Sexual Activity in Context

Why does God forbid sexual activity in some situations when people are in love?

In order to answer this “why” question, we are going to answer three sub-questions related to it. They are:

In what situations is sexual activity forbidden?

Is love a pre-requisite for sexual activity?

c. How should A Christian understand sexual activity?

It is my conviction that once these three questions are properly understood and answered, we will understand why God forbids sexual activity in some situations when people are in love.

To be sure, it is my prayer that through our time today looking at God’s Word about sex we will come away not with a strictly prohibitive view of sexuality and behavior, but rather we will see God’s heart and be caught up in the life that Jesus calls each and every one of us into—in this way we will see that God is even glorified through sexual activity in its proper context.

Sexual activity is expressly prohibited by God in all situations where it falls outside the domain of marriage.

God created marriage, human beings did not. Therefore, it is not something we can attempt to redefine according to culture or our opinions and feelings. Marriage is and always will be according to God’s holy conception. What is Marriage, really? Some contend that marriage is a “traditional union between one man and one woman that often leads to children and is recognized by the government,” while others would argue that is, “merely the most intimate relationship that an individual can have and that such an arrangement is only entered into for mutual benefit.”[1] What we should ask, as faithful Christians, is what does the Bible say about what marriage is?

Marriage is best understood through one of three models: (1) Sacramental (2) Contractual and finally (3) Covenantal. It is the predominant view of Protestants that a Sacramental view (that is, as a means of attaining grace) is insufficient as a model. Secondly, Contractual models of marriage divide, rather than unite the husband and wife. We see this played out in financial contracts known as prenups where each individual seeks preservation of their capital and assets in the (expected) event of the marriage contract being dissolved via divorce. Finally, a covenantal view is based on strong covenantal language in Genesis 2, primarily and esteems marriage as something that is entered into by husband and wife, along with God and is sacred in nature. The covenant, then, is actually consummated through sexual union where man and woman become one flesh. Church law, in the sacramental view is not binding on the soul. Civil law, in the contractual model is likewise deficient in binding the soul. However, the divine law of a covenant with God is binding on the soul.

[1] Mark D. Liederbach and Evan Lenow, Ethics as Worship: The Pursuit of Moral Discipleship (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2021), 614.

So, in short, to become one flesh outside of this covenantal model of marriage is to denigrate what sexual intimacy’s primary role and function is with respect to the creation mandate.

Perhaps a robust and comprehensive definition is:

Marriage is designed by God to be a comprehensive, covenantal union between one man and one woman intended to endure for a lifetime and proximally directed toward the rearing of the next generation[1].

Now, there is no time to go into the ethical issues relating to divorce and remarriage, polygamy, homosexual unions, etc. Instead, we must move through a Biblical definition of marriage and use this to inform our understanding of why God forbids sexual activity in some situations when people are in love.

The question itself is predicated on two things: (1) There are only some situations when sexual activity is prohibited and (2) such prohibitions must be brought to bear in the context of the presence of love between two people.

[1] Liederbach and Lenow, Ethics as Worship, 615.

As we have seen, it is true that love and consent are not the foundation, nor the pre-requisite, for sexual activity—marriage is.

In this way, a Christian should understand sexual activity as essential to marriage. On the converse, a Christian should view sexual activity that falls outside the “boundary” of marriage as sinful and to be avoided at all costs.

Marriage then, is the gateway to properly understanding sexual activity.

When people are in love, what does this mean? Is love the proper context for sexual activity? Well, as we have briefly seen—marriage is actually the proper context for sexual activity, because that is what God designated as the proper context for the human mission—multiplication of the image of God. This is actually how Paul, for example, can distinguish between sexual immorality and good sexual conduct that honors and glorifies God.

Hebrews 13:4 Marriage must be honored among all, and the marriage bed kept undefiled, for God will judge sexually immoral people and adulterers.

In his book Street Smarts, author Greg Koukl states,

“it’s clear that many Christians are untutored in the basics. To them, Christianity is simply about believing in Jesus in some fake sense, being nice, and loving people in a can’t-we-all-just-get-along kind of way. That’s where their theology begins, and that’s where it ends.”[1]

For the post-reformation believer, particularly a Protestant, effort seems synonymous with “works” and is avoided to a fault. As Dallas Willard so acutely summed up, “Grace isn’t opposed to effort. It is opposed to earning.” And so it is with this question around sexual ethics. It takes effort to not only know how to think about it biblically, but it also takes effort to take a stand against a culture that is militantly opposed to God’s design to sexuality. As the scriptures tell us, (Rom. 12:2) “Do not be conformed to this present world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may test and approve what is the will of God—what is good and well-pleasing and perfect.” May it be ever more so true for us as we look into this question about sexual activity in light of God’s design and intention.

[1] Street Smarts, 264.