Introduction

Between today and next Sunday we should be able to complete the present series on the five points of Calvinism. We are ending the series with the study of persevering grace and its harmony with the fact of temptation and sin. In one sense, we might say that we actually ended the series last week. But in light of things that we all face and are aware of in the lives of others, it seems appropriate in the next two weeks to narrow our focus on temptation and sin to the all too common fact of sexual sins among professing Christians.

We need to get our thinking straight regarding our sexuality, what God requires for moral purity, consequences, and the life of holiness that is required to see God (Heb. 12:12-17).

There is the present danger of deception forced on us by our culture and various social pressures like peer pressure. These affect us emotionally, physically, and spiritually. And to the danger of being deceived we should add the folly into which we may be prone due to the remnants of sin remaining in us. We are especially vulnerable to fail in the face of temptation when we neglect prayer and the means of grace.

With the doctrine of persevering grace in the back of our minds, today I want to speak on "Christian marriage in relation to sexual sins" with two main ideas in one: marriage is the norm for Christian purity and sexual sins are violations of the marriage norm. In a very general way, this means that whatever our standing may be in life whether married or unmarried, it is marriage that establishes the norm that measures our conduct. If being sexually active violates marriage as it is ordained by the Lord then our conduct (whether we are single or married) is sinful.

Of course, for this general principle to have merit we need a clear definition of marriage. If the ruler is damaged, then everything we measure and judge by it will be incorrect. So what is a simple definition of marriage? Back in our series on marriage, we concluded that Scripture teaches that marriage is a covenant of companionship for life that is symbolized in the sexual union of male and female (cf. "Introducing a Loving Marriage" 1-5-2003, 2A-The Definition of Marriage). To emphasize some aspects of this definition (and expand some on it), it will be helpful to consider a commonly held view of marriage that tries to work a compromise between sexual sin and marriage resulting in what might be called a hybrid definition (a third thing that is not marriage but actually its perversion). This will help us identify danger zones for protection, prevention, and healthy living. The outline will cover: a common understanding, a minimum requirement, an odd piety, and a repugnant entry point.

1A. A common understanding of marriage

Let me put this into the form of a question: when unmarried persons have sex should they be considered married? There seems to be a widespread view among both non-Christians and Christians that says, "Yes, they are in effect married." This may be called a de facto marriage in contrast to a de jure marriage. The de facto marriage refers to being married in fact or actuality even though there is no legal document that proclaims them married. The latter is a de jure marriage; it is recognized in the civil arena as a marriage. The couple is lawfully married.

There are different things driving the desire to define marriage in a de facto way. It may be a high view of the part sex plays in marriage or it may be a low view regarding sin (as in cases when parents see that no matter what they say their children are going to do what they want regardless). Truly the driving forces vary greatly in our understanding of sex, love, and marriage or better as to order: of love, marriage, and sex.  So let’s consider some example cases to help us find a solid definition of marriage.

If we want to define marriage by means of sexual union claiming that though it is not a legal marriage it is still a marriage in fact (de facto), what do we say about having sex with a prostitute? Do we say that that kind of union makes a marriage in fact, in the essence of the thing? How about the case of homosexuality, do we think such acts effect a marriage? What about the case of a married man who commits adultery whether one time or in some regular pattern? Does the sexual union mean that this married man is now in effect married to a second wife? Is he a de facto bigamist? Or has his action brought about a de facto divorce from his wife and a de facto new marriage to the other woman?

The prostitution question above may seem extreme but it is actually defended by people based on 1 Corinthians 6:16. This text seems to indicate (some take it to indicate) that a sexual union with a prostitute constitutes a marriage? Paul says that by joining to a prostitute a man becomes one body with her. Then he grounds this claim (that they become one body) in the classic marriage text: "For, as it is written, ‘The two will become one flesh’" (6:16b). The quote is from Genesis 2:24 where the narrator states the implication that follows from the creation of Eve from the body of Adam: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."

Note the nature of the union: a couple (male and female) becomes one body; the sexual union is union of bodies. One of the functions of this union is that it testifies to the union God has designed for man and woman that He demonstrated by literally making the woman from the body of the man. Man and woman actually are one body in original creation (she is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh). God did this and tells us that He did it in order to show us the union that He has designed between male and female as husband and wife.

After the creation of Eve from the body of Adam, it is not the case that each wife derives literally from her husband’s body (as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman, 1 Cor. 11:12). The situation is now reversed. What is important to note is that the inference from creation to marriage in Genesis 2:24 is based on the original formation of the woman from the body of Adam. From the beginning, the sexual union of a man with his wife honorably and unashamedly testified to and sealed the actual union in the eyes of God of husband and wife. In a word, the sexual union consummated the marriage as a fitting picture of its essence before God.

When a Christian (or professing Christian) joins himself to a prostitute he becomes one body with her. This means that his body that is the temple of the Holy Spirit, that belongs to the Lord for purposes of service to the Lord (1 Cor. 6:13b, 19) is joined to a prostitute (v. 16). The point here is not that the sexually immoral Christian marries the person he commits immorality with; the point is that he brings that which belongs to Christ into union with immorality! Thus with Paul we have to recoil at the thought: "may it never be so!" (v. 15).

Thus even though the parallel passage, 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1, does not address the subject of marriage explicitly, the implications are powerful regarding marriage: do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers because that involves a partnership of righteousness with lawlessness; it involves a fellowship of light with darkness; it involves harmony between Christ and Belial (vs. 14-16). Putting the passages together results in the following. If one who names the name of Christ is joined to a prostitute, then Christ is yoked to/joined to lawlessness, darkness, and sexual immorality. But this is radically contrary to the perfection of His holiness and it is therefore radically contrary to any claim that anyone would make of belonging to the Lord, for we belong to Him body and soul.

2A. A minimal requirement

What then is the minimum required in a definition of marriage? What is missing in the scenarios cited above? What is necessary to constitute the holy estate of marriage in the eyes of God? We can only get this answer from Scripture. The most essential thing is the covenant entered into by male and female (Gen. 1:26; 2:24 with Prov. 2:16; Mal.2:14; again, cf. "Introducing a Loving Marriage" 1-5-2003). Marriage is a covenant of companionship for life made in public (before God and human witnesses) and sealed in private (by a sexual union). To stress these elements in their wholeness, consider what would happen if things were broken apart.

a) If there was a covenant but no sexual union then something is radically wrong. This case occurred between two of my friends in college. They dated and got married; the bride was the daughter of a pastor that I knew. A couple of years later I ran into this young and very kind preacher’s daughter and she told me that she was no longer married. When I inquired further, she said painfully, "he never touched me; I waited for months then the truth of his homosexuality came out and the marriage was annulled." Notice that they were married, that is, officially in the eyes of the state; so the marriage had to be officially annulled. But it is not called a divorce because the marriage was never consummated. In a sense, there were never married (this is de jure without de facto). Because the marriage was never sealed in private by the sexual union that depicts the fuller and truer union of husband and wife, it was proper that this marriage be annulled.

b) If there is sexual union without a public covenant then the sex act is not a seal of marriage but a distortion of marriage as ordained by God. Sex without covenant is a lie; it is rebellion against God, against His ordinance, against the sanctity of sex, and against human dignity in the most intimate way (in intimate terms). Among other things, it is a sin against human nature that violates our true humanity as male and female by God’s creation and design. It matters not that the couple live together for twenty days or for twenty years, if they do not make public covenant they are living and breathing the air of sexual immorality. Accordingly, the severe warning must be announced especially it seems in our day to young people who profess to be Christians but who practice sexual immorality:

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, ¹⁰ nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-10).

Typically, this passage is understood by making a distinction between committing a sin and practicing it. Christians may fall into even grievous sins for a season but the warning here is clear: the sexually immoral (fornicators) along with adulterers and homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God.

3A. An odd piety

It is a remarkable fact that professing Christians have tried to justify having sex before marriage from Scripture. And not finding any explicit statement that says, "Premarital sex wrong," they rationalize their promiscuity. How do we show that premarital sex is sinful ( and identified as sexual immorality)? We know that premarital sex is sinful because marriage is the norm for sexual purity; we know this from the creation account, examples like the Joseph narrative, and the teaching of Christ.

Furthermore, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is very clear text that teaches that consenting sex between the unmarried is immoral. Consider the sexual immorality mentioned here that is different from adultery (adultery technically is sexual violation of the covenant of marriage by someone who is married), different from prostitution (NIV has male prostitutes in the list), and different from homosexuality. Because it is distinct from adultery, it is sexual sin committed by someone not married. Because it is not prostitution, it is sexual sin that is different from sex related to money being exchanged (whether by whore or whoremonger). Because it is not homosexuality it is not referring to unnatural sex by the unmarried as in homosexuality (unnatural per Rom. 1). Because it is a specific sin and not a general category including any kind of sexual sin (all the above, etc.), it is not referring to rape or other perverse sexual acts (bestiality). Therefore, "sexual immorality" in 1 Corinthians 6:9 refers to male with female (not unnatural) immorality that is based on some common consent (it's not rape) between unmarried persons (it's not adultery). That common consent may be called mutual passion or love but Scripture calls it "sexual immorality" or fornication.

4A. A repugnant entry point

The view that "live in" arrangements bring the state of marriage into being for all practical purposes eliminates the category of fornication. It reduces fornication (for the couple under review) to a single initiatory act. Here it is impossible to answer the question: "at what point does fornicating cease and proper sex within de facto marriage begin?" Is it after one week, or two, or three? Is it after six months or twelve months?

Well if living together involves de facto marriage there would still be the sin of fornication in the cases of whores and whoremongers where there is intermittent sex with the exchange of money. And there would still be fornicators in the cases of those who do not live together or have sex based on money but who have intermittent sex with the same person or with different people.

But it is surely a repugnant thought to consider fornication as an entry point that inaugurates marriage. Instead of marriage by a justice of the peace we have marriage by fornication. That does not have a good ring to it to speak of entry into the holy estate of marriage by the unholy act of fornication.

On the de facto marriage view regarding people sleeping together, it is understandable to hear people say, "They are not so bad; they are actually married; besides one of them is my son or daughter." But if there is no marriage without a public covenant for life, then these people are not married. In this case, the warning of 1 Corinthians 6:9 speaks to the conscience, especially to the conscience of any who claim the name of Christ and church discipline is in order for professing Christians who so conduct themselves (they are to be counted as unbelievers by the church in the official way through due process if there is no repentance, cf. Matt. 18:15-17 with 1 Cor. 5:9-11).

Concluding remarks

A. Sin in the lives of God’s people should not be minimized. The warning about professing to be a Christian while living in a way contrary to Christ is a strong one (1 Cor. 6:9)

B. There is good news here. Some of you were living like this but now you are washed (1 Cor. 6:10). There is a fine line between the emphasis on grace and antinomianism. But the Holy Spirit does not leave the Christian alone when he strays and fails in the face of temptation and sin. There will be a vexed conscience and the repentant life or the profession is false. Persevering grace will see the sinner-saint through to glory.

C. There is a call here to diligence. 1) If you think you stand, take heed, lest you fall (1 Cor. 10:12). 2). Bad associations corrupt good conduct (1 Cor. 15:33). 3) Be not deceived (indicating that sexual morality creates powerful delusion, 1 Cor. 6:9; so does greed or undue attachment to the things of this world as evident in the context by the reference to idolatry along side sexual immorality). 4) Put on Christ and make no provision for the flesh to fulfill the lusts thereof (Rom. 13:14). The positive side here is remarkable and it involves earnest effort along the lines of duly appointed means of grace.