Introduction

There is considerable confusion amongst Christians today about what is acceptable moral behaviour, particularly with regard to sexual conduct and marriage. If there were any topic about which many Christians could be said to be “blown and tossed by the wind” (James 1: 6) it would be that of sexual morality. Perhaps this is because for generations church and society largely agreed what was acceptable with regard to sexual conduct (although many may not have behaved consistently). Consequently the church was not frequently asked to defend its position, and over time it perhaps became apathetic about articulating its beliefs and the reasons for them, and commending them to each successive generation.

But now the wider society has adopted a new moral framework, and the church struggles to adjust. Many sincere Christians feel uncomfortable with the changes but don’t feel they can explain why. Many cherish a concept of “biblical marriage” but are somewhat discomfited when it is revealed to them that Bible marriages often deviated quite significantly from the paragon they hold in great esteem. It is not surprising that in the midst of such confusion many who claim to be Christian are increasingly being persuaded to adopt the prevailing views of secular society. Regardless of the fact that western society seems to have lost most of its moral anchor points, and with apparent disregard for the scriptural warnings about conforming to the world’s values, a kind of morality is being embraced that fifty years ago would have been anathema to every follower of Jesus Christ.

This booklet attempts to bring some clarity into the fog of confusion.

The Origin of Morality

It is impossible to read the Bible without concluding that God expects human beings to behave in a way that pleases Him. At the very beginning, in the second chapter of Genesis, we read an account of God setting constraints on what was permissible for Adam and Eve to do. These were not harsh constraints, indeed the phrase “you are free” stands out significantly. Nevertheless God set a boundary, and decreed consequences if this boundary was crossed. Later in chapter four we read of God’s dealings with Cain after he killed his brother Abel. God told Cain that his action in killing Abel had put him under judgement. There is no record of God having given any instructions to that first human family regarding how they should relate to each other, but even so God’s response to Cain makes it clear that individuals were accountable for their actions, and would experience the consequences of what they did, whether good or bad. Chapter six then describes the whole human race as becoming corrupt and behaving wickedly, so much so that God decided to end the life of everyone except Noah and his immediate family by means of the Flood. Note that death had been the consequence of Adam and Eve’s original transgression, so the judgement delivered by God through the Flood was not an additional punishment on mankind, merely the timely delivery of a sentence already imposed.

These early chapters of the book of Genesis inform us that human beings live within a moral framework that is established by God himself. A lesson we learn early on is that it is possible to walk faithfully with God, as Enoch did (Gen 5: 22-24) and Noah did also (Gen 6: 9). We are not told how these individuals knew the difference between righteous and unrighteous behaviour. The clear implication is that they did know the difference and, unlike their contemporaries, they made an informed choice to live in a way that pleased God. In his letter to the Romans Paul explained that those not having a written set of instructions (i.e. the Law of Moses) nevertheless have an internal code of practice, accompanied by a conscience, or moral compass, that either condemns or justifies them (Romans 2: 15). Some call this internal code “natural law.”

A second lesson is that there is an inclination within the human mind and heart to please oneself rather than please God, and that the inevitable consequence is to behave in a way God describes as evil or wicked. So Genesis 6: 5 records,

“The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.”

So even though there is a moral compass within witnessing to the kind of behaviour that pleases God, there is also another force at work – what Genesis calls the “inclination of the thoughts of the human heart.” The apostle Paul called this force “the law of sin at work within me.” He said, “Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me” (Romans 7: 21-22).

We should not suppose that Enoch and Noah were immune to the inclination to please themselves rather than God. What distinguished these men was that they walked with God. In other words they deliberately chose to align themselves with God’s will and purpose for their lives. That they must have failed in this intention time and again is made clear by Paul’s assertion that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3: 23). Nevertheless it seems clear that as soon as these men realised that they had strayed from the path they returned again to their commitment to follow God’s ways. In this they were unlike the majority of their contemporaries, whose thoughts and hearts were described as being “only evil all the time” (Genesis 6: 5)

A third lesson is that choosing one’s own will rather than God’s is a corrupting process (Genesis 6: 12). A conscience ignored becomes a weaker conscience. A wrong act becomes easier the more it is indulged in. Bad actions lead to bad habits, and these so often result in addictive behaviour. Moreover a bad example set to others can often encourage them to make the same wrong choices. In this way, if evil is not checked, a society can descend into depravity. Such was the society existing in Noah’s time.

A fourth lesson we can draw from the early chapters of Genesis is a rather revealing one. It seems that the ultimate effect of moral decline in human society is extreme violence one against another. The first recorded instance of such violence was Cain murdering his brother Abel (Genesis 4: 8). From then on violence increased. God’s indictment of the society in which Noah lived was

“I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them” (Genesis 6: 13).

After the Flood God established a covenant with Noah and his descendants. Both God and Noah had certain responsibilities under this covenant. God undertook to provide both animals and plants as food, and not to destroy mankind again through a great flood. Noah and his descendants had a twofold responsibility: to multiply their number, and to deter and eradicate extreme violence in society. This latter task was to be accomplished by implementing a death penalty for murder (Gen 9: 5-7).

The Law of Moses

Later in Genesis we read of God’s call to Abraham to leave his own people to become the head of a rather unique and special nation, one that was intended to walk in God’s ways, and bring light and blessing to the people of the world. The remaining books of the Old Testament describe God’s dealings with this remarkable nation, its high points and its low points. One provision God made for them, of direct relevance to human behaviour, was the Law of Moses. This Law was part of the covenant that God made with them. He would care for them, provide for them and protect them; they in turn were to obey every instruction given in the Law. The Law covered many aspects of the life of the nation: worship, offerings and sacrifices, festivals, health and hygiene, social welfare, moral behaviour, and so on. However, it was not compartmentalised; it was presented as a complete whole, to be obeyed completely or not at all.

It is important to realise that the Law applied uniquely to the nation of Israel, and not to the other nations of the world. Other people were not subject to its rules and regulations; but then neither were they entitled to enjoy the benefits of the covenant God made with Israel. However it would be wrong to think that the Law had nothing to say about or to the other nations. In the Law God compared Israel to other peoples, and insisted that their behaviour should rise well above the unacceptable behaviour of the nations around about them. One such example concerned sexual relations. In the Law many types of sexual relation, such as incest, were forbidden (see Leviticus 18). God described such activity as being detestable, and in particular He said it was a reason why His judgement had fallen on the nations that occupied the land of Canaan before the Israelites entered it. So although the Law was not binding on these other nations, it did contain injunctions that conformed to the natural law that guided every person’s conscience. This, of course, is only as we would expect things to be. It is unthinkable that God would have expectations of mankind in general and for these not to be reflected in His requirements of the nation of Israel.

The Old Testament makes it clear that the nation of Israel was unable to keep its side of the covenant with God. But far from being a failure of God’s purpose, this actually served to fulfil it in a much greater way. Although the nation failed in its commitment, there was one individual who succeeded spectacularly. This individual had been promised to Adam and Eve way back at the beginning, when God spoke of one descending from Eve who would crush the serpent’s head (Gen 3: 15). Isaiah said of him,

“By knowledge of him my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities” (Isaiah 53: 10-12).

Indeed, he would overcome death itself, that tragic outcome of Adam and Eve’s original disobedience. The prophet Jeremiah foretold that those so forgiven and justified would enter into a New Covenant with God, one in which walking with God and pleasing Him would be the natural response of a transformed heart (Jeremiah 31: 31-34). Isaiah called this instigator of the New Covenant the Redeemer, one who would bestow God’s Holy Spirit on those who turn to God through him (Isaiah 59: 20-21).

There were two things in particular that made this New Covenant so outstanding. The first was that those under its umbrella would have new hearts inclined towards God, and desiring to please Him (Ezekiel 36: 26-27). The second was that although it was announced to Israel, and was to be secured by one of their own sons, its blessing was to be made available to all peoples, to the very ends of the earth (Isaiah 49: 6). Regarding the first of these, the apostle Paul said

“It is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfil His good purpose” (Philippians 2: 13).

Under the New Covenant instead of adhering to a list of rules people would receive an inner prompting from God himself, informing them and persuading them of the right way to behave in order to please Him.

The books of the New Testament record the remarkable account of the coming of the one described in the Old Testament as the Righteous Servant and the Redeemer. The testimony of the writers of these books is quite clear and undeniable. Jesus of Nazareth, who commenced his teaching ministry in the land of Israel sometime between autumn AD 27 and autumn AD 29, fulfilled all that the Old Testament had foretold of the coming Redeemer, to the minutest detail.

The New Covenant

Given Jesus’ role in establishing the New Covenant it is instructive to consider what he had to say about the kind of behaviour God expects of us. It is immediately clear that Jesus did not lower the bar but raised it considerably. The Law of Moses had forbidden murder; Jesus explained that we may be liable to God’s judgement even for so little a thing as getting angry with another person (Matthew 5: 22). And concerning the sin of adultery he revealed that secret longings about sex may render you just as guilty in God’s eyes. (Matthew 5: 28). He summarised the moral content of the Law of Moses as a requirement to love God with all of our being and a requirement to love our neighbour as ourselves (Matthew 22: 37-40). But then he gave a new command to his followers, to love one another as he himself has loved us (John 13: 34). There is a vast difference between loving another person as I love myself and loving them as Jesus loves me. My problem is that I love myself exceedingly when I behave well and perform well, but I despise myself deeply whenever I fall short of the standards I seek to live up to. And these same reactions tend to influence the way I feel about others. If someone behaves in a way that I approve of I find it easy to think well of them and support them. But if someone falls well short of the standards I set for myself then I find it difficult not to judge them or even despise them. Love that pleases God is far higher than this. Only the kind of self-sacrificial, all-forgiving, unlimited love that Jesus showed will truly satisfy God’s requirements.

Christians quite rightly make much of the truth that we are not under the Law but under grace (Romans 6: 14). Most are considerably relieved that under the New Covenant we are not required to obey the 613 commandments in the Law of Moses. But if our understanding of this truth is that God’s expectation of those under grace is lower than those under Law then we should think again. God expects a standard of behaviour from those under the New Covenant that is far higher than that defined by the Law of Moses (Matthew 5: 20).

This then raises the question how do we know what behaviour God expects of us, particularly if we are not expected to obey the Law? For example, is it displeasing to God if we eat black pudding, given that fresh pig’s blood is a main ingredient? God implied that mankind should not consume blood in His covenant with Noah (Genesis 9:4); the Law of Moses definitely ruled it out (Lev 17:10-12); and the first Christian Council of Jerusalem specifically instructed Gentile believers to avoid it (Acts 15: 20).

At one level the answer to how we know what pleases God is simple: The Holy Spirit living within us will guide us (John 16: 13; Rom 8: 4). Expressing this in another way, Paul said that any action not coming from faith is sin (Romans 14: 23), in other words anything we do must be with the assurance that we are in God’s will and with dependence on the Holy Spirit’s enabling. Even so the Scripture recognises that Christians may have uncertainty about certain actions, or may possibly fall into error. The apostle Paul acknowledges that there are some “disputable matters” for which Christians may come up with different answers, and he gives guidelines how to deal with these in Romans 14 (which, by the way, answers the black pudding question for us). But clearly there are other issues which are not disputable, and about which the apostles gave categorical rulings, such as Paul’s lists of acts of the sinful nature and fruits of the Spirit in Galatians 5: 19-22.

Perhaps one of the most difficult tasks that church leaders have had to contend with over the years is how to distinguish between issues that are disputable, for which believers should be encouraged to seek their own guidance, depending on the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit, and issues that are indisputable, about which the word of God is very clear, and on which all Christians in all cultures and generations should agree. At the time of writing it is issues relating to sexuality and sexual conduct that are causing much contention. From one perspective this is somewhat surprising, since from the time of Jesus there seems to have been a general consensus amongst Christians as to what types of sexual behaviour are acceptable or unacceptable. But from another perspective it is quite understandable, because undeniably the values and norms in society – particularly western society – have developed over time, sometimes in quite positive ways. For example, the prevailing attitude to human beings owning other human beings is radically different today to what it was a few centuries ago; and in other respects, too, human rights are defended and upheld at the present time, perhaps as never before, delivering many from suffering and oppression. It is perhaps not surprising then that traditional views of marriage are being questioned too.

Marriage in the Bible

If one were ever to ponder why the human race has two sexes the answer would be fairly self-evident. Two sexes enable humans to reproduce[1]. It is surely significant that in the passage in Genesis 1 describing the creation of mankind, the distinction between male and female is immediately followed by a directive to increase in number (Gen 1: 27-28). We should not conclude that reproduction was the sole reason why God created both men and women. Later in Genesis 2 we read that the woman was created to be a suitable companion for man. She brought resources to the partnership that he alone was unable to provide. Man plus woman was a substantial improvement on just man alone (Gen 2: 18). Of course this provision of additional resources applied to reproduction, but the text does not limit the benefits to just this activity. The benefits of such a partnership would be seen in a wide range of different enterprises, fulfilling God’s additional directives to subdue the earth and manage what lived upon it (Gen 1: 28).

It is fairly clear that the Genesis account assumes that the partnership between a man and a woman, involving sexual union, would be a lifelong commitment. It says,

“That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh” (Gen 2: 24).

Commenting on this verse Jesus taught,

“They are no longer two, but one flesh; therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” (Matt 19: 6).

A couple, once joined together in sexual union, were not expected to break up. The term “wife” is introduced here for the first time. This is subsequently applied to Adam’s partner Eve (Gen 3: 20), Cain’s unnamed partner (Gen 4: 17), and later to the partners of Noah and his sons (Gen 7: 13). The term “marriage” is also used (Gen 4: 19). Marriage defined the relationship from the time that a man and a woman were first united in sexual intercourse. In most societies today this usually involves some kind of ceremony, including a declaration of commitment to one another and communication of this decision to others. But as to the actual form of a marriage ceremony in those early years of human society, and indeed whether any ceremony was expected at all, the Scripture is quite silent. In practice it was not the ceremonial formalities but the physical union that determined whether marriage had taken place[2]. This is why Paul was so adamant that sex between those who have no marital commitment to one another should be unthinkable for those who belong to Christ (1 Cor 6: 15-16).

Very early on in Scripture we are introduced to the practice of polygamy (Gen 4: 19), or more accurately polygyny[3]. This practice was followed by Jacob (Gen 35: 23-26) and David (2 Sam 3: 2) as just two examples amongst many. It was also widely accepted that a man could have sexual relations with the maidservants of his wives. This was true of both Abraham (Gen 16: 3) and Jacob (Gen 35: 25-26). Rachel’s servant Bilhah is actually described as Jacob’s concubine. Traditionally a concubine had lower status than a wife; she was fully provided for and protected within the household, but any children she bore did not usually have any inheritance rights. However in Jacob’s case Bilhah seems to have been treated more as a wife than a concubine. We are told that King David had many wives and concubines (2 Sam 5: 13), and that King Solomon had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines (1 Kings 11: 3). There is no hint in Scripture that God disapproved of their number or status. However Solomon did disobey God with regard to their origins and religious practices.

Not only is there no indication in Scripture that God disapproved of polygyny, the instructions given by God in the Law of Moses undoubtedly supported this practice. Firstly there were explicit rules that a man should not marry a woman and her sister at the same time (Lev 18: 18), nor a woman and her mother at the same time (Lev 20: 14). There is an implicit assumption here that marrying two women who were not so related was quite permissible, otherwise the rule would have simply said that a man should not marry two women at the same time. Another requirement of the Law applied to a widow who had not produced a son for her dead husband. If the deceased had a brother then the brother was expected to marry the widow, and the first son produced from their union was to take the name (and inheritance) of the dead man (Deut 25: 5-6). The Sadducees actually raised this rule with Jesus in an attempt to challenge his position on the resurrection of the dead (Matt 22: 23-33). Again the implication of this rule is that polygyny was not only permissible, but actually required in such cases, since in the majority of situations the brother of the deceased would himself already be married, or at the very least betrothed to another woman. Note that in all other circumstances marrying a brother’s wife was prohibited (Lev 18: 16; 20: 21). Finally, after giving the Ten Commandments, God gave Moses a sequence of instructions for His people, one of which said,

“If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights” (Ex 21: 10).

This was given in the context of the correct treatment of Hebrew servants, but the point is that explicit permission was given to marry more than one wife, provided by so doing the husband did not fail to provide adequately for all of them. The Law contained at least one other regulation specifically designed for those having more than one wife (Deut 21: 15-17).

Apart from polygyny there is another significant way in which marriage in the ancient nation of Israel differed from that of western society today. It relates to the treatment of bondservants. An Israelite was able to sell himself to another as a bondservant for a period of six years. After that he was free to go. Very often people became bondservants in order to clear a debt that they could not otherwise pay. It was a similar arrangement that Jacob entered into with Laban. He undertook to work for Laban for seven years, marrying Laban’s daughter Rachel as an upfront payment for his services (Gen 29: 26-30). Now a fascinating rule applied if a male bondservant were to marry another servant of his master whilst in his master’s employ. On being freed at the end of six years the man was not entitled to take his wife with him, nor any children they had produced. They belonged to his former master, and he had to leave them behind. Only by agreeing to become a bondservant for life could he remain married. (Exodus 21: 1-6).

Historically we know that the practice of polygyny was widespread amongst the Israelites, right up to the time of Christ. The historian Josephus, writing about the marriages of King Herod and his sons, said

“it is the ancient practice among us to have many wives at the same time” (Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVII, chapter 1).

Nevertheless we also know that the practice of polygamy was not favoured in the growing Christian community. Paul advocated that church leaders should not be married to more than one wife (1 Tim 3: 2, 12; Titus 1: 6) which effectively ensured that in time all committed believers would aspire to the same rule. Even so, we should be clear that these instructions of Paul imply that many men in the congregation of Christian believers were married to more than one wife. Paul’s advice to the church at Corinth, in response to a query they had raised about marriage, seems to imply a monogamous relationship, but does not explicitly rule out polygamy (1 Cor 7: 1-16).

However, it was actually not in the Church that the practice of monogamy first originated. Firstly in the ancient Greek Empire and then in the ancient Roman Empire monogamy was adopted as the preferred marital state[4]. By law a Roman citizen was allowed to have only one wife at a time. Most Bible scholars believe that Paul’s instructions to Timothy and Titus regarding married leaders derived from an understanding that monogamy was now God’s will for His people, even though it had clearly been different under the Old Covenant. But there is another credible interpretation. It is quite possible that Paul was ensuring that the new churches were seen to fully comply with the requirements of Roman law, just as he insisted that the Christian community should be subject to the governing authorities in other ways (Rom 13: 1).

The New Testament does not explicitly teach anywhere that polygamy is not within God’s will for His people. However this position can be inferred from Paul’s teaching about church elders, from Paul’s teaching that the marriage relationship typifies the relationship between Christ and the Church (Eph 5: 25-33), and from Jesus’ teaching about marriage and divorce (Matt 19: 3-12). It is difficult to understand Jesus’ teaching without concluding that he did not condone polygamy. He said,

“I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery” (Matt 19: 9).

It seems clear that such a man was guilty of adultery, not because he divorced his existing wife, but because he married another while she was still living. The implication is that even if he had not divorced her and yet married another that he would still be guilty of adultery. If this is indeed the case then we have to conclude that just as divorce was a provision in the Law that took account of the hardness of people’s hearts, but was not the way God intended things to be originally (Matt 19: 8), so too was polygyny.

It seems evident that after the first century the Church adopted this position. Most, if not all, the early church fathers taught that marriage should be monogamous[5] . One of the clearest statements was by Clement of Alexandria, who wrote,

“It is the same … Lord who makes the old new, by no longer allowing several marriages (for at that time God required it when men had to increase and multiply), and by teaching single marriage for the sake of begetting children and looking after domestic affairs, for which purpose woman was given as a ‘helpmeet.’”

From the second century on, with few exceptions, the Church followed such teaching.

It seems that marriage as described in the Bible typically does not conform very closely to traditional Christian marriage. Polygyny and rights of sexual relationships with bondservants existed from very early times, and these practices were permitted and regulated under the Law of Moses. As far as we can tell what we now describe as traditional Christian marriage was not explicitly and fully taught in the Church until after the New Testament era, and this mirrored changes to the civil law on marriage introduced by the Roman Empire.

Christian Marriage

The Church views marriage as a unique and special partnership. The traditional understanding of the meaning and purpose of marriage is derived directly from the Scriptures. In Genesis 1: 27 we read,

So God created mankind in his own image;
In the image of God he created them;
Male and female he created them.

The NIV lays this out as if it were poetry, and no doubt the editors were right to do so. Here we have a typically Hebrew poetic form, in which a truth is first concisely expressed, and then repeated and expanded to convey further insights. This short poem teaches us that in the union between a man and a woman God reveals His image or likeness in a very particular way. We gain additional insight into this calling or purpose further on in the Genesis account:

The Lord God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him’ (Genesis 2: 18).

The Hebrew word translated ‘helper’ is used infrequently in the Old Testament, usually speaking of God Himself (e.g. Psalm 70:5). On the other rare occasions that the word is used of humans the sense conveyed is that of coming to the aid of another bringing additional resources, without which failure would be inevitable (e.g. Isaiah 30:5; Ezekiel 12:14). A man on his own could not fulfil God’s purpose. By implication two men in partnership could not fulfil God’s purpose, since they would merely double the resources that one man supplies, but would not bring those other complementary resources without which failure would be inevitable. The Genesis account speaks of a search to find a suitable complementary partner, but without success. Only with God’s provision of both man and woman would the two of them in union together be capable of expressing the image of God in the way He intended.

This helps us understand more fully what Jesus meant when he said,

“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. … Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” (Matt 19: 5-6)

A man and a woman united together in marriage become one, and God brings this about because His purpose for them is to reflect His image, who is Himself One.

It also helps us understand more fully what Peter meant when he described a husband and wife as “Heirs together of the grace of life” (1 Pet 3: 7). The God who said, “It is I who give life” (Deut 32: 39) bestows this grace upon a man and a woman united together in marriage. Together they become life-givers, expressing the image of God who is the only Source of Life.

So the Christian view is that what makes marriage unique and special is the blessing that God has bestowed upon it – that of expressing the image of God. This image could not be revealed as God intended without both sexes, male and female, contributing their distinctive attributes. And two specific aspects of God’s image revealed in marriage are that He is One, and that He is the Source of Life.

No other earthly relationship has this blessing and privilege bestowed upon it. There is, of course, a heavenly relationship that does, of which marriage between a man and a woman is but a shadow: the relationship between Christ and His bride, the Church. But no other earthly relationship, however committed, however loving, however sacrificial, however fulfilling, will serve the purpose God had in mind. We can be confident about this, because the Scripture says, “For the man there was not found another helper suitable for him” (Gen 2: 20). None other was suitable.

Sexual Morality in the Old Testament

In the Bible standards of morality applied to sexual behaviour just as to other forms of human activity. Some rules specifically applied within marriage. One of these was a positive requirement, given to Adam and Eve, and then later to Noah and his family. This rule was expressed very tastefully as “be fruitful and increase in number.” In practice it implied that sexual intercourse within the marriage relationship was to be fully enjoyed and celebrated, and the consequential birth of children welcomed. There were two other rules concerning sex within marriage that were made under the Law of Moses. The first was to refrain from sexual relations during the wife’s monthly period. Today there are recognised health reasons why this is advisable. The other was to only have sexual intercourse with your spouse. Adultery was absolutely forbidden, and was to be severely punished. Otherwise sexual activity within marriage was remarkably unconstrained (although many since then have attempted to dictate what is or is not acceptable). With regard to adultery, as already pointed out, Jesus raised the bar considerably to forbid thoughts of sexual activity with another, as well as actual sexual intercourse. Of course, this did not preclude thoughts of sexual activity with one’s spouse.

With regard to sexual intercourse between the unmarried the Law of Moses said little, but what it did say was quite revealing:

“If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.” (Ex 22: 16-17).

Quite clearly sex between the unmarried was not treated with anything like the severity with which adultery was treated. Nevertheless, the Law placed a duty on the couple concerned to marry. There was a proviso that the girl’s father could refuse permission for marriage, but the man concerned was still obliged to pay the bride-price; no doubt this was because in this case the girl would almost certainly remain unmarried in her father’s household for the rest of her life (no other man would normally agree to marry a non-virgin). It is likely that Jesus’ warning about lustful thoughts of sex applied to the unmarried as well as the married. We should be wary, however, of being legalistic in this regard. It is difficult to imagine a young couple falling in love and becoming engaged to be married without allowing some thoughts of sexual activity to engage their minds as their wedding day approaches. But there is clearly a difference between appropriate anticipation and self-indulgence. The Old Testament book Song of Songs may be a useful guide in this regard. This book clearly celebrates sexual love, but does so in a figurative and poetic way that does not encourage lustful thoughts.

Most of the rules on sexual practice in the Law of Moses applied to sexual activity outside of marriage, or served to identify those with whom sexual intercourse and hence marriage was not permitted. These rules in particular were described as being a requirement for all people, and the breaking of them being a reason for God’s judgement on the nations then occupying Canaan (Lev 18: 3, 24-28). It must be recognised that as the human race grew and developed some of God’s requirements regarding sexual relationships changed. It was not that God changed His mind; rather the needs of the human race changed as time went by. So, in Leviticus marriage with one’s sister or half-sister was forbidden (Lev 18: 9, 11). Now the Scripture records that Abraham’s wife, Sarah, was his half-sister (Gen 20: 11-12). Not only this, the Scripture quite clearly states that the entire human race descended from Adam and Eve (Gen 3: 20). It is self-evident, then, that their sons married their own sisters, indeed had to in order to obey God’s command to be fruitful and increase in number. We have to conclude that God fully approved of these early marriages between close blood relations. But clearly at the time of Moses things were different. With our modern understanding of genetics we can understand at least one reason why the rule needed to change.

“The closer the biological relationship between parents, the greater is the probability that their offspring will inherit identical copies of one or more detrimental recessive genes”[6].

This phenomenon is statistically significant even for marriages between first cousins (birth defect frequency is 2-3% greater than the norm).

Some have argued that some of the Levitical rules about sexual activity were given in the context of a wider ban on idolatrous behaviour. Leviticus 18 commences with a requirement for God’s people not to conform to the evil practices of the Egyptians and the Canaanites, so it is argued that the following list of banned behaviour must be understood in terms of the specific practices of these nations, particularly in the context of their idol worship. Thus in the case of same-gender sexual relations it is claimed that what is actually forbidden is sexual activity relating to idol worship and temple prostitution, not to loving and faithful relationships between individuals. If this were the case then we would have to understand all of the rules on sexual behaviour in the same way. So, for example, we would have to conclude that incest is wrong where it is part of an idolatrous temple ceremony, but is quite acceptable in the context of a loving and faithful relationship.

In fact there is no textual evidence to support the conjecture that the ban on inadmissible sexual relationships was only in the context of idol worship. The straightforward understanding is that the surrounding nations disobeyed God both in their idol worship and in their everyday lives. Prohibited sexual activity was wrong whether it occurred in the temple or in the bedroom; murder was wrong whether it was by offering your child to the god Molech or whether it was striking down your neighbour in anger. The fact that in Leviticus 18 God associated the rules about unacceptable sexual practices with what He found most detestable in the behaviour of the Egyptians and the Canaanites actually serves to increase their significance. These rules were not like the laws concerning circumcision, sacrifices and festivals that the Children of Israel were obliged to keep, but did not apply to other nations, nor apply to Gentile Christians today. No, instead it is made clear that these were rules that applied to all people, and that the consequences of breaking them would fall on transgressors, regardless of whether they were Israelites or Gentiles.

No detailed reasons are given in the Law of Moses as to why God prohibited certain types of sexual relation, other than a general and somewhat poetic allusion to the natural order of creation being violated in some way:

“For all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled; and if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you” (Lev 18: 27-28).

Many of the similar laws existing today in various jurisdictions have the reduction of health risk as a primary objective. The Law of Moses does not cite health as a primary reason for these particular rules, but it does make a remarkable claim regarding the Law in its entirety:

“If you listen carefully to the Lord your God and do what is right in his eyes, if you pay attention to his commands and keep all his decrees, I will not bring on you any of the diseases I brought on the Egyptians, for I am the Lord, who heals you” (Ex 15: 26).

It is a sobering fact that were the Levitical rules on sexual activity to be adhered to meticulously by all the people in the world today then sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and HIV would be almost eradicated within a generation. It is remarkable how seldom such a remedy is advocated by governments and health organisations, and how often scorn is poured on any who attempt to promote it. The World Health Organisation reports that more than one million people acquire an STI every day, that resistance of some STIs to medical treatment is rapidly increasing, and that current efforts to prevent the spread of STIs are not sufficient[7].

It must be acknowledged that, far from being unworkable and irrelevant, the teaching on sexual relations given in the Old Testament is remarkably straightforward and apposite. Sexual relations were to be confined to those who were committed to each other for life in marriage. To engage in sexual intercourse before marriage was effectively a commitment to marriage. Faithfulness within marriage was obligatory, and this extended to thoughts and fantasies as well as physical contact. There were those with whom sexual relations, and by implication marriage, were forbidden. These included close relatives, animals, and other men if you were a man. The effectiveness such measures would have in restricting birth defects and the development and spread of life-threatening diseases is indisputable.

Sexual Morality in the New Testament

We have already seen that the teaching of the early Church gradually moved from a perhaps reluctant acceptance of polygyny to a belief that marriage should be monogamous. In all other respects the teaching of the Church in the first century endorsed and upheld the constraints on sexual relationships stated in the Law of Moses. This was certainly not because they considered the Law to be binding on the increasingly Gentile Christian community. The first Jerusalem Council made this quite clear (Acts 15: 5-29). However that same Council specifically identified the duty of Christians to avoid sexual immorality, thereby confirming and endorsing what we have already noted: that the constraints on sexual behaviour contained in the Law reflected moral principles that applied to all of mankind.

The New Testament writers repeatedly warned against sexual immorality (e.g. 1 Cor 6: 18; 1 Thess 4: 3; Heb 13: 4; Jude: 1: 7). Nevertheless the precise meaning of this term was rarely described in detail. This raises the question of just what they intended their readers to understand by this and similar terms. Clearly they did not encourage believers to be guided by the prevailing cultural attitudes in the world around them (see, e.g., Rom 12: 2). The answer to this question is found in the directive issued by the first Jerusalem Council previously referred to. What the apostolic writers meant by sexual immorality was precisely what God Himself had revealed and recorded in the Law of Moses. So it was that Paul, the great defender of the truth that Christians are no longer under Law but under grace, informs us that the Law reveals to the sexually immoral exactly what it is they are doing that displeases God (1 Tim 1: 8-11).

There is one example in the New Testament writings that exemplifies this principle. The church at Corinth were tolerating, presumably without censure, the fact that one of their members was in a sexual relationship with his own father’s wife (presumably not his birth-mother but a step-mother). Paul wrote to them about this, aghast that they were so complacent about a form of sexual immorality that even unbelievers would generally not accept (1 Cor 5: 1-13). His reference to the secular culture around them in no way implied that he was using the world’s values as his guidelines. On the contrary his appeal was to principles of godliness not worldliness. Having sexual relations with your own father’s wife was explicitly forbidden in the Law of Moses (Lev 18: 8). Those guilty of this practice put themselves under God’s judgement (Lev 18: 24-25), which Paul re-iterated (1 Cor 5: 13). He called on the believers at Corinth to put the guilty individual out of fellowship, to the end that he might eventually be saved (1 Cor 5: 5). This call to action mirrored precisely God’s instructions to His people in the Law (Lev 18: 29).

We can learn significant lessons from this example of how the church should deal with practices that contravene scriptural principles of godly behaviour. Note that no account is taken of the love that this couple no doubt had for each other. In the western world today one of the arguments used to justify the marriage of same-gender couples is that their love for one another must be endorsed and celebrated, because love is from God. But Paul destroys all such specious arguments. Regardless of the depth of love this couple had for each other; regardless of the encouragement they might have been to others; regardless of their spiritual gifting; regardless of their effectiveness as pastors, teachers or evangelists; regardless of everything else that might be positive, their sexual relationship deliberately and flagrantly set their will in conflict with God’s revealed will. This put them under God’s judgement. And by failing to take appropriate action the church they belonged to likewise came under God’s judgement.

In fact the argument that any behaviour is justified provided it is motivated by love is false. We are called to love God first and foremost. If our love for another causes us to fall short in our love for God then it is not God’s love that motivates us at all, but another form of love. Our increasingly secular and humanistic society would replace the rule that we should love God first and foremost, and then our neighbour as ourselves, with a rule that we should love ourselves first and foremost, and then our neighbour after this. By every understanding of the word this is a form of idolatry, and in no way can this be understood as the love of God working in us and through us.

In all of the New Testament passages that address sexual morality it is the principles specified in the Law of Moses that are consistently upheld. Indeed, as we have already seen, through the teaching of Jesus these principles were strengthened not diminished. Paul made very clear that our cleansing and justification through Christ sets us free from immoral sexual acts, and these include sexual intercourse outside of marriage, sexual intercourse between men, and sex with prostitutes. He declared that under no circumstances will such behaviour be acceptable in the Kingdom of God. (1 Cor 6: 9-20). In Romans 1 Paul included sex between females as well as sex between males in his list of ungodly acts found in a decadent society. Again, because he commenced the list with idolatry some have claimed that it is only sexual activity in the context of idolatrous worship that he is referring to. However, if this were the case then it would also have to apply to the other examples of ungodly behaviour in the list, such as greed, envy, murder, deceit, malice and so on. The idea that he is only referring to such sins in the context of idolatrous worship, and that in another context they may be quite acceptable is patently absurd.

Sexual Morality in Secular Society

Since the Second World War society in the UK and many other places has undergone a major revolution in sexual behaviour. Before this almost all respected the teaching of the major church denominations regarding sexual activity, and these in turn conformed closely to the New Testament position. This is not to say, of course, that everyone adhered to the accepted code of practice. But behaviour that fell short was not approved or applauded, indeed sometimes quite the opposite. Then, commencing in the 1950s, a revolution took place. Attitudes to sexual practice became far more liberal. Many adopted the view that any sexual practice was acceptable so long as you followed your own inclinations and caused others no harm. And the concept of what was or was not harmful was often very subjective. Under this revolution boundaries that had existed for years, that served to protect and guide, were pulled up, and no one knew or even considered where to replace them under the new order. The removal of restraint was celebrated and exploited in the arts. The Christian teaching of a sinful nature from which we need to be saved and transformed by God’s power was largely dismissed. People were encouraged to be true to themselves, to what they felt themselves to be or wanted themselves to be, and to reject any restrictions that others might be inclined to place on their behaviour.

In many respects the consequences have been catastrophic, and some are only now becoming apparent. Many of those in positions of power believed it to be quite acceptable to expect sexual favours from those they had influence over. For decades sexual exploitation of others was ignored or covered up; it was treated as being normal and acceptable, even if sometimes a little disreputable. Only now, some sixty years later, is the abuse that took place being recognised for what it was, and exposed. Vulnerable children were sexually abused by those responsible for their care; the casting couch became a required rite of passage for many; and sexual misconduct in the workplace became rife. At the time of writing widespread corruption in mainstream charities and NGOs is now coming to light, where for years many aid workers in positions of power have demanded sexual favours in return for aid. Meanwhile many developing countries have been devastated by AIDS; sexually transmitted infections are reported to be at pandemic levels; and in the UK almost 9 million foetuses have had their lives ended by abortion since 1967, a significant number of these being the unwanted consequence of casual sex.

The Response of the Church

Throughout all of this many of the institutional churches in the UK have been at best apathetic and at worst complicit. At a time when the nation needed the biblical principles of sexual behaviour to be proclaimed insistently and repeatedly the churches for the most part have been strangely silent. It is not that they have changed their theology; they have just stopped expounding it. Moreover many church leaders have secretly welcomed the changing values in society, and have taken advantage of them to indulge their own sexual appetites. So whilst allegedly upholding traditional Christian values, many clergy have secretly engaged in adulterous relationships, sex with children and homosexual liaisons. It is hardly surprising that many church members have adopted increasingly liberal attitudes to sexual relationships without censure from priest or pastor. Paul’s rebuke to the church at Corinth applies equally to churches that tolerate sexual immorality today (1 Cor 5: 1-2).

It is one thing for a church to be apathetic about immorality, or even to tolerate those whose behaviour is contrary to God’s will. It is quite another thing for a church to support false teaching. The apostle Peter made a quite remarkable assertion when he wrote,

“There were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you” (2 Pet 2: 1).

Inevitably false teachers will spring up within the Christian community, much as dandelions spring up in a lawn. According to Peter such false teachers have certain characteristics:

“They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them – bringing swift destruction on themselves; many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute” (2 Pet 2: 1-2).

The Greek word for “secretly introduce” literally means “introduce from close beside.” The Greek word for “deny” means “disown” or “contradict, refuse to affirm.” The implication is that the false teaching may look reasonable, because it sits close to the truth, but in practice it is revealed for what it is because it refuses to affirm what Jesus himself taught, and leads inexorably to ungodly conduct. This wasn’t just Peter’s opinion; he was re-iterating what Jesus himself had said. Jesus warned that the teaching of the false teachers would be deceptive and persuasive, and would lead to an increase in wickedness (Matt 24: 10-12, 24).

Today teaching has been introduced by some church leaders that challenges traditional church teaching on sex and marriage. In some churches the traditional understanding that God forbids sexual intercourse between those of the same gender has been replaced by a view that such activity is in fact approved and blessed by God where it is carried out in the context of a long-term, loving relationship. Similarly the traditional understanding that God ordained marriage to be the lifelong commitment of a man and a woman to each other in sexual union has been replaced by the view that in fact He is just as happy for both partners to be of the same gender.

In general these changes in teaching on sex and marriage have not been made on the strength of well-presented biblical expositions. There is good reason for this: it is just not possible to do so and remain credible. Nevertheless two principles in particular have been raised time and again by the proponents of change, and these appear to be the main theological basis for their argument. The first is that love comes from God (1 John 4: 7-8), and so wherever there is a genuine expression of love, including sexual love, between two people of the same gender we should affirm it and celebrate it; by condemning it we oppose God’s work of grace in their lives. The second principle is that we are all wonderfully made in the image of God (Ps 139: 14; Gen 1: 27); those who feel constrained to engage in same-gender sexual relationships must be true to God’s image in them and to what God created them to be, and anyone insisting that they should behave contrary to their natural inclination dishonours God.

The first principle is perhaps the one that is most persuasive. Why indeed would any Christian want to deny the love that two people have for one another, or seek to censure it? But actually there is a hidden nuance here that many overlook. When John, in his first letter, said, “Love comes from God; everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God” (1 John 4: 7) the Greek word for love he used was “agape,” the word for God’s love expressed to us in Christ and working in us and through us to others. There are other Greek words for love: “eros,” meaning sexual love or sexual passion, and “phileo,” meaning tender affection, as for a close friend. But John used neither of these. It seriously distorts the meaning of his words to imply that he was speaking about sexual relationships.

In fact we cannot claim to be living in the “agape” love of God if we deliberately and knowingly disobey His word. Jesus said,

“Now remain in my love; if you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love” (John 15: 9-10).

As we have seen, God’s commands about sexual relationships are quite clear and consistent. Consequently any church leader who teaches that a same-gender couple can have a sexual relationship with each other whilst living in the love of God contradicts Jesus himself. Such a church leader puts himself or herself in serious jeopardy, for Peter described such a person as a false teacher on whom God’s judgement will be swift.

So can two people of the same gender have a committed and loving relationship with one another that exemplifies the “agape” love of God? Of course they can (and the number does not have to be restricted to two). There are countless examples of those who have loved each other deeply, sharing their lives with one another, regardless of gender: mother with daughter; brother with sister; friend with friend. Often living together, sharing together, growing old together, until separated by death. The New Testament mentions such a family unit living together in mutual care and support – the three siblings Mary, Martha and Lazarus (John 11: 1-3). Such relationships exemplify “phileo” love, and can exemplify “agape” love where one or more of the partners shares the love of God. But the Bible is clear that “eros” love should play no part whatsoever, unless a couple satisfies God’s requirements for marriage.

The second principle typically raised by Christians advocating same-gender sexual relations is that we should be true to the way God has created us, and in particular to the sexual orientation He has given us. This is sometimes put as follows. The Genesis account teaches that God provided a spouse who was a suitable and fitting partner for Adam. Because Adam was heterosexually inclined this spouse was a woman. But, so the argument continues, for a person who is homosexually inclined a suitable and fitting partner would have to be one of the same gender.

We have previously noted that God’s commentary on the effect of sin on the human race at the time of Noah was “that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time” (Gen 6: 5). James tells us that every type of evil perpetrated by man starts with an inclination from within (James 1: 14-15). Clearly then, because of the effects of sin on the human race, I cannot assume that any powerful inclination that moves me is automatically good or what God wants for me. I cannot start with my sexual inclination or orientation and assume that this must define what is good and right for me in God’s eyes. Instead I must start with what God defines as righteous behaviour, and allow that to inform me whether my inclinations are acceptable to Him or not.

It was in the context of sexual inclination that Jesus spoke some of his most challenging words:

“I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.” (Matt 5: 28-29).

We assume he was using hyperbole, but this in no way diminishes the force of what he said. The false teacher might typically say, “Your eye is God-given and good. If it causes you to look with sexual longing at another then that must be what God wants. Enjoy!” But Jesus said the consequences of sin are far more damaging than we realise; whatever it is within us that leads us or entices us into forbidden territory, we should deal with it before it destroys us. He gave no support to the view that just because we have an inclination in a certain direction, however compelling that inclination might be, this means God is leading us in that direction. On this matter, too, the church leader who encourages people to follow their own natural inclinations regarding sexual conduct effectively contradicts what Jesus himself taught. The Bible describes such a leader as a false teacher.

The Challenge of False Teaching

The apostle Peter used some of the most shocking words of condemnation in the entire Bible when writing about false teachers in his second letter. He called them blots and blemishes, an accursed brood, springs without water and mists driven by a storm (1 Peter 2: 13-17). His scathing comments bring to mind what Jesus had previously said of the Jewish spiritual leaders. Understandably Christians today are hesitant to apply such strong statements to church leaders they believe are teaching error. They prefer a much more conciliatory approach, whereby Christians agree to differ in order to preserve a semblance of unity. After all, did not Jesus himself give highest importance to love and unity between his followers (John 17: 21-23)? Nevertheless they forget that Jesus also warned those who tolerate false teachers that if they do not repent, that is expose the false teachers and eject them from their positions of influence, then they will end up with a fight on their hands – a fight against Jesus himself (Rev 2: 14-16). Unity must always be unity with Christ himself; no matter how united we are with each other we can never be united with Christ if we compromise on the truth.

In 2 Peter 2: 18-19 the apostle Peter describes the ways of false teachers.

“For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of the flesh, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity – for ‘people are slaves to whatever has mastered them.’”

In the light of this we need to ask the following questions of any innovative Christian teaching that diverges from what was previously held to be true. Does it appeal to or make concessions to natural, physical desires and longings or does it appeal to or make concessions to holy desires placed in our hearts by the Holy Spirit? Does it encourage us to conform more to the world around us that does not follow Christ, or does it encourage us to conform more to the Lord who denied himself and was obedient even to death on the cross? Does it leave us tied to the way we were before we met Jesus, or does it free us from our old way of life to enjoy our new freedom in Christ?

With regard to the revised teaching and practice concerning sexual morality and marriage upheld by some church leaders today the answers to these questions can hardly be disputed. This teaching undoubtedly appeals to or makes concessions to natural, physical desires and longings. It definitely encourages people to conform more to the world around than to Christ crucified. It quite clearly leaves people tied to the way they were before they met Jesus. There seems little doubt that Peter’s strong words regarding false teachers apply directly to those who advocate and teach this new morality in the church.

The gospel of Jesus Christ makes a wonderful provision for those who find their natural inclinations drawing them to a place that God’s word forbids them to be. By living our lives in close fellowship with the Holy Spirit we are empowered to resist anything that seeks to pull us away from our secure position in the (agape) love of God. Indeed through the cross of Christ the Spirit enables us to put to death those passions and desires that pull us in the wrong direction (Gal 5: 16-25). Society around us needs to hear this good news, perhaps as never before. It is time that the Church awoke from its slumber, cleaned out its own house, and declared the saving and liberating power of the gospel loudly and clearly.

[1] A very small percentage of individuals are born with ambiguous sexual identity; medical science views such conditions as uncharacteristic.

[2] This is still the case in UK law, where a marriage between a man and a woman can be annulled if it is not consummated.

[3] Polygyny is the practice of a man having more than one wife at the same time, but not a woman having more than one husband.

[7] http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/sexually-transmitted-infections-(stis)