Ted Slater, the editor of Boundless, pointed me to the article ‘Sex is not about waiting’, By Michael Lawrence. In it, he attempts (and at some level succeeds) to provide a theological basis for reserving sex for marriage. However, in its interpretation of scripture, I feel it perpetuates a series of falsehoods as part of its argument – and I’d like to mention them here. I hope Michael isn’t offended by my discussion. He begins his article by pointing us to scripture that is said to make ‘clear that God’s standard is that sex is to be reserved for marriage, and marriage alone’. I’ll tackle these individually.

Exodus 20

The Ten Commandments. Particularly, I suspect, v.17: It mentions ‘your neighbour’s wife’ among the things that belong to your neighbour that you should not covet. The purpose of the commandment, then not being adultery, but rather covetousness; in fact it doesn’t speak to adultery at all. At best, it is implied that adultery with the wives of your neighbours is forbidden, but I feel even that is stretching the meaning of the text. I’m not saying that adultery is fine: It just isn’t forbidden in Exodus 20.

Leviticus 18

This chapter forbids sexual relations with: Close relatives, parents, step parents, siblings, grandchildren, nephews, nieces, aunts, uncles, brothers and sisters in law, children in law, anyone at the same time as a close relative of theirs, two sisters at once, during menstruation, neighbours wives, animals. Now, the verse says nothing about sex and marriage at all. The best you can say is that it leaves no other option standing, but that is not entirely true: It doesn’t forbid having sexual relations with a woman not your wife. It doesn’t even imply it, as in something so thorough, you would expect no forbidden thing, left unforbidden. Now I’m not to say it is not forbidden. But it is not forbidden here.

1 Corinthians 6-7

There’s a lot in these two chapters. The first part to refer to sex is that adulterers will not enter the kngdom of God (6:10). However, the sin lists (I’ve written on them here), serve the purpose of characterising the non-Christian ‘wicked’, those to be judged eschatologically, not exposing the sinner. The second speaks of sexual immorality (13-20), although this seems to refer specifically to prostitution. Chapter 7 speaks exclusively about sexuality; in v.2, it suggests that marriage is a solution to immorality (one assume sexual immorality, after v. 13-20 of chapter 6). v.9 is the infamous ‘ it is better to marry than to burn with passion’. Surely these two mean that marrying soon is the righ thing to do? Possibly. But the truth is, the main gist of Chapter 7 is basically an admonition to not marry:

It is good for a man not to marry. (v.1)

Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. I say this as a concession, not as a command. (v.5-6)

…those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this. (v.28)

But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord. (v.33-35)

The overwhelming message of 1 Corinthians 7, then, is that marriage is to be avoided: It divides your loyalties to God; it makes a man luke-warm. It does, however suggest that sex should reside within marriage, if all else fails. I’d like to point out its relevance to an earlier discussion I had (‘Marry sooner than later’): v.9 in this context is not a selling point for marriage for the sake of sexual drive.

Matthew 1

Michael calls this the public embarassment of Mary. I assume that he refers to the Gospels, for example Matthew 1:18-25. However, there is no evidence that Mary was publically embarassed. In fact, Jewish culture suggests much the opposite. I’ve written about this here . Now, that article is too long to reproduce here – if you’re interested, follow the link – but the point is:

It is unlikely that any hardship of the kind often imagined in modern Christian circles would have occurred. Were a couple of engaged Christians to fall pregnant in most churches, there would be gossip, rejection, repercussions, perhaps even rejection from the church for Adultery. This was not so in first century Judaism.

At this stage,the  assumption that ‘the Bible is clear that God’s standard is that sex is to be reserved for marriage, and marriage alone’ isn’t seeming as strong as initially thought: But we do have 1 Corinthians 7 to support this statement. Hence, Michael then focuses on our relationship with God as a reason why we sex should be reserved for marriage. I think he takes the right tact, here: Leviticus 18:4 and 1 Corinthians 6:19-20. Following God’s laws, and honoring our maker with our bodies, are both key concepts, however, neither of these verses apply directly to the concept of sex outside of marriage. We’ve already spolen how they avoid the subject. However, it should be noted that these verses do apply to sexual relations, and that they do suggest that sex is somehow an important dimension of our relationship with God. Leviticus speaks of his Lordship; 1 Corinthians of the Holy Spirit.

What is this dimension? Why is it important? What, then is the purpose of sex? We know two things: firstly that it must be done in a manner that gives God honour; and secondly that it seems reflective of our relationship with God. Does Genesis 1 give us more of a clue? Procreation is certainly one of the purposes that sex has. However, as the author correctly points out, every creature procreates. Many even have sex for pleasure. Humans seem to attach more impact to it. Why is that? The answer this article gives is union (apparently for that reason God pronounced sex ‘very good’, but I suspect I’m reading a different bible from Michaels, because I can’t find that anywhere).

The suggestion, then, is that sex is a picture of two separate people becoming one family; and hence, it is a picture of the joining of the church into the family of Christ. It ‘makes visible the reality of Christ’s love for the church, and the churches love for Christ’. Ephesians 5 poetically suggests this, and I almost agree with the statement. Why almost? Ephesians 5 speaks of marriage, not of sex.

We come down to two reasons, then, that sex is to be reserved for marriage exclusively. Firstly, 1 Corinthians 7, speaking of marriage as a solution to lust. And secondly Ephesians 5, speaking of  marriage as an image of the church. The argument then, says that sex outside of marriage is wrong because Ephesians speaks of marriage, rather than sex, as an image of the church. I’m afraid I can’t make sense of that. Ephesians 5 works perfectly well without thinking about sex at all.

Now, I’ve been happily tearing down these discussions, without providing any solutions. However, I have a solution, and it ties into why much of this article is, in my view, at once correct and incorrect. I’ve written of this before (here). This is part of what I wrote:

Christianity, moreso than Jesus’ own tradition Judaism, has always focused on the love component of marriage. Hence, a commitment ceremony – betrothal, or engagement – came before living together. Sex came after that: historically, after the wife falls pregnant, a marriage ceremony was performed. The ceremony was a recognition of a reality that had already taken place, not an initiation into a new reality. There were no legal contracts, except in the cases of royalty or nobility. For a large part of Christian history, a priest did not even preside over either betrothal or marriage, let alone a legal representative: It was entirely a lay ceremony. My beliefs, as mentioned yesterday, reflect this…

…I believe, as I hinted yesterday, that sex in God’s eyes, is marriage, or makes marriage, or initiates marriage, with all of its obligations and responsibilities.

With this concept, I feel things make more sense. If sex is (initiates, or makes) marriage, and if modern Christian culture recognised this,  all of the missing links in the verses I picked apart earlier make sense. Now, Ephesians 5 speaks of marriage, and since sex is intrinsic – inseparable – to marriage, Michael’s logic is more sound . Similarly Leviticus 18 and Exodus 20 don’t speak of sex outside of marriage because sex was marriage. It would have been nonsense to make such a law. Leviticus, in fact, is prohibiting marrying close relatives, parents, step parents, siblings, grandchildren, et cetera. 1 Corinthians 6 calls prostitution wrong because it involves sex with multiple partners with a total lack of commitment; betraying the sanctity of 1st century marriage (polygamy, by that time, was frowned upon).

However, this understanding of sex and marriage (which endured well into the 1400s), cannot work in modern society unless modern society recognises that the secular, legal components of marriage are immaterial to the divine, sacramental components of marriage. That is: In God’s eyes, you are married, as soon as you sleep together. It is our responsibility not to anachronistically impose our 21st century institutions on 1st century and ancient Jewish texts, and to conform to God’s intentions in those texts, rather than our own institutions. It is our responsibility, therefore, to teach our youth commitment, that marriage is what sex means, and hence they do not dishonour God.

Before I finish, I feel I should point out that I’m not truly challenging this articles primary answer: That marriage, among other things, is an image of the church’s relationship with Christ. My argument is with other aspects of the article. Thank you, Michael for writing such a thought provoking article.