(I don’t know who you may be sharing these posts with, but as the TV folk do, I’m going to put a disclaimer on this one and say that it does involve sexual content. So, share at your own discretion.)
The main purpose of this blog is to ensure that lives are defined solely on God’s word. And I believe one of the biggest problems for a lot of so-called believers is that their belief is in tradition as opposed to the Bible, which is holy. They do things based on a modeled lifestyle of what someone else’s interpretation of Christianity is instead of following God’s word as the Holy Spirit gives it to them. And if a person’s life is not characterized by the truth of God’s word, there will be internal confusion and conflict. They’ll lack the faith necessary to please God because they’ve never, or at least not consistently, heard the word of God (Ro 10:17). That being said, I’ll pose the question, Is sex outside of marriage wrong? Is your answer based on assumption of what’s right, or on the truth of God’s word?
First, let’s get on the same page and define both ‘sex’ and ‘marriage’. Sex in the context of this subject is sexual intercourse, which includes heterosexual, homosexual, and oral intercourse (Merriam-Webster Online). In the Bible, sexual intercourse is defined as ‘laying with’ (Ge 4:1; Lev 18:22). Marriage is the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband and wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law. Since the Bible speaks of the necessity of a certificate of divorce, it is implied that a recognized marriage also includes a certificate of marriage, which renders the practice of ‘shacking’ or common-law unions unacceptable in God’s sight (Dt 24:1; Mk 10:4). Some of God’s intentions for marriage are monogamy, free from adultery and intermarriage with the faithless (which includes those of other so-called faiths), between man and woman, and for life (although the only acceptable cause for divorce is marital unfaithfulness, which is a subject I’ll have to write about later) (Ge 2:24; Ex 20:14; 2 Co 6:14-18; Mal 2:16; Mt 5:32). It’s clearly a commitment that God does not take lightly.
Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled, but whoremongers, the sexually immoral, fornicators, and adulterers God will judge (Heb 13:4 KJV, NIV, NASV). Man has the habit of attempting to exclude his own sinful behavior from the truth of God’s word by justification, which includes renaming sin, which was my purpose of combing biblical versions of the scripture above. I want to get a tight grasp on this subject, so that we’re ensured that we’re in the right, as opposed to assuming we are. Since the Bible is not to be followed by one gender or another, but all, I will eliminate any implication of one gender or another in the definition of these words. A whoremonger is one who consorts with a people who are sexually promiscuous or immoral, whether it is for money or not. Fornication is simply sexual intercourse between two people who are not married to each other. Adultery is defined as voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than their spouse. And the sexually immoral, in general, includes those who engage in behavior previously mentioned, as well as homosexual offenders (1 Co 6:9).
Just like it may not be necessary to announce that you’re a Christian, it probably won’t be necessary for a person to announce that they’re a whore, whoremonger, homosexual, adulterous, etc. (Mt 7:16; Lk 6:44). If their speech and behavior suggests this, it’s clear that these are people we need to involve ourselves with only on the basis of witnessing to them (Mt 28:19-20). Or they may need to be avoided altogether (Gal 6:1). It’s not a sin to be tempted –Jesus himself was tempted- but it’s a sin to give in to temptation to sin (Mt 4:1-11; 1 Co 10:13; Heb 2:18). This is a judgment of character, not a snap judgment bases completely on hearsay, popular opinion, stereotypes, etc., but sound judgment based on reasonable criteria, namely God’s word. It’s the action that’s judged, not the individual.
No comments:
Post a Comment