Should A Christian Date a Non-Christian?

QUESTION: I’ve been dating a guy for over two years now.  He feels like the man I'm supposed to marry. The issue is, when we got together, we were both atheists. Now I’m a Christian. So I’m not sure what to do. I feel no conviction to leave him, especially since our meeting seemed so providential.  But I also know that the Bible commands us to not be unequally yolked.  I’m really confused. I’ve tried to talk to God about this but he hasn’t yet given me any clear sign about what to do.

ANSWER:  Thanks for your question. You’re certainly not the first Christian to run into the conflict of "love versus religion."

First, you’re not married to your boyfriend yet, so you have time to work this out. However, as you say, you are not just idly dating for fun and games, you are actively thinking about the future and a marriage partner, and that is a mature way to look at dating. So it's smart to look down the road now, before rings get on fingers, and wonder about potential issues from the spiritual mismatch you currently have.

Secondly, this issue is bringing before you the even larger issue of how you hear from God and find his will for your life.  In this case, you seem to be clear about the guiding biblical principle, but you are looking for an inner, personal leading from the Holy Spirit to confirm or negate this principle for you.

But do you need such inner prompting? The issue is a good one for your future discipleship in many areas, not just this one: how should Scripture should inform our discipleship?

The way to look at it is that if God has already spoken on a subject, and I’m waiting around for him to give me an inner prompting to confirm, I’m not really trusting Him.  I always say to people, if we are waiting for God to speak to us, just know he’s not going to contradict himself, and give you a private nudge in contradiction to his explicitly given Word.

Now, I realize that finding the explicit direction from the explicit Word is not always easy.  But on this question, I think that moral guidance is clear:  God's perfect will is that Christians share a common spiritual foundation and Christian worldview with their spouses.

Most Christians will quote the verse you're alluding to, to establish this: 

2 Cor 6:14-15: Don't team up with those who are unbelievers. How can righteousness be a partner with wickedness? How can light live with darkness?

This probably applies to marriage, but many people I’ve talked to point out that the context does not talk explicitly about marriage.  It's broader than that.  True enough. So can we establish that God’s mind on this is clearly that Christians ought not to marry non-Christians? Yes, I think we can.

In two other ways. First, this is guidance inside of the Mosaic command (Deut 7:3-4) “Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons.” This had nothing to do with racism, as many claim. It had to do with the potential falling away from true Faith that might come from a spiritual mismatch, as Moses makes clear in the very next verse: “…because they will turn your sons away from Me to worship other gods.”

Second, turning to another passage in the New Testament that is explicitly about marriage, Paul says to single women:

1 Cor 7:39: …she is free to be married to anyone she wants—only in the Lord. 

Meaning clearly that when we have a choice who we marry, we must marry “in the Lord” - another Christian.

Now, there are those situations when you don’t have a choice to be married in the Lord – like if you and your boyfriend had gotten married when you both were far from God, and then you turned to Jesus, God would still want you together, for sure.  (This is assuming he didn’t want to leave you after your conversion.)  But you are not married, and you do have a choice.

I know this might be hard to hear, but I do think the moral principle for disciples is that when they can, they marry a fellow believer, someone who shares their devotion to Jesus and his Kingdom.

Maybe it would help you to know WHY God would repeatedly come back to this idea.  The reasons, which I'll get to below, will stack up more later in marriage than they do now.  Now, in the flush of young love, you can imagine your compatibility on all the other stuff, your mutual attraction overcoming all.  And maybe, I dare say, you hold out the hope that your boyfriend comes to Christ - maybe through your influence.

I don't deny this has happened many times, I know several Christians who came to faith after their marriage and through their Christian spouse.

But those examples of success in winning over a non-Christian spouse don’t overturn the reasons for the rule to not marry one if we have the choice. Paul will talk to disciples married to non-Christians who are intent on leaving the Christian because of the spiritual mismatch. To the Christian who is determined to fight to keep them from leaving precisely because they might be the way they get converted to Jesus, Paul says “let them leave”, adding:

1 Cor 7:16: For you, wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband?

So the hope of conversion, though real, is not enough to overturn the concern the Scripture has for marriages that share the beauty and goodness of a common spiritual foundation in Christ.

Back to the reasons:

One, when children come along, the blueprint for how they ought to be raised will be a source of constant tension. Not only that, the children will also be far more apt for spiritual confusion if one parent thinks Christianity is simply false.  Hiding that secret contempt for the Faith would be even worse.

Two, the use of family finances is deeply related to worldview and money is already a source of tension in most marriages – spiritual mismatches exacerbate this already contentious area.

Three, the disciple grows deeper in love with Jesus every year, and to not share this most important part of your heart and your values with your spouse becomes a point of deep, deep loneliness.

Four, the disciple needs space and time and freedom to pursue what God wants, and, while the non-Christian can be OK with that, their lack of similar devotion presents a constant negative pressure on the devotion of the believing spouse… Giving, serving, attending church, fellowshipping with other Christians, prioritizing mission, sharing your faith – all this Christian activity is either tolerated (best case) or actively resisted (worst case), making the maturing of the Christian more difficult, for a lifetime.

I don't think this means you must break up immediately (if you're not married, you're not in violation of the biblical principle).  But I do think that this relationship needs to be offered up to God, like Isaac was by Abraham.  Note God’s protective rule and reasons in your mind and heart, and commit today that there will be no future inside of your control, where you will marry someone who doesn't share your love for Christ.  Then, I would simply pursue Jesus overtly and devotedly – now.  Don't hide it or put a cap on it to “make him less uncomfortable”.

It’s unfair to you both to cover the issues with a spiritual mismatch now, because they are coming like a freight train later.  So don’t work around them now.  Be you – a disciple of Jesus - fully and without apology.  It goes without saying, I hope, that you walk in Christian chastity as part of that.  Talk about Jesus, about what you’re learning, about what being His means to your heart, to your future, your priorities - without being overbearing of course.

If you do this, I predict one of two things will happen. One, your boyfriend will start to actively wonder (as may you) if compatibility in other areas can overcome lack of compatibility here. The relationship may very naturally unwind.  Let it.  It will still hurt, since you feel so drawn to each other, but God has something better, I assure you!

Or two, your boyfriend may (because of watching you) start to investigate Jesus in a way he never has, and who knows where that might lead!  This hope has to be put below your devotion to Christ, however.  And if the days show no movement here, know that every week and month your hearts become more entwined, the harder it will be to walk out your commitment to Christ's protective, loving rule: only marry "in the Lord".

It may be the heart confirmation you’re seeking doesn’t happen until Jesus knows you’re willing to follow his explicit command, wherever. Like Abraham and Isaac, Abe doesn’t get the miracle of God’s comfort until he showed he was willing to follow God’s command all the way.

Should I Respect Someone Who Isn't Respectable?

QUESTION: You taught about unconditional love and respect, but how can I respect someone who isn’t respectable?  It seems to me that respect is something you earn.  How do you respect a Charles Manson?

RESPONSE:  It's important to distinguish between the value of how one is acting and the value of the person.  The way a person acts may be, in all honestly, worthless.  But does that mean the person is worthless?  No.  That person, foolish and self centered as they may be, is made in the image of God, with will and freedom and a moral center, an immortal soul and nobility. These are gifts, you don’t earn them or work for them, they are just the value that you carry because God made us in his image.  A person is a magnificent creature, a thing of awe and beauty - no matter what.

It’s due to this inherent worth, that in marriage we can love an unlovable wife or respect a disrespectful husband.  Because it is based on their worth as children of God.   It may help you to look at it like this:  I am not respecting this man, so much as I respect the God who made him “fearfully and wonderfully”.  (Ps 139)  He made ALL men this way and there’s not a person you’ve locked eyes with who doesn’t carry the stamp of God, and therefore also an inherent worth and incredible value – they matter.

So there is no time at which they become someone whom you are “allowed to” or “ought to” disrespect.  They may have done disrespectful things and this happens – often!  Those things are not to be honored, or respected, nor tolerated indefinitely (see my example below).  

Of course, we should be long on tolerance for disrespectful or unlovable behavior, since everyone carries the disease of sin as equally as we carry the Image of God.   And that's another reason why just don’t ever have that moment where God says, “OK, now treat this person disrespectfully, because they deserve it!”

So then we shouldn’t say that love or respect should be earned.  What we are probably trying to say is that is it is foolish to trust someone who has been untrustworthy.  Yes, it is foolish to trust an untrustworthy person, since they will put you at risk by their established bad behavior.  But even with trust (as opposed to love and respect) to rehabilitate a repeat offender, trust cannot always be earned, it must sometimes be given as a gift. 

So the Christians gives love and respect and sometimes yes, even trust, unconditionally.  

What a terrible world we would live in if I only got the respect or love that my actions at any moment deserved.  Certainly there would be times that I would get praise and honor and reward, but then, I’d have just as many times as I’d reap shame and dishonor.  And then what kind of person would I turn into?  A miserable one either way, because I’d be proud and judgmental when I receive honor or I’d be shameful, guilty and fearful when I fall out of favor.  This is the yo-yo world of just desserts, of Karma, for every action an equal and opposite reaction, and it’s a world that God’s grace in Christ was meant to save us from.

But what should we do when disrespectful or unloving behavior happens, and affects us deeply?  Here’s what we do:  Don’t condone or ignore.  Also don’t treat this as a justified opportunity to become sarcastic, critical, shaming, withdrawing or vengeful – because “they deserve it”.  We have no right, because God commands respect and love unconditionally.  Instead, we approach such bad behavior with the truth in love.  We truthfully point it out (after proper self examination Matt 7:3-5) and we do so in love (Ephesians 4:15), always ready to forgive (Matt 18:22).  The language we use, is respectful, and the treatment is loving, because the person who has failed us is still valuable to God.  We respect God by respecting them, yes, even a murderer.

Now, if there’s no repentance, no honorable acknowledgement, no confession, no humility, we are not called by God to continue to expose ourselves to reckless and sinful behavior indefinitely.  This is where we say, "trust must be earned."  Paul tells Christians to “warn a divisive man once, warn him a second time, after that have nothing to do with him.” Titus 3:10.   The respect is given in the gracious confrontation and love is shown in the repeated warnings (we don't just dump people after one offense).  

But we may have to protect ourselves if the man of dishonorable character and actions won’t have the respect for himself (or God) to see correction as a gift and return to love and relationship.  So even as we may distance ourselves from disrespectful and dishonorable behavior, even if we cannot trust them, we are continuing to honor and respect that person!  How?  By giving them the honor of correction.  And the honor of honesty.  And finally we give them the honor of a choice, the honor of freedom to do as they please.

Great example I saw recently:  A man's wife left him for another man.  It was ugly, unloving behavior.  But she’s valuable to God, made in his Image, and my friend treated her like that, even after she ran off.  It was a struggle for him, of course, but this showed me it’s possible to honor a dishonorable person.   How did he do it?  He didn’t vengefully dump her.  He patiently sought good counsel and invited her into reconciliation talks.  He didn’t flame her out or seek immediate divorce.  When she showed some signs of life, he welcomed them.  He treated her nicely in their post-separation conversations, even when she was clearly still shacking up.  He didn’t maliciously seek to keep her from her son, or her stuff still lying around their house, or even half of his retirement!  All that is loving and respectful behavior towards someone engaged directly in unloving and disrespectful behavior.

At the same time, this did not go on indefinitely.  After 2 years of total abandonment, as a sort of a last act of cowardice, the cheating wife didn’t even have the decency to make official what she had clearly, already done, which is divorce her husband.  Too lazy?  Too cheap to hire the lawyer?  Who knows.  So my friend finally made official what only his wife made possible – the end of their marriage.  His action showed that we don’t simply ignore disrespectful behavior, nor do we fail to protect ourselves from it when the time comes.  We just believe that we don’t treat people at every moment as their actions deserve, and in this way my friend imitated God most beautifully. (Psalm 103:10)

And thank God for that, because, as one teacher once said, “great marriages are populated by two great forgivers.”

Are Homosexual Sins the Worst Sins?

QUESTION:  I have heard in today's talk (6/29/08) that homosexual attraction and acts can be treated by Christians as among the long list of going outside God's plan for human sexuality in creation. Yet, I see in scripture as having a particular focus on homosexual acts and desires as especially offensive to God. Please explain the meaning of being image-bearers as male and female, scripture's naming of homosexuality as the sin of pride, and explain if there really is a particular condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible as more than just sinful sexual behavior like heterosexual pre-marital sex and heterosexual adultery.

ANSWER: Thanks for the question, and I’m glad you followed up because it gives me a chance to elaborate on an important point.  I can’t agree with your last statement as I must maintain as I did in my sermon that Scripture does not put homosexual behavior at the front of a graded list of sins.  Homosexual behavior is sinful.  But I disagree with you that it is “especially offensive” to God.  

Let me make my case in hopes that I can change your mind about what Scripture teaches on this subject.  First, when the Bible gives us lists of behaviors that are offensive to God, (as it does on numerous occasions), it usually doesn’t even include homosexual acts.  Jesus listed off sins when he said:

Mark 7:20-23  "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.'" NIV

We would think that if your assumption is true about homosexual acts being especially abhorrent to God, that Jesus would have used this moment to clarify that point.   But he doesn’t single out homosexual acts at all.  In fact, we should assume that he would have at least mentioned it in the list of unclean behaviors which he cites here, but he doesn’t even do that.  That doesn’t mean that homosexual behavior isn’t sinful (Jesus will be very clear that God's sexual design is complementary and heterosexual - Matt 19:1-9), the list here, is not exhaustive by any means.  But if we’re to accept your idea that God encourages special repugnance for homosexual acts, then we should expect Jesus to make that clear when he talks about sin here or elsewhere.  But he never does.

Neither does Paul.  Here again another listing of sins:

Gal 5:19-21  The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. NIV

 This list mentions several sexual sins but doesn’t mention homosexual sins once.  If they’re worse why aren’t they listed here?  Again this doesn’t mean that it’s not sinful (see below) but it clearly devastates any case that could be mounted to make homosexuality a cause for special revulsion.

So let’s look at another list of sins where homosexual behavior IS mentioned:

1 Cor 6:9-10 Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. NIV

Here, homosexual behavior IS mentioned in a list of sins which the Corinthians used to engage in.  The two words Paul uses in reference to homosexuality are Greek words that literally mean, “the soft” and “lying with a male”.  This is clearly a reference to male homosexual behavior, the former gives himself to be used by the latter.  This is sinful behavior, clearly.  It's a misuse of sex, along with sexual immorality and adultery, also listed here.

But you will notice that if Paul wanted to elevate our repugnance of homosexuality he would have put it at the front or the back of the list, or made a case about it’s special dangers.  No such case is made.  How are we to understand any “particular condemnation” from this passage?

Paul refers to homosexual acting out in another list of sins:

1 Tim 1:9-11  They are for people who are disobedient and rebellious, who are ungodly and sinful, who consider nothing sacred and defile what is holy, who murder their father or mother or other people. These laws are for people who are sexually immoral, for homosexuals and slave traders, for liars and oath breakers, and for those who do anything else that contradicts the right teaching… NLT

Again we have the word “to bed a male” listed here, (Greek: “arsenokoitai”) and again it is found in the middle of the list.  No special place is given, no special qualifiers are made, no elaboration on this sin – none whatsoever. 

You and I can agree that the creation sexual design is a narrow design:  One man, one woman, for life.  Where we can also agree, is that God’s Word makes the case against homosexual behavior less by calling it out as sin, and more often by describing and celebrating heterosexual marriage.  I agree, this heterosexual, monogamous model defines the boundaries of moral sexual behavior specifically because we are made to reflect God himself, a unity in diversity, Father Son and Holy Spirit.  So two genders are required to have this diversity that comes together into a shared oneness of marriage.

This narrow model then, has all sorts of perversions.  I can get parts of that design right and completely miss other parts.  While I may suffer less if I get only parts of it wrong, I don't avoid guilt.  For example, a homosexual couple may get the monogamous part of that design right, and miss out on the heterosexual part.  A polygamous family may get the heterosexual part right and miss the monogamous part.  The sin and heartache in just David’s household alone because he multiplied his wives in contradiction to the creation design (and God’s laws for kings, Deut. 17:17) shows the deep scars that come from ANY expression of sexuality (homo or hetero) not in keeping with the creation design.

Romans 1 shows us a downward moral spiral that begins with an idolatrous suppression of truth of God and seems at first glance to lead directly to homosexuality as the bottom of the spiral (Rom 1:26, 27).  But only if we stop there to make the “special condemnation” argument and ignore the context.

Keep reading:

“Furthermore,” Paul says in Rom 1:28-31, “he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.  They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.” 

So if we want to make the case that homosexuality is not like other sexual sins but is in fact worse, this passage is no help to us.  By what logic is this passage elevating homosexual behavior over other sin?  By the fact that it comes directly after the rejection of truth about God? (Rom 1:24)  But shouldn’t that logically be the least offensive sin since, if we’re describing a scale, it’s the first foray into rebellion?  Shouldn’t the chronological order of depravity be that every step after the initial rejection of truth about God is a step down the ladder of evil?  

But if that’s the case, then the LEAST offensive sin to God is idolatry, because it comes first (Rom 1:23), homosexuality is second LEAST offensive because it comes second (Rom 1:26, 27) and (by this logic) the WORST sin in God’s moral order – worse than either of those – is ruthlessness because it comes last.  Reverse the order and it’s just as ridiculous.  If we reject this ranking of sins as arbitrary, then this passage cannot be said to elevate homosexual sin as the worst of sins.

When we turn to the Old Testament, the story is the same.  It’s probably true that Lot considered the heterosexual rape of his daughters to be less offensive than the homosexual rape of his angelic guests (Gen 19:8) but there is no commentary on the righteousness of this action.  It’s simply stated that he did it.  If we go to the sexual laws of Moses we read that homosexual acts are an abomination (Lev 18:22).  So yes, that’s very bad.  But here is a short list of other sins that are said to be abominable:

• offering a rotting carcass to God, Lev 7:18;  
• eating unclean animals, like pork Lev 11:10ff; 
• incest, Lev 20:12-13; 
• offering an idol to God, Deut 7:25; 
• offering your son or daughter in sacrifice to God, Deut 12:31.  

There is simply no special place given to homosexual behavior in the Bible.  It is clearly called sin, but it is never singled out as a special sin.  I’m not sure what Bible verse you may be referring to which calls it “the sin of pride”.  If you’d like to point that verse out, I’d be open to feedback.

So I think your case for “particular condemnation” is not supported by the Bible’s teaching.  My concern with our disagreement is that if you carry this idea into friendships with practicing homosexuals, you might project that ‘special condemnation’ onto them.  And that will only encourage a negative stereotype that Christians consider homosexuals as 'less than'.  Frankly, when the question was asked Sunday, I sensed it came from someone who has been told exactly that.  Which is why they sounded skeptical that such sinners could ever experience forgiveness and power of God.  

I wanted to assure them they can.  This is the message Paul sent to homosexuals in 1 Cor 6:11: “And that is what some of you were.  But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”  [Emphasis added]

(We have a white paper dealing with this and other passages on the subject if you’d like me to send it to you.)

Is it permissible for Christians to engage in premarital sex?

QUESTION: We are an adult Christian couple both soon to have final divorce documents complete. Our question is: When we are dating, is there any place for sexual intimacy in this budding relationship or is abstinence the only correct path. Please cite Hard Scripture in addition to any pastoral counseling experience you have on this matter.

ANSWER: I think that the Scriptures give a clear answer to your question, namely that sexual intimacy ought to be reserved for marriage.

The Bible says in Heb 13:4-5 that "marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral."  So this is the simplest description of how sexuality ought to be used by Christians in that it describes the two primary ways to MIS-use it: through adultery and sexual immorality.  One is the sexual indiscretion of married people (Adultery) and the other refers to the sexual indiscretions of unmarried people (Sexual Immorality).  In fact the Greek word used here and elsewhere, "pornea", is used for a wide variety of sexual sins.

This rule essentially puts a net around the act of sex, containing it's tremendous power within a safe zone.  Why is such a safety net needed?  Well, nothing can be clearer from the beginning of the Bible to the end than that sex is a powerful, spiritual joining (Genesis 2:25, 1 Cor 6:18).  Hence God's design for sexuality is that it be between a man and a women in a committed, covenant bond.  So the 7th commandment about adultery (Deut 20:14) and all other sex guidelines in the Law that follow (Leviticus 18) clearly reserve sexual intercourse for the relative safety of the marriage bed.

Since marriage was the norm in Jewish society, the only sex between unmarried persons addressed in the law, regarded virgins.  But here too we see again the underlying Scriptural premise that the bond of sex is in some sense permanent, because a man who deflowered a virgin would be required to marry her (Ex 22:16).

So you can see that you can't separate adultery from what is often called "fornication".  Which is why the same word is often used for ALL sexual indiscretion, because it's all essentially a violation of a single ideal - one man, one woman, for life.  From God's perspective, the act of sex is the act of marriage, for God looks at your sex partner as a "one flesh" partner.

This is what underlines Jesus teaching on sex.  The spiritual permanence of the sexual bond is why Jesus was so upset with the state of marriage in his own day.  He called out the Jews for their rampant divorce and remarriage culture.  He even called those who divorce and remarry adulterers!  Matt 19:9 "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Why would he do that?  It's not because divorce is an unforgivable sin.  He says this because the Jews weren't seeing ANY sin in divorce at all!  They thought that if they followed lawful and fair Mosaic procedures for divorce  that God was indifferent about the whole thing.  But Jesus wanted them to see that they were dead wrong.  Inherent in all divorce is a desecration of God's larger goals in sexuality, which is the creation of lifelong, one flesh bonds.  So while they wanted to talk about what was "lawful" (from Moses, Deut 24:1) Jesus wanted to talk about what brings Life from God's original creation design (Matt 19:4-6).  Therefore, because of that higher, creation design that says sexual intercourse forms spiritual bonds ("one flesh unions") , Jesus wanted us to see that divorce creates a situation where on one level, the divorcee, even if lawfully remarried is, by a life long bond, someone else's spouse - therefore is an adulterer.

Now, I do not teach (as some Christian leaders do) that Christians cannot ever get re-married.  But i do believe it's almost impossible that a Christian can divorce and remarry without some sin in the picture.  Only in exceptional circumstance (Jesus mentions the presence of sexual immorality as one exception, Paul mentions abandonment) can a Christian think that the dissolution of a marriage is a faultless, benign exercise.  HOWEVER, there is forgiveness in Christ for all sins, even the adultery caused by divorce and remarriage.  Like all sin, it should be confessed and repented of - but repentance would not include divorcing your second spouse!  Obviously, what you repent of in divorce is that you didn't follow God's creation design with sex as permanent bond... therefore, repentance would mean sorrow for marriage failure and a strong commitment to a remarriage that lasts.

In my experience, when a person justifies their divorce (except in cases of physical/sexual abuse) it's usually a guarantee that the issues that lead to the dissolution of the first marriage will follow you into the next.  Without a long period of mourning, confession, repentance and God's forgiveness and healing work and without needed counsel and wisdom inside the Body of Christ, a divorcee is not ready for remarriage.  If you're wanting to have sex without marriage, it tells me that you're probably not fully repentant yet... meaning you have not yet fully brought your mind in line with God's mind on sex.

How can I say that?  Because again, the whole premise of Scripture on sex is that it brings a deep spiritual bond and therefore must be accompanied by commensurate physical and emotional bonds of permanence - IE the marriage promise.   Paul says to those having sex outside of marriage "1 Cor 6:16-7:1  Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."  There is no such thing as casual sex in God's book.

So again Paul does what Jesus does:  he goes back to the creation design for sex and says the question a Christian should be asking about sex is not, "what is permissible?" but rather "what brings Life according to the benevolent design of the Designer of sex?"  Getting on God's page requires that we see sex through different lenses than pure pragmatism, or desire or expedience.  Paul concludes the matter with a fitting challenge for you and your partner:  "Flee from sexual immorality.  All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.  Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body."

I trust you'll find amazing amounts of LIFE down God's path, even if it means accepting the privation of abstinence in the short run.  God's way always means short term pain, but long term pleasure, if we, by an act of faith, will trust Him and obey.

Does 1 Corinthians 7:36 justify premarital sex for Christians?

Question:

I have a Christian friend who’s rendition of 1 Cor 7:36 roughly comes to "if a man is sleeping with his committed girlfriend/fiancé, they are of age, and need to, let him do the things he wants to with her (have sex), it isn`t sinful: let them be considered married." Does that interpretation have any merit?

Answer:

Thanks for the note. Glad you’re interacting with your friend on this, but I do think he’s very wrong about Paul in 1 Cor 7.

First problem in using 1 Corinthians 7:36 to justify anything, especially a very contentious idea (essentially he’s saying premarital sex equals marriage) is that this verse is notoriously difficult for Christians to understand/translate/interpret for just the 2000 years. It might not be expected of the average Christian to know this about this particular verse, but taking up just 4 or 5 different translations will show that the language here is far from clear. So making a bold statement about Christian sexual practise based on this one verse is ill advised out of the gate. The broad scope of possible meanings is shown in this sampling of translations:

NIV: If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married.

KJV: But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.

ASV: But if any man thinketh that he behaveth himself unseemly toward his virgin (daughter), if she be past the flower of her age, and if need so requireth, let him do what he will; he sinneth not; let them marry.

Darby: But if anyone think that he behaves unseemly to his virginity, if he be beyond the flower of his age, and so it must be, let him do what he will, he does not sin: let them marry.

God’s Word: No father would want to do the wrong thing when his virgin daughter is old enough to get married. If she wants to get married, he isn't sinning by letting her get married.

NLT: But if a man thinks that he's treating his fiancée improperly and will inevitably give in to his passion, let him marry her as he wishes. It is not a sin.

The key to understanding this is understanding three Greek phrases, translated “his virgin” and “past the bloom/flower” along with “needs require”. As you could see from the above translations, “his virgin” could have THREE possible meanings.

- It could refer to a man's daughter.

- It could refer to a man’s fiancé or

- It could refer to man’s own virginity. (Side note: when translations say “she” is “past bloom”, the gender is inferred from “virgin”, there is no gender assigned in the Greek. So it could be “his” virginity.)

Let’s look at the strength of each these interpretations: Darby sees this verse as a natural follow up to Paul’s whole conversation in chapter 7 about virginity where he promotes celibacy. This verse then, would be the “application portion” of that whole argument. So, if a man finds he is violating his own virginity (IE. experiencing the ‘burning with passion” Paul mentions 7:9) and he’s getting along in years, the man is free to marry.

This is probably weakest of the three because the possessive of virgin is almost never attached to one’s own virginity but to a person, usually (but not always) a woman whom you, in some sense, possess.

So the second idea is that “his virgin” is his fiancé. This is how most modern translations see it and your friend would agree. This is probably stronger than the first view, weaker than the last view. But even in this view, your Christian buddy has inserted two ideas that aren’t in the text and have never been inferred by any translators or commentators that I’ve read, ever. His assumptions are

- that behaving improperly means “having sex with” and

- that “let them marry” means “let them be considered married.”


Three things militate against this view. One is the question of why Paul would call premarital sex "behaving improperly" and then turn around and tell those engaging in it, "let them do as they please." This is very perplexing.

Two, is that the "behaving improperly" is connected to the “past bloom” in some way. The way early Christians did engagement” was through arranged marriages. Moderns assume that cohabitation was an option back then, but it was almost unheard of. Why? Because a man sleeping with a woman was always sleeping with someone else’s property. So no one willy nilly “shacked up” – a father wouldn’t allow it. It wasn’t just dishonorable, it was economically disastrous – unless he was paying for those services through prostitution. Yes, it was not unheard of (see John 4) but very rare, usually with widows (which precludes 'virgins' obviously).

So most men would be engaged to a woman, selected by their parents, sometimes for years ahead of matrimony. This implies that the “past bloom” comment is connected to not treating her marriage rights correctly, rather than “having sex” with her. The man in question is delaying marriage (because of Paul’s encouragement of celibacy) but he finds that his fiancé is getting older and “needs require” he do something. Again, why? Because she (or he) is not fit or suited for single life.

Therefore it needs to be said by Paul to such a man – you can go ahead and take her freely as your wife. Get married, it’s not a sin. The verb tense in Greek will not allow, “let them be considered married”. The context makes this obvious. He’s considering what a man WILL do, not renaming what someone has already done.

Third, your Friend has not understood other Scripture. There is no state of cohabitation that Paul ever endorsed as lawful sex. Widows were perhaps cohabitating with renegade elders in Ephesus (see 1 Timothy) and there he doesn’t say, “let them be considered married” if they want to make it right. He considers them fornicators, and calls them to repent, “settle down and get married” (1 Tim 5:14). The only other cohabitating we know of was the one that came under discipline when a man simply took his father’s wife (I Cor 5). If the marriage arrangement was so slippery to Paul that we could wave our wands over any two fornicators at will and say, voila, “married!”, then why not say that about the man who took his father’s wife and avoid the scandal? (We incorrectly assume that the scandal was that the father was still alive, in all likelihood he was not.)

After all is said and done, there's a strong case to be made that this isn't even about a man and his fiancé. It’s might be about a parent and “his virgin” which would be a daughter still under a father's authority. There's much to commend this view, since it takes historical context and all the language here into account. If a reference to a parent, the “behaving improperly” makes clear sense attached to “past bloom”. This would mean a Christian father has heard Paul extoll the benefits of celibacy, but the father knows this isn’t “proper” for his daughter. And seeing that she is moving past marrying age, this requires him to make a decision. And Paul then grants such a parent the freedom to do as he sees fit: Give her in marriage, let her be married to her affianced, despite the benefits of the single life.

Most early commentators saw this as the obvious meaning (Paul had talked to singles, marrieds and divorced, it makes sense that he apply his message to one final group: Parents!) As one example, this is John Calvin on this passage:

But if any one thinketh that it were unseemly for his virgin. He now directs his discourse to parents, who had children under their authority. For having heard the praises of celibacy, and having heard also of the inconveniences of matrimony, they might be in doubt, whether it were at all a kind thing to involve their children in so many miseries, lest it should seem as if they were to blame for the troubles that might befall them. For the greater their attachment to their children, so much the more anxiously do they exercise fear and caution on their account. [439] Paul, then, with the view of relieving them from this difficulty, teaches that it is their duty to consult their advantage, exactly as one would do for himself when at his own disposal. [440] Now he still keeps up the distinction, which he has made use of all along, so as to commend celibacy, but, at the same time, to leave marriage as a matter of choice; and not simply a matter of choice, but a needful remedy for incontinency, which ought not to be denied to anyone. In the first part of the statement he speaks as to the giving of daughters in marriage, and he declares that those do not sin in giving away their daughters in marriage, who are of opinion that an unmarried life is not suitable for them.

In all likelihood then, this isn’t even about engaged couples at all, but about fathers and daughters and reflects the authority in 1st century culture that father’s had over “their virgin daughters” until marriage and the responsibility they took in seeing them well wed in that culture – in conjunction with Paul’s encouragement of singleness. In any event “do has he please” cannot be referring to two unwed people continuing to sleep together and have it ‘considered’ marriage. This is a pretty blatant example of reading into the text what you want it to say, instead of letting it speak for itself.

Does being Christian and gay require Celibacy?

Question:

I appreciate your teaching on homosexuality - walking a line I often can`t always articulate or even fully grasp in the Tug of War with Biblical Truth and modern culture. I still struggle with asking anyone to remain celibate. It`s a lot to ask. For now, I for one am just grateful to acquire more real people in my life who are lesbians and gay so the whole thing can be taken out of theory into Love in action.

Answer:

This is such a difficult discussion for many, myself included, as we all have gay friends, and gayness is front page news every day. This is doubly difficult when loved ones either struggle with same sex attraction or are deeply convinced this is a civil rights issue and being on the “wrong side of history” is the newest unforgivable sin.

If so, this is a “sin” we Christians will steadfastly continue to commit, simply because we surrender to a wisdom higher than our own. On my own, I’d go with the flow. I don’t care to make homosexuality illegal, and I don’t care to want to proscribe it as another form of sexual expression – if that’s what a person wants to do. But I’ve taken my cues from a better Mind, one that I believe invented sex, so the core of my commitment to believe homoerotic sex is inherently “disordered”, lies there. Him, I've learned to trust.

But note, the “lifelong celibacy” requirement for gays turning to Christ, is not quite the dire picture we imagine. We imagine it’s dire, only because we have bought the whole package of what “gayness” is from a confused and defensive gay culture. Namely this idea that orientation is some inviolable, sacrosanct biological wiring that has no bend, no flex, no morph-ability.

Look, all arguments about “born gay” aside, the truth is people who have certain sexual preferences can choose to have sex successfully in ways that don’t align with those preferences. Some people prefer masturbation to copulation, but choose to not self-sex because they come to believe it’s a violation of a higher design, that sex was designed to be interpersonal; an intimacy building activity between persons, not narcissism.

Likewise, some people have been in heterosexual marriages for years, had children, then come out of the closet, announced they were gay the whole time, and left marriage and children behind. Whatever is true about their orientation, their actual experience (repeated by millions of gays) is that they were perfectly capable of heterosexual sex. Was it what they preferred? I guess not, but they CAN engage in such sex as they did so in the past.

And so, for the sake of Christ, lawful sex is readily available for the person with same sex attraction as it is for anyone else. It’s only in our current climate of torturous adherence to self actualization and constant self fulfillment that we could think a person eschewing one kind of sex for another because they believe it better for them, for others and for society in the long run, even if they prefer it less, is a terrible, immoral act.

It used to be that rejecting sex that you preferred for “lawful sex” that honored God and blessed human society was considered noble. Not any more, I guess. All that to say, a Christian struggling with same sex attraction is not cursed to a life of celibacy, unless the only sex they would ever consider engaging in, is homoerotic. Then, yes, celibacy is the only way to honor God with their sexuality.

But as I said, they can choose to participate fully in God’s sexual design, even if they harbor other desires. And let us not forget the transforming power of the Holy Spirit and good Christian counsel that may affect the “strength or direction of sexual desires” - contrary to popular dogma.

By the way, EVERY Christian who wants to walk faithfully in Christ does some of this "rejecting of sexual preferences". No one is “oriented” to always do sex God’s way. No one. So the homosexual is not in a unique position. Sexual preferences (and that’s all an “orientation” is after all) are quite literally legion. God’s sexual design is singular.

Now, is it less a stretch to discipline an unlawful heterosexual desire into God’s design than a homosexual desire? Perhaps. But Jesus did predict that the path of the disciple would at times strain the bounds of what we think is humanly possible (Matthew 19:26) And let's face it: everyone finds some parts of God’s sexual design agreeable and other parts less so. Most playboys are perfectly happy with the "Hetero" aspect of Christian sexuality but have a huge internal, physical preference problem with the monogamous part, or the permanent part. Some homosexuals are agreeable to the monogamy part, but clearly struggle with the heterosexual part.

It's only because we bought the culture's packaging of this issue that we think the Christian position on sexuality uniquely targets or is uniquely onerous for gays. It does not and it is not.
By the way, I love your attitude to be relationship with people who are gay and to be Love in action. Way to go. May God show off both his grace and truth through you. People need Jesus, not because they are gay, but because they are sin-separated rebels – a condition which predates sexual outworking. When we see all people that way, gayness fades to the background and God’s mercy can take center stage.

How Can We Defend Traditional Marriage From The Bible When It Allows Polygamy?

QUESTION:  How are we to defend marriage in the public square as being between ONE man and ONE wife when Old Testament is littered with polygamy?  “I'm barren so I’ll give you my servant”??  When talking to a non Christian, this whole idea seems so discrediting. I think these women are crazy to let their husbands sleep with anyone else but my goodness, how come these men don't just say no?!?!

RESPONSE:  Great question and let me address your second question first because it relates to the Biblical ideal.  And that’s important because if we can’t establish a cohesive biblical ideal, then it does seem weird to argue for a set of sexual morals in society when our holy book doesn't even seem to have a consistent message itself.  The fact is, despite instances of polygamy, the Bible DOES have a consistent sexual ideal and design.  In fact, the occurrences of polygamy in Scripture help us respond to the challenge of homosexuality in the present as you’ll see. 

God’s sexual model is revealed on the first pages in the creation narrative (Gen 1-2) and the same model is affirmed throughout the Bible, most importantly by Christ himself who actually deepened our understanding of the importance of it (Matt 19:1-9).  Finally Paul indicates that faithful, loving, heterosexual monogamy was the only marriage model the Church affirmed (1 Tim 3:12).

Yes, intermixed with this simple model are descriptions of sexual models and customs that conflict with it, but those have to be understood in relation to the overall teaching of Scripture and their specific intent.  The first description of someone perverting God’s marriage model is Lamech (Gen 4) who is the first polygamist.  His actions are not put forward as a new ideal or a new permissible option for marriage… he’s an illustration of what the Fall into sin has done in perverting God’s good design. 

So now remember when I taught on the difference between PRESCRIPTION and DESCRIPTION in Scripture?  God never PRESCRIBES any marriage model except one:  one man, one woman, for life.  He often DESCRIBES many other models in his Word.  Polygamy being one.  “Levirate marriage” being another – that was when a brother in law was required to marry his sister-in-law if his brother died without leaving any sons.  These are examples of marriage practices that God doesn't specifically initiate, but in some cases “tolerates” or “manages” until the new creation period brought in by Christ – who comes to RESTORE God’s creation desires and designs.  Polygamy is a fundamental desecration of this larger design.

When the law comes and talks about polygamy, keep in mind that it is merely a temporary steward of God’s People to temper the devastating effects of sin – not God’s ideal order.  So, for example, Levirate marriage was a specific form of polygamy that God tolerates in his law after the Fall to help widows be cared for who wouldn't be otherwise without sons.  In the new creation period, however, this provision goes away as widows are to be cared for by the Church rather than find plural marriage partners (1 Tim 5:16).

Therefore, polygamy being practiced by Old Testament characters or being talked about in the law of Moses is not an endorsement or presentation of “just another lifestyle choice” or evidence of conflicting marriage models.  Contrary to what this internet meme is meant to convey:

Remember, polygamy PREDATES Mosaic Law.  Thus biblical polygamy laws, rather than mandate the practice, are there to manage the extra hardships that come with this preexisting condition, the insecurity, and jealousy and infighting known in all polygamous cultures.  

Hence, the law about polygamy in Deut 21:15-17 – it is a law requiring that non-favored wives NOT be treated inequitably.  The transcendent moral principle is about fairness, not condoning multiple wives – and the implicit acknowledgement is that polygamy creates no end of ugly family dynamics.  Abraham’s story illustrates all the problems which this law is meant to address – in fact, part of his story is to teach us the steep price he paid for violating God’s marriage ideal!

Having said that, we should notice there are underlying “noble” intentions or cultural mandates surrounding polygamy - which may be why God doesn't come out and specifically challenge it with Abraham or other O.T. figures.  It was common practice in those days to build your household through a slave-wife if your actual wife was barren.  While that seems crazy to us, keep in mind just how critical it was to have children in the ancient world!  Children were EVERYTHING.  They were your retirement fund, they were your police/security guards, your work force, your fire department, your food security, your medical insurance, all wrapped up in one.  So now let’s say your wife isn't having kids.  How would you like to live your life without any of those securities?  I’m not saying it was right according to God’s creation design, but the need for polygamy was felt in the ancient world deeply, because of the rampant loss of male lives at childbirth and in war and work (it was a dangerous world to be a man!) and the importance of children on your security.

Now, in the same way, our culture feels a need for homosexual marriage because of the value we place on sexual freedom.  Homosexual marriage would seem as crazy to them as polygamous marriage seems to you.  Changing cultural conditions make certain forms of marriage more palatable at certain times.  Well, God’s Word speaks with a timeless authority above temporary conditions like a shortage of males or barren females (them) or an overemphasis on the value of sexual freedom and personal autonomy (us).  God’s design is not swayed by the transitory winds of want – it’s founded in God’s own unchanging character and our ACTUAL needs as his creations.

So we are not that different from them.  I’m glad you brought up polygamy in relation to the national debate about marriage, because it illustrates how ALL variants to God’s marriage model have some “noble” rationale.  A shortage of males makes it seem only natural and permissible to multiply wives, for seemingly good reasons:  survival, even compassion – for unmarried women would most likely turn to prostitution to live. 

Well, in our society, because we put such a high value on sexual autonomy, when we find some people who are genuinely sexually attracted to members of the same sex, it seems only natural and permissible to endorse homosexual unions – in fact tolerance would seem to DEMAND it.  

However, though some OTHER good is upheld in these diverse marriage models (compassion/survival in polygamy or freedom/tolerance in gay marriage) the Bible still says  “it is not right to do evil that some good may result.” (Romans 3:8).  Violating God’s revealed, and narrow sexual design is never right even if it achieves some partial good.   Given God’s clear creation sex model, if it was not right to marry many women no matter the cultural condition of the ancient world, how can it be right to marry someone of the same gender in today’s world?

So the sexual design in the Bible, from first page to last page, is clear - difficult, narrow, challenging - but clear.