Did Elisha Lie?

Eric Lyons

Alleged DiscrepanciesOld Testament

As Ben-Hadad, the king of Syria, made war with Israel, the prophet Elisha warned the Israelite king (Joram) time and again how to avoid his enemy. When Ben-Hadad learned that Elisha was the one who kept the king of Israel informed, he commissioned “a great army” to go and arrest the prophet of God (2 Kings 6:13-14).

When Elisha saw the Syrian army, he prayed that the Lord would strike them with blindness, which He did. The prophet then told the blinded Syrians, “This is not the way, nor is this the city. Follow me, and I will bring you to the man whom you seek” (2 Kings 6:19). Elisha proceeded to lead them to Samaria, the capital of Israel. Only after the Syrians were inside Samaria did God return to them their sight. Undoubtedly, it was here that Elisha revealed himself to the Syrians.

The question that many wonder is, “Did Elisha, a prophet of God, lie?” Rather than reveal himself to the Syrians when he first met them, he said, “‘This is not the way, and this is not the city. Follow me, and I will bring you to the man whom you seek.’ And he led them to Samaria” (6:19, ESV). Bible critics allege that Elisha lied (cf. McKinsey, 2000, p. 542), while many Bible believers also question the ethics of it all. Did Elisha sin in his dealings with the Syrians?

First of all, Bible students must keep in mind that every person who has ever lived, except Christ, has sinned (Romans 3:10,23; 1 Peter 2:22). Yes, all of the godly people mentioned in the Bible sinned at various times in their lives. Even inspired penmen, including Moses, David, and Peter, sinned at times. [NOTE: Inspired spokesmen and writers communicated the Spirit’s supernatural revelation accurately as He “carried” them “along” (2 Peter 1:20-21), but inspiration was not a 24-hour-a-day, supernatural process that protected inspired men from ever being able to sin.] No doubt, at various times in his life, Elisha sinned against God. Thus, whether Elisha lied on this occasion or not, he definitely fell short at some point in his life.

That said, we must also keep in mind that there is a difference in lying and (1) not revealing everything you know (e.g., John 6:64,70-71), (2) diverting one’s attention, (3) outwitting an enemy during a time of war (e.g., Judges 7:1-22), etc. If a soldier in a bunker puts his hat on a stick and raises it in the air to see if the enemy shoots it, has he deceived the enemy in a sinful sense? He intentionally tried to make the enemy think that his head was under the hat, but such a trick of war is not a lie. If soldiers impersonate the enemy by wearing the enemies’ uniforms while infiltrating the camp, have the soldiers been sly in order to gain the advantage? Yes. Have they lied? No. How many truthful, though blatantly elusive, things can a passionate husband and wife say to their child who finds a way into their room in the middle of the night? There are many noble ways to answer questions without revealing exactly what someone wants to know.

When the Syrians invaded Israel in order to find and arrest the prophet of God, Elisha appeared to them, without first revealing himself to his blind enemies. Instead, he said to follow him and he would bring them to the one they sought. He eventually revealed himself to them, but only after he had led them to Samaria and their sight was returned to them. Did Elisha trick his pursuers? Yes. But misleading enemy soldiers, intruders, or others who might want to do us harm is not necessarily the equivalent of lying. When God sent Samuel to Bethlehem for the purpose of anointing David as the next king of Israel, Samuel mentioned that Saul would kill him if he heard of it. God’s response: “Take a heifer with you, and say, ‘I have come to sacrifice to the Lord.’ Then invite Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will show you what you shall do; you shall anoint for Me the one I name to you. So Samuel did what the Lord said” (1 Samuel 16:2-4, emp. added). When the elders of Bethlehem asked Samuel if he came peaceably, the prophet said, “Peaceably; I have come to sacrifice to the Lord” (16:5). Was the sacrifice the main purpose of Samuel’s visit to Bethlehem? No. But Samuel was under no obligation to tell his questioners the central reason for his visit. He simply revealed to them a secondary reason for his arrival into town.

God does not condone lying (Proverbs 6:16-17; Ephesians 4:25). There is never a justifiable reason to be untruthful (see Colley, 2010). A husband cannot lie about having a wife. A child cannot lie to his parents. A Christian cannot lie about being a follower of Christ (whether to escape death or for any other reason). As Christians we are to be as “harmless as doves.” But, we are also to be as “wise as serpents” (Mark 10:16). God’s people are not obligated to tell others everything they know. And, like Samuel, we may only reveal secondary reasons for certain things we do, especially if in doing so (1) we are still being honest, and (2) we have godly motives for not divulging all of the facts on a given occasion.

The Scriptures do not clearly indicate whether Elisha lied to the Syrians or not. (Of all the communication that likely took place between them, only one line is recorded in Scripture; 2 Kings 6:19). If Elisha did lie, such a sin would neither reflect poorly on God or the Bible—“for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). Still, we must be careful not to over-react to what Elisha did. In a time of war, he strategically led his God-given “captives” to “the city” of his choosing, where he would reveal “Elisha” to them.

REFERENCES

Colley, Caleb (2010), “Defending the Biblical Truth Against Lying,” Apologetics Press, https://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=2843.

McKinsey, Dennis (2000), Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus).

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

 

Homosexuality and Transgenderism: The Science Supports the Bible

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

For over 40 years, a host of forces have worked vigorously to normalize homosexuality in American society—culminating in the U.S. Supreme Court’s infamous ruling that stipulated homosexual marriage as a constitutional right. These same forces have most recently turned their attention to transgenderism.¹ As is always the case, when human beings decide that they want to pursue certain behaviors that have always been considered deviant and illicit (particularly in God’s sight), they will do everything possible to bully and intimidate the opposition (cf. Genesis 19:9). A careful analysis of history demonstrates that the tactics that have been used the past several decades to advance sexual aberration in America are reminiscent of propaganda schemes that have successfully transformed other societies, including Nazi Germany and other totalitarian regimes.²
For all the bombast, coercion, venom, and widespread ridicule marshalled by the left³ and directed against Americans who have steadfastly remained unmoved in their conviction that homosexuality and transgenderism are immoral behaviors, it is refreshing and encouraging to hear the truth declared by credible scientists. In a special report titled “Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences,” Lawrence S. Mayer and Paul R. McHugh divulged their startling findings.⁴ Consider their qualifications and credentials.
Lead author Dr. Mayer is an epidemiologist trained in psychiatry, a biostatistician, and a research physician, having trained in medicine and psychiatry in the U.K. and received the British equivalent (M.B.) to the American M.D. Currently a scholar in residence in the Department of Psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and a professor of statistics and biostatistics at Arizona State University, Mayer has been a full-time tenured professor for over 40 years, having held professorial appointments at eight universities, including Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health and School of Medicine, Ohio State, Virginia Tech, and the University of Michigan. He has also held research faculty appointments at several other institutions, including the Mayo Clinic. He has held appointments in 23 disciplines, including statistics, biostatistics, epidemiology, public health, social methodology, psychiatry, mathematics, sociology, political science, economics, and biomedical informatics, and has been published in many top-tier peer-reviewed journals. Co-author Dr. McHugh is arguably the most important American psychiatrist of the last half-century and one of the leading psychiatrists in the world. He is the former chief of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Hospital and is presently a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and was for 25 years the psychiatrist-in-chief at the Johns Hopkins Hospital.⁵
These scientists found that the most frequently heard claims about sexual orientation and gender identity are not supported by scientific evidence. They found that the LGBT community suffers from “a disproportionate rate of mental health problems compared to the population as a whole.”⁶ Regarding sexual orientation, they found: “The understanding of sexual orientation as an innate, biologically fixed property of human beings—the idea that people are ‘born that way’—is not supported by scientific evidence.”⁷ “Compared to heterosexuals, non-heterosexuals are about two to three times as likely to have experienced childhood sexual abuse.”⁸
Regarding human sexuality as it relates to mental health and social stress, they discovered that, “compared to the general population, non-heterosexual subpopulations are at an elevated risk for a variety of adverse health and mental health outcomes,” and are “estimated to have about 1.5 times higher risk of experiencing anxiety disorders than members of the heterosexual population, as well as roughly double the risk of depression, 1.5 times the risk of substance abuse, and nearly 2.5 times the risk of suicide.” Further, “members of the transgender population are also at higher risk of a variety of mental health problems compared to members of the non-transgender population” with “the rate of lifetime suicide attempts across all ages of transgender individuals is estimated at 41%, compared to under 5% in the overall U.S. population.”⁹
Regarding gender identity, the research showed that “the hypothesis that gender identity is an innate, fixed property of human beings that is independent of biological sex—that a person might be ‘a man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’—is not supported by scientific evidence.”¹⁰ What’s more:

Compared to the general population, adults who have undergone sex-reassignment surgery continue to have a higher risk of experiencing poor mental health outcomes. One study found that, compared to controls, sex-reassigned individuals were about 5 times more likely to attempt suicide and about 19 times more likely to die by suicide.¹¹

In view of the finality of such drastic surgeries and their impact on mental health, the report insists that

nearly all children ultimately identify with their biological sex. The notion that a two-year-old, having expressed thoughts or behaviors identified with the opposite sex, can be labeled for life as transgender has absolutely no support in science. Indeed, it is iniquitous to believe that all children who have gender-atypical thoughts or behavior at some point in their development, particularly before puberty, should be encouraged to become transgender.¹²

Conclusion

You see, if the Bible is, in fact, of divine origin, i.e., if there really is a God, and He’s the God of the Bible,¹³ then the information given in the Bible can be counted on for its veracity. If it affirms explicitly that homosexuality is “against nature” and an “abomination” (Romans 1:26; Leviticus 18:22),¹⁴ then we can know that such a behavior is not genetic.¹⁵ Knowledge of the truth regarding human behavioral proclivities pertaining to a host of actions is available from the Creator who created the human body and infused it with a spirit, a personality, a mind. We can know what is right and what is wrong, what is moral and what is immoral.
Hence, Christians were not at all surprised to see some years ago the invention of junk science to allege a genetic source for homosexuality; nor are they surprised finally to hear some honest, legitimate, reputable, credible, scientific investigation that harmonizes with the Bible viewpoint. One can imagine the hostile response with which this latest research has been received by the anti-Christian forces of political correctness. Nevertheless, may the rest of the scientific community heed the admonition of Dr. Mayer when he urges colleagues to maintain impartiality and not allow political controversy and culture to taint their research: “May they never lose their way in political hurricanes.”¹⁶

EndnotES

¹ Vice-President Joe Biden ludicrously labeled transgender discrimination “the civil rights issue of our time”—Jennifer Bendery (2012), “Joe Biden: Transgender Discrimination Is ‘The Civil Rights Issue Of Our Time’,” The Huffington Post, October 30, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/30/joe-biden-transgender-rights_n_2047275.html.
² William Allen (1965), The Nazi Seizure of Power (New York: Franklin Watts); George Mosse (1981), Nazi Culture (New York: Schocken Books), pp. 7ff.; J.P. Stern (1975), Hitler: The Führer and the People (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press), pp. 35ff.; Jacques Ellul (1965), Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes (New York: Vintage Books).
³ By “the left” I mean those who champion behaviors that throughout history have been deemed immoral by Christian standards. Sometimes alluded to as the “cultural aristocracy,” the primary instigators in America have been television networks and the leftist news media, university faculties, liberal mainline Protestant denominations, Hollywood, liberal judges, and various foundations that are dedicated to transforming the American way of life.
⁴ Lawrence S. Mayer and Paul R. McHugh (2016), “Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences,” The New Atlantis, 50:10-143, Fall, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/number-50-fall-2016. The authors explain their methodology: “This report offers a careful summary and an up-to-date explanation of many of the most rigorous findings produced by the biological, psychological, and social sciences related to sexual orientation and gender identity. We examine a vast body of scientific literature from several disciplines. We try to acknowledge the limitations of the research and to avoid premature conclusions that would result in over-interpretation of scientific findings…. [O]ur focus is on the scientific evidence—what it shows and what it does not show” (p. 10, emp. in orig.).
⁵ The reasons for recounting the lengthy and impressive credentials of the authors is to demonstrate (1) that they would be considered by the secular community to be highly qualified to discuss the subject, and (2) that they are not “right wing radical” Christians or religious fanatics who are biased in their appraisals of the scientific evidence. Indeed, Dr. McHugh describes himself as a “politically liberal” Democrat—Erica Goode (2002), “Psychiatrist Says He Was Surprised by Furor Over His Role on Abuse Panel,” The New York Times, August 5, http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/05/us/psychiatrist-says-he-was-surprised-by-furor-over-his-role-on-abuse-panel.html?pagewanted=all.
⁶ Mayer and McHugh, p. 6.
⁷ Ibid., p. 7.
⁸ Ibid.
⁹ p. 8, emp. added. The authors note: “The prevailing explanation in the scientific literature is the social stress model, which posits that social stressors—such as stigmatization and discrimination—faced by members of these subpopulations account for the disparity in mental health outcomes. Studies show that while social stressors do contribute to the increased risk of poor mental health outcomes for these populations, they likely do not account for the entire disparity” (p. 59, emp. added).
¹⁰ Ibid.
¹¹ Ibid., p. 9, emp. added.
¹² Ibid., p. 6, emp. added.
¹³ Abundant evidence proves these facts. See apologeticspress.org.
¹⁴ For further discussion regarding the biblical view of homosexuality, see Dave Miller (2012), “The President and Homosexuality,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=689&topic=36.
¹⁵ Four reasons why we can logically know that homosexuality is not genetically based: (1) The God of the Bible would not forbid or condemn a behavior, holding an individual culpable, if the behavior is in-born, endemic to a person’s being, or an act that the person cannot control or from which he cannot refrain; (2) In referring to homosexuals, when Paul said to the Corinthians, “such were some of you” (1 Corinthians 6:11), he demonstrated that practicing homosexuals can cease their illicit practice; (3) As a matter of fact, many practicing homosexuals have reformed, further proving that the practice is a choice; and (4) no scientific evidence exists demonstrating the presence of an alleged “gay” gene.
¹⁶ Mayer and McHugh, p. 6.

Why Is Jesus’ Resurrection Special? Video 9 min

https://apologeticspress.org/video/why-is-jesus-resurrection-special/ 

Click on the link above and follow the paths provided.

Zedekiah Would “Not See” Babylon? Video 8 min

https://apologeticspress.org/video/zedekiah-would-not-see-babylon/ 

Click on the link above and follow the paths provided.

 

“Devoid of Any Understanding of Logic”

Kyle Butt, D.Min.

Creation vs. EvolutionIn The NewsGod and Scientific LawsGod and Scientific LawsImplications of Evolution

One can read all kinds of material on the Internet these days. Millions of web pages flash across computer screens on a daily basis. A fraction of that material centers on the debate between creation and evolution. Both sides marshal their best defenses, and pump out information in support of their particular view. While it is understood that every person who produces material for one particular view is not the “official spokesperson” for that view, it is nonetheless very interesting to see what tactics are being used by certain evolutionists in their attempt to discredit creation.

Consider an article by Frank Zindler, for instance. The article is titled “ ‘Creation Science’ and the Facts of Evolution.” It is a rather dated article, being written back in 1987, but is currently posted on the American Atheists official website. From the fact that it is posted on the website of such a prominent atheistic organization, one can only conclude that the American Atheists organization concurs with the sentiments found in the article.

The article in question is a caustic attack against creation, as well as any person who adheres to this idea. In his attempt to discredit creation, Zindler informs the reader that he believes that most of those who believe in creation are quite “devoid of any understanding of logic.” When listing one of the reasons why he thinks creation is not a viable idea, he made this statement: “On the other hand, those components of creationism which involve certain types of magical events (e.g., the divine creation of a young universe with all of its components bearing the false imprint of great age) make the claims of creationism untestable—making creationism not a theory at all, because theories must be testable!”

Zindler then proceeded to explain that “the conclusion that evolution has occurred is drawn from two simple observations: Observation 1: Living things come only from living things. Spontaneous generation is not possible when living things are already in existence. Observation 2: Fossil remains show that living things in the remote past were very different from living things today. Therefore: Conclusion: Life has changed through time (evolved).”

Violà! In three simple sentences, Zindler presents his strongest case for evolution. Let’s briefly analyze Zindler’s logic. Remember that he claimed that most creationists were “devoid of any understanding of logic,” and that creationism could not qualify as a theory because, he says, it is untestable and “theories must be testable!”

Using his own criterion (testability) for a theory, apply his thinking to his first observation. He stated that spontaneous generation does not occur “when living things are already in existence.” The implied statement here is that life can spontaneously generate where there is not already life. In fact, he had an explanatory note beside his first observation. He said: “Life cannot originate now for at least two reasons.” The two reasons he listed were the fact that oxygen in the atmosphere would quickly destroy compounds necessary for life, and existing microbes would eat the compounds necessary for life. He went on to conclude, however that “neither of these roadblocks to spontaneous generation existed before life had formed.”

Please remember that his most important criterion for dubbing anything a legitimate theory is testability. Apply that to spontaneous generation. Can we do experiments that would test whether or not spontaneous generation could occur in an environment without oxygen and microbes to destroy the compounds necessary for life? Yes. And every origin of life experiment that has attempted such has failed miserably. Has any scientist anywhere, at any time, under any circumstance, ever been able to perform an experiment that could prove that spontaneous generation can occur? The answer is a resounding, NO! Spontaneous generation has failed in every single circumstance that we humans have ever been able to observe or imagine. In fact, every experiment performed to date has shown that it does not occur. It cannot be proven that our Earth’s atmosphere was at some time in the distant past devoid of oxygen and microbes. [In fact, scientists now have credible evidence that the early Earth’s atmosphere did, in fact, contain oxygen; see Thaxton, et al., 1984).] Furthermore, experiments have been performed that imitate an environment devoid of these “life inhibitors,” and still there has never been a verified case of spontaneous generation. Spontaneous generation has been proven false.

If Zindler discredits the idea of creation based partially on his statement that certain components cannot be tested, then what, pray tell, does he do when his strongest case for evolution is based on an idea that has been tested and found to be false? And who is it that seems to be “devoid of any understanding of logic” in this particular discussion? Zindler’s statements not withstanding, creation by the hand of a Supernatural Creator is the only idea that can adequately account for the world around us.

REFERENCES

Thaxton, Charles B., Walter L. Bradley, and Roger L. Olsen (1984), The Mystery of Life’s Origin (New York: Philosophical Library).

Zindler, Frank (1987), “ ‘Creation Science’ and the Facts of Evolution,” [On-line], URL: http://www.atheists.org/bone.pit/creationscience.html.

---

Published December 31, 2003

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

 

Martin Luther Speaks on “Faith Only” and Baptism

Kyle Butt, D.Min.

Bulletin ArticlesDoctrinal Matters

One popular belief in many protestant denominations is the idea that God supplies salvation to each and every person based solely on the faith of that person, apart from any action taken by that individual. This idea, often called sola fide, says, that a person is saved by faith alone. Any number of quotations demonstrating this doctrine can be cited. In a debate with Thomas Warren in 1953, L.S. Ballard affirmed the position that “the alien sinner is saved the very moment he/she believes that Jesus Christ is the son of God” (Warren and Ballard, 1953). This particular belief is commonly worded like this: “People are saved through Christ alone, by grace alone, through faith alone.”

According to the modern-day advocates of “faith alone” salvation, water baptism cannot be a requisite to salvation, because it is something “more than” faith. While space limitations prevent a thorough investigation of the biblical doctrine of baptism (see Lyons, 2003), it is interesting to note how far the “faith alone” doctrine has drifted from its original form.

The idea of being saved by faith alone is often attributed to Martin Luther. Indeed, he and the other reformers challenged the Catholic Church that sold indulgences and offered a “works-based” type of salvation. Martin Luther often taught that salvation was based on faith alone, and not received based upon a person’s meritorious works. Martin Luther did not, however, take faith alone to mean that mere mental assent to Christ’s deity was sufficient to obtain salvation. In fact, Luther’s idea of faith alone does not conform to the modern-day idea that baptism cannot be required for salvation.

While it is understood that the opinions of men are in no way authoritative when it comes to God’s plan for salvation, it is nonetheless interesting to note that Martin Luther believed wholeheartedly in the necessity of baptism as a requisite for salvation. In his Large Catechism, Luther wrote:

[I] affirm that Baptism is no human trifle, but that it was established by God Himself. Moreover, He earnestly and solemnly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved. No one is to think that it is an optional matter like putting on a red coat. It is of greatest importance that we hold Baptism in high esteem as something splendid and glorious. The reason why we are striving and battling so strenuously for this view of Baptism is that the world nowadays is full of sects that loudly proclaim that Baptism is merely an external form and that external forms are useless…. Although Baptism is indeed performed by human hands, yet it is truly God’s own action (1978, pp. 98-99).

From Luther’s comments about baptism, it is obvious that he viewed water baptism as essential for salvation. Many of the protestant denominations that attribute their ideas about “faith only” to Martin Luther have not been taught that Luther’s concept of faith alone was not in opposition to works of God (like baptism and repentance), but in opposition to meritorious works by which a person believes that he or she “earns” salvation.

What, then, would Martin Luther say to those today who teach that “faith alone” excludes baptism? Listen to his words pertaining to this teaching:

But our know-it-alls, the new spirit people, claim that faith alone saves and that human works and outward forms contribute nothing to this. We answer: It is of course true that nothing in us does it except faith, as we shall hear later. But these blind leaders of the blind refuse to see that faith must have something in which it believes, that is, something it clings to, something on which to plant its feet and into which to sink its roots. Thus faith clings to the water and believes Baptism to be something in which there is pure salvation and life, not through the water, as I have emphasized often enough, but because God’s name is joined to it…. If follows from this that whoever rejects Baptism rejects God’s word, faith, and the Christ who directs us to Baptism and binds us to it (1978, pp. 101-102).

Martin Luther was a man. He made many mistakes and believed things about the Bible that were not true. It should be noted, however, that the “faith only” doctrine attributed so often to him has been misrepresented on a grand scale. Martin Luther’s words are unambiguous and clear. His “faith only” doctrine did not exclude baptism as necessary for salvation. Could it be the case that those who loudly tout the “faith only” mantra have not thoroughly investigated the works of the man to whom the doctrine is so often attributed?

The Bible does teach that those who are being saved are saved by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9). It does not, however, teach that a person is saved “by faith alone” without any further acts of obedience. Even Martin Luther recognized that water baptism is not a meritorious work that earns a person salvation. On the other hand, it is an obedient act required by God in order for people to obtain salvation.

REFERENCES

Luther, Martin (1978), Luther’s Large Catechism, (Saint Louis, MO: Concordia).

Lyons, Eric (2003), “The Bible’s Teaching on Baptism: Contradictory or Complimentary,” [On-line], URL: https://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/617.

Warren, Thomas B. and L.S. Ballard (1953), The Warren-Ballard Debate, (Moore, OK: National Christian Press).

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

 

When Does Marriage Occur?

Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Doctrinal MattersMarriage and Fami

A widespread misconception that has characterized society is the idea that marriage does not actually occur until “consummation” occurs via sexual relations. However, the Bible does not concur with this misconception. Marriage is not sex. Sex is a privilege or benefit of marriage—an activity that God intends to be confined within the marriage relationship. Whether two people are married has nothing to do with whether they are engaging in sexual relations. Two people can be legally and scripturally married without ever engaging in sexual relations—even as pre-marital sexual relations do not make the participants married to each other. The notion of “consummating” the marriage—as if the marriage is not yet in effect until sexual intercourse—is an unbiblical notion. God requires people to be scripturally married before they engage in sexual relations. Hence, sexual intercourse is not what determines marriage.

A person who is impotent, or physically incapable of having sexual intercourse (e.g., a quadriplegic), can still be legally and scripturally married—though unable to engage in sexual relations. A young man who marries a girl and then is immediately shipped off to war, without a wedding night or honeymoon, is still legally married. If he dies in battle, his wife is his legal widow. “Marriage” is defined as “the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.” That means that marriage is an arrangement between two people who have mutually consented to be married to each other at a specified time and place, in compliance with whatever civil legalities are required to formalize and enact the marriage (i.e., a ceremony, license, etc.—provided the government does not enact unbiblical policies). It is an arrangement that involves many aspects in addition to sex—cohabitation being but one of those aspects.

Further, if marriage occurs at the point of the act of sex, a person would have to sin to get married—since the sexual foreplay/touching/arousal that a couple engages in as the prelude to sexual intercourse is defined in Scripture as “lasciviousness” (Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 4:19) for those not already married to each other.

Every culture/society has a moment in time when a couple is considered to be married. In American civilization, that moment has historically been when the preacher or Justice of the Peace says: “I now pronounce you man and wife.” All parties concerned—witnesses as well as the couple—understand and recognize that they are married at that point. Even the signing of the marriage license is a mere after-the-fact formality to comply with state record keeping. But the couple is officially married. If not, the preacher is stating a falsehood. In Africa, one tribal group counted a couple married when they held hands and jumped over a broomstick. That stick was the dividing line between unmarried and married. Every culture has some means by which that line is recognized—and it has nothing to do with sex. Even in the unique situation of Adam and Eve, the marriage ceremony was conducted by God in Genesis 2:23-24, concluding with Adam declaring acceptance of the marriage relationship.

Passages that show sexual activity does not define marriage:

1. John 4:17-18—the Samaritan woman was living with a man, undoubtedly having sexual relations with him, yet Jesus said he was not her husband (at least not legally in God’s sight).

2. Matthew 1:23-25—Joseph married Mary (“took Mary as his wife”), but did not have sexual relations with her until after Jesus was born.

3. 1 Corinthians 7:1-5—Suppose a man and woman go through their marriage ceremony, and then mutually agree to forego sexual relations for a period of time (perhaps due to illness of either one). If a married couple—with the approval of God according to Paul—can forego sexual relations for a brief period of time, could they not do so immediately after the marriage ceremony? But if marriage does not occur until sexual relations, the couple, though living together and giving the impression to all that they are married, would not actually be married. Suppose they had an automobile accident on the way to their honeymoon, and one was seriously injured and hospitalized for six months—would they still be married? Of course.

In 1 Corinthians 6:16, Paul teaches that sexual relations create an intimate physical union that God intended for marriage, which is why joining oneself sexually to a harlot is fornication and a sin against one’s body. So the Christian who does so is destroying his relationship to Christ, connecting his body to a harlot and thus severing his connection to Christ. The becoming “one” does not refer to marriage, but to the physical sexual connection between the two. In fact, observe that what makes sexual relations between two people who are scripturally married to each other legal and right is because they are married to each other. What makes sexual relations between a man and a harlot sinful and wrong is because they are not scripturally married to each other. Two people scripturally married to each other are authorized to “become one flesh” sexually with each other; those not scripturally married are not authorized to do so.

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.