Moving through the first section of the catechism, we have focused upon God’s good design for human sexuality and some of the challenges that our sin-scarred world brings against them. In questions 3-5, we studied the goodness of being made male and female to image God, while questions 6-8 addressed the present-day challenge that a person ought to be able to change their gender. Then in questions 9-11, we observed God’s design for marriage, which He instituted from the very beginning of the world. Now in the remaining questions of part one, we focus upon three challenges to God’s design for marriage. Of course, any married person can attest to there being far more challenges to marriage than these three things, but we will focus upon these because they challenge the very institution of marriage. An argument over finances may threaten a particular marriage, but money and finances do not inherently oppose God’s good design for marriage as a creation ordinance. Adultery, divorce, and homosexuality do oppose His design.

QUESTION 12

Does the Lord permit sexual intimacy outside of marriage?

No. Scripture teaches that marriage is the only acceptable context for sexual union. Further, God calls us to live decent and chaste lives within or outside the holy state of marriage.

This question addresses the second purpose of marriage listed in question 11, but explains it further. There Gordon noted that marriage is the proper setting for a husband and wife to enjoy each other with the physical and relational desires God gave to them. Now he explains more pointedly that marriage is the only acceptable context for sexual union.

Notice that Gordon does not say sex. It is not simply the act of intercourse that is forbidden outside of marriage; it is sexual intimacy in general. I believe that is one of the reasons why the Bible often uses the euphemism of uncovering the nakedness to refer to sexual intimacy. Any level of such intimacy is a violation of the marital union, not simply the actual act of intercourse.

Again, we must return to the purposes of marriage. Recall that the innocence of Adam and Eve is described in Genesis 2:25 as them being naked and unashamed. Of course, the immediate effect of sin was to introduce shame, causing them to cover up their nakedness. Indeed, our continual need of clothing is a constant reminder to us that we have lost that former innocence, that it is neither possible nor safe to be innocently expose to the world. We must continually hide our shame before one another because none are innocent any longer.

The union of marriage, however, is a gracious glimpse back into the garden that God has left open for us. In the marriage bed, between a husband and his wife, Genesis 2:25 can be true again, at least for a moment.

That is why, as we said last time, to practice sexual intimacy outside of the union of marriage is to defile what God has set apart as holy. And just as Satan delights to lead people into idolatry, so he delights in leading them into adultery. Indeed, it is no accident that the Scriptures so frequently describe idolatry as God’s people committing adultery against Him. We should strive to remember that there are always bigger spiritual realities happening all around us. What do with our bodies never merely stops with our bodies but always plays into that larger cosmic picture.

We can rightly call all sexual intimacy beyond the bond of marriage adultery, yet we do often specify that any form of sexual intimacy by those who are unmarried is called fornication. It always saddens me to see Christians who lament that our society now recognizes same-sex marriage and believes that gender is fluid but don’t see much of a problem with cohabitation and no-fault divorce. Of course, many Christians still recognize that you probably shouldn’t live together before you are married and should try to not get divorced, but when another person does either, they immediately pacify themselves by saying, “who am I to judge?” Yet the reality is that fornication, adultery, cohabitation, divorce, and homosexuality are each assaults upon the very institution of marriage. Although they are certainly not all the same weight as sins, they should each be taken seriously as sins.

QUESTION 13

Question 13 turns us onto the subject of divorce:

What is the Christian position on divorce?

Since husbands and wives are united by the Lord’s hand, nothing should separate them in this life.

Gordon rightly notes that this is the Christian position on divorce, since this teaching comes straight from the mouth of Jesus, as we read in Mark 10:2-9:

And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.” And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.

As that passage indicates, Jesus was not pronouncing a new teaching; rather, He was going back to the beginning of creation and declaring the proper view of marriage. Divorce, like so many laws within the Old Testament, were given to limit and curb the sinful impulses within the human heart. As we saw in Exodus 21:10, God made a law for how a wife could not be neglected if her husband took another wife. That too was necessary provision because of the hardness of the human heart. Polygamy has always been a deviation from God’s design, but throughout much of human history, polygamy was far more advantageous for women than singleness. That does not excuse polygamy as good but highlights how depraved culture can become. Indeed, though the Bible does not outright condemn the polygamy of Abraham, Jacob, or David, it also does not shy away from the trouble and strife that it brings into their own lives and the lives of their family.

Such was divorce as well. Under the old covenant, it was a necessary provision because of human sinfulness. However, the biblical design for marriage is that only death should separate a husband and wife. “What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

QUESTION 14

Now Jesus’ declaration in Mark 10:9 is not a suggestion but a command, but sadly, we are no strangers to breaking the commands of God. Even as Christians, some forms of divorce are permitted.

Q. But aren’t there any biblical grounds for divorce?

A. The Scriptures permit divorce in the irreconcilable circumstances of adultery or abandonment. But these are exceptions to the general rule not to divorce.

The first of these exceptions comes from Jesus in Matthew’s version of what we just read in Mark 10. Notice how the events flow a bit differently in Matthew 19:3-9:

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate. They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another commits adultery.”

Notice that in these verses Jesus directly provides the exception: “except for sexual immorality.” The ESV Study Bible has a particularly helpful note on verse 9, which I would encourage to be read in its entirety, but the final point is most important for us to understand:

Divorce, it must be remembered, is permitted but not required in the case of sexual immorality. Since God’s intention is that marriage should be for life (19:4–8), this provides good reason to make every reasonable effort to achieve restoration and forgiveness in marriage before taking steps to dissolve a marriage through divorce. This makes Jesus’ teaching fundamentally different from all of first-century Judaism, which required divorce in the case of adultery.

The second exception comes from 1 Corinthians 7:15, though let us read verses 10-16:

To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.

To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace. For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

This exception is often called abandonment. Of course, Paul does not explicit mention divorce, but most commentators consider it a natural and plain implication. Gordon does not address the topic of remarriage at all, which is probably wise on his end. Again, by implication, the most common view is to see remarriage as being permissible along these same grounds that divorce is permissible.

Again, the most important point to make is that for sexual immorality or abandonment divorce is permitted but never recommended nor prescribed. Even under those very narrow and limited circumstances, divorce is never anything more than an allowance because of the painful reality of sin.

QUESTION 15

Now that we have briefly addressed adultery and divorce, we come to the third and final subject: same-sex marriage.

Does God permit same-sex marriage?

Absolutely not. God ordained marriage only between a man and a woman for life. Governments do not have the authority to change marriage into something contrary to what God instituted at creation.

Here Gordon wisely focuses upon the concept of same-sex marriage rather than homosexuality more broadly. As I will argue in just a moment, homosexuality is unequivocally denounced as sinful in Scripture, but a homosexual act or even relationship is more limited in its negative effects upon others. The notion of same-sex marriage, however, is an attempt to usurp the creational institution that God designed for the good of humanity; therefore, such an act negatively impacts all of society.

Indeed, for a government to claim to have the authority to rewrite the definition of marriage, it has laid claim to an authority that only God truly possesses. And yet, that is precisely where we are. We live in a cultural that is not only tolerant of homosexuality but actually recognizes and celebrates same-sex marriages. And because this is cultural water that we swim in, the temptation is incredibly strong to call this the new normal and that it is no big deal. Owen Strachan, however, reminds us that we cannot separate our spirituality from our sexuality:

Our sexuality is not a mere matter of which behaviors to act on and which to stifle. Our sexuality syncs with our spirituality and enfleshes it. Every sin separates us from God by an infinite gap; every sin draws the just wrath of God. But we need to see this clearly: committing adultery with a member of the opposite sex is against God’s will. But committing a homosexual act is not only against God’s will, but against God’s design. It is as thorough a repudiation of the goodness of God as humanity can offer. (193)

To understand how Strachan can make such a statement, we need to consider Romans 1:18-32. As we read it, note the three times that Paul repeats that God gave them up to their sins because they refused to worship Him and give thanks to Him:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

All of the sins that Paul discusses in that passage are judgments that God gives people over to whenever they refuse to worship Him and give thanks to Him as the Creator. Thus, our society’s acceptance of same-sex marriage is not a sign that our culture is abandoning Christianity. No, it is God’s judgment for having already rejected God as our Creator. And the consequences are not just individualistic but societal, for we now live in a society that is driven by homosexual, rather than heterosexual values.

In Dante’s Inferno, the sodomites are within the circle of the violent. While in that section, Dante speaks with an old mentor of his, who seems to be very pleasant man, which has left many wondering why Dante placed homosexuality with the sins of violence. The scenery is the clue, for that circle of hell is dead and barren. Dante saw homosexuality as violence against God’s design for creation. Specifically, homosexuality is an inherently barren act that cannot bring life and fruitfulness into the world.

Could the same not be said of our society today? As we noted last week, barrenness is now blessed rather than lamented. Having children is now scorned rather than celebrated. Homosexuality is a lifestyle of self-gratifying consumption over self-denying fruitfulness. And that is the world that we live in. Those are the waters that surround us. Of course, the sad reality of life in our fallen world is that many married couples will be providentially hindered from having children; however, the intentional refusal to have children is a sinful rejection of one of God’s good designs for marriage.

Of course, some may argue that many same-sex couples have a desire for children. First, such a desire often treats children as accessories to having a “real” family. Second, since homosexuality is intrinsically barren, other methods for obtaining children must be used. Surrogacy is even more demeaning for women than prostitution in my estimation, and adoption still holds the problem of willfully placing children into a home without a father or a mother. Furthermore, the innate sterility of homosexuality points to it being a fruitless and disordered love. The beauty of God’s design for sex is that two people who are the same but also different come together in love, and the fruit of that act of love is quite literally life. As Strachan said, homosexuality “is as thorough a repudiation of the goodness of God as humanity can offer.”

Indeed, I would note that the matter of same-sex marriage does not simply apply to all the unbelievers out in the world; it can also apply to us as well. Consider this: if a husband and a wife have the exact same role with a marriage, what should we call that? Practically, to live as though there is no distinction between the role of a husband and of a wife is to be a faux-same-sex marriage. Of course, the sins are not the exact same. A husband and a wife can begin at any time to live out their distinct roles as the provider and homemaker, while a same-sex couple cannot do so. Even so, sin remains sin, and it is far too for even Christians to buy the egalitarian lie and practically deny the distinction between male and female within their own marriage. It is not enough to oppose same-sex marriage politically; instead, we must truly embrace God’s good design for marriage within our own lives.