesn't make all such cultural changes good. I do think that polygamy reflects a measure of the "open marriage" concept, except that it importantly differs from it also. While it opens the marriage wide to additional sex partners it should only do so in the context of committed marriage relationships. This is the only arrangement that appears to have been sanctioned by God. Solomon didn't just add to his harem any gal he wanted to have sex with, but in each case he entered into a clear marriage relationship with each one and they ceased having sex with anyone other than himself. As I have studied same sex marriages I have transitioned towards thinking that in all likelihood God sees those differently than what was so intensely rejected in the OT and NT. But open marriages, swinging, and serial monogamy…? I'm not prepared to go there with so many scriptures appearing to oppose them.
I do see our culture making many important, and in some cases good, moral transitions, and you have rightly accepted some of them, but I believe we must all be so careful to not allow our modern culture to blind us to some of the reasons God presents for sexual exclusivity. It is one thing to love sex, and surely I do and I'd love to have God give me permission to have sex with just any woman who was willing, but He hasn't in Scripture and I don't anticipate Him helping me find it ok to do something He clearly rejected with good reason. I think we have to stand between an ever changing culture and God and say "Some erotic media is good, helpful to marriages, etc., but some isn't." We enjoy couples oriented erotic media but we are exceedingly uncomfortable with the portrayals of women being hurt, abused, and degraded for the misogynistic pleasures of cruel men. We'd love to see culture completely reject those portrayals and lean towards the simple portrayals of enjoyment of sex between two married people. It is my understanding that surveys indicate just such a swing away from abusive presentations is taking place. I pray that continues…
I love your many references to the rejection of guilt tripping ourselves over past mistakes. Such emotional self shaming and condemnation is not helpful to overcoming sin, but I think it is possible to agree with God as to things that are sinful and do so apart from demeaning self shaming. When I sin I simply look up to God, agree with Him, thank Him for His loving grace, and move on. I refuse to wallow in shame, and I can't imagine it to be His plan for any of us to do so. Some sadness is good, but dwelling on past failures is not healthy.
So thanks for all you contribute here, and please don't receive my disagreeing with some of your comments as rejections or shaming of your person…
southernmost
Here's my thought on our sub discussion of whether there is any legitimacy for the same sex marriage topic… Since you have done a great deal of excellent study on this subject what you would say to your writing a discussion article and post it to MH. If they are open to allowing an open discussion of the topic I'd be happy to share some of my studies on this subject after you post the initial discussion. What do you say?
I'm not prepared to say "I fully support same sex marriages," but I am fairly comfortable in saying "I don't see any direct biblical discussion of." This doesn't mean I favor it or don't favor it. My feeling is that it is likely to be considered in similar manner to God's acceptance of Polygamy. I never hear Him say in Scripture that He favors Polygamy, but He also doesn't forbid it, similarly as with human slavery, and sexual fondling during the engagement period. I suspect, that while same sex marriage is incapable of fulfilling the "be fruitful and multiple" mandate, and same sex marriages would bring a significant challenge to "male headship in the home, or who would be the head of the home…" that it is possible that for some believers such a marriage arrangement might be accepted by God as less than the optimal marriage arrangement but also not necessarily to be considered sinful in every case. But…please consider taking this up as a subject all its own and we'll see where it leads.
[From MH: while we do allow a certain amount of lattitude in comments to facilitate the flow of conversation, we wouldn't like to take this discussion of same sex marriage any further. It is not in keeping with MH's mission or guiding principles.]
MH. I understand and am happy to avoid any further commenting on the subject.
Great article, HigherQuest! You made a great scriptural case against open marriages. Sex is not an arrangement between just two people, but between two people and God.
Sex is THE act of marriage. It is the most intimate and meaningful act two people can engage in to express their love for each other. I don't understand why anyone would want to throw that away for mere pleasure when, if we do it God's way, can have meaning AND the ultimate physical and emotional pleasure.
A few comments on polygamy:
*Someone did a study of population counts at various points in the bible. The population went down at one point, presumably because of wartime deaths. These deaths would have been all men. He estimated that there may have been three women for every two men. If that were the case, allowing polygamy would have been understandable. Marriage is important enough to God that He encourages us to participate in it even under far less than ideal circumstances.
*Aside from a population with a disproportionate number of women, a reason to allow polygyny and not polyandry would be the difficulty in determining paternity of the children.
*Having a large harem such as Solomon has or even more than a few wives was a sin. Scripture expects husbands to provide for their wives sexual needs.
Also, rather than say that the Bible permits pornography, why not just say that the Bible permits erotica, within boundaries? The term "pornography" is prejudicial and will turn people off before they even consider your argument.
We tend to think of erotica as relatively tame PG13 as opposed to pornography which is more explicit. However, this understanding is not true to the actual definition. Using the term "explicit, moral erotica" doesn't leave much room for misunderstanding what you are talking about.
We tend to think of pornography as having no artistic, educational, or moral value. And this is indeed the case with most pornography. It often depicts immoral acts, and even when it portrays sex between one man and one woman, the man and woman making it are usually fornicating. In most cases they are not enjoying the act or saying "I love you" thru the act, but doing it to earn money. Porn actors, especially women, may be working under inhumane or degrading conditions.
Erotica that depicts or describes sexual acts within the Biblical boundary of being between a husband and a wife is a whole different thing! It is uplifting, praises the goodness of God, does not degrade the people depicted or described, promotes sexual morality, is very beautiful from an artistic standpoint, and can be educational.
ILoveMarriage
Points well taken! After I sent in the article I had wished I had used my preferred phrase "erotic media" but I didn't want to trouble Missy to make the change. I agree with your comments on porn… Way too much of it is unedifying for sure…