That was a lot of words. None of them dealt with the point but there sure were a lot of them.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Biblical Marriage and Sexuality Teaching Video
- Thread starter rtidwell
- Start date
@Joleneakamama, I can totally relate to your husband. It's my reality. Give me my family on an island, and I would be most content.
I get what you are saying @andrew and @Slumberfreeze but I just don't crave the man time. It may be my loner tendencies, but I just don't have that side in me. I enjoy male only trips, retreats, and bonding time, but not long after I get to where I'm going with these men, I begin to miss my family. It doesn't compare.
As I see this rabbit trail of the broader thread on reproduction develop, I think I would be more comfortable siding with the idea that family is the greatest antidote to loneliness or need of companionship. I think that's the sweet spot in all of this. Before children (B.C.) the Mrs and I were happy enough, but when the family started to develop is when we started to realize our greater fulfillment. She's a great helpmeet and friend, but the synergy of her AND the kids is unbeatable.
I agree @Mojo . It was fun enough just being me and the misses for 6 years before we took the plunge to have our first kid. Now i kind of regret it took us so long. I love my family and would be happy just being with them. There is nothing like an abundance of bubbling life in your home to cure loneliness. Nothing like children watching your every move to make you feel the heaviness of your decisions and how you conduct yourself either but that is for another thread.
A side note that might tie in the thought of the whole thread. Once the wife and I decided to have children the intimacy between us went through the roof. Intimacy is always special but there is something about intimacy in regards to producing fruit that is so much more than intimacy without the intent to produce fruit. Maybe no one else has experienced this but for us it was a marked difference.
That has been our relationship from the start. I never could wrap my mind around trying to prevent children.
We have a big family....but we have also lost more then many have (8 over the years).
Each child is the reward for trying again.
Our last is a total joy too.
I cannot recommend children enough.
They grow up fast, and are a very amazing thing to do with your life.
It is funny because I'm not sure why we delayed children. Afraid they would ruin our lives I guess. Now that we have had one I would have a dozen. God says they are a blessing from him and I see no reason to purposefully restrict a Blessing from God.
This just came to me typing but it makes sense that if you are trying to control how many children to have, when you start having children, ect... Maybe you are buying into a lie of the enemy. We delayed having children because of everything from not wanting to give God control of that part of our life too being selfish about our money and time. I can see after you have kids how things like that can creep in again. Maybe you don't think you can afford children/more children but I figure if God gives them to me he will provide for them as well. You can't serve God and Mammon.
On top of all that God said be fruitful and multiply. I figure out of all the commandments those 2 are about the funnest so why not do them well.
I am not against the public teaching of hierarchys of they are explicitly taught in scripture.
You say that "be fruitful=have sex" which is demonstrably false. You change the meaning of "be fruitful" when you assert that it is equal to having sex. Equal to means exactly the same. Whereas we can have sex and not have children. Which is not a sin in itself. If you say "be fruitful=have sex" then people who do not have sex and bear children from that sex disobey your teaching. So barren women are disobedient according to your eisegesis.
You say "Acts that prevent or slow down “increase in number” are declared sin."
You are inferring that principle and it is not expressly taught in scripture. It is more eisegesis. If that is the guiding principle then the timing method is sin. Fasting from sex to seek God is sin, a vasectomy is a sin... God expressly approves of fasting from sex for a time. I have yet to find scripture calling the timing method a sin or a vasectomy a sin. I have found some scripture about adding to the law.
You say "marriage is primarily for procreation" and then sight several scriptures that do not expressly state that.
You say "Hierarchies are presented by Jesus with regards to the Law." Yes, that is expressly stated in the scriptures you referenced. Also Jesus is The Word made flesh and taught with authority that you do not have. Jesus can tell us the "why" behind things that were previously not clear to us.
You are flippant with the Word to infer so much and to be so comfortable doing so.
Like I said before you if you teach publicly from inference people will know. They will be able to denounce your teaching effectively as just your opinion. They will also be right to do so. However if you teach publicly what is explicitly stated you will be able to keep authority in your teaching. You will bear good fruit and avoid condemning people for things that are not even sin.
I encourage you to consider this heavily especially because as a pastor who endeavors to teach the truth about the family order I expect you will be tested. I want you to pass those tests and for you to thrive. I would say this privately to you except that you made all these assertions in a public forum as a pastor.
If in any way you think I have wronged you please tell me. I am open to hearing it.
Yes!! Your words summarize what I've been attempting to communicate; sex is primarily for procreation (aka family building) because having children is truly fulfilling.
We're taking part in God's work; God made children and loves them, we make children and love them. When we participate in creation with Him, it brings us a tangible sense of fulfillment.
The enemy attempts to rob us of this fulfillment through any number of deceptions (homosexuality, bestiality, etc...), or at the very least destroy the family and children's lives (child sacrifice, adultery, divorce, fatherlessness, etc...). Therefore a proper understanding of marriage & sex can help to expose the deception and prevent believers from being caught up in these various sins.
Great point! I can attest that when my wife became the mother of my children, our intimacy and companionship deepened.
Last edited:
Yep. Second.
I was kind of worried when it looked like the last of them would be moving out soon, but then we got word that a grandchild was on the way, so all was well again.
I wish I could have some more of those little fruits. Them things are super cute. They are like human puppies. I always wanted as many as I could get and never regretted a one I got.
Very late to the thread but I have a few things to add...
This doesn't call it a covenant. Neither the word not the concept is there in that verse. Not all human relationships are covenental. In function marriage is more like guardianship, leadership, or ownership. There is a thread on this somewhere here.
She was created to be his helper, which is broader than just birthing and raising children. Man, in general, is missing something, a companion in life, which women were created to fulfill. (Which is not to say I disagree with Andrew's mind bending point.)
I know this has been banged on by several here but they missed a key verse in Ecclesiastes. Procreation is A purpose, but not the only one. So is pleasure. It is one of our few rewards in this life for our labors (Ecc 9:7-9); that's pretty foundational right there. 1 Cor 7:2 is also applicable here; sex of that frequency has nothing to do with procreation.
This is ex post facto rationalization not given in the text; only useful if you wish to use it as human logic to condemn certain sex acts God did not condemn.
Is it this or because it violates the rights of the husband? I'd say both (amoung others). Though certainly 'adulter' being the root of 'adultery' points strongly to that; I don't know that the same is true in Hebrew.
A good verse to put here, to set up the poly thing, is 1 Tim 4:1-3.
Is the problem lack of knowledge? I think it is more refusal to obey God in general (Rom 1:24).
It doesn't actually say sex ceases, and angels are capable of procreation. This is a reasonable guess but gets into things which cannot be known. Don't hang your argument on this, probably best not to even go there.
If sex actually ceases, how is it the angles are able to procreate with man? They seem to still have the function, and even desire.
I don't see 'eternal perfect union' in those verses. And 2 Cor 1:3 says God comforts us now, speaking nothing of the hereafter.
Did God actually say that was the reason or is that just our human logic? Logic isn't infallible; stick to what the text's actually say as much as possible.
I'm concerned that this is the sum total of your pro-polygamy argument. If so it is weak and easily dismissed because it's based on human logic, not anything God actually said.
It doesn't really seem to fit the flow of your argument, but it might be worth while to work in the gender specificity of the scriptural commands related to sex and marriage. Most read the scriptures through equality glasses and they will immediately jump to verses written to one or the other in opposition to poly, not even seeing with their eyes.
This doesn't call it a covenant. Neither the word not the concept is there in that verse. Not all human relationships are covenental. In function marriage is more like guardianship, leadership, or ownership. There is a thread on this somewhere here.
She was created to be his helper, which is broader than just birthing and raising children. Man, in general, is missing something, a companion in life, which women were created to fulfill. (Which is not to say I disagree with Andrew's mind bending point.)
I know this has been banged on by several here but they missed a key verse in Ecclesiastes. Procreation is A purpose, but not the only one. So is pleasure. It is one of our few rewards in this life for our labors (Ecc 9:7-9); that's pretty foundational right there. 1 Cor 7:2 is also applicable here; sex of that frequency has nothing to do with procreation.
This is ex post facto rationalization not given in the text; only useful if you wish to use it as human logic to condemn certain sex acts God did not condemn.
Is it this or because it violates the rights of the husband? I'd say both (amoung others). Though certainly 'adulter' being the root of 'adultery' points strongly to that; I don't know that the same is true in Hebrew.
A good verse to put here, to set up the poly thing, is 1 Tim 4:1-3.
Is the problem lack of knowledge? I think it is more refusal to obey God in general (Rom 1:24).
It doesn't actually say sex ceases, and angels are capable of procreation. This is a reasonable guess but gets into things which cannot be known. Don't hang your argument on this, probably best not to even go there.
If sex actually ceases, how is it the angles are able to procreate with man? They seem to still have the function, and even desire.
I don't see 'eternal perfect union' in those verses. And 2 Cor 1:3 says God comforts us now, speaking nothing of the hereafter.
Did God actually say that was the reason or is that just our human logic? Logic isn't infallible; stick to what the text's actually say as much as possible.
I'm concerned that this is the sum total of your pro-polygamy argument. If so it is weak and easily dismissed because it's based on human logic, not anything God actually said.
It doesn't really seem to fit the flow of your argument, but it might be worth while to work in the gender specificity of the scriptural commands related to sex and marriage. Most read the scriptures through equality glasses and they will immediately jump to verses written to one or the other in opposition to poly, not even seeing with their eyes.
What then does "be fruitful" mean in the context of Genesis 1:28?
"28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” - Genesis 1:28
Strong's Concordance: Fruitful
פָּרָה pârâh, paw-raw'; a primitive root; to bear fruit (literally or figuratively):—bear, bring forth (fruit), (be, cause to be, make) fruitful, grow, increase.
Source: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=H6509&t=KJV
Fruitful is "bear, bring forth, cause to be, make."Since this word is a primitive root and a verb signifying action, what is the desired action of "be fruitful" in the context of Gen 1:28? The activity matters, did God want Adam and Eve to plant fruit trees? Without the proceeding clarification, we cannot know the verb's objective.
"Be fruitful" (i.e. make or bear or bring forth). Make or bear or bring forth what? "and multiply and fill the earth [ESV]" or "and increase in number; fill the earth... [NIV]"
Be fruitful (make or bear or bring forth) and multiply (offspring) in order to fill the Earth. In other words "make" children or "bear" children or "bring forth" children.
How does man "make" or "bring forth" their children?
Sex.
This does not implicate every other instance of "be fruitful" in Scripture to mean "have sex." However, in the context of Genesis 1:28, "be fruitful" is equal to "have sex" because the result of Adam and Eve's "fruitful" action is children. Children (the fruit of "be fruitful" in this context) can only be "made" or "brought forth" by sex.
My quote: "The marriage is designed to be the covenant that binds the two in unity to faithfully raise the children they create (Gen 2:24)."
"That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh." - Genesis 2:24
Merriam Webster definition of United:
1: made one
2: relating to or produced by joint action united effort
3: being in agreement
Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/united2: relating to or produced by joint action united effort
3: being in agreement
Merriam Webster definition of Covenant:
1: a usually formal, solemn, and binding agreement
2a: a written agreement or promise usually under seal between two or more parties especially for the performance of some action
2a: a written agreement or promise usually under seal between two or more parties especially for the performance of some action
Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/covenant
Strong's Concordance: Covenant
- between men
- treaty, alliance, league (man to man)
- constitution, ordinance (monarch to subjects)
- agreement, pledge (man to man)
- alliance (of friendship)
- alliance (of marriage)
- treaty, alliance, league (man to man)
Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology: Covenant
"The word "covenant, " infrequently heard in conversation, is quite commonly used in legal, social (marriage), and religious and theological contexts.
The Idea of Covenant. The term "covenant" is of Latin origin (con venire), meaning a coming together. It presupposes two or more parties who come together to make a contract, agreeing on promises, stipulations, privileges, and responsibilities. In religious and theological circles there has not been agreement on precisely what is to be understood by the biblical term. It is used variously in biblical contexts. In political situations, it can be translated treaty; in a social setting, it means a lifelong friendship agreement; or it can refer to a marriage...
... The preferred meaning of this Old Testament word is bond; a covenant refers to two or more parties bound together...
...Marriage is a bond (covenant) for life..."
Source: https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/covenant/The Idea of Covenant. The term "covenant" is of Latin origin (con venire), meaning a coming together. It presupposes two or more parties who come together to make a contract, agreeing on promises, stipulations, privileges, and responsibilities. In religious and theological circles there has not been agreement on precisely what is to be understood by the biblical term. It is used variously in biblical contexts. In political situations, it can be translated treaty; in a social setting, it means a lifelong friendship agreement; or it can refer to a marriage...
... The preferred meaning of this Old Testament word is bond; a covenant refers to two or more parties bound together...
...Marriage is a bond (covenant) for life..."
God's Declaration in Malachi
I suggest each in opposition to my argument and it's conclusion thoroughly study Malachi 2:10-16 as it summarizes my rationale. In the passage the Lord addresses the marriage covenant along with divorce, adultery, and offspring all in one go. Furthermore, the passage reminds us of both the lasting covenantal nature of marriage and the primary purpose of the covenant.
"You ask, “Why?” It is because the Lord is the witness between you and the wife of your youth. You have been unfaithful to her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant. 15 Has not the one God made you? You belong to him in body and spirit. And what does the one God seek? Godly offspring. So be on your guard, and do not be unfaithful to the wife of your youth." - Malachi 2:14-15
In other words, "don't be unfaithful to your wife, I want Godly kids!"
Discussion Reset
The question we are trying to answer is "why does sex exist?" along with "why are certain sex acts deemed righteous or sinful?" Thus far, many (not all) of those in opposition to the conclusion I have presented have only attempted to dismantle the procreation argument without subsequently constructing a superior counter argument to nullify my case. The appropriate method of answering these questions is not to merely assert I am in error (i.e. "you're wrong") but to present a comprehensive superior answer (i.e. "here is what is right and why").
So I ask each of you, according to Scripture, why did God make sex? Provide us with a thought provoking answer that is Biblically grounded instead of merely claiming my answer is extra-biblical. A summarization of the reasonable answers presented thus far are "Sex is for Procreation" and "Sex is for Intimacy." Since both procreation and intimacy are undoubtably tied to sex and an argument can be made in favor of both, I have subsequently presented what we'll call the "Hierarchy Argument" in favor of procreation. In order for the conversation to remain productive, a valid counter-argument must be presented against procreation in favor of intimacy (or you can add a new third purpose, e.g. "Sex for Pleasure.")
More recently I have received "marriage in Gen 2:24 isn't called a covenant" and "be fruitful in Gen 1:28 doesn't mean sex" (paraphrasing), these are not compelling counter arguments but mere caviling. Come on friends, I want to know for what purpose God created sex!
Excellent example of what not to do moving forward; mere dismissal of an argument (e.g. "your argument is weak") without establishing a compelling counter argument (e.g. "by contrast this argument is strong and here is why"). Anyone can tell me I'm wrong with very little intellectual effort; I want you to astonish and win me over!
May the Lord bless you all for earnestly seeking the truth together with me.
Last edited:
This is an interesting thread! I am planning to put something together like this, maybe write a book, though perhaps a video series would be a better medium.
I too agree that both one-flesh union and procreation are very important to God, but I would question whether there is a hierarchy in this case, or at least a single hierarchy that can be applied throughout.
I think the main thing is that the principle you apply looks correct, but basically boils down to saying that sexual intimacy is an abomination, which is, of course, the farthest thing from your mind.
Since the principle isn’t one of simply condemning a neglect of procreation, but of condemning sexual acts, the picture that is painted is that placing a high importance on sexual intimacy is what makes these acts the abominations that they are. It may not be perfectly watertight, and of course it is not what you are saying, but it is significant enough to bear pointing out.
But of course you are right: many sexual acts are both wrong and do not make children. But rather than the one causing the other, they are both caused by the same thing: they are not God’s design. This is the reason Scripture gives for why these acts are wrong: “It is confusion”, “that which is unseemly”, “abomination unto the LORD thy God”.
And of course what is not according to nature (God’s design) will often physically not produce children. But this explanation also explains the cases when departing from God’s design does produce children. It just departs from his design in another way. It also explains why the desire for intimacy does not justify abominable acts.
Incest and fornication I think generally increase procreation. Adultery doesn’t affect it, and in the case of an infertile husband adultery would be a “solution”. And one simply cannot say that celibacy is as wrong as homosexuality, though it has exactly the same effect on procreation.
There is no biblical indication that when something is mentioned first it is always the most important. People could say that animals are more important than people, and people do say that because the first mention of polygyny is Lamech therefore it is condemned by the Bible. In addition to this while food and such may be a more urgent need, it is not necessarily most important: survival is basically the most urgent need, but things such as prayer and Bible study are more important, and I would also say that a one flesh relationship joined together by God would be more important than the urgent need of survival.
Which leads into another thing: procreation and children I believe are important and divine blessings, but not primarily because it avoids extinction. There really isn’t any threat of extinction I would say, but procreation is still as glorious an end as it was in the garden. I would say that children are blessings because they are children, not as (I hope this does not sound sarcastic) extinction insurance.
When God said “be fruitful”, it would have more bearing on the purpose of mankind I think, than on the purpose of sex. The idea that he was thinking of children for his aloneness is of course speculation; one can put it into Scripture without necessarily messing something up, but it doesn’t come out of Scripture. “He shouldn’t be alone, so I will make him a wife” is pretty plain, especially as he specifically says she would be meet for him, and goes on to speak of the one flesh union and cleaving together.
Procreation is the closest act of intimacy, so much so that it is hard to talk of a hierarchy between intimacy and procreation. But they may also be connected in a different direction, so to speak: “the fruit of the womb is his reward” gives the impression that procreation is God’s blessing on the one flesh union, the stamp of its great significance in his eyes.
Marriage ceasing in the resurrection I would say is not merely because procreation is no longer needed: the reason Christ gave is a changed nature. It seems the same unity is obtained through means we cannot imagine. What Roxfox said about sex in heaven, I wonder what that would mean without marriage. It is true that the angels had sex, but, as one person I read pointed out, these were specifically angels who left heaven, who "left their own estate" as it says in Jude, in contrast with Jesus saying we would be like the angels that are in heaven.
Something about adoption: I completely agree that it is another beautiful form of the family, but I would point out that it doesn’t involve procreation, and if everyone adopted, the human race would go extinct (nothing against adoption). And homosexuals can adopt (and they have used this against me to argue for homosexuality).
As for intimacy outside of marriage, this only shows the limitations of language, not distinguishing differences. Intimacy can be had, but not sexual intimacy. The one flesh bond is unique among bonds, specifically created by God, though there are of course other bonds, which can be stronger. Which is another reason why a desire for intimacy does not justify wrongdoing: desiring intimacy and desiring sexual intimacy are separate things, though many would love to blur the line: “You have to marry me! Don’t you love me?”.
This is one reason it is a bad sign when someone wants a spouse who doesn’t want sex. It is a pagan idea of righteousness to reject sex, and to only tolerate it as a necessary evil for the sake of preserving the species. I have read in an old fashioned (no doubt Catholic) “marriage counselling” book here in Ireland that phrases this in just such terms, specifically telling wives to “give grudgingly and seldom”, hesitantly admitting that women “have endured it for centuries for the sake of children”. The Bible calls this defrauding. The pagan idea of righteousness ties back to their glorification of suicide, that anything desirable is therefore not spiritual or good.
But think of what sexual pleasure is: rejoicing in one of the closest experiences of the image of God. The pleasure that a rapist or fornicator experiences is that of the image of God, which they experience through violence, like a robber who steals the crown jewels, or rather like a kidnapper.
Receiving the gift of God’s own image in the image of God receiving his church is not a thing that can really be valued too highly. I know you are not saying it is not important, but one can value it as much as they want without devaluing procreation, and can also value it independently, without devaluing procreation. Focusing on it primarily does not in any way justify the violation of it, which is what lewd acts are. They are not sins because sex is their goal, they are sins because sex is their victim.
When a person marries but uses contraception, it is not that they value sex too much, it is that they value procreation too little. And they do not value sex enough, because procreation is part of being one flesh. Of course, this is assuming that they do not use abortifacient contraception, which is a different problem. There may be times when natural contraception (like timing) is necessary, but this would be an extreme case, I would say.
It is worth noting that the entire Song of Songs does not directly mention children: that aspect of their union, though not separate, is not the focus of the expression of their love, but the sexual desire they have for each other. Solomon also focuses on this desire elsewhere: “let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.” - 5:19 This in contrast with some I have read about who condemn any sexual act within marriage that does not directly lead to children.
I hope this is more of a reasoned viewpoint instead of just a contradiction, but still contradictions have their place: it is better to be looking for truth than to be thinking one has found it!
I too agree that both one-flesh union and procreation are very important to God, but I would question whether there is a hierarchy in this case, or at least a single hierarchy that can be applied throughout.
I think the main thing is that the principle you apply looks correct, but basically boils down to saying that sexual intimacy is an abomination, which is, of course, the farthest thing from your mind.
Since the principle isn’t one of simply condemning a neglect of procreation, but of condemning sexual acts, the picture that is painted is that placing a high importance on sexual intimacy is what makes these acts the abominations that they are. It may not be perfectly watertight, and of course it is not what you are saying, but it is significant enough to bear pointing out.
But of course you are right: many sexual acts are both wrong and do not make children. But rather than the one causing the other, they are both caused by the same thing: they are not God’s design. This is the reason Scripture gives for why these acts are wrong: “It is confusion”, “that which is unseemly”, “abomination unto the LORD thy God”.
And of course what is not according to nature (God’s design) will often physically not produce children. But this explanation also explains the cases when departing from God’s design does produce children. It just departs from his design in another way. It also explains why the desire for intimacy does not justify abominable acts.
Incest and fornication I think generally increase procreation. Adultery doesn’t affect it, and in the case of an infertile husband adultery would be a “solution”. And one simply cannot say that celibacy is as wrong as homosexuality, though it has exactly the same effect on procreation.
There is no biblical indication that when something is mentioned first it is always the most important. People could say that animals are more important than people, and people do say that because the first mention of polygyny is Lamech therefore it is condemned by the Bible. In addition to this while food and such may be a more urgent need, it is not necessarily most important: survival is basically the most urgent need, but things such as prayer and Bible study are more important, and I would also say that a one flesh relationship joined together by God would be more important than the urgent need of survival.
Which leads into another thing: procreation and children I believe are important and divine blessings, but not primarily because it avoids extinction. There really isn’t any threat of extinction I would say, but procreation is still as glorious an end as it was in the garden. I would say that children are blessings because they are children, not as (I hope this does not sound sarcastic) extinction insurance.
When God said “be fruitful”, it would have more bearing on the purpose of mankind I think, than on the purpose of sex. The idea that he was thinking of children for his aloneness is of course speculation; one can put it into Scripture without necessarily messing something up, but it doesn’t come out of Scripture. “He shouldn’t be alone, so I will make him a wife” is pretty plain, especially as he specifically says she would be meet for him, and goes on to speak of the one flesh union and cleaving together.
Procreation is the closest act of intimacy, so much so that it is hard to talk of a hierarchy between intimacy and procreation. But they may also be connected in a different direction, so to speak: “the fruit of the womb is his reward” gives the impression that procreation is God’s blessing on the one flesh union, the stamp of its great significance in his eyes.
Marriage ceasing in the resurrection I would say is not merely because procreation is no longer needed: the reason Christ gave is a changed nature. It seems the same unity is obtained through means we cannot imagine. What Roxfox said about sex in heaven, I wonder what that would mean without marriage. It is true that the angels had sex, but, as one person I read pointed out, these were specifically angels who left heaven, who "left their own estate" as it says in Jude, in contrast with Jesus saying we would be like the angels that are in heaven.
Something about adoption: I completely agree that it is another beautiful form of the family, but I would point out that it doesn’t involve procreation, and if everyone adopted, the human race would go extinct (nothing against adoption). And homosexuals can adopt (and they have used this against me to argue for homosexuality).
As for intimacy outside of marriage, this only shows the limitations of language, not distinguishing differences. Intimacy can be had, but not sexual intimacy. The one flesh bond is unique among bonds, specifically created by God, though there are of course other bonds, which can be stronger. Which is another reason why a desire for intimacy does not justify wrongdoing: desiring intimacy and desiring sexual intimacy are separate things, though many would love to blur the line: “You have to marry me! Don’t you love me?”.
This is one reason it is a bad sign when someone wants a spouse who doesn’t want sex. It is a pagan idea of righteousness to reject sex, and to only tolerate it as a necessary evil for the sake of preserving the species. I have read in an old fashioned (no doubt Catholic) “marriage counselling” book here in Ireland that phrases this in just such terms, specifically telling wives to “give grudgingly and seldom”, hesitantly admitting that women “have endured it for centuries for the sake of children”. The Bible calls this defrauding. The pagan idea of righteousness ties back to their glorification of suicide, that anything desirable is therefore not spiritual or good.
But think of what sexual pleasure is: rejoicing in one of the closest experiences of the image of God. The pleasure that a rapist or fornicator experiences is that of the image of God, which they experience through violence, like a robber who steals the crown jewels, or rather like a kidnapper.
Receiving the gift of God’s own image in the image of God receiving his church is not a thing that can really be valued too highly. I know you are not saying it is not important, but one can value it as much as they want without devaluing procreation, and can also value it independently, without devaluing procreation. Focusing on it primarily does not in any way justify the violation of it, which is what lewd acts are. They are not sins because sex is their goal, they are sins because sex is their victim.
When a person marries but uses contraception, it is not that they value sex too much, it is that they value procreation too little. And they do not value sex enough, because procreation is part of being one flesh. Of course, this is assuming that they do not use abortifacient contraception, which is a different problem. There may be times when natural contraception (like timing) is necessary, but this would be an extreme case, I would say.
It is worth noting that the entire Song of Songs does not directly mention children: that aspect of their union, though not separate, is not the focus of the expression of their love, but the sexual desire they have for each other. Solomon also focuses on this desire elsewhere: “let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.” - 5:19 This in contrast with some I have read about who condemn any sexual act within marriage that does not directly lead to children.
I hope this is more of a reasoned viewpoint instead of just a contradiction, but still contradictions have their place: it is better to be looking for truth than to be thinking one has found it!
There it is, thank you!
"No divorce" is the rule as God hates it (Mal 2:16), divorce as a result of adultery is the single exception (Matt 5:32, Matt 19:9).
To play devil's advocate, but hopefully not derail the thread. The penalty for adultery was death for both participants, not divorce. With YHWH Himself divorcing the house of Israel for spiritual adultery, one can see mercy in action, and the ability of the injured party to allow repentance and restoration.
I personally believe those above references verses were saying it is ok to put away (separate without a writ of divorce) a wife that you shouldnt have married once you realize your error, ie incest, forbidden marriage not authorized by YHWH and perhaps also that it is ok to "put away" a wife who has made herself foreign to her head as a disciplinary tactic to encourage her to repent.
The sin in putting away as I understand the issue, and the part that God hates is not being responsible for the relationship, or even divorcing properly so that the woman is free to remarry.....Dealing decietfully with the wife of your youth.
That said, marriage should not be done without the intent to stay together, and neither believer once married should initiate a divorce.
Just my understanding for whatever it is worth.
To play devil's advocate, but hopefully not derail the thread. The penalty for adultery was death for both participants, not divorce. With YHWH Himself divorcing the house of Israel for spiritual adultery, one can see mercy in action, and the ability of the injured party to allow repentance and restoration.
I personally believe those above references verses were saying it is ok to put away (separate without a writ of divorce) a wife that you shouldnt have married once you realize your error, ie incest, forbidden marriage not authorized by YHWH and perhaps also that it is ok to "put away" a wife who has made herself foreign to her head as a disciplinary tactic to encourage her to repent.
The sin in putting away as I understand the issue, and the part that God hates is not being responsible for the relationship, or even divorcing properly so that the woman is free to remarry.....Dealing decietfully with the wife of your youth.
That said, marriage should not be done without the intent to stay together, and neither believer once married should initiate a divorce.
Just my understanding for whatever it is worth.
You jump to far too many conclusions. I am aware of only one potentially forbidden sex act. Otherwise, and it's only a possible exception, the marriage bed is undefiled. If you communicated a little more simply you would get called out on a lot more bullshit. I'm assuming that's what you need all of those words, for a smoke screen. Please remember that this forum has been dedicated to nothing but searching out what the Bible has to say about sex and marriage for a very long time. Any innovations you have will need a LOT of evidence. Right now you're listing scriptures and then jumping to conclusions. So succinctly deal with these issues:
1. What sex acts between husband and wife are forbidden and why? And what then does the Bible mean when it says the marriage bed is undefiled?
2. Why couldn't the command to be fruitful and multiply not be fulfilled through evangelism?
I am assuming that you have only recently started questioning the doctrine you were taught, and probably in turn then taught, and have quite thrown off all of your old assumptions.
Ecclesiastes teaches us sex was given to us as a reward for our labors in this life. Where does the bible teach your 'Hierarchy Argument'? All I saw was basically an appeal to the law of first mention; which is a human idea not taught in scripture. If you want to use mere human logic I could likewise argue that since we spend more time in life laboring in work than creating children, sex as reward is the primary purpose of sex since it is the greater/more frequent use of sex. 99.999% of your copulations will not result in a new baby. Sounds like a minority use to me; literally, by definition. Something can hardly be primary when that is the numerically minority use.
Look. You and us both think that polygamy is acceptable. The reason you're getting so much pushback is because you are using lots of human ideas and logic you can't cite scripture for. You're doing eisegesis not exigesis.
For an example look at the purpose of sex in your argument. Does God ever say what the 'primary' purpose of sex is? No! That is your idea, not His. We see in scripture several purposes listed. And we can from human wisdom come up with several others. But none is given to us from scripture as THE primary purpose. So we shouldn't speak where God is silent; we shouldn't put words in His mouth. Not only is this the chief of folly, His ways are not our ways and His mind not our mind, but this approach repeatedly leads people into false ideas. Or in this case, weak arguments people won't be convinced by.
If you want to make this a strong argument, eliminate the parts that you can't back up with literal scripture. If it takes a page of arguments to demonstrate that a scripture says what you say it says, even though it doesn't literally say that (e.g. cleave = covenant marriage), then its a weak argument at best.
Hello Friends!
Still filming and working on the documentary mentioned in the original post of this thread. In the meantime, I've recently discussed porn, sex, abortion, homosexuality, polygamy, divorce, and adultery all in one podcast. To my surprise, it was fairly well received! If you'd like to check it out, it's on my YouTube channel linked below. May the Lord bless you, Brethren!
"Let's talk about Sex and The Bible" -
Still filming and working on the documentary mentioned in the original post of this thread. In the meantime, I've recently discussed porn, sex, abortion, homosexuality, polygamy, divorce, and adultery all in one podcast. To my surprise, it was fairly well received! If you'd like to check it out, it's on my YouTube channel linked below. May the Lord bless you, Brethren!
"Let's talk about Sex and The Bible" -
At ~1:02:25...
I want to observe that Lev 18:22 did not say "homosexuality" (what exactly does that word mean?), but rather it said "do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman". That is a very specific act, vs the nonspecific "homosexuality".
I believe it is important to cleave tightly to what God has directly said, and not paraphrase it, explain it, or otherwise present it in such a way as to encompass more or less than what God specifically included. "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it" (Deu 4:2)
Concerning "homosexuality", it is notable that if we gender reverse the specific act enumerated in v22, we produce a law that women are not even biologically capable of transgressing. How exactly does a woman have sexual relations with a woman as with a man? She does not have that certain man-hardware necessary for there to be any "as with a man" going on. Praise God He built them so excellently!
Since God gave no "thou shalt not" regarding female homosexual anything, we know that *female* homosexuality (whatever it means) is definitely not a sin. This is critically important with respect to plural marriage, because the ramifications could be huge if there were any injunction related to female homosexuality.
I want to observe that Lev 18:22 did not say "homosexuality" (what exactly does that word mean?), but rather it said "do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman". That is a very specific act, vs the nonspecific "homosexuality".
I believe it is important to cleave tightly to what God has directly said, and not paraphrase it, explain it, or otherwise present it in such a way as to encompass more or less than what God specifically included. "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it" (Deu 4:2)
Concerning "homosexuality", it is notable that if we gender reverse the specific act enumerated in v22, we produce a law that women are not even biologically capable of transgressing. How exactly does a woman have sexual relations with a woman as with a man? She does not have that certain man-hardware necessary for there to be any "as with a man" going on. Praise God He built them so excellently!
Since God gave no "thou shalt not" regarding female homosexual anything, we know that *female* homosexuality (whatever it means) is definitely not a sin. This is critically important with respect to plural marriage, because the ramifications could be huge if there were any injunction related to female homosexuality.
I totally endorse the first half of your post.
The second half is a gray area where I am just not willing to make a judgment call.