Andrew Bunt has just written an excellent new Grove booklet in the Ethics series, Three or More: Reflections on Polyamory and Consensual Non-monogamy. I was able to catch up with him and ask him about why he wrote the booklet, and what we need to think about on this issue.
IP: Why have you decided to write this booklet now? Why are polyamory and consensual non-monogamy the next issues in contemporary sexual ethics?
AB: I decided to write this booklet now because I really think Christians need to start thinking about these topics now.
In part, that’s because the rise in polyamory and consensual non-monogamy is almost inevitable and is already happening. It’s almost inevitable because it’s the logical next step in modern western society’s dismantling of a sexual ethic rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Once sex is severed from procreation, the idea that it should be restricted to unions of two (like the idea it should be restricted to male-female unions) begins to unravel. Mix that with the priority of individual freedom in our culture and the idea that anything is ethical so long as it doesn’t clearly cause harm to individuals, and there’s no reason why modern western society wouldn’t come to accept polyamory and consensual non-monogamy.
And so it’s no surprise that we are seeing evidence of increasing acceptance of polyamory and consensual non-monogamy—for example, more than a third of UK adults say polyamory is morally acceptable and only just over half of adults in the US report that their ideal relationship is completely monogamous. Plus, we’re seeing both practices featuring more prominently in TV, film and journalism. Visibility usually plays a significant role in shifting cultural attitudes.
In light of all of this, now is the time Christians should be thinking about these topics so we are prepared to respond well.
IP: For many Christians, their response to this question will be simple and direct. Why do you believe we need to think more carefully through the issues involved?
AB: Simple and direct answers are an important starting point, but they’re not enough to protect us or prepare us.
If we can’t explain not only that polyamory and consensual non-monogamy fall short of God’s plan but why, we will struggle to hold on to our beliefs as cultural views change. A few decades ago, many Christians who today support same-sex marriage would have answered questions about same-sex sexuality simply and directly, affirming the historic Christian view. But as societal attitudes have changed and put pressure on such people’s beliefs, and as they have met people in same-sex relationships who are nice people and seem to have healthy, loving relationships, those simple, direct answers haven’t been able to withstand the pressure placed on them. As a result, people have changed their views. They were left vulnerable to cultural pressure because they didn’t know the reason behind what they believed. If we want to protect ourselves from the same happening with polyamory and consensual non-monogamy, we need to think more deeply about these topics.
Simple and direct answers also aren’t enough to prepare us to engage well with the world around us. If all we have to offer the world around us is a simple and direct ‘No’ it conveys the idea that the God we follow is a controlling killjoy and that we are uneducated bigots blindly following an out-of-date religious text. But if we have deeply thought-through and compelling reasons for our beliefs, and if we can show people how the Christian vision for sex and relationships is better for them and for society than the view currently offered by our culture, these controversial topics can become wonderful opportunities to point people to Christ. In short, simple and direct answers are likely to erect barriers that stop people considering Christ, but deep, thoughtful engagement could equip us to remove barriers and instead create doorways to belief.
IP: Before turning to scripture, it is striking that you trace the cultural journey which has led us to this point. What does that journey look like, and why do we need to be aware of it?
AB: Understanding the cultural shifts that have led to this point helps us get our heads around why we need to start engaging. They show that the growing acceptance of polyamory and consensual non-monogamy isn’t a surprising, temporary blip, it’s the logical outworking of several journeys modern western culture has been on for some time.
I think understanding these journeys is also really helpful for thinking about how we can engage well and, in particular, how we can show that the Christian vision for sex and relationships is not only different but better than that offered by modern western society.
Take friendship as just one example. I think the decline of meaningful friendship is one of the driving factors behind what we’re seeing with polyamory and consensual non-monogamy. Friendship is undervalued in the modern west. We see that even in the language we use to distinguish friendship from romantic and sexual relationships. ‘They’re just friends’, we say. Our God-given need for human connection—to love and be loved—hasn’t gone away. But we’ve concluded that sex and romance are the only ways that need can be met. (That’s a cultural view, but sadly it’s often also been common among Christians.)
Put those two things together and you’ve got a recipe for growing acceptance of polyamory: I have a need to love and be loved but my romantic and sexual relationship with one other person isn’t fully meeting that need. Friendship is a lesser form of love, romance and sex are where it’s at, so obviously what I need is more romantic and sexual partners. The devaluing of friendship and overvaluing of sex combine to set people up for a life of ever-increasing numbers of sexual and romantic partners that never truly satisfy.
How is that helpful for us to realise? It helps us see that there are often good desires behind the practice of polyamory, and we have a better answer for the meeting of those desires. Friendship is not an insignificant relationship. It should be a relationship of radical experienced and expressed love (see John 15:13!). If you have a romantic and sexual partner and they’re not meeting all your needs for love, that’s not something going wrong, that’s things going right. They’re not meant to. All of us are meant to have a network of friendships alongside any other relationship. And ultimately, all our relationships, friendship or otherwise, are meant to point us to the one relationship that can truly satisfy—relationship with God through Christ.
Reflecting on the cultural journeys that are leading to the acceptance of polyamory and consensual non-monogamy equips us to think about how we can use this topic as an opportunity to point people to Christ.
IP: Many have noted that the description of polygamy in the Bible might undermine the idea of ‘biblical marriage’. Is that a fair criticism? What does scripture say about marriage which helps us think about polyamory?
AB: This is a really important question, and a good example of why Christians need to be prepared on these topics. You might have your simple and direct answer on polyamory, but what will you say when someone points out the practice of polygamy in the Bible?
I think the phrase ‘biblical marriage’ is unhelpful when it’s not further qualified. There are at least two potential meanings. One is God’s plan and design for marriage. That’s probably what most people who use the phrase mean by it. But another is the pattern(s) of marriage found in the Bible. That presents much greater variety than what Christians have traditionally said to be God’s plan for marriage, with the practice of polygamy being the most obvious variation.
Our starting point needs to be recognising that not every portrayal of marriage in the Bible represents God’s plan and design for marriage. That shouldn’t be a surprise to us. We all recognise that even the most significant people in Scripture (with one important exception!) don’t always perfectly live out God’s will. The Bible is brutally honest about the world we live in and even about those who have followed God in generations before us. So the portrayals of polygamous marriages don’t necessarily offer any support to the idea that God would approve of polygamy. And when the relevant texts are carefully considered, there is no reason to think God supports polygamy. In fact, there’s pretty clear evidence that he doesn’t. I explore that briefly in the booklet and have done so at greater length in this article.
What the Bible does say about marriage is hugely helpful in thinking through polyamory and consensual non-monogamy. Both Genesis 1 and 2 (and Jesus in Luke 20:35-36) show that marriage and sex are meant to be intimately connected with procreation. That tells us the structure of those unions must be a pairing of two as only two can be involved in procreation through sex. But the central point of the Bible’s presentation of God’s design for marriage is that marriage relationships are meant to represent Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5:31-32; Revelation 19:7). That relationship is a union of two (the church is considered as a corporate whole in the relevant texts) and so marriage must also be a union of two. That’s not a pointless restriction, it’s about marriage fulfilling its primary purpose.
IP: In your fourth chapter, you tease out the elements of ethical support for polyamory. How does Christian ethical thinking address these?
AB: There are a number of arguments offered in support of the moral acceptability of polyamory. When we examine these from the perspective of Christian thought we find that each has problems that come down to core, worldview-level foundations.
Take the argument from individual autonomy, for example. Probably one of the most common and powerful arguments in our cultural context. The argument goes that everyone should have the freedom to follow their desires and engage in whatever relationships they want, so long as everyone is consenting so no one gets hurt.
If we assess this from a Christian perspective we can see that it is built on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of true freedom. In a Christian understanding, true freedom isn’t the ability to follow our desires and do what we want. In fact, in a Christian understanding that’s a form of slavery because our desires have been distorted by sin, they lie to us and deceive us. Most people can see this when they stop and think about it – we all know that following our every desire is not good for us. Christian teaching says that true freedom is the ability to live how we were designed to live. That makes sense if we are creatures of the creator, and that is what we are offered in the gospel – freedom and empowerment to live the way God has designed us to live.
This argument also assumes that ethics is just about harm. Polyamory and consensual non-monogamy are fine so long as everyone’s consenting so that no one gets hurt. But that’s both a dangerous and unchristian way of doing ethics. It’s dangerous because we often don’t know what will and won’t harm. And consent isn’t a sufficient safeguard because we can (deliberately or not) consent to things that will harm us and there’s no obligation on us to consider the wellbeing of others when we are consenting. It’s also an unchristian approach. Christian ethics aren’t just about harm minimisation; they’re about obeying the one who created us. The primary consideration is not what minimises harm, but how God want us to live. Since God is good, his ways will be those that ultimately minimise harm, but that is a fruit of ethical living not the arbiter of it.
In the booklet, I examine a couple of other arguments, and some attempts at Christian arguments, showing how each falls short of Christian ethical thinking.
IP: Why is it important to combine clear thinking with gracious living in this debate?
AB: The combination of clear thinking and gracious living is always important in Christian engagement because it’s the way Christ has modelled to us. Often it doesn’t come naturally to us – a combination of the flesh and our personalities means most will find one or the other comes more naturally but the combination of the two doesn’t. That’s why we must be deliberate about considering what it looks like to combine the two and must then put that into practice.
It’s also important because as people encounter us combining clear thinking with gracious living they get to see in us something of the heart of God. We get to subtly challenge the caricatures of God that so many have and can help them instead to see what God is really like and what is his heart towards them. As I mentioned above, if we can learn to engage well, even complex and controversial topics like sexual ethics can become doorways through which people encounter Jesus.
IP: Where do you see the debate going in the next few years—in Western culture, and in the Western church?
AB: Obviously any predictions about the future are only educated guesswork. I don’t feel I’ve had divine revelation about the future trajectory of this debate! But my expectation is that Western culture and the Western church will follow similar trajectories, with the church a little behind, as usual.
I think polyamory and consensual non-monogamy will become more widely accepted, though the numbers actually engaging in either will be much lower. Wide acceptance is very likely given that the foundations for any secular objection to polyamory or consensual non-monogamy have largely been dismantled. This will combine with greater visibility—which we’re already seeing—and result in changed attitudes. I suspect actual numbers practicing polyamory or consensual non-monogamy will grow but not to huge numbers. I think that will be the case partly because most people will still be shaped by the strength of cultural norms to this point (which has been monogamy, even if serial monogamy), partly because of the practical strain of such relationships (it’s sometimes noted that polyamory couldn’t flourish in a society without shared online calendars!), and partly because something of the creator’s design still lingers in human hearts.
I suspect, regrettably, that the same will happen in parts of the Western church, just a little later. The reality is that much of the moral logic that has been used by some in the Western church to affirm same-sex marriage can also be used to affirm polyamory. Many have already made the shifts which will mean they can’t withstand the cultural pressure that we’ll face to change our position. I suspect numbers of self-identifying Christians who practice polyamory and consensual non-monogamy will remain relatively low, but the blessing of polyamorous relationships, and even the right to marry more than one person, could become big battlegrounds for the next generation of Christians.
Having said all that, there are two related matters that could mean things pan out differently. First, there is the growing secular pushback against the sexual revolution, especially from feminists. Polyamory divides feminists: the movement has feminist roots, but some contemporary feminists think that the practice is almost inevitably anti-woman. It’s possible that pushback from such feminists could have some tempering effect on societal changes. My hunch, however, is that those voices will be a small but vocal opposition as change takes place.
Related to this, is the opportunity that the secular pushback to the sexual revolution gives the church. As people observe and experience the failure of the sexual revolution to deliver on what it offered, the Church has an opportunity to present God’s good news and better story on sex and relationships. The destruction, pain and emptiness the sexual revolution has left in many lives, families and communities could prove to be a fruitful seedbed for the gospel and for God’s plan for sex and relationships. I think we will increasingly see people coming to faith in Jesus because of his better story on sex and relationships. This will be wonderful, and every story will be something to celebrate, but I suspect it won’t change the general trajectory of modern Western culture. I may be wrong, and I hope and pray I am, but that’s my best guess at this stage.
IP: Thanks for these helpful—and challenging—reflections!
Andrew Bunt is Emerging Generations Director at Living Out, a charity that helps people, churches and society talk about faith and sexuality. He studied theology at Durham University and King’s College London and loves helping people to understand and live out biblical teaching. He is the author of Finding Your Best Identity: A Short Christian Introduction to Identity, Sexuality and Gender (London: IVP, 2022).
You can buy Andrew’s booklet on polyamory, in print and electronic formats, on the Grove website here, and his booklet People not Pronouns: Reflections on Transgender Experience here.
Buy me a Coffee
This essay is talking about simultaneous polyamory rather than consecutive polyamory which is already a social norm in the degenerating West today – and increasingly in its church, too. The USA led the way in that. Europeans tended to keep discreet mistresses if they could afford them.
What pastoral advice should the church give to a polyamorist man – Muslim, pagan or secular – who comes to Christ? I suggest it is: keep all of your wives, but marry no more unless they have all died (of natural causes).
Isn’t that already the advice that some churches give to polygamously married converts in Africa? It recognises that polygamy is not the Christian ideal, while accepting that to cast off wives would expose the abandoned women (and their children, possibly?) to intense social stigma, marginalisation and economic hardship
I expect it is; I’d foreseen the social problem you mention (and see Exodus 21:10), but I’ve no experience of churches in Africa.
We lived in Nigeria for 10 years, and this was/is a live issue for polygamous men coming to Christ. Women who were one of a number of wives in this instance would be returned to a male relative. I employed women who were the unfavoured wives of a polygamist: they were starved of food, clothes, money for their children, and love, and could be constantly beaten. We need to remember the needs of women in all this. It’s complex.
Yes. Are you aware of Exodus 21:10? (NB the meaning of the third thing that the first wife must not be deprived of, onathah, is not known with certainty; it appears nowhere else in the Old Testament.)
Anton
The third of the trilogy of obligation of the husband to his second wife is probably a euphemism for sexual intercourse in the expectation of children.
That’s an informed guess.
More than a !guess”, Anton.
It’s the long standing traditional interpretation of Jewish rabbis dating back centuries and centuries.
The word is a one-time occurrence in the Scriptures, so no one actually knows for sure what it means; no one except Moses and the people of the original audience!
Jack,
Longstanding traditions mean nothing. Unbroken tradition is what counts. Is it?
In years to come our government will face increasing pressure from Muslims to change the definition of marriage and recognise polygamy. Secular lawmakers will be torn in differing directions for multiple reasons, and I believe they will respond by totally derecognising marriage and declaring it a private arrangement governable under contract law. Then you can marry as many people (of as many genders) as you – and they – choose. Christians will need to revisit the biblical meaning of marriage.
Hi Anton,
“I believe they will respond by totally derecognising marriage and declaring it a private arrangement governable under contract law”
Would that be a bad thing?
Every society across all of human history and geography has recognised the need for some kind of recognition, because (1) a man has a right to demand a penalty against another man who gains intimacy with the bearer of his children; (2) who is the legitimate heir; (3) children need to be brought up in a stable relationship betwen their parents.
Yes. But should the state be involved in regulating such recognition?
As you probably know even in the UK state involvement came late – I believe it was about 1850.
The state has a right to know who is married to whom because it is expected to legislate succession and adultery.
You’re defining state involvement quite narrowly. Law on the rights of widows, problems with bigamy, adultery etc. pre-date 1850 by a long, long way.
Yes. The experience of gay people before we were able to be married or civil partnered shows just how bad. Couples had no next of kin rights if one was in hospital. They have no tenancy rights. They had no inheritance rights. If you’re not married you’re at risk of abandonment. And so on. Contract law was no substitute then. There’s no reason to think it would be a substitute in the future.
Why was contract law no substitute? I’m genuinely interested.
Yes. The comment that contract law was no substitute puzzles me.
I can’t use a contract to redefine next of kin. Nor can I create a spousal pension right. I can’t use it to create rights for my widow. etc. etc.
Regarding heterosexual marriage prior to 1850 the church regulated marriage in Europe. I know in Madagascar – and I presume in other cultures – marriage is as per the Old Testament – an implied civil contract between the families involved. If they are believers, they might choose to have a separate ceremony in the church. And they might also have a state ceremony. Or indeed any combination of the three. But they hold the three things separately in their minds whereas we have conflated them – I suggest this conflation has given rise to some of the confusion in the West.
Hi A J Bell
“I can’t use a contract to redefine next of kin. Nor can I create a spousal pension right. I can’t use it to create rights for my widow. etc. etc.”
Civil contract law only has difficulty in this because of the state’s ruling on these matters. If the state had stayed out of legislating marriage, contract law would have sufficed.
How would give my would-be widow rights to my pension with contract law?
A j Bell
“How would give my would-be widow rights to my pension with contract law?”
Under our present system you cannot. But if the state stayed out of marriage, if you own something, you can give it to whoever you want. The state and the church should have both stayed out of marriage—it works perfectly successfully that way historically and in other cultures today.
Anton
“The state has a right to know who is married to whom because it is expected to legislate succession and adultery”
Why should the state legislate these?
Marriage is a contract, without it if someone dies without a will their partner would get nothing and their property would go to next of kin blood relatives only
According to scripture marriage is a covenant, which I take to mean a contract in the context of a relationship.
Islam does allow multiple wives in certain circumstances but if you cannot properly support them all 1 is preferred
‘If you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.’
— Qur’an, Sura 4 (An-Nisa), Ayah 3
I am sorry to be pedantic, but if we’re doing biblical theology, we ought to get our terminology correct.
Polygamy embraces the concept of multiple husbands or wives. Polygyny is multiple wives and polyandry is multiple husbands. There are no examples of polyandry in Scripture and very few historically in wider society – but the Scripture has many examples of polygyny.
It is interesting in discussions on sexuality we are keen on getting the LGBT etc terminology accurate but we do not seem to apply the same diligence to our own biblical understanding. PLF is an example of such.
My guess is that 20 or 30 years down the line the CofE (if it still exists in any shape or form), will be bringing forward PLF for those in polyamorous relationships.
Yes,exactly. And those who can see the signs of the times, the trajectory, the way the wind is blowing, are not listened to when those who can’t are.
Yet again this is a case where being or thinking in terms of an established church is likely to skew both the approach Anglicans take and the way whatever you say will be perceived by people who aren’t Christians.
If a plural society is accepted with maximum practical freedom of beliefs, consensual polygamy/polyamory should be allowed, and where the relationship is formal – marriage-like – provision should be made for people to do it with suitable protection around any obvious possibilities of abuse.
If the church acts like it has the right to set the parameters for everybody, that won’t be popular; it can be seen as acting as ‘allotriepiskpoi’ – managers or bossy-boots in other people’s affairs in excatly the way Peter forbids when he uses that word in I Peter.
But if we act as the NT teaches …. That would mean not being entangled with the state; rather the state (and less formally the surrounding community) would be seen as ‘the World’ which we Christians don’t rule over but live and work in as a peaceable ‘counterculture’ (revealing my 1960s student roots there!), calling people out of the world and into God’s kingdom through voluntary faith. Also the church would work as the NT suggests, internationally, God’s holy nation but an unconventional nation, scattered through the world like the OT Jewish ‘Diaspora’…..
Hi Stephen,
Yes. Even the free church struggles with this – in that it usually accepts a couple are married and/or divorced based on the state registration of such – but has largely decoupled itself from the state’s understanding of marriage and divorce.
In the OT and many societies, the couple declare themselves married or divorced and then *inform* (rather than petition) the authorities.
Yes.
Marriage – unlike communion or baptism – is a creation ordinance and as I see it the church had no right to appropriate it to itself.
Madagascar has a population of 29 million and I suspect only a minority register their marriage relationships with the state or the church.
We are so conditioned in the West to our system we think if you have not registered your relationship with the state you are not married.
And even more confusingly for the church — we think our contemporary understanding of marriage in the West (based on Augustine’s Roman Catholic model) — is the same as the Jewish understanding in New Testament times. But it is not.
See the paper below that traces the history of this:
https://www.colinhamer.com/projects-1/how-the-church-redefined-marriage
Of course it did, as it is as much the union of 2 people who love each other as a means for producing children, indeed some who get married never have children and some who have children never get married
In England the authorities required marriage to take place in the Established church only from 1753, when Lord Hardwicke’s Bill to prevent ‘clandestine marriages’ was passed. Marital pledges made outside church were being taken less seriously in the event of breakdown than pledges made before a minister.
See the works of Rebecca Probert for detail, and Carle Zimmerman’s book ‘Family and Civilization’ for much about the evolution of marriage in European societies.
Colin
One of the troubles here is that the ‘free church(es)’ are often working on similar assumptions to the CofE about this being a ‘Christian country’ which should do Christian marriage. Presbyterians are state churches in other countries, and Methodism is not far from its Anglican roots.
There is a distinction between allowing polyamory by not criminalising it and recognising it as a formal union in civil law which nobody is proposing
Judging by the case of homosexuality, the “distinction” is 40-50 years.
I’m afraid I don’t accept the premise presented here.
As has been pointed out above, Islam has always allowed men to have multiple wives and no one would suggest it had broken the link between sex and procreation or had a lenient view on homosexuality. So too Mormonism (although they shifted back to monogamous marriage).
Is consensual non-monogamy a new thing? It may be being presented in new bottles, but it’s pretty old wine. For centuries it was accepted in the West that wealthy and powerful men would have mistresses. The mistresses of Kings were public figures. Somewhat infamously Francois Mitterand’s funeral in 1996 saw his widow and his mistress stand next to each other by his coffin. If anything attitudes have hardened against this. I can’t imagine anyone today suggesting that wives would have to put up with that.
Nor do I think we’re seeing a dismantling of the “sexual ethic rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition”. There was something of a debate about that in previous decades. Gay liberation movement claimed marriage was heteronormative oppression that gay people ought to reject rather than ape. More out there social radicals suggested marriage was a patriarchal tool to enslave women and ought to jettisoned. Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World posited a dystopia where monogamous relationships were abandoned in favour of a series of hedonistic orgies. But what has actually happened and which arguments held sway? Far from marriage being abandoned, it’s been embraced by gay people. Most people still want to get married, and a couple who say they want to be together but not be married is still very unusual. The arguments you hear against marriage are actually generally against very consumerist weddings.
It’s good for us to get our proverbial ducks in a row for the ethical debate, though I believe it will be a fringe thing for the foreseeable future. The guiding text for married relationships is arguably 1 Corinthians 7 which paints a picture of (for it’s time) quite radical equality – you should be concerned about the needs of your spouse (including sexual) and both the wife and husband have yielded authority over their bodies to each other. Two quick observations flow from that: firstly, that if you’re married you’re not a free agent (and the concept of having authority is somewhat stronger than mere consent), and secondly, that it’s a mistake to downplay or dismiss sexual needs.
Finally, any discussion on consensual non-monoagmy or polygamy puts me in mind of Abraham, Sarah and Hagar in Genesis 16. Sarah is concerned that Abraham needs to father children, so she took her slave Hagar to him. What was originally meant to be a solution to her relationship problem (no children) worked exactly how Sarah intended (Hagar fell pregnant) but swiftly unravelled into a disaster. Sarah grew jealous, despised and mistreated Hagar. It’s a potent warning, not least because it sets up the conflict between their children – Isaac and Ishmael.
AJB…
I don’t understand your conclusion
“and no one would suggest it had broken the link between sex and procreation”.
Surely the reason would be that the link hasn’t been broken whatever I think of the practice.
Bunt argues that breaking the link between sex and procreation is what opens the door to polyamory etc.. I’m pointing out the Islamic societies have allowed polygamory for centuries and have done so without breaking that link. I don’t think Bunt’s argument holds up.
A J Of course the door will be opened to polyamory ( I’d love to know what polygamory is -sounds ‘interesting). Merely requoting what Islam has promoted over the centuries however (in spite of its growing influence in Western society) is still denying the currently greater influence of secular thought and practice, and that includes
its impact within sections of the Christian Church!
. Hence Andrew’s statement: “Once sex is severed from procreation, the idea that it should be restricted to unions of two ——- begins to unravel.” I think he has a major point here. But, equally, within the context of the Church, it has *already* begun to unravel. If proponents of SSM want to maintain “equality “with traditionalists, then if that equality is to be realised, it can only be on the basis of acknowledging that surrogacy is involved ;a fact that, of course, undermines the principles of duality and equality . Furthermore, the growing complexity in all these developments will only compound the uncertainties and the burgeoning fears of the age. Nevertheless, Andrew Bunt is right:” Now is the time Christians should be thinking about all these topics.” But I would also addpraying!
Strongly disagree. Believing sex (and marriage) is primarily procreative does nothing to restrict marriage to a union of two people. Being in a polygamous marriage arrangement doesn’t reduce procreation. It may even increase it.
What polyamory does do is undermine the idea that sex (and marriage ) is unitive. And Christian thought has more to say about unitive purpose of marriage than the procreative: the key line is that we become one flesh. As the CCC puts it: “Seeing God’s covenant with Israel in the image of exclusive and faithful married love, the prophets prepared the Chosen People’s conscience for deepened understanding of the unity and indissolubility of marriage. The books of Ruth and Tobit bear moving witness to an elevated sense of marriage and to the fidelity and tenderness of spouses.”
More out there social radicals suggested marriage was a patriarchal tool to enslave women and ought to jettisoned
Oh, what fools modernity makes of people! I quote from Dennis Prager: “The [sexual] revolution [initiated by Mosaic Law]… consisted of forcing the sexual genie into the marital bottle. It ensured that sex no longer dominated society, heightened male-femal love.. and began the arduous taks of elevating the status of women.”
I tend to agree, and with your further comments below.
Adam Bell, Detaching sex from procreation is not necessary to open the door to polyamory; but it is sufficient. That is his point.
And I disagree with that, and think it doesn’t stand up. Polyamory is no barrier to procreation. Where it does create problems is with the unitive aspects of marriage. Maybe it’s no accident that Islam as well as permitted men to have multiple wives, has historically been much more lenient about divorce than Christianity.
Ian
But historically (and maybe inc people like Elon Musk, Boris Johnson and Trump) powerful men had many women so that they could give birth to more children.
If you marry for love then your more likely to be lifetime monogamous than if you marry to procreate
I imagine that our current/future world will NOT be any different than say 1ST Centaury Corinth or Rome.
Although polygamy occurred in the OT, perhaps due to the prevailing cultures; We see that polygamy was not ideal in any sense.
From Jacob to David and Solomon, such practice involved jealousy, intrigue, deception, robbery, slavery and subsequently the“strange”wives, turning the man away from the pure worship of God.
Perhaps a watershed moment might have been the telling of the Song of Solomon.
It is not for us to judge outsiders but Paul does give an Apostolic Judgement in the case of incest in the Church reported to him and the glorying in it.
He declares1 COR.5v 5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus…5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump,….. 5:13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
[ other Apostles similarly executed similar judgements at other times ] and the resultant Repentance elicited Paul’s delight
2 COR.7:10 For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.
7:11 For behold this self-same thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter.
We further see Paul’s Zeal [it was ever thus] and Vehemence regarding the Gospel
“If any man preach any other Gospel….let him be accursed”, Imprecatory prayers are alive and well in the NT. methinks.
As to our current situation it would appear that the “Leven” is quite in the ascendency and probably beyond purging, for those who have allowed this and not guarded the flock, perhaps a time of vehement repentance may be required.
Following AJ Bell above, this is not so new. It was a live issue for Hannah Arendt (1906-75 and her name recently revived by her posthumous contribution to the resolution of the Bolzano bas-relief controversy.) Her “Berlin values” approved open marriage as the norm, and Heinrich was her husband and had affairs, but “Not even Hannah was as true to her Berlin values in practice as she was in theory, and she struggled with Heinrich’s stance on fidelity.” (Heberlein, On Love and Tyranny, Pushkin Press, 2021.)
It is suggested that there is a differnce and distinction between the covenantal nature of m+f marriage and a mere civil contract and the bartering of secular civil pre-nuptial agreements imported from the US.
Andrew Bunt is right to highlight the covenant nature of m+f marriage (Ephesians) and outworking from, reflective of, our/ the Covenanting God of Christianity. It is exclusively Christian.
The question of Abraham, Sarah and Hagar can not properly be understood outside of God’s coventants with Abraham, nor outside of Galatians.
What is more, the covenants are Holy in nature.
And it is suggested that a knowledge and understanding of the basic rudiments and elements of civil contract law would indicate that it would be far from straighforward to bring marriage into that category of law.
One particularly aspect, would be the legal ‘consideration’ , a benefit or value which must be real and pass from the promisor to promisee. Try fitting all the elements of a marital relationship into that, such a ‘love’, ‘honour,’ faithfulness. You name it, but there must be prior, understanding of and agreement to the terms and conditions! It could be a fixed term, I suppose or like a footballers contract where there are transfer terms. (But where there is a no equal bargaining power).
Financial aspects, yes. A marital relationship, no. It is not a transaction as is a civil contract
Hi Geoff,
Although it is part of our tradition to make a distinction between a ‘covenant’ (understood differently in American and British English) and a ‘contract’ — neither of these words of course appear in the biblical languages.
Any distinction in biblical agreements between two parties is in the two parties involved and the nature of the agreement — not in any specific Hebrew or Greek word employed.
Thus any attempt to distinguish marriage as a ‘covenant’ as opposed to a ‘contract’ is a fruitless exercise — as demonstrated in the most extensive treatment of this I know in the literature by Gordon Hugenberger as below.
As regards prenuptial agreements being a ‘USA import’ — the Judaean Desert Documents discovered in the mid-20th century and unanimously recognised in biblical scholarship as reflecting the understanding of marriage in New Testament times clearly demonstrate that prenuptial contracts were common — see link below for a detailed examination of them.
Hugenberger, Gordon P. Marriage as a Covenant: Biblical Law and Ethics as Developed from Malachi. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1994.
https://www.colinhamer.com/projects-1/marriage-and-divorce-in-the-judaean-desert-documents
Hello Colin,
To be clear,
Are to dismissing all Covenantal theology, Holy God’s covenants? There were none made by God? Unconditional and conditional?
But of course you believe God divorced Israel. Was the marriage a mere civil contract, or covenantal?
I don’t accept your mere civil law contact premise.
There is a theological heft to a Holy God’s relationship with His people. The weigh, import of the covenant is dependant Person of God, in His Triune Holy Glory.
Including the New unilateral Covenant, in Christ’s sacrificial blood – hardly a mere civil contract.
It is that to which Ephesians alludes, which Andrew Bunt mentions.
There is a distinction and difference between a mere civil contract and God’s covenants which marriage is to reflect.
Geoff,
Thanks for your comments:
“Are you dismissing all Covenantal theology, Holy God’s covenants? There were none made by God? Unconditional and conditional?”
You have made my point for me. The agreements — we can call them covenants if you like, but it is a loaded term — made by God are obviously of extreme importance.
“But of course you believe God divorced Israel. Was the marriage a mere civil contract, or covenantal?”
But here you I think are looking to use the English language to drive a distinction between the agreements that doesn’t exist in the biblical text.
God made a conditional agreement with Israel modelled on the human marital relationship —it was an agreement they broke. I do not see it is helpful to build an understanding of that agreement using the semantic domain of the English word ‘covenant’.
It is interesting to note that Jesus came to fulfil the OT promises about Israel but he is never described as the reconciling husband — but always as the bridegroom. It is a clear indication that the previous marriage no longer existed. Bridegrooms don’t betroth a married woman
And Colin,
As you ignore the new covenant in the blood of Christ as fulfilment by God in Christ, as Man AND God, of both the unconditional Genesis 15 ( not a mere civil contract) and conditional covenants with Abram/Abraham, you dismiss the whole arc of Biblical theology, redemption.
We disagree profoundly and your theology underpins your views on Christian marriage and divorce, it seems to me.
Geoff,
“As you ignore the new covenant in the blood of Christ as fulfilment by God in Christ, as Man AND God, of both the unconditional Genesis 15 ( not a mere civil contract) and conditional covenants with Abram/Abraham, you dismiss the whole arc of Biblical theology, redemption.”
I did not mention Genesis 15? I think you are using ‘covenant’ as denoting an unconditional agreement? But as I have tried to point out the Bible does not contain the word ‘covenant’.
However, in church history we have tended to use ‘covenant’ to describe agreements involving God – but these agreements can be either conditional or unconditional.
So, if I use the word covenant in that sense, the Mosaic Covenant is certainly conditional and, in contrast, the Abrahamic Covenant as you point out is unconditional — or rather we might say conditional only on our acceptance by faith.
Of course plenty of bohemian heterosexual couples, especially children of the 60s have had polyamorous open relationships for many years, some even if married. That does not mean the state is going to recognise those open relationships though, even if it is not going to make them illegal either as long as between consenting adults.
Marriage however remains a committed monogamous union whether same sex in civil law (with a PLF blessing) or heterosexual in civil law or in church. Nobody is proposing changing marriage to include more than 2 people even in English civil law, certainly there is no support in Parliament for that.
Indeed. But do we see the irony?
There is not a single example of a same-sex union that receives God’s blessing in Scripture – yet there are multiple examples of polygynous unions being accepted, and even endorsed (e.g., 2 Samuel 12:7–9) — not to mention Jacob’s four wives that produced the 12 tribes of Israel.
Jesus never blesses polygynous unions however, he also never said anything against same sex couples either even if he reserved marriage for one man and woman for life. That is why we are Christians, if we only focused on the Old Testament we would be Jews or even Muslim who take much of the Old Testament but add Muhammed as their main prophet
T1
Because he does not bless something does not necessarily mean he forbids it. And something he does not forbid does not mean he be blesses it, for example same sex unions. Jesus did not forbid having sex with your own daughter. How about that one?
Though Genesis 2:24 seems to forbid it ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.’
Dear T1, you belabour the point of Jesus not mentioning this that or the other as a way of legitimising your preferred doctrine.
This is how I see it:
If the Law had not been given through Moses when Jesus arrived there would not have been a bench-mark for Him to meet.
If Jesus had not given the Beatitudes as a manifesto no-one would have been able to say whether or not He was sinless.
The point Jesus was making on divorce and adultery was to highlight His own fidelity- not to give church councils a reason to censure.
The problem we have is understanding what the church is and where it stops. In Acts the early church was held in high regard but few joined it out of fear of the authorities.
Today, what we understand as the church encompasses that vast throng.
…
In Bedfordshire they are going to build a new theme-park, because Bedfordshire is not known for anything outstanding but is 2 hours from most places in England. This scheme could put it on the map. I think you could lobby for a new church, a sort of Uber-cathedral to be build there too. The design could be modelled on Ludwig II castle in Bavaria.
The Bavarian castle style church in Beds sounds an excellent idea
Bedfordshire is not known for anything outstanding?
I can hear the howls of outrage from Whipsnade Zoo and Woburn Safari Park from here.
Colin – no – not endorsed.The reader of Genesis is presumed (by the author) to have sufficient common sense to see that Jacob’s polygyny was the main source of grief and strife within the family (a major factor in the other brothers ganging up on Joseph). You’e missed something very important if you think that polygyny was ever ‘endorsed’.
We are informed (and we are supposed to understand from Scripture) that they were a bunch of rotters, every single one of them – at the same time we are informed that they were (at the same time) God’s chosen people (and Revelation tells us that they are indeed within the number of the Saviour’s family).
King David’s life was much harder than it should have been due to the consequences of polygyny (and having offspring from several different women vying to be king after him).
God did not endorse polygyny – far from it – we are expected to understand from Scripture – Genesis Samuel, Kings, Chronicles – that polygyny is an absolutely lousy life-style.
Hello Jock,
Colin H doesn’t subscribe to the doctrine of the Fall which also colours a reading and understaning of scripture.
Hi Jock,
Arguing ethical principles from the Bible’s narrative accounts can be tricky.
There is plenty of strife in monogamous marriages — but I suggest the Bible’s narrative is dominated by sibling strife — beginning with Cain murdering Abel.
Should we deduce that God did not want us to have more than one child?
The OT understanding is if a marriage is not valid, any child would be considered illegitimate and ‘not ‘Jewish’ — I understand that is still the position in Orthodox Judaism today. If Jacob’s four marriages were not considered legitimate Israel would not be Jewish.
And as someone I seem to remember has commented at the beginning of this blog, some evangelical missionary societies do accept a newly converted Christian man with pre-existing multiple wives into the fellowship of the church.
Only Judah was Jewish.
I am not advocating polygyny. I am trying to do biblical theology — endeavouring to get to what the text is saying in its original context. What the church chooses to do with that is a separate issue.
An example of which is evangelical missionary societies working in Africa — particularly Nigeria. In my time at UST Bridgend a student did an MtH on the subject and discovered that many women in Nigeria – particularly in the universities – hoped to have a sister wfe to enable them to pursue a career.
Colin – I’m not arguing ethical principles from the Bible’s narrative accounts. The ethical principle of one man and one woman in life-long union is established in Genesis 2.
I’m simply pointing out that the biblical narratives do not contradict these ethical principles. The ethical principles are given in blocks of stone; a common-sense reading of the narratives shows that these ethical principles have an awful lot of wisdom attached to them – and going against these ethical principles is hugely detrimental to a life of peace and equanimity.
Jock,
“The ethical principle of one man and one woman in life-long union is established in Genesis 2.”
I think I understand your position on this. But Israel knew their own Scriptures I suggest better than we do. And it is clear that they did not understand Genesis 2 the way we do.
They knew they were doing wrong when they broke the Sabbath day and had idols etc — and God constantly reprimanded them for these things. But never did he or the prophets reprimand them for polygyny — indeed the prophet Samuel was a child of such relationship.
And I am inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt on this.
Perhaps rather than an apparent ‘endorsement’ of multiple wives, God was tolerating men’s selfishness, in the same way it appears He tolerated/accommodated easy divorces per Jesus? (which btw we would never have known if Jesus had never commented on it). It was not actually His perfect will but an accommodation to humans, even put into Mosaic law.
Peter
Colin – well, I think it’s fairly difficult to imagine that Matthew 19 would have been written the way it is if polygyny were standard ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will live with his wife. The two will become one.’ I’d say that Jesus’ understanding of Scriptures is indicative of how Israel understood Scriptures. Also, the question of the law-makers, ‘Does the Law say a man can divorce his wife for any reason?’ shows that implicit in their understanding, there was *one* wife. They don’t ask ‘does the law say a man can divorce one of his wives …’
Peter – yes – that’s more-or-less how I understand it. The opening of Genesis presents an ideal; the narratives of the OT show how God deals with people in their sinful state and brings them forward. Ultimately, the patriarchs are saved, even though they are a bunch of rotters – and sinners.
Hi Peter,
“Perhaps rather than an apparent ‘endorsement’ of multiple wives, God was tolerating men’s selfishness, in the same way it appears He tolerated/accommodated easy divorces per Jesus? (which btw we would never have known if Jesus had never commented on it). It was not actually His perfect will but an accommodation to humans, even put into Mosaic law”
You will probably not be surprised to learn that I suggest that this is not the position Jesus took at all. In fact, he fully endorsed the Old Testament position as is evident in Matt 5:31-32.
Helping children recognize their own strengths and how they can use them to support others encourages a compassionate mindset.
This subject is new for me.
With the primary purpose – or definition – of marriage being a male and female union intended to temporarily mirror Christ’s relationship with the church – I have made a list of all the POSSIBLE elements of marriage which God intends to have theological meaning.
Each element in my list is a separate post below. With each item I have decided to consider the theological meaning of the element within complementarian marriage – and egalitarian marriage – and finally within polyamory.
Have mercy on me. I am a work in progress. And please excuse the length.
Hello Philip,
I do not think you have yet got to the main theological point. In Ephesians 5:31–32 Paul says Genesis 2:24 ‘is’ Christ and the church.
So, we have a woman who chooses by means of a volitional agreement to become what they were not —a member of their new husband’s family.
She is then ‘counted as’ being in that family. Who is the husband in the imagery? It is Christ, the seed of Abaraham (Gal 3:16)
Thus:
“This means that it is not the children of the flesh [ethnic Israel] who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.” (Romans 9;8)
Paul could not be more clear – it is by that affinity union we come to Christ, not via a blood union as per the Mosaic Covenant.
Hi Colin,
Great reply! I will add LEAVING AND CLEAVING.
HEADSHIP/BODYSHIP – SPECIFIC SUBMISSION
(Theologically this relates to people being made perfect through submission. Christ himself needed to be made perfect through submission).
Complementarian marriage provides the opportunity to be made perfect through submission of woman to man – and leadership of man of woman – and submission of each person to Christ. Egalitarian marriage provides the opportunity to be made perfect only through specific submission to Christ. Polyamory does not recognise any submission to God – nor require submission between participants.
Christ needed to be made perfect? What was supposed to be imperfect about him?
suffering
Hebrews 5:7-10, ESV
What is his being made perfect – if Jesus was/is perfect?
It relates to his humanness (not fallen humanness – just humanness). Humans are born as babies – they must be made ready to successfully obey God. Through submission and suffering (some suffering occurs due to submission – for example being treated unjustly by a leader in one’s church).
Sounds like you’re flirting with adoptionism.
Being made perfect is a reference to his state of being, not a process of becoming perfect meaning there was a stage of imperfection.
Adam,
Do you agree that Jesus was not a failure when as a baby he was not helping the poor – but instead goo-ing and gah-ing and eating and sleeping? Do you agree that all human beings including Jesus must be made ready for particular types of obedience? And that this doesn’t contradict either Jesus’s divinity – or imply he was imperfect? Or does orthodoxy require me to imagine Jesus both morally capable – and informed – for any task – as a baby?
No-one is imperfect until they ACT imperfectly – by sinning in a God appointed task. Saying that Jesus could not have preached the sermon on the mount at fifteen – or even twenty-five – is not to say he was ever imperfect.
Yesterday I was reading the post of a US pastor explaining how he was directing his congregation in respect of the coming election. I thought some of it needed fixing – but then I felt God say – “relax – he’s appointed to face this situation because of his failure. I don’t want you to replace him”.
MUTUAL SUBMISSION
(Theologically this relates to the Trinity being a society of preferring of others for fullness to be demonstrated in ROLES).
Complementarian marriage requires the participants to be mutually submissive (even as there is specific submission). Egalitarian marriage does too – although there is no biblical reason why mutual submission is necessary if a man preferring a woman – or a woman preferring a man – results in a person with non-important character differences being preferred. Polyamory is the same – why bother preferring another person if it doesn’t cause anything necessary to happen? Submission – disconnected from what it grows – is not an automatic good.
LINEAGE – MULTIPLICATION OF CHARACTER
(Theologically this relates to the multiplication of righteousness/unrighteousness down generations – godly and ungodly male and female parenting being multiplied in children – and in children’s children. This is potentially amplification of the revelation of Christ and the church).
There is multiplication in both complementarian and egalitarian marriage – though obviously not of the same thing (see each element here for complementarian and egalitarian differences). Polyamory raises the question of how exactly generational influence is passed down. It may be through several elements I have listed here – and through elements not listed here. Insight welcome.
LEAVING AMD CLEAVING
(Theologically this relates to creating a new and distinct expression of Christ and the church. With physical union representing spiritual union – through grace (Spirit) and faith/obedience to God (Son)) for the glory of God the Father.
Complementarian marriage requires turning away from all past submission to express new specific submission – and it requires new leadership. Egalitarian marriage recognises a form of ‘leaving’ but rejects the idea that Christ and church is necessarily about expressing headship/bodyship. Polyamory doesn’t aim to be a mirror of anything – and therefore doesn’t require leaving – or cleaving.
That isn’t the purpose of marriage though Philip.
St Paul used a marriage metaphor in Ephesians, but it doesn’t follow from that that God instituted marriage in order for St Paul to have a handy metaphor in the first century.
If we go to Scripture we see God instituting marriage in Genesis 2, not to make a theological point, not to ensure children, but to solve the problem that it was not good for man to be alone. This theme is returned to in Ecclesiastes 4 (two are better than one – how can one keep warm alone?). It’s a serious part of St Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 7 – if you’re not good on your own (burning with passion) that you’re right to marry. Marriage is a practical concession, not an exercise in being a living cosmic metaphor. The emphasis on the practicalities are underscored when Jesus is asked in Matthew 19 why Mosaic law was so lenient about divorce and answered it was permitted because men’s hearts were hard. God knows He’s dealing with real people.
‘If we go to Scripture we see God instituting marriage in Genesis 2, not to make a theological point, not to ensure children, but to solve the problem that it was not good for man to be alone.’
Actually, Adam, I don’t think that is true. There has been a tendency to read that phrase in existential terms, but to do that you have to detach is from chapter 1—and of course there are no chapter division as such in the Hebrew text.
What is ‘good’ in chapter 1 is the creation of humanity as male and female, to act as God’s vice-regents, to rule over the world by going forth and multiplying. But it is not ‘good’ that the adam is alone in the next account; whereas God is fruitful and creative in and of himself, without the need (as Phyllis Trible points out) for the kind of hieros gamos, holy marriage, of the other gods, humanity is not productive in and of himself. We need Another to be fruitful.
So, though there is clearly an existential dimension to Adam’s cry ‘Here is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh!’ this cannot be separated either from the union of flesh nor the consequent fruitfulness in child-bearing and rearing. To separate this off from one another is a modern conceit.
It is no accident that, in chapter 5, Adam ‘knew’ Even and she conceived. The biblical vision here is a union of bodies, hearts, minds, and fruitfulness in child-bearing.
Paul is making a rhetorical point in his language of concession; he is not creating a theology of marriage. In this age, we are fruitful and multiply by marrying and having children. In the age to coming (which is breaking into the present in the kingdom of God through the teaching of Jesus), we are fruitful and multiply by sowing the seed of the word, and seeing spiritual children through new birth by water and the Spirit.
Why then does Paul seemingly encourage those who are single to remain single, and therefore not procreate? He and his hearers were still in ‘this age’.
No, anyone who is in Christian is a ‘new creation’ and is living resurrection life. That is why virginity became a hallowed way of life—already now living in the age to come where there is no marrying or giving in marriage.
It’s pretty hard to read the blessing to be fruitful and multiply as instituting marriage. The same blessing to be fruitful and multiply is given to the fish and the birds. No one thinks God was instituting marriage for them.
The formal chapter divisions may be an artificial (albeit handy) construct, but the text itself would seem to have a natural division around Genesis 2:4 – the creation account restarts with a new narrative: “This is the account of the heavens and the earth…”. I actually think it’s quite tricky to impose into the Adam and Eve story the suggestion that they’re merrily having children all the way along. There’s no mention procreation in Genesis 2, instead it’s all about becoming one flesh. Children aren’t mentioned until after the Fall, and furthermore the pains of childbirth are painted as a consequence of the Fall (among other things). It’s Adam and Eve who are expelled from Eden, not Adam and Eve and their children.
I’d agree that St Paul doesn’t create a theology of marriage based on concession (although he does a lot of the heavy-lifting on Christian ideas of marriage, like he does with so much), but rather he’s recognising and rooting his teaching in the idea that marriage is a concession. That’s what you see in Genesis 2, it’s what you see in Ecclesiastes 4, and it’s how Jesus talks about it in Matthew 19.
I think a difference between us is that you see “be fruitful and multiply” as an instruction for us today. I see it as an act of creation, explaining how the world came about. The sowing of the seed of the word etc. is driven by the commission from Christ to go an make disciples of all the nations.
The early church fathers (and some theologians today) recognise that the writings of the New Testament relativise the goods of marriage. Procreation is irrelevant in the new age, only the relationship between spouses is seen as a good, and a temporary good at that. The barren and the abstinent have a new place and the only really positive mention of families is in the high expectations of the household codes.
Hi AJ Bell,
Genesis 2 PROVES that marriage is about differences uniting – since God could have solved the loneliness of man with the presence of another man. Instead he creates woman.
If marriage is primarily a cure for loneliness then homosexuals should be able to marry. Why then does the bible forbid homosexuality – and in a way that links sex differences to the very heart of the gospel (1 Corinthians 6:9-10, ESV)?
The fact that scripture (Revelation 19:7-9, ESV – Revelation 21:2, ESV) reveals that Christianity itself is a marriage shows that it’s right to interpret marriage’s being related to Christ and the church as more than a metaphor. See also Paul at the end of Ephesians 5 – what is the mystery that he refers to?
If marriage is about curing loneliness why would it not continue in heaven? It ends because in heaven the eternal marriage of Christ and the church is permanently and perfectly established.
The reason why it’s not good for man to be alone is because God is saying that his character isn’t faithfully represented in creation without woman. Amen!
Oh dear. 1 Corinthians 6 does not put sex differences at the heart of the Gospel, any more than it puts theft and murder at the heart of the Gospel. Romans 13 is key to understanding sin (and the sin list here in 1 Corinthians) – it’s about harm, that harm is unloving, and that is why love is the fulfilment of the law and sin is a failure to genuinely love. What is being talked about here is the Greco-Roman practice (which you used to see in places like rural Afghanistan until recently) of married men being able to sleep with boys and didn’t count as adultery because it wasn’t with another woman.
Scripture uses the excitement of anticipation of a wedding as a metaphor to explain the excitement of anticipation for Christ. We see lots of metaphors – e.g. St Paul uses a metaphor of citizens greeting the emperor in his letter to the Philippians. If it’s more than a metaphor, are you suggesting we’re all going to literally get married to Jesus?
I don’t follow your reasoning Adam.
Why is marriage consistent with love – and homosexuality not consistent with love?
I have ruled out reproduction being the reason (I don’t believe that a married couple who doesn’t have children are unloving) and I have ruled out parenting (if parenting is the purpose of marriage then a homosexual couple who adopts children should be able to marry – but the bible forbids practising homosexuality).
My conclusion is that marriage recognises sex differences and homosexuality does not. I therefore conclude that sex differences must relate to God being honoured – and that 1 Corinthians 6 – in revealing that every person who has become truly saved has IMMEDIATELY turned from homosexuality – reveals that sex differences are not only related to God being honoured – but at the very heart of the gospel.
With all these things in mind I cannot see how the foundation of marriage relates to excitement.
Your final question – ‘are you suggesting we’re all going to literally get married to Jesus?’ – is to ask a question having already decided on the answer. You have chosen to think of marriage as only physical union of two humans. I can do the same if you like – who is to say that physical union isn’t just a metaphor for spiritual marriage?
“in revealing that every person who has become truly saved has IMMEDIATELY turned from homosexuality”
There we have it. If you’re saved God will change your sexual orientation. If your sexual orientation isn’t changed, God hasn’t saved you. I can see how that would simplify things for you. The only trouble is, it isn’t true.
“Why is marriage consistent with love – and homosexuality not consistent with love”
Quite. The trouble you have is that you think the only thing that St Paul could be talking about people who are otherwise unmarried entering gay relationships when discussing homosexuality. But that’s not his context. He’s in a context where any homosexual behaviour was in addition to your marriage not instead of it. Even the Emperors like Nero and Hadrian who had gay lovers of some description and permanency, had them in addition to the Empresses they were married to. The moral question therefore was whether this counted as adultery or not. The Scriptural view from St Paul is that it does – hence, it gets lumped in with other harmful, non-loving behaviours like theft and adultery, and in Hebrews 13 says sexual immorality defiles the marriage bed. If we’re putting ‘homosexuality’ into Paul’s category of sexual immorality, then there’s only a marriage bed if you’re talking about people who are in a male-female marriage. If you think you’re talking about people in exclusive gay relationships, then it’s extremely hard to see how a marriage bed is being defiled.
There we have it. If you’re saved God will change your sexual orientation. If your sexual orientation isn’t changed, God hasn’t saved you.
He didn’t say that, AJB. St Paul had to struggle agaisnt the lusts of his own flesh and didn’t always win (Romans 7). To “turn from” homosexuality means to repent of it – that is the literal meaning of ‘repent’ (re-think, with ‘pensive’ for ‘thought’).
you think the only thing that St Paul could be talking about people who are otherwise unmarried entering gay relationships when discussing homosexuality. But that’s not his context. He’s in a context where any homosexual behaviour was in addition to your marriage not instead of it.
The main sexual distinction in the pagan Ancient Near East was between penetrator and penetrated, regardless of sex (i.e. M/F) or sexual preference. And what do the scriptures say? In ancient Israel, man lying with man as with woman, ie for sexual gratification, is described as toevah and an event for which both partners are to pay with their lives (Leviticus 18 & 20).
Your reply Adam implied that marriage is any sexual relationship between two people which is pursued without pursuing another one at the same time. If exclusivity is the foundation for marriage why does Paul tell the believer to let the non-believer go when they do not wish to live with them? (1 Cor 7:15). That’s an exclusive relationship between two people – why then does Paul instruct that it should end? There is only one possibility – that marriage is founded on the character of God – not ONLY on God’s desire us to relate with him in a way that forsakes all others.
Could you also clarify Adam whether you believe that people’s actions are always in alignment with their strongest desire (you argued this in respect of homosexuality – you implied that the only way someone could behave rightly in the area of sexuality is if God changed their desires) or whether you believe that people are morally capable and accountable – unlike animals – able with God’s help to choose in opposition to what they most desire. (If it’s the former then why argue with me – since all I am doing is acting in alignment with my strongest desire?)
Philip,
Marriage is fundamentally a pragmatic concession – for companionship and channelling sexual desire (Genesis 2, Matthew 19, and 1 Corinthians 7). For some people it really is the best option (1 Timothy 5). God’s instructions to his people are often deeply practical – see the instructions for the Passover in Exodus for example, which are replete with pragmatic considerations. Jesus underscores this when he tells us to consider the point being made in the law – the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath (Mark 2) – which is completely at odds with the idea with marriage and the married lives of faithful people down the centuries being instituted merely to provide a lively metaphor for sermons.
This practicality makes sense of St Paul’s advice on marriage between believers and non-believers. He doesn’t forbid it, or insist on divorce, as he might if you were right about this being all about the character of God. It’s only if the non-believing spouse wants a divorce, that it’s permitted. St Paul is telling people not to fight a divorce, but otherwise stay married.
I’m not sure what you’re driving at with your odd question about actions in alignment with desire. I would note the Catholic Catechism says on the issue of sexuality that, “Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others. Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity.” If you’re asking if it’s possible for straight people to engage in gay sex (and vice versa) then the answer is yes (just look at the history of prison rapes, sodomy in the navy, pre-Christian temple prostitution, the ex-gay movement, people who come out after having straight relationships etc. for example), but misses the point. The point is whether it’s a good idea. Can it be healthily sustained? Is it consistent with a life of integrity? Is it compatible with acknowledging and accepting your sexual idendity? I’d say no, and modern medicine plus Romans 1 would agree with me I think.
And this all gets us back to the point you sidestepped Philip. You said if someone was truly saved they’d immediately turn from homosexuality? What does that mean? It sounded a lot like saying you think they’re sexual orientation would be changed instantly. Now you’re being a bit more fuzzy (which is concerning when discussing a matter like whether someone is truly saved or not). Are you now saying that no one should expect their sexual orientation to change, but that turning from homosexuality means something else, like they ought to decide to enter a straight relationship if they are truly saved?
Adam, ‘marriage is fundamentally a pragmatic concession’ is a strange and implausible reading of what the biblical text says about marriage. In the creation narratives, marriage and procreation are integral to God’s purposes for humanity in acting as his vice regents and subduing the earth and making it fruitful. That is why traditional Jewish ethics takes marriage so seriously. That perspective is not dismissed in the new Testament, but there is a completely fresh dynamic in the breaking in of the kingdom of God, where people can be fruitful not merely by marrying and having children but by, perhaps as single people, but also as married people, being fruitful by bearing spiritual children that are born again as a result of their testimony to the grace and power of God.
In the meantime, marriage points to the future union of God and his people, and singleness points to the age to come with this second understanding of fruitfulness.
But in none of this is marriage merely a “concession”. I grant that Paul appears to use this kind of language, but we need to read it in his cultural and social context and within his dialogue with the Corinthians.
Ian,
Clearly we differ on how we view “be fruitful and multiply”. You see it as a key ongoing instruction to us today. I see it as an act of creation. I’d make three points here:
– I see no grounds for interpreting “be fruitful and multiply” as instituting marriage. Genesis 1 sees exactly the same instruction given to the fish and the birds, and no one suggests that we think they get married. Rather what we see is creation – some fish/birds/humans are created, and then they multiply and fill the earth.
– Jesus in Matthew 19 discussing marriage completely omits “be fruitful and multiply”. If this was/is and ongoing instruction to be fulfilled wouldn’t we expect him to mention that? Nor does he even hint at a suggestion that marriages are a living metaphor of God’s love for his people which we are called to demonstrate. What he actually does is frame it entirely as a partnership and family formation (one flesh) of the two individuals, and if you want to stretch it a bit, grounded in sexual desire. He further goes on to say that marriage isn’t for everyone.
– If we really did think “be fruitful and multiply” was a current instruction, that has some serious implications for family planning and contraception. But the CofE went in the opposite direction about a hundred years ago in saying the use of contraception was fine.
St Paul uses the language of concession directly in 1 Corinthians 7, but that’s the not the only basis for viewing marriage in those terms. In Genesis 2, marriage is instituted not as a spontaneous act of God, but as a response from God when He observes that “it is not good for man to be alone”. In Matthew 19 when Jesus is asked why Mosaic law on marriage allowed easy divorce he replies that it is “because your hearts were hard” – this is a practical matter dealing with the reality of people’s lives, not an instruction to create divine symbols. In 1 Corinthians 7 St Paul argues that married spouses should have sexual relations because otherwise you see sexual immorality take root. In 1 Timothy 5 St Paul counsels younger widows to marry because he thinks their sensual desires will otherwise overcome their dedication to Christ. That all sounds like practical concessions to me. And to underscore all of that the discussion in 1 Corinthians 7 finishes with St Paul saying this is his judgment in which he thinks he also has the Spirit of God. That isn’t a way I’d expect Paul to talk about something of cosmic significance that ought to be regarded as a timeless instruction from God, or instituted by God in order to teach us about himself.
Imagine worshipping a God who merely CONCEDES to people’s desires – instead of actively fulfilling them (Psalm 37:4). No thanks.
No answers to the questions asked Philip? That’s a shame.
My general view regarding brokenness – which is a term used for behaviour which isn’t itself sin – but which increases people’s likelihood of sin (for example ‘having a short temper’) is that God promises that it will NEVER stand in the way of our fulfilling his appointed responsibilities – which means either that the brokenness will lie in an area in which we aren’t required to be faithful – or God will heal it.
How does the relate to attractions and marriage? Marriage cannot be described as a God given responsibility until people choose to get married. So that answers the question – God doesn’t REQUIRE anyone to get married – therefore they aren’t required to commit sexually to anyone for whom they experience no sexual attraction – or while they experience sexually attraction to others.
So I answered the question. I also asked a question. The question was whether people when they act sexually – or non-sexually – do so dictated to by whatever is their strongest desire. Does a forty year old father who experiences sexual attraction to his daughter’s school friend have to go to bed with her? Or can he choose not to? It seems widely accepted that he doesn’t have to sleep with her – but when it comes to someone who experiences same sex attraction everything changes (why is same sex attraction different?) – requiring them to abstain then becomes a monstrous attack on their entire identity – expecting that they might behave in any way other than dictated to by their desire.
As we submit to God we find that he both changes our desires – and fulfil our desires as they are. When he doesn’t fulfil our desires as they are it is only because he is working to give us something more valuable – more desirable – hope. Pity the person who has all their desires fulfilled but without ever coming to have hope.
Philip
You’re right that there’s a seeming contradiction in scripture between saying that marriage is good, it’s not good for man to be alone and that marriage is the solution to lust, but then apparently condemns same sex sex.
The answer is that the reader is assumed straight by the authors and what English translations often describe as “homosexuality” are men using sex to dominate other males.
It’s really blindingly obvious once you can see it. But unfortunately there’s a lot of money and influence tied up in church leaders not seeing this
If an argument is being made that the bible doesn’t condemn homosexual sex – that it condemns only males dominating other males – what is happening in Romans 1:26-27?
ESV
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
In what sense have gay people given up or exchanged “natural relations”?
GESTALT (the whole is greater than the sum of the parts)
(Theologically this relates to only the lifelong sexual union of one man and one woman having a meaning greater than itself – that being to be a temporary mirror of Christ and the church).
Complementarian marriage has a greater meaning than the relationship itself (see above).
Egalitarianism cannot allow for marriage having a greater meaning than the relationship itself if it denies that there are differences between men and women which are necessary to represent Christ and the church.
Polyamory would only have the ability to represent something greater than itself – if God’s word revealed its greater meaning. It does not.
SINGULAR DEVOTION
(Theologically this relates to holiness – to the church’s devotion to God alone – and also to God’s singular plan for the world – that Christ be eternally married (only) to the church).
There is singular devotion in complementarian marriage – each participant offers singular devotion to the other participant. This is also the case in egalitarian marriage. It isn’t the case with polyamory.
LIFELONG COMMITMENT
(Theologically this relates to God’s being of unchanging character – and to the church’s faithfulness).
There is lifelong commitment in complementarian marriage – and in egalitarian marriage – but not necessarily in polyamory.
BALANCE
(Theologically this relates to man be no more important than woman – and woman being no more important than man).
Complementarian marriage is balanced. Egalitarian marriage is not balanced if men and women are operating as if there is nothing that must be balanced – differences that are welcomed and expressed in egalitarian marriage between men and women might not be differences which create balance (for example if the key difference between men and women is that men don’t like asking for directions – but women tend to cry all the time – these differences won’t result in balance. Polyamory can involve either a perfect balance of men and women – or an imbalance in favour of one sex. Even if it involves a balance of men and women the possibility of sexual imbalance exists because within a ‘relationship’ involving two men and two women – at a particular point in time two men might be expressing ‘devotion’ to one woman – and expecting commitment from that one woman causing the ‘relationship’ to be male dominant. Or vice versa.
IMAGE OF GOD
(Theologically this relates to sexually identify and sexual behaviour relating to God’s character being expressed – and therefore honoured. Genesis 1:27 has two possible interpretations – either human beings are the image of God in their humanness – without their sex differences. Or their sex differences is ALSO necessary for them to be in the image of God – in order for them to faithfully represent his character. If it was the former and not the latter there would be no reason why marriage would need to be between a man and woman – which it clearly is in scripture. So faithfully representing the image of God requires both two humans and two sexes with more than biological differences – differences which match elements of God’s character).
Complementarian marriage faithfully represents the image of God. Egalitarian marriage only faithfully represents the image of God if the participants accept their God given differences – instead of seeking to erase them. Polyamory represents the image of God if a relationship of three or more people includes both men and women.
COMPLEMENTARITY
(Theologically this relates to the two elements of God’s plan for creation – Christ – and the church – needing to both exist in order for God’s character to be faithfully expressed. The reason why Christ and the church are complementary is because while Christ and the church are each God and human (the church human due to the Spirit) Christ and the church differ in that Christ is man and the church is woman. Christ is materially male and the church is immaterially female – just as God the Father is immaterially male.
God’s plans for creation are complementary – because Christ and the church are not only different – in one being male and the other female.
Complementarian marriage is complementary because male and female differences only represent God’s creation plan – that holiness and justice create an environment for mercy and grace – when combined together. Egalitarian marriage is not complementary because its male and female differences (if any are admitted to) do not relate to God’s character – creation plan – being honoured/represented. Polyamory is not complementary – whether because there is male or female dominance – or if not because relationship subsets within ‘the relationship’ creates possible dominance of one sex.
This all stems from refusing to accept the differences and complementarity in the sexes. As a woman I certainly would not want two husbands, but I think many men would like two wives, especially subservient ones as in Islam. Womens bodies regularly are disrupted with menstruation, men do not have to cope with this. Pregnancy and birth is stressful on the body. Then there is menopause which can last for years of sleepless nights and hot flushes and lack of libido. Christian men are called to love their wives as their own body. A Christian man is called to love his wife through all the changing seasons of marriage.
Spot on. Ultimately, polyamory in its most common forms is a triumph of male desire over female concerns.
Thank you Tricia and Ian.
I did not see the NATURE of possible male dominance until I read your posts.
It works the other way too – ‘a relationship’ dominated by women will cause the fact that families should exist to establish holiness and justice to be overwhelmed by nurturing concerns (important though they are).
This deserves to be another element in my list – EXPECTATIONS AND INTENTIONS – in entering ‘the relationship’ – what do the participants intend to give – and hope/expect to gain? But you’ve covered it beautifully – so I will leave it.
Only on paper. In practice, when a couple agrees to open their relationship its usually the woman who is much more successful at finding additional partners.
Like so many aspects of the Sexual Revolution, it actually favours women instead of men.
I don’t think I understand how that favours women. Research shows consistently that it is men who want multiple partners and lack of fidelity.
The complexity of the debate above, shows me that the writer’s hope that Christians will understand the issues in order to be able to lead people to Jesus, is, sadly, very naive. I’d you tried to talk to the man in the street about sexual ethics, most would point out dodgy Vicars and that would be the end of the discussion as far as they were concerned. We can have theological discussions all we like, but in reality very few are interested.
Thanks Richard. But there are at least three things here to consider.
1. That the church as a whole is well informed and knows how to be faithful to Jesus.
2. That its leaders fulfil their responsibility to be able to teach this.
3. That in turn, the lives of ordinary Christians are built on this good foundation.
Then it is a question of modelling this pattern of life that God calls us to, to those outside, and invite them to discover fulness of life in Jesus for themselves.
(There is also a bottom line: just about every aspect of the sexual revolution, including this, has benefited men and harmed women. I think most people can understand that.)
Ian
I find it hard to believe that women were better off before the “sexual revolution”. Indeed I find discussion of it quite gross and irrelevant. You’d need to be in your 70s now to even remember a time before it. It’s just not on normal people’s radar any more.
Prior to the “sexual revolution” there was no attempt at gender equality, domestic abuse, including rape, was largely ignored, women very literally had to decide between a career and marriage because in many professions married women were not allowed to work, there were hardly any women MPs and no cabinet members, no women in church leadership etc etc
To suggest this was somehow better for women than the status quo is so obviously wrong
St. Paul made a point of knowing nothing except Christ crucified. It is the simplest and best method. This discussion is at best a 6th form debate.
Richard Hobbs – I didn’t see the bit in the article ‘in order to be able to lead people to Jesus’, but it might have been there. But this sort of discussion isn’t intended to lead people to Jesus – at least not directly.
Christians intuitively know right and wrong, but most of us don’t really have time for the business of setting the intuition on a rigorous basis with explicit arguments and explicit understanding. Christianity is, after all, a moral issue and not an intellectual issue. But – as we’ve seen with SSM infiltrating ‘the Church’, this intuition isn’t necessarily enough to prevent evil from getting a foothold. The devil, after all, is very good at using Scripture (c/f the temptations of Jesus in the desert) and at dressing up an evil idea in good and Holy phrases.
For bringing people to Jesus, this happens indirectly – people eventually see the mess they have made of their lives and other peoples lives through promiscuous living and looking back on the wreckage are brought to repentance. It is at this point where the church, provided it has actually kept itself from evil and provided it hasn’t accommodated evil sexual ethics (such as LLF or polygyny) can be a useful refuge and can be of assistance to those who are beginning to understand the wreckage they have made of their lives.
You are (of course) correct that standing up for Christian sexual ethics does not directly bring people to Christ. Repentance comes about in other ways – and the church should be a refuge for repentant people.
Ian – per your response above, if that is the case why do few if any church ministers today encourage single people to remain single? The opposite, in fact, is true – you should get married as that is the norm for human beings. Most churches are family oriented. Ive yet to come across a church which encourages single people to remain single and not think about getting married. I think the reason Paul told singles they should remain so, and marrieds they should remain so was because he believed time was short. Given what he thought was going to happen hasnt happened 2000 years later I think that is why church leaders today no longer say such things.
I thought the argument was that in this life where death still reigns, procreation is necessary. It is only in the next life, the true resurrection life after the last judgement, when there is no death and therefore no need to procreate. I think youve said that yourself in previous comments.
The simple answer is partially realised eschatology. We live in this age, where God calls us to be fruitful by marrying and having children. Historically, this has been a major source of (biological) church growth.
But we are beginning to live in the age to come, and so being single, and fruitful spirituality (which we all also are) is a noble vocation. It is both/and.
Many churches have indeed encouraged and honour singleness, John Stott being a prime example, but for the majority still the first option will be the one God calls them to. I seriously considered a call to singleness as a vocation in my 20s.
John Stott is about the only example! (well-known anyway).
PC1 – Willie Still of Gilcomston South
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilcomston_Church
remained single – and indeed thought it was right and proper for men of the cloth to remain single. I’ve related the sad story of someone – let’s call him Joe (1940 – 2018), because that was his name, who, when he was a student attending Gilcomston South, was enamoured of a girl (who also attended Gilcomston South) and he dumped her because Willie Still told him to – or at least that was the excuse he gave. W.S. wanted him to go into the ministry and didn’t think the girl in question was spiritual enough for him.
Joe decided against going into the ministry, but never married – and towards the end of his life, he said, ‘mine is a wasted life’.
I have a lot of sympathy with Joe.
I think we all know why Stott remained single.
Who are ‘we’?
And yes we do.
Factors include –
1. Schoolmasters of the generation that taught him and of his own generation were often celibate and fully devoted to their ministry.
2. Of the quattuorviri that were the backbone of Iwerne were all celibate and highly devoted.
3. He considered marriage with two people who were sequential not simultaneous possibilities.
4. He decided against it because his life of extreme discipline and organisation and long hours (many examples) would not go well together with marriage/children.
5. The ethos he inhabited was maximum devotion to his Lord.
If you can gravitate anywhere at all (and you can) it is obvious that the gutter is the worst place to gravitate not the default place. I don’t want you to gravitate to places like that, because your soul is precious.
Christopher
And like other Iwerne alumni he had sexual preferences which he (presumably) tempered and remained continent.
Male and Femail were created in God’s image.
We are unable to see or understand what they were like as originally created.
However, they were Holy, because, God could have personal fellowship with them.
Satan broke in [“he is a thief, robber, liar and murderer from the beginning” – Jesus]
to destroy that fellowship and union.
God purposed to restore that lost image and fellowship, which is the history of that Salvation which will culminate in the bride of Christ [the Church] A Holy, pure, uncontaminated, virginal, new creation. We can only imagine what John saw.
Sin resulted in division, separation, conflict and deviation, from the original, which is now the “norm” in human relationship.
The gospel is the means as to restoring the image of God in man/woman, the eternal purpose of God.
Man, man or woman, woman Is not in the image of God, not what He works to restore.
Such is idolatry, a misrepresentation of God, an idol made in the image of man.
We are called TO Holiness not to uncleaness.
Ian,
Would you consider writing a post on Jesus’ use of porneia in the exemption clauses of Matt. 5:32 and 19:9? I have studied this topic, again and again.
As a pastor confronted with this issue on a near-weekly basis, why did the Gospel writer use a general term for sexual sin (πορνεία) rather than a specific term for adultery (μοιχός) ? Would an injured spouse be provided with opportunity to depart from marriage if their spouse is engaged in other forms of unrepentant sexual sin (i.e. habitual pornography use)?
The Orthodox contend the Catholics are totally “off the farm” in interpreting porneia as “pre-marital sexual sin” (Deut. 24:1) rather than a general term for sexual sin. I favor their view, as corroborated by the extrabiblical Greek sources; however, I’d appreciate your wisdom and insight — if you have the time and availability!
Thank you,
Dustin
Dear Dustin, that is an interesting question worth exploring! I would need to do more reading…
But of course it also relates to the debates about same-sex marriage; my understanding at the moment is that it includes the prohibited sexual relationships in Lev 18 including same-sex sex.
Here is my 900-word summary of an 11,000-word study I made of the issue a decade ago, if it is any help. I read multiple books and lengthy online essays of diverse viewpoints before writing.
Any study of the divorce and remarriage scriptures should heed two things: (1) divorce, in the Bible, is a matter for the couple, who must then inform the authorities (rather than petition them, as today); (2) Jesus treats divorce and remarriage separately and does not suppose that the former automatically confers the right to the latter – when he spoke he discussed the first issue and then moved on to the second. (Ancient Jewish certificates of divorce handed by the man to the woman state “you are now permitted to any man”; this was important for the woman to know in view of the penalty for adultery, but does not necessarily reflect God’s view.)
So, what did Jesus say?
Anyone who divorces his wife and [kai] marries another woman commits adultery against [ep] her. And if a woman who divorces her husband marries another man, she commits adultery (Mark 10:11-12).
Anyone who divorces his wife and [kai] marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery (Luke 16:18).
Anyone who divorces his wife, not for porneia, and marries another woman commits adultery [and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery – in some Greek manuscripts] (Matthew 19:9).
So Jesus is clear – remarriage after divorce (during the lifetime of the ‘ex’) constitutes adultery, with a possible rider relating to porneia in Matthew 19:9.
What about that rider?
Jesus never contradicts himself. In two of the gospels there is no exception, and each gospel writer has no certainty that his readers are going to read any other account. So there is no exception. But what then does Matthew 19:9 mean?
It means that Jesus is declining to discuss the particular situation in which a man divorces for porneia and then remarries. He is discussing only situations in which the divorce is for something other than porneia. He says in Matthew 19 that remarriage after such a divorce is adulterous, and he says nothing in that conversation about remarriage after a divorce for porneia.
Why did he do that? Because he is talking to Pharisees who tended to divorce for minor matters such as mispreparing food. (See the Midrash – ancient Jewish commentary on scripture – denoted Sifré Deuteronomy, part 269; also the Mishnah, tractate Gittin 9:10.) And also because porneia is related to erwat davar, which is a Hebrew phrase found in the Jewish divorce regulation in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Jesus is not engaging in a scripture study with these Pharisees; he is in a heated discussion with them about their routine use of excuses in order to divorce unwanted wives. To preclude diversion, he narrows the discussion down at its beginning.
A further point: the Greek rendered as “if a man divorces, and marries another woman…” can equally well mean “if a man divorces in order to marry another woman…” But the latter meaning is excluded because the woman’s adultery in Mark 10:12 takes no account of whether she instituted the divorce in order to marry another man or not.
In Matthew 5:32, Jesus states that “anyone who divorces his woman, except for porneia [illicit sexual relations], causes her to be adulterous, and anyone who marries a divorcee commits adultery.” In the final clause we see that God takes marriage so seriously that a woman who is thrown out cannot remarry even if she is innocent of porneia!
The church should accept that sometimes even Christian married couples break up, but they must then live singly – as Paul says clearly in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11. (That Paul uses a different word here for divorce is not significant; recall that divorce refers in scripture to a final decision for the couple, not the authorities.)
Today the Roman Catholic church accepts divorce in practice but, in order to deny that it has changed its doctrine, it calls it annulment, a term which should be reserved for situations in which the couple were not free to marry in the first place. Rome seeks excuses why the marriage supposedly never was valid – “I don’t believe he was ever sincere.” But people must keep their word, for that is what matters to God (Galatians 3:15). The Vatican is nevertheless correct to insist that remarriage during the lifetime of someone else you have been married to is wrong. More protestant churches should take that view.
What about somebody who says he is becoming convinced that Jesus is Lord, but whose first – childless – marriage ended in divorce, and who has since married a virgin with whom he now has young children? Meanwhile his first wife has also remarried. Must this man, to enter the church, really dump his second wife and their children?
This issue must have been raised often in the early church, but it is not addressed in any New Testament letter. Why is that? There is sin in either course, and God, in the Bible, is not in the business of weighing sins against each other – the New Testament is about how to deal with sin. The man I have described and the leaders of the congregation he is involved with must consult God themselves. If a man approaches God with a readiness to obey, God will make clear what course to take. In situations in which sin is weighed against sin, one size does not fit all.
Thank you, Anton. I never cease to be astonished about how many central and primary things, and very important nuances and niceties, there are to say about Jesus’s teaching on this, given that it is so short. Nor by how patient analysis is rewarded.
Really good Anton. An excellent summary! I will be emailing this to myself!
There is one thing not covered in the summary (which is a compliment – because so much is!) and that is how things should go when a believing spouse lets a non-believing spouse go (1 Cor 7:15, ESV – which has to include – if it’s interpreted in spirit -not law – letting go spouses who BEHAVE in a pattern of free, knowing, and wilful sin – in unbelief (whether or not they profess a faith is irrelevant). In this case divorce is OBEDIENCE (2 Cor 6:14) – not sin (1 Cor 11:18-19, ESV) although if the spouse continuing to walk with God has unaddressed life work revealed in the ended marriage – surely they must do this both BEFORE letting their partner go (in case this brings change in the other spouse) – or if not before re-marrying. The Spirit will announce to the person when this life work is done (it doesn’t matter if the church approves it – if God doesn’t – or disapproves of it – if God does (though no-one can disagree with their church elders without changing course or changing church).
Does a general principle emerge from Anton’s summary – that if there is incomplete obedience in any existing or broken relationship – there is no re-marriage? Or if a marriage fails in a way that suggests major lack of judgement in the spouse who didn’t fail – but failed to choose a suitable partner – there is also no re-marriage?
Criticism/additions most welcome.
I think many would understand the words in Matthew to mean a couple can divorce ‘legitimately’ if one has had an affair, for example. Once divorced on such grounds the innocent party would then be free to remarry precisely because the marriage is indeed ended in God’s eyes as the special union has literally been broken if one has joined with another.
As such there is an exception.
PC1 – all this stuff about the do’s and don’ts is basically for people who are not Christian. If a man and woman who are both saved are married to each other, they wouldn’t even consider divorce.
But as far as I can see, the gospels are all perfectly compatible (where one treatment says that it is never right to get a divorce and another treatment says it is never right except on grounds of adultery) if one takes the view that when adultery happens (which simply doesn’t in a marriage between two people both of whom are saved and have passed from death to eternal life), it is God who has severed the bond. In other words, if you are married to someone who commits adultery, then the marriage is over whether you like it or not, because God has severed the bond. There is no situation where a married person can take it on himself or herself to sever the marriage bond.
But it’s really a case of ‘let the dead bury their own dead’, since divorce isn’t something that saved people would actually consider.
There’s no obligation to divorce when there’s been adultery.
AJBell – I disagree with that. I’d say there is a clear and plain obligation to divorce when adultery has taken place.
Firstly, I believe that Scripture says so (as I outlined above) and secondly, I simply don’t see how it is possible to continue to pretend that the two are ‘one flesh’ when one party has been uniting with others. This isn’t a ‘forgiveness’ issue – you can forgive the adulterous party as much as you want to – the essential bond has been broken.
One of the very worst things a marriage guidance counsellor can do is to try and persuade two people to keep their marriage together after one of the parties has committed adultery – such people are destined for the very depths of hell.
Of course, when two Christians are married (i.e. two people of whom John 3:16 applies, who have passed from death to eternal life), the question won’t arise – such people don’t commit adultery. Only those who are Spiritually dead do that.
I dont think youre being realistic if you think Christians dont consider divorce or indeed do more than consider it.
I remember David Watson mentioning in one of his books about some of the troubles he and his wife Anne had had during their marriage. Whilst they didnt separate, he said he understood those who did.
Personally I think adultery is not the only grounds for divorce. Spousal abuse is too.
PC1 – I agree about spousal abuse – but is it really imaginable that someone who has been saved and is indwelled by the Holy Spirit would really be abusing his/her spouse?
But the gospels are giving an eschatological perspective, presenting us with what constitutes sin – and we know that we won’t be free from the sinful nature while we are in this world (c/f Romans 7:14-25, the ‘wretched man’ discourse, written in the present tense – the current experience of Paul, a mature Christian, at the time of writing). I remember that Emil Brunner somewhere in his ‘Divine Imperative’ (a book that I wouldn’t recommend) indicated that sometimes one has to perpetrate one sin in order to prevent an even greater sin – and leaving someone who is abusing you – especially where abuse is affecting the children, may be the only viable course of action.
But I can’t believe that someone of whom John 3:16 is true, who has come to believe and has therefore entered into eternal life, would actually abuse his or her spouse – it doesn’t make sense.
Where and how are you drawing the line on which sins are impossible for a Christian to commit?
Annulment: at English law, annulment is possible where there is no consumation. It is treated as a not valid marriage. A legally constituted ceremony of itself is insufficient. Consumation is necessary otherwise it is voidable.
BTW consumation is not necessary in ssm (so no equality there according to the civil law as it is not biologically, physically, possible, consummation being so defined.
And the arguments for polyamory could also employed in seeking the removal of ‘prohibited degrees’ for marriage.
And here is an interesting article, What Constitutes a Biblical Marriage?
https://g3min.org/what-constitutes-a-biblical-marriage/
It seems to pre suppose. Virginity.
It is to be assumed that Jesus was aware of what constitutes a Biblical Marriage, when addressing the questions asked?
Virginity is not presupposed in the remarriage of widows.
Consummation of the marriage nevertheless would be. Consummation would be evidenced in the first marriage by marriage, by blood ( see the article).
Seconded ! thankyou Anton.Shalom.
And here is an interesting article, What Constitutes a Biblical Marriage?
https://g3min.org/what-constitutes-a-biblical-marriage/
It seems to pre suppose. Virginity.
It is to be assumed that Jesus was aware of what constitutes a Biblical Marriage, when addressing the questions asked?
In all this farago of sss/m/b and now polyamory, I don’t think I have seen a discussion about the key question: What Constitutes a Biblical Marriage? See the link above.
And when considered, it renders redundant much of the argumentation for revision.
There is no such thing as a ‘biblical marriage’. There are lots of marriages in the the Bible. Some we might consider models for moral behaviour, most we wouldn’t.
I find it very odd that you don’t appear to recognise the difference between what the scripture describe (which indeed are varied and often immoral) with what scripture prescribes.
Contrary to just about every Christian thinker on this, you seem to believe that, despite the teaching of Jesus, Scripture offers no coherent ethic of marriage.
It is very strange. I am guessing it is an a priori assumption as you approach the text.
If you are referring to Matthew 19, that is hardly a doctrine or theology of marriage. The doctrines of Christian marriages may have grown out of that verse and some other scriptural passages but to argue that there is a biblical definition of marriage is very odd indeed.
Penny, so you think that God’s creation of humanity as male and female, which is recognise by all scholarship as an aetiology of marriage, and Jesus’ reference to this as the theological basis of marriage, and all Jewish ethical and theological thinking which does the same, and all Christian moral reasoning based on this, including the C of E’s doctrinal statements this, are all just wishful thinking?
That is an unusual position to take.
Oh, and scripture often prescribes some very immoral things: polygyny and slavery amongst them.
Penelope – I very much hope that you find polygyny abhorrent and that you find slavery abhorrent. But if you do – and if you actually believe that Scripture prescribes these things – then what is your basis for discerning the will of God? Clearly, Scripture is of no value – and even negative value for you. So I’m wondering – what do you consider authoritative? Is it all simply what seems right to you in your own eyes? And why are you a Christian -rather than a Muslim or a follower of one of the Eastern religions?
When I read Scripture, it seemed quite clear to me that Scripture was very negative about polygyny. Genesis 2 (i.e. right at the beginning) states the principle of one man and one woman – and if anyone had any doubt about the meaning of this, Jesus enforces this very strongly. The reader is expected to see the extent to which everything goes horribly wrong when polygyny takes place. For example, with Jacob, we see the strife within the family, each of the four mothers had her own faction, ganging up on Joseph, etc …. . Also, King David had innumerable wives – and we’re expected to see that all the poison that took place (the rape of Tamar, the shenanigans over who would be king next, etc …) were the result of polygyny. It seems to me that the reader is expected to understand this; it strikes me that only on the most superficial of readings would one fail to spot this, unless one were predisposed against Scripture in the first place.
Jesus gives the whole game away when he describes the divorce rules outlined in Deuteronomy, but it is actually clearly implicit in the text without Jesus having to tell us that this was a concession due to the hardness of their hearts: Israel was a cess-pool of hard hearted and stiff necked people. In attempting to turn the moral principles into some form of law for governing the society, there had to be an application of realism. The fact that slavery in some form had to be tolerated indicates the depth of depravity of Israel at that time – Jesus makes it clear that this wasn’t condoned. The law was simply saying ‘if you’re going to engage in this abhorrent practice, then you have to adhere to the following rules if you don’t want your collar felt by the police.’ The incident of Aaron and the golden calf already established that if the law had gone further in establishing the principles of the ten commandments, then they would have had a full scale rebellion on their hands.
There is a very good reason for all of this: Jesus was the seed of Abraham – and the authors of Scripture are bending over backwards to emphasise the total lack of any human merit in his background.
You clearly don’t share this view of Scripture and what the authors are trying to convey – you don’t share this view of the Mosaic law.
I’m therefore wondering what is your source of authority – other than simply what seems right to you.
Just an aside – Jewish and Christian ethical teaching don’t agree on this. Jewish teaching does not regard lifelong celibacy as a valid ethical choice.
Scripture is not univocal on marriage, although it clearly underlies Christian doctrines of marriage (alongside Graeco Roman traditions).
Jesus taught against divorce and polygyny which gradually fell out of favour in Christianity. Both, of course, continued in Judaism.
Jock
There are s great many things commended or mandated in scripture which I find abhorrent, slavery and polygyny amongst them. They also include bashing babies heads against stones, slaughtering and/or raping neighbouring tribes, raping your wives’ slaves, stoning your son or your adulterous wife or a man for having anal sex, child sacrifice etc.
I hope most of us, Christian or atheist,
would regard these as problematic and as a caution against reading the Bible like a Haynes car manual.
Of course, the alternative answer is that a biblical marriage is a contract between two men.
What constitutes marriage in scripture? Genesis 2:24 settles that: it is a relationship between man and woman that is Permanent (or intended to be), Intimate (generating children in the normal run of things), Public (it is known who is married to whom) and Exclusive (don’t have sex with someone you are not married to). Acronym: PIPE.
Genesis 2 says nothing about children, and there is no public because there’s no one else in the Garden.
Gen 2 expands Gen 1, where the command is ‘to be fruitful and multiply’.
The adam’s aloneness in Gen 2.18 was not merely existential; it also meant he could not fulfil this mandate alone, since, unlike God, we cannot be fruitful without another.
To detach the two narratives from one another is unwarranted.
To pretend there is one narrative when there is a such a clear break in the text around Genesis 2:4 is unwarranted.
If you take “be fruitful and multiply” not as an act of creation, but as a command to us today, then that has a lot more implications than just being dismissive of gay relationships. How does family planning and contraception fit into that worldview?
What a bizarre article.
The question ought to be what constitutes a Christian marriage. Go after a Biblical marriage and polygamy, arranged marriages, trick marriages, concubines, handmaidens and a range of teachings on divorce are on the table.
But this article isn’t really about marriage. It’s mostly concerned with the wedding, and is in fact asking what would can we learn from Scripture about what would constitute a valid wedding. Should there be a ceremony? Is that ceremony celebratory? Should there be promises made and what should they be? Are the couple expected to have sex on the wedding night? Though for some reason, Burrell says that consummation is only required if the couple is “biologically able”. I suppose we should be thankful he doesn’t argue that the practice in Deuteronomy of the family inspecting the bedsheets in the morning ought to be carried on.
I agree, totally bizarre.
My own response would be here
https://viamedia.news/2022/08/26/6031/
How bizarre!
See my comment to Penny above. Again, I find it odd that you don’t recognise the difference between what the scripture describe (which indeed are varied and often immoral) with what scripture prescribes.
Contrary to just about every Christian thinker on this, you seem to believe that, despite the teaching of Jesus, Scripture offers no coherent ethic of marriage.
Despite the teaching of Jesus? It’s Jesus who points out (and makes) the changes – “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.”
Discerning a coherent theology across scriptures means working with such tensions, not pretending they don’t exist.
Sure. I think I’ve been fairly clear elsewhere I think there’s a Christian ethic of marriage, and that we draw on Scripture for that (Genesis 2, Ecclesiastes 4, Matthew 19, and 1 Corinthians 7 being the texts I tend to draw most attention to).
“Biblical view” is, I think, something else and that’s what I’m objecting to. It suggests, to me, a kneejerk proof-texting approach that doesn’t bear scrutiny.
PCD,
Both of your comments are mere assertions/claims. The evidential, burden of proof is yours, of which you have furnished none.
The key components are set out in the article, but can be summed up as:
1. One male + one female,
2. public vows/ covenants
3. Virgins
4. Consummation.
This renders all talk and pursuit of revision to encompass sss/m/b, polyamory, scriptural redundant, impossible.
The article is male fantasy dressed up as scriptural prescription. Vaguely pornographic.
Absolutely agree. It portrays marriage as male supremacy and projects that on to some supposed god. And indicates the usual conservative obsessions.
Andrew – I agree with your negative assessment of the article posted by Geoff and I would go further. The only thing that article got right is no-sex-before-marriage, marriage is a lifelong commitment between one man and one woman (without the perverted fooling about with definitions that we have seen in recent years).
One of the main problems with the article posted by Geoff was right at the beginning, ‘I enjoy the pre-marriage counseling.’ Anyone who has to get counselled by some church-person really shouldn’t be getting married – and we really understand why the church has developed safe-guarding problems if part of a minister’s job is to stick his or her nose into other peoples marriages. Just think of the twisted psychology of somebody who enjoys doing this – or is even prepared to do this. I’m reminded of Charles Waldron saying to Humphrey Bogart ‘I enjoyed your drink as much as you did’ (from The Big Sleep).
The husband is supposed to ‘lead his wife spiritually’ while the wife is supposed to ‘ joyfully submit to her husband’. I’m reminded of the maxim ‘a good scout smiles and whistles at all times’. Adam Burrell is pure poison – it certainly leaves a bad taste in the mouth – let us not go down there.
Your own article, though, is thoroughly anti-Christian. When Jesus was engaged in his healing ministry, perhaps it might have been more successful if he had listened to Monica Furlong, whom you quote as saying ‘sex can be healing and joyful (sometimes outside marriage as well as in it)’. This was not a method of healing ever attempted by Jesus or the disciples (or apostles). James doesn’t mention this method in James 5.
She is also advocating sex outside of marriage as ‘a way of knowing God’. Goodness knows what planet she was living on – but how we come to know God is indicated quite clearly in the bible – and this method (sex outside marriage) is never mentioned – not even once – it isn’t even hinted at – and, indeed, the whole of Scripture is very negative about this idea (it certainly didn’t have this wonderful healing effect on King David when he had-it-off with Bathsheba).
But, of course, you already know all that – you wrote your piece fully aware of what Scripture has to say – so we can draw our own conclusions.
It’s fascinating to see how some people choose to stop reading when it gets inconvenient. The handling of Ephesians 5 is a case in point.
The interpretative spin put in the article for husbands is somewhat abstract – live sacrificially, and love your wife as Christ loved the Church. That lines up with the reading we often hear that husbands are expected to be willing to die for their wives. By contrast the wives get something more direct – respect and joyfully submit to their husbands. So, the husbands get an instruction they’ll almost certainly never be asked to fulfil (I can’t think of any male members of my family who’ve been in a position to take a bullet for their wives), whilst the wives get the very day to day instruction of submission. Except that’s not what Ephesians 5 actually says. What it actually says is that husbands are to love their wives as they love their own body, to care for and nourish them. For some reason, that gets overlooked by articles like this.
Because gender equality is still a controversial topic amongst Christian conservatives and this article doesn’t want to wade into that?
Interestingly I recently visited the last remaining Shaker community in the US – they were formed in the 18th century, yet had gender equality built into their founding theology that God is both male and female.
Yet another mere, incorrect,
assertion.
It also draws out comments which reveal that revisionists have been unable to grasp the essence of a Biblical God marriage and have been taken by surprise, it being a topic not previously reckoned.
The essence of:
1. 1 male +1 female
2. Public vows/covenants
4 Virgins
5.Consumation
It condenses into a redolent, and symbolic expression of the teleological command to be fruitful, which is only possible following consumation.
In turn consumation is a pointer to the fulfilment, completion of the eternal fruitfulness in the consumation between the Groom, the betrothed King Christ Jesus and his chosen Bride his church wholy given over to Him.
There will be consumation of a oneness, a union with Him. John 17
As emphasised in Ephesians 5.
Glory.
IN defining covenant marriage I think it is important to understand
it’s converse – Harlotry; a common theme in the OT and in the NT.
Witness the Harlot in Revelations.
Or take the woman caught in adultery where Jesus mercifully rescuse her from the orthodox But warns her to ” go and sin no more lest a worse thing come upon you.”
See http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/harlot/ for a learned definition of the same.
PLAYING THE HARLOT is a good word study as regards marriage to God as Paul states-
2 Cor 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
God commands Israel to make tassels of blue on the corners of their clothing to remind themselves to keep His commandments “that you may not follow the harlotry to which your own heart and your eyes are inclined, and that you may remember and do all of My commandments, and be holy for your God. I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: I am the LORD your God” (Numbers 15:39,).
God also refers to Israel’s playing the harlot under Gideon’s leadership, and after Gideon’s death, “So it was, as soon as Gideon was dead, that the children of Israel again played the harlot with the Baals, and made Baal-Berth their god”
The writer of Psalm 106 characterizes the early days of Israel’s statehood, “But they mingled with the Gentiles and learned their works; they served their idols, which became a snare to them. Thus they were defiled by their own works, and played the harlot by their own deeds” (106:35-36, 39,)
EX. CH 34. But you shall destroy their altars, break their [sacred] pillars, and cut down their [wooden] images ‘(for you shall worship no other god, for the LORD, whose name [is] Jealous, [is] a jealous God), lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they play the harlot with their gods and make sacrifice to their gods, and [one of them] invites you and you eat of his sacrifice, and you take of his daughters for your sons, and his daughters play the harlot with their gods and make your sons play the harlot with their gods. (Exodus 34:12-16, NKJV)
Regarding Israel’s harlotry, Ezekiel observes that it originated in Egypt (Eze. 23:8, 27).
She has never given up her harlotry [brought] from Egypt, For in her youth they had lain with her, Pressed her virgin bosom, And poured out their immorality upon her. (Ezekiel 23:8)
Ezekiel also points to the Hittites and Amorites as having been a source of Israel’s harlotry:
‘Like mother, light daughter!’ You are your mother’s daughter loathing husband and children; and you are the sister of your sisters, who loathed their husbands and children; your mother was a Hittite and your father an Amorite. (Eze. 16:3, 44-45)
HOS. 4 V 12. For the spirit of harlotry has caused them to stray, and they have played the harlot against their God.””
Over and over again, Scripture gives clear instructions concerning the worship of the one true God, and it condemns compromise with pagan beliefs as harlotry (Jeremiah 3:6).
Hosea used strong language against his fellow Israelites, calling them harlots because they had violated their vows to remain faithful to the one true God. Is it possible that Christians today, and particularly Christian leaders—in their zeal to make Christianity more enticing—are actually “playing the harlot,” too?
What happened to the Israelites is happening today. There is a famine of the hearing the Word of the Lord in our Western world, as many church leaders water down the teaching of the Word and adopt the world’s views in regard to marriage, abortion,etc..
What happened to the Israelites is happening today. There is a famine of the hearing the Word of the Lord in our Western world, as many church leaders water down the teaching of the Word and adopt the world’s views in regard to marriage, abortion etc..
Thanks Alan,
That certainly takes sss/m/ polyamory into a realm that has not been considered by the revisionists (nor for that matter, that I can recall, the orthodox seeking to reject, deny revision.)
BTW , the reference to the book of Judges and Gideon which emphasises idolatry, it, idolatry is a theme picked out by Keller in his book, study.
Certainly, I have suggested that sss/m/b falls into that category of idolatry, of self above God.
If marriage is about procreation then is Theresa May in a false or “falling short” marriage because they were unable to have children?
The poly marriages in scripture led to a great many children, including the creation of God’s people, the nation of Israel.
I think Christians have spent decades (centuries) in concert with politicians, culture and the media on marriage and really do not have well thought out answers on marriage, even despite the CofE taking out more than a decade to supposedly come up with some
Sss/m as you know is inherently infertile and incapable of consumation consumation that is necessary for reproduction of the human species, fruitfulness. I credit you with the ability to understand the points being made, even if you you don’t accept them to further you own fleshly purposes.
A Godly, aproved, marriage is:
1. 1 male +1 female
2. Covenant vows
3. Virgins
4.Consumation
Where does God in scripture specifically approve of poly-marriage? Was it not merely ‘doing what was right in their own eyes’ a pervasive theme, consequent outworking of the Fall.
I don’t really understand your obsession with virgins Geoff. Scripture is often very keen on widows getting married, so virginity isn’t such a key component in reality. Even the article you originally quoted didn’t make this claim for the importance of virgins.
What is striking however, is that like the article you quoted, you’ve focussed your view of what constitutes a Godly marriage completely onto the wedding rather than the marriage. You’ve ignored what the Scriptures have to say about how marriages ought to work in practice – mutual submission and love in Ephesians 5 and 1 Peter 3 for example, or the attentiveness and radical equality portrayed in 1 Corinthians 7, the supportive picture painted in Ecclesiastes 4 etc. etc..
The marriage of widows has a different purpose, objective.
Even the civil law in England and Wales recognises that there can not be consummation in ssm.
What is remarkable is that revisionists have not considered what constitutes a Godly Biblical marriage.
The point of ‘spotless bride of Christ’ and virginality and consummation is strong in alluding to Ephesians. But this reiterates what I’ve set out.
But, sure the sexual and permissive culture of your vintage and mine, overthrew and ridiculed all the Bible imperatives for sexual morality of the vestiges of Christendom.
Our vintages? Widows have a different sort of marriage to everyone else? The instruction for husbands to love their wives as they love their own bodies is an allusion to making sure your fiance is a virgin?
What are you talking about?
Are we not of the sme age group, have not lived through the sexual upheaval and sexual permissiveness of the western culture of the 60’s and 70’s ( the same vintage) or am I wrong?
I was born in the 1980s.
Empowering children to discover their own strengths and showing them how to use these abilities to uplift others fosters a mindset of compassion.
Does it?