Sex and the Single Christian

Yesterday, I blogged a new Sermon Summary on my Forum page. There were passages from both Genesis 1 and 2 included in the message. The one from chapter 1 was verses 27-30, which speak to the creation of Eve and the fact that woman is "bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh" and to the concept often cited as God's "Marriage Mandate" of a man leaving his mother and the woman her home.

The points they are overlooking here are as follow:

1. The idea that the point of marriage is in direct correlation with God's commission to Adam and Eve to "be fruitful and multiply" is false. Just think about the fact that the Bible mentions at least 2 women who were married, but barren until God saw fit to open their wombs. Their names, of course, Sarah, wife of Abraham, and Elizabeth, Mary's cousin who was married to Zachariah. One example from my own experience is my ex mother in law, Jeanice. Due to her inability to have children, my ex husband, Rich, was adopted. Besides which, while the ideal environment in which to raise kids is a stable one with both parents present and helping; that doesn't require that they be married. Also, another aspect of a man leaving his mother and a woman leaving her home was one of financial independence. This need not involve a legal piece of paper either. This also brings us to the point some believe that the only reason to have sex is to have children, which is also a false assumption, particularly in light of what we just said about barren women being married. The question then becomes, "Should barren women remain single and celibate??" but in that case, how would they know?? The circular reasoning simply doesn't work. In response to this, some will mention the Judaic Code as it relates to "wasted seed", in Genesis 38:9. Onan refused to carry out the familial duty of the brother-in-law to ensure the family name continued and that the widow would be cared for in old age, so God put him to death. In researching this story, a couple of things came to light. First of all, the original husband, Er, suffered God's judgement because he refused to impregnate his wife so she wouldn't lose her shape. This was dishonorable. Secondly, Onan's sin was less about "wasted seed" and more about disrespecting his brother by refusing to ensure that he had an heir. Also, there is nothing in the Talmud that inherently speaks against wasted seed in every situation. There are allowances made for childless couples, couples who are currently expecting, couples who already have children, and young singles who may be tempted into worse situations. (the direct ruling is toward guys here, but females are indicated in the broader scope of our subject here) The obscure term "Onanism" (at least I've never heard it before) is sometimes equated today with masturbation. But as we will see below, that isn't a real problem if handled properly*. So the bottom line on this portion is that, not only is the idea of wasted seed NOT an official part of the 613 Jewish Laws, but even if it were, we are none of us any longer responsible to those laws since Jesus came to take His place as Messiah. Besides which, these details of the Law were created by men in the cultural environment of their day, according to their understanding of God's desires. Not even all sects of Judaism take all of these points seriously.*

2. The very concept of marriage has changed throughout history. It wasn't until the last couple of hundred years that marriage had anything to do with love. It was always related to advancing the family's social and/or economic standing. It has also been used by countries in gaining allies. At the same time, the Bible never gives us any specifications on a ceremony or even words to exchange. In fact, the passage in Matthew 5, in the very words of Jesus, no less, we find that His thoughts on Divorce are immediately followed by the denunciation of oaths or vows in the Name of God. In this portion of Scripture, He tells His audience simply this: "Let your 'yes' be 'yes' and your 'no' be 'no'; for whatever is more than this is from the Evil one. (verse 37) While the Bible has protections around marriage after the fact, there is no actual mandate for it. Many people will point to the "pattern of marriage", as outlined in the Bible; the overwhelming truth is that there is no "pattern" aside from mutual respect, love, and faithfulness. There is also the point that Jesus said in Matthew 22:30, that in Heaven, there is no marriage or giving in marriage. This proves how unimportant marriage is to God. Therefore, there is no point in it now, Scripturallly speaking.

3. Furthermore, it is a fact that, while the ISSUE of sin is universal, the DEFINITIONS of sin may be different*. One might think about it this way, although it's true that God's standards never change, man's methods of meeting them may encompass a wider variety. For example, one person may prefer to mow their grass at 2" and another at 2 1/2". The point lies in the fact that the grass is cut. That being said, the idea that we, or anyone else who relates to our situation, are giving 'the appearance of evil' (Gal. 5:22)* is false. Or that our behavior is causing a "stumbling block". (Rom. 14:13 and 1 Cor. 8:9) Either one of these points are refuted first of all, by the fact that, as this article proves, there IS NONE. Secondly, the fact that only a few people would be fully aware of the situation means that the reputations of neither the individuals in question, the congregations they may be associated with, nor that of the churches, would be tarnished. The fact of the lack of actual sin inherently means that no one is condoning "inappropriate behavior". Therefore, there's no reason to judge it or to be concerned about something that really isn't anyone else's business.

   
   

4. Contrary to popular belief, the Bible has absolutely nothing to say about premarital sex or even sex between 2 consenting adults within the agreed upon boundaries of an exclusive relationship. This means that the point of marriage in the future of the connection is moot. As one of my ex-boyfriend's, Jeremy, put it, we were "Marriage Minded". It's the intent that matters most. A former pastor of mine called me out on the fact that Jeremy and I were "living in sin" because we lived together without being married. But honestly, how is anyone to know if the relationship is actually going to work without the testing ground of cohabitation?? You may say that there's a Bible verse that talks about love covering a multitude of sins. Okay, yes, it's located in 1 Peter 4:8. Here's the thing about that verse, it's placed in the context of Christian unity. It has nothing to say specifically about romantic relationships. The fact that verse 3 speaks against a list of wrongs, including sexual sins, only calls Peter's audience out from Pagan practices and idolatry. Once again, nothing about two consenting adults in an exclusive relationship. That being said, the fact that my fiancé, Michael, and I stay over at each other's place and are physically intimate on occasion is perfectly fine. There are those who would suggest that we are self-justifying wrong behavior*, but the fact that we intend on marrying at some point proves that we are not trapped in sin; but simply waiting for the right time to officially join ourselves in a legal manner. Note that the Bible concerns itself more with questions of the heart while downplaying adherence to man's way of thinking. Just look at 1 Samuel 16:7 when God is guiding him to choose David as King. We are reminded here that, "... man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart." (in this case, action) You can also look at verses about the intention of the heart being equal to specific actions. I realize the main verse for this relates to lust, Matt. 5:28 gives us the words of Jesus against lusting after another because this means you have already committed adultery in your heart. To explore this in more depth, we need to look at the Biblical definitions of Adultery and Sexual Immorality -- in a brief search a few days ago, I found that Adultery in the Bible only speaks to the ideas of - a) one spouse cheating on the other with a single 3rd party, b) one spouse cheating with another married party, or c) one spouse cheating with someone who is engaged. That's it!! The reference to Paul's admonition that one is committing Adultery if a person is divorced actually has NOTHING TO DO WITH Marriage or Divorce, per se. I just found the following commentary that explains -- What does Romans 7:3 mean? Earlier, the book of Romans mentioned that salvation in Christ involves a kind of spiritual "death." The prior context was in turning from sin, and instead choosing to be alive in Christ. Here, Paul is explaining how this same idea means freedom from the obligations of the law. This verse concludes an idea begun in the previous verse. It is an illustration of Paul's point that someone who has died is no longer bound to follow the law of Moses. To show this, he points to the "law of marriage" that binds two people together. Paul has written that a married woman is released from this law if her husband dies. Now he repeats this idea, adding that if a woman lives with another man while she is still married, she will be known as an adulteress. If her husband dies, however, the law no longer holds her. She is free to marry another man. Paul will again state, in the following verse, that Christians have died in a spiritual sense, freeing us from our spiritual obligation to the law. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The initial google result here also mentions the Biblical definition of an Adulterer as: "one who has unlawful intercourse with the spouse of another." I don't see anything here about single adult to single adult, do you?? And the term "single", as indicated here, doesn't speak to the person who is completely unattached, but to those who are in solid, dedicated relationships without the formality of a legal connection.

Now, looking at the Biblical definition of Sexual Immorality, we look to the Greek word, "porneia", which is sometimes translated as "whoredom". This supports the idea I've heard before that all those references in the Bible actually speak to lasciviousness, which refers to having sex without boundaries. This would include scenarios such as orgies, or as another thing I saw earlier this week suggested, any two singles who are specifically NOT in a committed and exclusive relationship* . It patently says nothing against adult singles in a healthy relationship. This man's work was extensive, as indicated in the footnote below, and even brought up the idea of sex actually equating to marriage in some circles.

Hebrews 13:4 is often used to argue in support of "Biblical Marriage", because it gives the instruction that marriage should be honored above all and the marriage bed not be defiled; but then the issue becomes, "What IS 'Biblical Marriage'?? As evidenced from my points above, there IS NONE. While The 10 Commandments give protection against Adultery, and Leviticus outlines appropriate personal connections*, there is absolutely nothing that demands the connection of two people by a ceremony or by a piece of paper. In fact, the only reason it is even mentioned in the Bible is because, number one, men were divorcing their wives for "lame" reasons. For example, "Oh, she burned my dinner again tonight, I'm done!!" In light of Jesus' words in Matthew 5, which only allowed for divorce due to Adultery, we can see, once again protections around the human practice of marriage, but still no mandate that it be done. The other reason God had it brought up was that it provided a good comparison to our what our relationship with Him should look like.

And this is another major point that many people who have sat under bad preachers believe. That divorce should not be allowed because, "what God has brought together, let no man drive asunder" (Matt. 19:6), or quoting from Malachi 2:16, where it talks about how God hates divorce. I would question the first bit by saying, "What if God DIDN'T bring the 2 people together??". What if God is simply allowing them to make their mistakes until they come to their senses (or don't)?? I don't know about your God, but mine allows people to fix their mistakes and move on. Just look at Jesus' reaction to the Woman caught in Adultery (Jn. 8:1-11). In essence, He simply tells her to go home and fix it. Now that I think of it, both she and Rahab (Joshua 6) were promiscuous in one way or another, and God mentions them in light of His mercy and forgiveness. He even blesses Rahab with the honor of being among Jesus' direct line of ancestry!! (Matt. 1:5) The second, about God hating divorce, I would debunk out of hand with the proper context that He was talking about the relationship between Himself and Israel and not about marriage. Therefore, if our relationship with God doesn't require a ceremony, neither does marriage.

What I am glad to see happening in many churches concerning the "rules of divorce" not only encourages me into knowing that they are coming around to a better understanding of God's Word in terms of divorcing for reasons of abuse, but it also brings me to the final point I have to make concerning what the Bible actually says about both Marriage and Sex.

4. Another passage commonly used by those too ignorant (or lazy)to study for themselves is found in 1 Corinthians 7. Here, Paul is extoling the advantages of the single life in keeping focus on God and His Mission. While people like to "cherry pick" verses to support their own opinions and/or agendas, Paul's concession in verse 9, where he allows for the idea of marriage as opposed to lust; he makes it abundantly clear in verse 6 that that's all it is, a concession, NOT a command!! What he is saying in verses 1-5 about husbands and wives is strictly due to the immediate problem presented in verse 2. There was Sexual Immorality going on in the Church, and marriage would be a viable solution. Again, nothing here against two consenting adults in a mutually exclusive, healthy relationship. His comments in verses 25-39, where he is addressing singles (for the most part), he is only encouraging them to stay as they are and focus on God rather than on the world. This passage also speaks to the issue of being unequally yoked; which, as you can see, Paul suggests is perfectly fine due to the potential of the Godly witness of one eventually bringing the other to Salvation.* 2 Corinthians 6:14 is the core verse of this subject, which on the surface of things may seem contradictory, but bear with me here. Paul's point in this passage has less to do with marriage than it does with idolatry. The danger here was that the New Believer may not have the strength of conviction to successfully navigate a long-term relationship with an Unbeliever. You will notice in the 1 Cor. 7 passage that Paul does not consider an unequal marriage to be valid grounds for divorce because, as long as there is no infidelity or disrespect of person, then they clearly have enough in common to make things work. I've heard of Churches that even bring this issue to the point of being on the same level of Spiritual Maturity, but that's just excessive, not to mention Legalistic, nonsense.

Some will also point to Exodus 22:16-17 Deuteronomy 22:28-29 in support of a Biblical Marriage mandate. Those people are also wrong because, if you look at the verses immediately prior to these, you find a list of restitutions for other situations between neighbors. The fact that this one speaks to men and women rather than to livestock or tools is moot. The point lies in the fact that a man who seduces an unattached woman and has sex with her results, according to Jewish Law, in his having to pay the dowry, REGARDLESS of her father allowing the marriage to take place. This was wise foresight on God's part, because maybe the man wasn't going to be worth marrying if he was willing to have sex under false pretenses. The bottom line was that, due to cultural norms, that woman was now "damaged goods", in a manner of speaking, and it would be that much more difficult to marry her off after the fact. These verses also suggest that the sex was consensual, so the question of a woman having to marry her rapist is not valid.

Literally the ONLY Biblical descriptions of Marriage found in Scripture are of mutual love, respect, and dedication. For this, we go to Ephesians 5:21-33. Here, as our previous passage, we see that husbands and wives are subject to each other in mutual respect. 1 Peter 3:7 tells the husbands to treat his wife with respect as the weaker partner. Basically, the Bible is saying that anything less does not provide the right environment, physically, mentally or spiritually, for a healthy relationship, whether you choose to involve an official ceremony or not. (thus the support for divorce due to abuse) Besides which, we all know that actions speak louder than words, right?? In my opinion, a live of true love, lived out in front of family and friends says more than 10 minutes in front of a Minister, Priest, Rabbi, or other officiant. And in thinking it through even further, the concept of marriage could actually be equated to that of Salvation. In Colossians 2:11, Paul describes the effect of Salvation on a person's life as a "circumcision of the heart". There is a spiritual change that will be borne out in the new life of the Believer as they follow Christ.* This comparison was made in light of the Jewish mandate of Circumcising baby boys as a hidden, albeit definitive sign of their identity with God. Likewise, the relationship between 2 consenting adults may be proved out in the dedication of their lives to one another, regardless of religious beliefs. Literally none of the places that list sins in the Bible, from the 10 Commandments*, Proverbs 6:16-19, or any given passage in the New Testament, speak directly against singles and sex with a dedicated partner.

As you can see from the above Scriptures and commentary, the Bible has absolutely nothing against Sex and the Single Christian; particularly in an exclusive relationship.

After several months and multiple updates to this post, I have only one more thing to add. In light of this morning's message (September 22nd, 2024), the warning of Jesus in Mark 8:34-35 against the influence of the Pharissees and of Herod comes into play here. The teachings of the Western Church, in combination with the legal details of marriage in our Modern Society and the human desires for power and control, have led to the gross misinterpretation of the Scriptures; not only in looking at Marriage, but other issues as well.

All of this having been said, I sincerely hope and pray that all who read this will be wise enough to take it to heart and possibly gain not only a deeper understanding of God's Word; but also empathy towards those who may need your encouragement and support in their struggles to be obedient to Him.

Footnotes:

1. The other thing I saw on this was from a man who has a Christian blog. I can't find it again right now, but his points were extensive on what the Lord had shown him concerning the limits of physical intimacy in different situations. His commentary even included the question of masturbation. (a perfectly healthy practice when focused on your significant other, btw. Or on a blank face, for those who are otherwise unattached) Even though the asterisk for masturbation comes before the mentioned article I saw, I'm "piggybacking" on here. The other points I've seen brought out in favor of masturbation include the ideas of preparing one's body to be touched by a partner later (thus, the "blank face" mentioned above, after all, going 0 to 60 in a car is an easy thing, but giving your body to another person, not so much); but also the fact that topical medications may be necessary at times and no one should limit treatment due to guilt forced by Legalistic Church authorities. In discussing this issue with others, I've also brought out the point that it's better to touch oneself than have the wrong person touching you. (this supports the Jewish Code mentioned above) Also, in further research here, the fact that Jewish Traditions of contracting marriage included premarital sex brought the following information to light - while the exchange of money and the outline of the marriage contract came first, the thing that sealed the deal was to consummate the promise through intercourse.

2. The thing about the issue of sin vs definition is adapted from a line in the book, "Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes" by E. Randolph Richards and Brandon J. O'Brien. The main example they give is a comparison of what Christianity looks like here in America as opposed to how it looks in Indonesia. While a "good Christian" here may consider it a sin to smoke cigarettes and/or drink alcohol, the "good Christian" in Indonesia wouldn't be caught dead in a Pool Hall, or even playing the game at all. The fact is, as mentioned above, the standard of the presence of sin may be universal, but the definitions may be both cultural and individual. The point then, lies in the unity of the body of Christ and not in the details of differing opinions. Once again, "piggybacking" on another point, the whole bit about "the appearance of Evil" led me to a deeper search. The following article is somewhat lengthy, but it thoroughly explains the proper context and interpretation of Gal.5:22 -- https://www.crivoice.org/appearance.html#:~:text=In%20this%20sense%2C%20%22the%20appearance,that%20loves%20to%20judge%20people.

3. In talking about the question of self-justification, the point doesn't only concern my own relationship, but all unmarried Christians in exclusive relationships. The difference between "the logic of sin" and what I'm doing here lies in the heart. While we have probably all had times when we justified our sins out of a heart of rebellion, I propose that any viewpoint that cannot be refuted by the thorough and accurate interpretation of Scripture, (as I've done here) is not a justification of sin. It is simply an effort to gain a greater understanding of God and His true intentions for us as opposed to man's opinions. As stated earlier, He concerns Himself with our hearts, not our rituals. (See Hosea 6:6, Matt. 9:9-13, Rom. 2:25-29, 1 Peter 3:15, etc...) We've all heard the bit about not "putting God in a box", right?? So why insist on doing it??

4. As to the list in Leviticus concerning "appropriate physical connections", specifically Lev. 18:22, I have a whole lot to say about that as well, but that's for another post I have not yet written.

5. As to the point of Jewish beliefs, there are some who feel that the act of sex actually constitutes marriage. (Or at least seals the engagement) Just look at the story of Jesus' birth for an example of this. That being a precedent, in combination with the fact that Michael and I are engaged, I see no reason why the length of our engagement should limit our physical relationship. (I realize that the thing about consummation should have gone down here, but at least I've included it.)

6. In light of the whole "unequally yoked" thing, one of my teachers at the Christian School I attended growing up was married to an unbelieving husband for several decades. I don't remember if she ever shared that he accepted Christ or not, but I sincerely hope so. Also, one of the couples at my Fellowship Group table were unequally yoked when they married, but they have shown Paul's suggestion of one partner's Godly witness leading the other to Christ. Likewise, my best friend, Andrea, and her husband Matt were unequal while they were dating, but he came to the Lord before they got married.

7. The bit about comparing marriage and Salvation also begs the question of Baptism. I thought I had a post about that some time ago; but it looks like I'll have to redo it at some point.

8. While the 10 Commandments mention Adultery and Coveting, as we've seen above, the first has limited applications, and the second has the potential for sin, but only apart from the parameters previously discussed.