When you look at Scripture with any degree of care, one thing becomes immediately apparent: the Bible is remarkably consistent on sexual morality. It is not vague, it is not fluid, and it is not culturally negotiable. From Genesis to Revelation, the biblical witness treats sexual ethics as a central concern, not a peripheral one. And when you compare that clarity with the mushy, shifting standards of modern culture, the contrast is hard to miss.
The biblical sexual ethic is simple enough to state in a sentence: sex belongs within the covenant of marriage between one man and one woman, and sex outside that covenant is sin. Scripture never wavers on that point. It begins in creation, where God joins Adam and Eve and declares that “the two shall become one flesh” (Gen 2:24). Jesus later affirms that this was God’s intention “from the beginning” (Matt 19:4–6). Marriage is a covenant, and sex is the covenant sealing act. That is the pattern God established before sin ever entered the world.
From there, the rest of Scripture simply follows that design. The Law repeatedly prohibits sexual activity outside marriage—adultery, incest, homosexuality, bestiality, prostitution—not because God is arbitrary, but because these acts violate the covenantal structure He created. The prophets pick up the same theme, using sexual sin as the primary metaphor for Israel’s spiritual unfaithfulness. When Israel chases idols, God calls it adultery (Jeremiah 3; Hosea 1–3). That imagery only works because sexual fidelity is already understood as covenant fidelity.
The wisdom literature reinforces the point. Proverbs warns repeatedly about the dangers of sexual sin, and the Song of Solomon celebrates marital sexuality as something good, holy, and joyful. Then Jesus intensifies the ethic rather than relaxing it, insisting that lust itself is a violation of the heart (Matt 5:27–28) and grounding marriage firmly in creation. Paul follows suit, placing sexual sin at the top of multiple vice lists—1 Corinthians 6, Galatians 5, Ephesians 5, Colossians 3—and explaining that sexual immorality is uniquely destructive because it violates the body, which is the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:18–20). Even Revelation includes sexual immorality among the sins that mark final judgment (Rev 21:8; 22:15).
So if you ask whether the perception is real—that sexual sin is consistently treated as serious, that Scripture is clear and unwavering—the answer is yes. It is not your imagination. It is the biblical pattern. Sexual ethics are woven deeply into the fabric of covenant life, holiness, and human flourishing. Scripture treats sexual sin as spiritually weighty because sex itself is spiritually weighty. It is covenantal, identity forming, and symbolic of God’s relationship with His people. To violate sexual boundaries is to violate covenant boundaries, and Scripture never treats that lightly.
By contrast, modern culture has no such anchor. Its sexual morality is built on personal autonomy, emotional preference, and the thin reed of consent. It shifts with the winds of politics, psychology, and social pressure. It condemns some things and celebrates others without any coherent principle holding it all together. That is why it feels inconsistent—because it is. A morality built on cultural sentiment will always be fluid. A morality built on divine design will always be consistent.
In the end, Scripture’s clarity is not harsh; it is merciful. It gives us a stable, coherent sexual ethic rooted in creation and covenant, while culture offers a patchwork of shifting standards that cannot sustain themselves. This perception aligns with the biblical witness: God’s standards are clear, consistent, and good, while society’s standards are, at best, unstable and self contradictory.
26 comments:
I think one of the problems Christians have in talking about sex is because of the vast amount of prohibitions about sex in the Bible. There seem to be far more "thou shalt not" passages, giving us the idea that sex is some sort of necessary evil. But we harm ourselves and God's revelation when fail to emphasize the beauty of sex within it's proper context. When we properly connect the sexual union as fulfilling and beautiful as it can be in its proper place, we get a sense of the union we have with God through Christ as His Bride. We are so focused on what we do, we lose sight of why we do it and what it means.
“A morality built on cultural sentiment will always be fluid. A morality built on divine design will always be consistent. … God’s standards are clear, consistent, and good, while society’s standards are, at best, unstable and self contradictory.”
Since the Scriptures serve to inform us about God and His ways, it makes sense that we can consult God’s Word to learn His will regarding such major aspects of the human existence as sex and marriage; living contrary to His standards could never be profitable. As with all good things that the Lord designed, marriage and physical love within it are blessings and therefore prime targets for Satan’s devastating distortion. Those who hold to God’s design can sidestep the worldly, inferior version the devil offers us and reap the Lord’s full blessings. Personally, I am grateful for the opportunity to make that better choice.
Marriage is a covenant, and sex is the covenant sealing act. … From there, the rest of Scripture simply follows that design.
As one interested in the general field of sociology (but always seeking to interpret it through a biblical lens) and therefore the place of marriage within the human experience, I have always been unclear on this: When and how exactly did the establishment of Adam and Eve’s union become what we know as legal marriage (as opposed to, say, “common law marriage” or other human constructs)? To support a covenantal aspect of their relationship, do we suppose that there was an exchange of vows between them, making it truly contractual--i.e. an indication of mutual agreement and promise? If not, and Adam and Eve simply took each other to themselves (albeit in compliance with God’s instructions), how can we answer the skeptic who asserts that that event could be viewed as the first shacking up rather than the first marriage? What exactly made the difference--other than the fact that God Himself brought them together?
When I began studying the history of marriage in our culture, I found two views: (1) the biblical view--i.e. “God established marriage in Genesis as the first human institution, uniting Adam and Eve for companionship and procreation”--and (2) the extra-biblical view--i.e. “Marriage was socially acquired in the framework of cultural evolution.” It is that “God established marriage in Genesis” assertion from the first view that gives me pause. I realize that Jesus referred to that event “at the beginning” and mentions “wife” and being “joined together” by God (Matt. 19:4-6) (and that God stated this as well in Gen. 2:24), but to what can we point precisely as that which made Adam a “husband” and Eve a “wife” and their union a “marriage”?
P.S. Please know that I don’t particularly enjoy “playing devil’s advocate” at this weblog; instead, I have come to the point--after reading here for a decade and commenting regularly the last half of that time--where I feel comfortable admitting some issues of weak understanding on my part related to your topics. I don’t mind risking looking ignorant in the hopes that I might perhaps benefit from consulting Smith & Son!
P.P.S. Stan, you have many posts labeled “Marriage.” If you perhaps recall that you addressed my question at one of them, feel free to direct me to it.
The Bible says "The two became one.." That is partly due to the sexual relationship as well as the emotional bond. Say they became one is God saying they are married.
There is nothing wrong with "common law" marriage and it used to be legal in most states, but I don't know how it is now. The reason we have to have licenses, etc nowadays is due to legal issues, especially if there is a divorce. I hazard a guess that before too many hundreds of years ago marriage was just a joining together and declaring to be married.
“Say[ing] they became one is God saying they are married.” Are you saying that God is declaring that a marriage is formed whenever two people “become one”--sexually and/or emotionally, as you suggest?
To me, “becoming one” as you describe it--or even “becoming one flesh”--could easily apply to committed but unwed couples. To some, “becoming one” could mean “forming one family unit or household.” I am hoping for something more definitive.
I remember many years ago having a discussion about what “married” truly means, upon viewing the movie West Side Story, with the scene where Tony and Maria pledge their love to each other in private and then evidently consider themselves to be married--enough so to validate (excuse?) their subsequent sexual act. I can see how simply “joining together and declaring to be married” could be abused or interpreted subjectively from culture to culture. Perhaps that can’t be avoided.
Genesis 2:23-25 seems to be a pretty clear vow as more than just shacking up. No, it wasn't the same as the legal form of marriage as we have today, but they would have had more reverance for oaths in the Garden than we do since the Fall. I'm not sure God put in place any form of legal marriage, maybe some references in Deuteronomy or Leviticus. Clearly marriage was a regular thing very early on, as early as before the Flood, the sons of God and daughters of man were spoken of as husband and wife. Clearly marriage had become rather corrupted by the time of the Law which would be why God put guardrails on it. It seems quite apparent that God's plan for marriage was one man and one woman for life and only have exceptions because of the hardness of our hearts.
Thanks for your input, David. To clarify: I am thinking about the specific case of Adam and Eve and wondering, what was the precise mechanism that established a marriage there and then? I don’t see that Gen. 2:24 covers it in crystal-clear fashion. Afterall, (unmarried) cohabitating couples most likely separate from their parents to cleave to each other; they most certainly become one flesh and might even be fruitful and multiply. While God brought Eve directly to Adam, that was not the usual occurrence going forward. Clearly some details are missing, at least to my mind.
Lorna,
We can't prevent people from abusing a personal declaration of marriage/common law marriage. People get "married" legally for fraudulent purposes.
When God gave Eve to Adam as his wife, as David noted, the union was pretty well established. After that people just joined together as husband and wife--created a union that was not to be separated. Exactly what "ceremony" took place is irrelevant in that they were considered to be husband and wife. By the way, one of the main reasons originally for marriage licenses in the USA was to prevent blacks marrying with whites.
A "committed" unwed couple would possibly be a common law marriage or just not one with a license, etc; it would depend of if they treated the union as a marriage. I've known people who didn't get a license or formalize a marriage because they didn't believe the state had that right.
And, no, becoming one is not about forming one family unit or household--it is the joining of the two people as "one" for life.
One shouldn't get an understanding of what marriage is by a movie.
Glenn, I’m not seeing that you were able to follow my line of thought in all this (including my point in referencing the movie), but I thank you for your input just the same.
Lorna, I guess I just don't understand your confusion. As far as I can tell and have ever been taught, Adam's statement was not simply a statement of fact but it is in the form of a vow. If you're looking for some sort of connection between the Garden and our form of legal marriage, you'll be looking til the cows come home. The Bible seems to make it clear that marriage isn't simply the physical union of sex, but it is a vow between two people, before God, of living a "one life" together. And like all other covenants in the history of covenants, this vow has a physical expression, sex. I'm sorry I didn't understand your question.
It’s OK, David, and thanks for trying. Perhaps I am subconsciously hoping to find a sort of loophole, as it were. We recently spent time in Seattle with our divorced daughter and her boyfriend, with whom she shares an apartment. They might get married, or they might not, she says. Her living arrangement distresses me so much that I am telling myself, “Maybe, just maybe, God considers them to be married, and her sin is not as bad as I perceive it. Afterall, they are committed to each other and have become one flesh. Isn’t that a marriage? (Vows are essentially pointless, as her divorce proved.)” Since we Christians always point to Genesis 1-2 as the foundation for marriage--God’s parameters for sexual intimacy--I was seeking any possibility she might fall within those parameters, by considering the difference, if any, between being married and shacking up--in God’s eyes and then perhaps in mine.
Oh, then you know the answer, you just don't like it. I see. It is a common affliction of humans to be moral relatives, they have certain morals until their relatives break those morals, so they abrogate those morals rather than condemn the sin "out of love". But it is never loving to diminish sin.
Just because we don't take vows seriously doesn't mean they're unimportant. Having sex with, and living with someone, is not marriage by anyone's estimation. Marriage requires vows. It's why God considers divorce and remarriage (except in one case) to be adultery. Please repent of your desire to minimize sin. Pray for her. Love her. Be there for her. But never approve of her choice. (I had to do that for a long time when my mother was living a life of homosexuality.)
One more thought: I don’t see Gen. 2:23-24 depicting Adam making a vow at all--either to Eve or to God. In Gen. 2:23, he simply was recognizing God’s provision to him in the form of Eve, whom God brought to him upon her creation; Gen. 2:24 is described as the “blueprint for marriage going forward” (since neither Adam nor Eve had “mother and father” to leave), but still, pledges to one another are not explicitly mentioned. Stan’s description of marriage as “covenantal” got me considering whether vows were exchanged (as I mentioned above), but everything I am reading indicates the likely absence of ceremony, vows, etc. (as we have come to expect at weddings). I do see the idea of this first union depicting God’s relationship with the Church (as Stan mentioned), in that the Lord calls us and joins us to Christ; we don’t enter our relationship with Christ by making a vow (“I take thee Jesus as my Lord and Savior”) or a decision or act of the will (John 1:12-13) but by God’s effective work directly in us. I think that marriage is more “covenantal” in our current culture (excluding cases of forced marriage) than that very first union.
A clarification/correction to my most recent comment:
I wrote, “I think that marriage is more ‘covenantal’ in our current culture (excluding cases of forced marriage) than that very first union.” I would add that since divorce is so accessible and represents an abandonment of vows previously made to one another (and even to God), marriage is truly “covenantal” only in theory and not in practice.
Shacking up is not a commitment to be joined as one for life. THAT is a huge difference. How long do "shack ups" remain committed? Committed to what? Sexual relations in and of themselves do not make the couple "one flesh"
Glenn, I do not see it quite as emphatically as you do. We cannot know the hearts and minds of those choosing to cohabitate rather than be wed; many of those couples live together their whole lives without marrying, even raising children together. They might be completely committed to each other and their union--just without getting married. (You mentioned such couples yourself above.) Alternatively, some people marry with less than full commitment--i.e. they have no qualms about leaving if doing so suits them and don’t necessarily see marriage as requiring them to “be joined as one for life.” (I am thinking of the “as long as we both shall love” vs. the “as long as we both shall live” mindsets.) The ideals you and I might hold as believers are not shared universally, of course.
I believe that 1 Cor. 6:16 refutes your final statement: “Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For ‘the two,’ He says, ‘shall become one flesh.’”
I’m glad you can relate. I’m ascertaining that you and I might have different views about some aspects of this topic (and I might push back a bit on some of your remarks), but I am certain that we share a desire to be in alignment with God’s Word, to love what He loves and hate what He hates. I know that must be my starting and ending point in all things.
Lorna. I'm going to have to doubt your assertion that "many of those couples live together their whole lives". That simply sounds false. Sure, there may be some, but many feels like a stretch.
Lorna, marriage is an image of the union of Christ and the Church but it is not a full reflection. Or did you not make a choice to marry your husband out of your own will without the need for him to change your heart? However, just because we are consummate vow breakers, it doesn't mean vows don't matter.
Even if you don't see "marriage" in the Garden, the Bible is none-the-less extremely clear on the importance of vows in marriage and God's view of sex outside of that covenantal relationship. If your daughter has not made any sort of verbal vow, how in anyone's non-emotional thinking could that be a marriage? I'm sorry, according to the Bible, there is no allowance for marriage without promises being made. You can lie to yourself if you wish to assuage your conscience, just know you're not doing it on a biblical basis.
Adam's words, at least in every Bible I've read, in Genesis 2:23 are written syntactically different than verse 24 (in my Bibles verse 24 isn't even indicated to be spoken words). This way of writing is consistent throughout Scripture to man that what is being said is more than a simple statement of fact. It is either prophecy, "God saying", or song when broken out of the paragraph the way 23 is. This is obviously a modern way of writing it, but it seems to indicate that every Bible translator has understood what Adam says to be unique and different from simple declaration.
Lorna, when Glenn is speaking of "in one flesh" I think he's meaning in the sense of marriage, not in the spiritual sense Paul means in 1 Corinthians. There is obviously a profound connection made by two people having sex beyond the mere physical union. When we spread ourselves in that way to many people we are doing serious damage to ourselves and to the union God intended for sex.
Lorna,
Just because there is no mention of a vow in Genesis, that doesn't equate to not being a genuine marriage. The teaching from Scripture is that Adam and Eve were husband and wife. If you need a vow, then how about "bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh."
"One flesh" marriage is more than just sex. Yes it is a part of the "one flesh" idea when they engage in sex but Marriage is MORE than just the sexual aspect.
Common law marriages are not that popular as they were in the past so the word "many" for couples shacking as marriage is doubtful. Those who "marry" without commitment are sinning to start with.
"marriage is truly 'covenantal' only in theory and not in practice."
It isn't theory, rather it is a Biblical fact. Just because even Christians fail to practice marriage properly, that is no reason to say it is just theory
I did not say that the absence of vows disproved Adam and Eve’s status as husband and wife. You misunderstood what I wrote, which was actually the opposite: Adam and Eve were married without an indication of their having exchanged any vows. (I was responding to David’s mention of marriage being “a vow between two people.”) No, I do not “need a vow.” And “bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh” does not strike me as a vow but an observational declaration.) I believe I understand the meaning of 1 Cor. 6:16: While sexual relations do make a couple one flesh, they alone do not create a marriage. (You can read my latest comment for David for more.)
Again, you missed my meaning.
I realize that my style of writing is wordy and therefore a bit tedious, but I choose my words and phrasing carefully, in order to express myself the best that I can and not be misunderstood. It might not always be super-easy to follow my line of thought, but it’s in there.
David, A few closing thoughts to wrap up my part in this discussion:
1. My original point was to look at Adam and Eve’s case to see exactly what is indicated regarding the establishment of marriage. I was not thinking of developments within the institution of marriage that transpired later, either under God’s leading or through cultural influences and evolution. As I indicated above, I am aware that the foundations of marriage are both biblical and secular/cultural; it’s easy to blur those perspectives, and many staunch Bible believers do just that.
As one sample of online materials I perused, an article at Gotquestions.com titled “What constitutes marriage according to the Bible” opens with these lines: “The Bible nowhere explicitly states at what point God considers a man and a woman to be married. Due to the Bible’s silence on this matter, identifying the precise moment a man and woman are married in God’s eyes is a complex undertaking.” (It goes on to discuss three common viewpoints.) Again, this was my (narrow) focus.
2. The Bible does not record Adam and Eve making vows to each other (nor any other couples doing so). Gen. 2:24 can be seen as Adam’s song of celebration/jubilation upon seeing Eve, but his words do not indicate a promise on his part, even as part of a covenant before God. (There might have been such, but they are not recorded for us.) Therefore, I cannot conclude that spoken vows are required to establish a marriage; even in modern times, a declaration by each party of intent to be wed is sufficient. “Do you promise to….?” is a later addition (and adds emotional and/or romantic significance to the ceremony). I see a difference between agreement (as in a covenant between two people) and vows (as in a promise or pledge made by one person); marriages in the Bible are based on the former but not the latter.
I said that wedding vows are pointless--not because I am not a person of integrity who strives to keep my word but because those vows can be retracted as easily as they are made; one simply changes one’s mind, and the promise is null and void. Wedding vows are meaningful … until they aren’t.
Speaking of vows and wedding ceremonies: Part of my daughter’s ceremony included a brief segment where my husband and I and our SIL’s parents were asked to stand and avow that we would do all we could to assure the success of this marriage. (This element was included at my request, in fact.) The officiant even then asked the seated guests something along the same lines, as I recall. In the end, though, it all came down to the choices and actions of the newlyweds, of course.
More to follow …
3. It was not my intention to excuse or justify my daughter’s cohabitation; rather, I shared a personal issue that led me to look closely at the Garden event. I can assure you that there has been no minimalization of sin on my part--only a closer consideration in order to fine-tune my perspective. (If you knew me, you would never describe me as one who practices moral relativism or who lies to herself.)
4. My point about long-term cohabitating couples was merely that it is not true that cohabitation is categorically a casual, uncommitted arrangement; we cannot make a sweeping judgment about it, as Glenn did. Perhaps because I have lived 25 more years than you, I have seen more cases of this type of union than you have--whether it be well-known couples such as Farrah Fawcett and Ryan O’Neal (1 biological child together), Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell (1 biological child together), and Oprah Winfrey and Stedman Graham or people like my hair stylist, who has lived with her boyfriend longer than the 25 years I’ve known her (they are committed to each other but have no desire to get married). There are many instances of couples living together long-term as husband and wife without actually getting married--past and present (“many” is a relative term, of course, so you can give it allowance). I am not endorsing their choices, of course--just recognizing the reality.
5. I’ll hold to my understanding of 1 Cor. 6:16--i.e. Paul is referencing a bodily union by “one flesh”--exactly as that which seals the covenant of marriage. He is saying, “Do you intend to be married--i.e. joined for life--to this prostitute? No? Then don’t unite your body and your soul--which are members of Christ--with her in an unholy union!”
Post a Comment