• 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

Brother Don Milton said:
Sorry, but I have balls. Jesus specifically said that his words were meant for men without balls.
Matthew 19:11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
Matthew 19:12 For there are some born without balls, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some without balls, which were made to be without balls of men: and there be men without balls, which have made themselves men without balls for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
To be a man without balls is not admirable. It is a euphemism for one denied temple entry. To be unable to procreate is never lauded and should not be put forth as a metaphor for good men. It is a metaphor for bad men. Bad men, men without balls, are the ones to whom that verse is given according to Jesus words in the previous verse.
No divorce is the penalty for men guilty of raping an unbetrothed virgin. That woman would still be put to death if caught in adultery so those pushing no divorce except for adultery are claiming that Jesus considered all men rapists! That is the feminist message.
Matthew 5:31,32 can only be taken in context with the law which Jesus followed and taught. If one were to surmise why Jesus stated the simple fact that the one sending the woman away has broken wedlock, this term Tyndale used in his Bible would be an explanation since breaking wedlock does not always entail the sin of a woman being penetrated but the event of separating oneself from the prior spouse. And the man who takes the divorce woman confirms that wedlock has been broken. Stating simple facts does not create a prohibition.
Click to expand...
I would vociferously disagree with the idea that childlessness is a curse. Abraham and Zachariah were both excellent examples. David seemed to have a childless period himself. I should point out here too that I am expecting my 11th biological child any day now. My balls are YUUUUUGE!
 
rtidwell said:
Does anyone have additional content to add? I'd love to hear your favorite passages and/or quotes from theologians on marriage, polygyny, sex, etc... Thank you all!
Click to expand...
Procreation is only of tertiary importance to sex. The first purpose is to be a metaphor for the intimacy we are to ultimately live in with God and our position relative to Him. The second is to form and seal marriages that reflect that metaphor and then we finally get to procreation. Your way makes a childless marriage sexless. No bueno.
 
I like where you are swinging the pendulum. Even the "church" has adopted the family planning mantra and many look down on large families.

But, I can't see sex as limited to procreation. When a woman passes through menopause, is she not worthy of relations? Should it cease to be so with her and her man?
 
rtidwell said:
anything goes when the purpose of sex becomes temporary pleasure rather than the incredible miracle of creating life.
Click to expand...
To piggy back off @Mojo kind of. When we lost our youngest daughter there was complications and my wife is unable to have any more children, her reason for suggesting ploygyny actually, (which I initially rejected for a few personal reasons beyond the typical the church says it's a sin, chief amongst them was I would not be led by my wife stance) but the intimacy that gives us temporary pleasure has not created an anything goes attitude. It strengthens our relationship by reaffirming that I still desire her and that nothing has changed between us.
 
Mojo said:
I like where you are swinging the pendulum. Even the "church" has adopted the family planning mantra and many look down on large families.

But, I can't see sex as limited to procreation. When a woman passes through menopause, is she not worthy of relations? Should it cease to be so with her and her man?
Click to expand...

Thank you! To clarify, the primary purpose for sex is procreation; this is it’s first commanded and codified use in Scripture (Gen 1:28). Certainly sex factors into marital intimacy throughout marriage at all ages, we need only read Songs to know this is true. However, this is a secondary benefit and it is not essential to human relationships and affection in general; we can deeply love a person without ever having sex with them.

Sex being primarily for procreation is also evidenced by the fact that marriage (and it’s fruit of sex and offspring) comes to an end when we leave the Earth.

Luke 20:34-36 NIV
[34] Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. [35] But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, [36] and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection.

How wonderful eternity must be that marriage and sex are to be replaced by even greater pleasures and joys!

“However, as it is written: “What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived” — the things God has prepared for those who love him—” - 1 Cor 2:9

“See, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind.” - Isaiah 65:17
 
Kevin said:
To piggy back off @Mojo kind of. When we lost our youngest daughter there was complications and my wife is unable to have any more children, her reason for suggesting ploygyny actually, (which I initially rejected for a few personal reasons beyond the typical the church says it's a sin, chief amongst them was I would not be led by my wife stance) but the intimacy that gives us temporary pleasure has not created an anything goes attitude. It strengthens our relationship by reaffirming that I still desire her and that nothing has changed between us.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your response and for sharing. Again to clarify the original post is painting with broad strokes. Sex plays an important role within marital intimacy. I am simply addressing humankind and sexuality in general, similar to what Paul does in Romans 1.
 
Phillip said:
I probably wouldn’t use the word exception. It was allowed because of the hardness of the heart.

NET Bible
Jesus said to them, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because of your hard hearts, but from the beginning it was not this way.
Click to expand...

Divorce in general was “permitted” by Moses; even then, it was more of an “if you do this” situation rather than full permission (see Deut 24:1-4).

Jesus clarified that there is only one situation it is actually lawful; when the wife takes another lover and commits adultery.

Matthew 5:31-32 NIV
[31] “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce .’ f [32] But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. …

God Himself gave a certificate of divorce for this same reason in Jeremiah.

Jeremiah 3:8 NIV
[8] I gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away because of all her adulteries. Yet I saw that her unfaithful sister Judah had no fear; she also went out and committed adultery.

However, it’s clear in Scripture that reconciliation even within an adulterous situation is the better path. God has been merciful to Israel and all of us even though we’ve been adulterers in our relationship with Him.
 
Aussies said:
Thanks for your work and the effort that you have made to present this line of thought. I get where you are coming from.

But marriage can not only be for the purpose of procreation, can it? The situation mentioned above is of a couple of child bearing age that are "unable" to have children, but this would not have been understood until after the marriage had been formed. So what about the instruction to care for widows, or the young woman that due to medical issues could not have children and this was known in advance of any possible marriage, would that mean that if a woman was now to old, or unable to bear children she is left to a life without a husband? For that "main purpose" would not be a consideration in such a union. Would that now mean that any marriage to such ones falls short of the standard or even the intent of marriage, or is there more to it?
In the case of Naomi and Ruth, Naomi was the one considered by the relative for levitate marriage as she was past child bearing age but when it became apparent that Ruth was in the picture, then that relative withdrew his claim.

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 is also of interest (at least to my mind)
verse 11 says "and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you have desire for her and would take her for yourself as wife" Was that desire due to the fact that she would have great looking children? Or was it simply that the man wanted her for his own? Then verse 13 makes the point "after that you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife." But the very next verse tells us that if he is not pleased with her then she was free to go where ever she wanted. This was not about procreation, was it?
My concern is that sometimes, even when our motive are good and pure, we need to be careful that we do not go beyond what is written (1Cor 4:6) and insert our understanding of God's "intent". What his will is, is clearly stated in scripture, anything beyond that is simply our understanding. The issue is that if others listen to us rather than the scriptures we could become responsible for their lives being messed up, and that's a big responsibility to carry (Luke 17:2 "It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he be cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones" KJ)

Marriage can not only be for the purpose of procreation, can it? Is it not also for the caring for, and of, another? Are we not told to love our wives as our own flesh just as Christ loved the congregation.
Yes procreation is a key part of the marital union, but its not the primary function of the marital union. Gen 2: 18 makes makes a very good point, "it is not good that the man should be alone;" The same thing can be said of a woman today.
1 Samuel 1:8 "And Elkanah, her husband, said to her, "Hanna, why do you weep? And why do you not eat? And why is your heart sad? Am I not more to you than ten sons?" The heart and the love between a man and his wife is also a key factor. Sex can be for procreation but it can also be the most beautiful expression of love for your spouse. Prov 5:15 -18"Drink water from your own cistern, ........ Let your fountain be blessed and rejoice with the wife of your youth," Yes children are indeed a blessing but sow is a good and faithful wife.
But like I said, Thanks for your work and the effort that you have made to present this line of thought. I get where you are coming from.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your response! I believe my response to Mojo helps to clarify why sex is primarily for procreation. It also plays an important role in marital intimacy but it’s not essential to human relationships and affection in general.
 
Kevin said:
If you hate [her], Shalach (send [her] away), says the Lord God of Israel. For injustice shall cover his garment, said the Lord of Hosts, but you shall beware of your spirit, and do not deal treacherously.

This is the translation straight from the Hebrew. This is not God saying He hates divorce, nor is it Him saying He's ok with it either. This is a putting away not a writ of divorce situation.
This is man putting away his wife and God is making sure the man knows he's breaking covenant, telling him you'll know your doing wrong do not be unjust in the way he deals with his wife.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your response. I believe the interpretation is semantically the same; though divorce can be permitted (Matt 5:32, Matt 19:9), God is not pleased or thrilled with divorce in the same way He’s not pleased or thrilled with putting sinners to death (Ezekiel 18:32).

Young’s Literal says it this way...

“For I hate sending away, said Jehovah, God of Israel, And He who hath covered violence with his clothing, said Jehovah of Hosts, And ye have been watchful over your spirit, And ye do not deal treacherously” - Mal 2:16 YLT
 
rtidwell said:
Thank you! To clarify, the primary purpose for sex is procreation; this is it’s first commanded and codified use in Scripture (Gen 1:28). Certainly sex factors into marital intimacy throughout marriage at all ages, we need only read Songs to know this is true. However, this is a secondary benefit and it is not essential to human relationships and affection in general; we can deeply love a person without ever having sex with them.

Sex being primarily for procreation is also evidenced by the fact that marriage (and it’s fruit of sex and offspring) comes to an end when we leave the Earth.

Luke 20:34-36 NIV
[34] Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. [35] But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, [36] and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection.

How wonderful eternity must be that marriage and sex are to be replaced by even greater pleasures and joys!

“However, as it is written: “What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived” — the things God has prepared for those who love him—” - 1 Cor 2:9

“See, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind.” - Isaiah 65:17
Click to expand...
Thank you.
 
rtidwell said:
However, this is a secondary benefit and it is not essential to human relationships and affection in general; we can deeply love a person without ever having sex with them.
Click to expand...
If what you say is true, then what about Ex 21:10-11 "if he takes another for himself, her flesh, her clothing,and her conjugal right shall not be diminished. and if he does not do these three for her, she shall go out for nothing, without money." ( interlinear by J P Green) In this case it is not saying that unless he gives her a child she is free, but rather if he does not care for her most intimate needs (sex), she is free. That places the need for fulfillment in this matter (sex) right up there with food, shelter and clothing.
Some times it may be that due to our personal needs or sex drive, we see the matter as you are describing (just a secondary benefit), but that is not true of everyone. Why is fornication and adultery such a major issue in society, world wide? Even among those who claim Christ. It is true that we can love someone without having sex with them, but if that relationship is close enough then that desire can also burn like a fire, it may never be accomplished, but its still there and can have a major effect on the one afflicted by it.
At a personal level your thinking and position are fine, as that is between you and your wife, but when it comes to instruction others to follow the same line of reasoning, that is fraught with danger.
1 Cor 7:2 "But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not rule her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does. Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer, but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control.
Paul is not talking about having children or some insignificant little need that is easily controlled. Rather he is saying that this matter is such a base need for people that it should not be dismissed.
My concern is that this line of reasoning is not in harmony with the apostle Paul's counsel, as the needs for fulfillment (sex) is being presented as a secondary need and the responsibility to procreate is primary.
What if a couple read this instruction and we will say the husband agrees and see the need for sex a only a secondary need, but the wife over time comes to a different point in her life and then strays, would we not then carry some responsibility, before God for interfering in matters that are between a man and his wife ? For many sex is no secondary need but is a primary need and must be fulfilled and I believe that this is one of those matters that is between a man and his wife and we need to be very careful when we start to give advise that does not align with the comments of others such as Paul.
The instruction from the scriptures is there for a reason as we are all different with different needs wants and desires. not everyone will see things as we do, the issue comes in when we try to instruct others according to our own needs or thinking.
 
Aussies said:
If what you say is true, then what about Ex 21:10-11 "if he takes another for himself, her flesh, her clothing,and her conjugal right shall not be diminished. and if he does not do these three for her, she shall go out for nothing, without money." ( interlinear by J P Green) In this case it is not saying that unless he gives her a child she is free, but rather if he does not care for her most intimate needs (sex), she is free. That places the need for fulfillment in this matter (sex) right up there with food, shelter and clothing.
Some times it may be that due to our personal needs or sex drive, we see the matter as you are describing (just a secondary benefit), but that is not true of everyone. Why is fornication and adultery such a major issue in society, world wide? Even among those who claim Christ. It is true that we can love someone without having sex with them, but if that relationship is close enough then that desire can also burn like a fire, it may never be accomplished, but its still there and can have a major effect on the one afflicted by it.
At a personal level your thinking and position are fine, as that is between you and your wife, but when it comes to instruction others to follow the same line of reasoning, that is fraught with danger.
1 Cor 7:2 "But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not rule her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does. Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer, but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control.
Paul is not talking about having children or some insignificant little need that is easily controlled. Rather he is saying that this matter is such a base need for people that it should not be dismissed.
My concern is that this line of reasoning is not in harmony with the apostle Paul's counsel, as the needs for fulfillment (sex) is being presented as a secondary need and the responsibility to procreate is primary.
What if a couple read this instruction and we will say the husband agrees and see the need for sex a only a secondary need, but the wife over time comes to a different point in her life and then strays, would we not then carry some responsibility, before God for interfering in matters that are between a man and his wife ? For many sex is no secondary need but is a primary need and must be fulfilled and I believe that this is one of those matters that is between a man and his wife and we need to be very careful when we start to give advise that does not align with the comments of others such as Paul.
The instruction from the scriptures is there for a reason as we are all different with different needs wants and desires. not everyone will see things as we do, the issue comes in when we try to instruct others according to our own needs or thinking.
Click to expand...

A hierarchy of importance is not a reduction of value. Take the verse you mentioned as the example as it too reveals a hierarchy:

“If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.” - Ex 21:10

Food and clothing are more essential to life than sex. You can have all the sex in the world but you’ll soon die of starvation and exposure to the elements if you do not have the others placed at a higher priority.

Have you ever gone bushcrafting? What does one need first out of several important needs? Shelter. Shelter is first because a person can die in one night without it. Then water because a person has three days before total dehydration. Then hopefully you can also have a fire for comfort, protection, cooking. Then food to prevent starvation. The hierarchy then is Shelter > Water > Fire > Food.

In a perfect world I like to have all 4 together immediately but in survival you must go with the most important first.

Marital intimacy is valuable but not as important as procreation. If every heterosexual couple on Earth has sex but never procreates, instead they simply enjoy the pleasure and forever take steps not to conceive, the human race goes extinct. Furthermore, if every couple were homosexual on Earth, having sex with no procreation, again we go extinct. By placing offspring as the highest priority, everything the Bible calls sexual sin makes perfect sense.

The priority then is procreation and offspring. This hierarchy of importance does not devalue intimacy in the same way building a shelter does not devalue a fire.
 
Say what!
I don't mean to be offensive, but with that kind of reasoning I am not sure you should be making a video at all. If and buts just don't cut it!
rtidwell said:
If every heterosexual couple on Earth has sex but never procreates
Click to expand...
Come on we both know that is never going to happen!
Perhaps its best to just stick with what the scriptures say and leave the private matters of the marriage bed to the husband and wife in that bed, frankly its none of our business whether or not a couple choose to have children or if they just enjoy each others company. Either way they are within the bounds of the scriptural framework for a married couple.
I appreciate your intent but some things are just best left alone!
 
Aussies said:
Say what!
I don't mean to be offensive, but with that kind of reasoning I am not sure you should be making a video at all. If and buts just don't cut it!

Come on we both know that is never going to happen!
Perhaps its best to just stick with what the scriptures say and leave the private matters of the marriage bed to the husband and wife in that bed, frankly its none of our business whether or not a couple choose to have children or if they just enjoy each others company. Either way they are within the bounds of the scriptural framework for a married couple.
I appreciate your intent but some things are just best left alone!
Click to expand...

Extinction without procreation is a legitimate concern; why do you believe God commanded (not suggested) the first couple in Genesis to procreate? Why did He command it of Noah’s family after the flood? Sadly there is another cataclysmic event coming; the Tribulation and the Second Coming. The Earth will then be repopulated by procreation during the Millennial Kingdom.

I’m afraid you’ve taken one line from a full paragraph out of context and ignored the premise: the world is encouraging less children, more birth control, more abortion, more homosexuality - have you observed this trend? Which Kingdom inspires it?

This trend is contrary to Scripture; if God wants offspring (He does - Gen 1:28, Gen 9:1-7, Mal 2:15, etc) then what does the Enemy want? Satan is in rebellion to God, He hates and desires to destroy those made in His image; he hates people, God loves people.

I am not making a new argument in this video; God Himself uses offspring, not intimacy, as being the primary reason not to commit the sin of adultery. Is He out of line for doing so?

“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.” - Mal 2:15

Overall, the problem stems from our adopting the worlds argument for sex; that it is primarily for intimacy when that is a secondary benefit. If a person supposed intimacy is the primary reason for the existence of sex, they can now successfully argue in favor of homosexuality (and other sins) because sex can in fact increase intimacy between same sex couples.

I’ll give you one more hierarchy of importance example that may help; water. Water is good for drinking and bathing, but which is more important? Drinking. We certainly need it for bathing too lest we smell terrible or even develop disease. Even so, it’s first and most important use for human beings, whom are 50-75% water, is drinking.

In the same way, sex’s first and most important use for human beings is procreation followed by intimacy.

Finally, my video will be encouraging people to produce offspring as the Scriptures command repeatedly while simultaneously compelling people not to abort, adulterate, or commit sin. The video will employ the same objective reasoning not to sin as Malachi 2:15 does. This is a video that should not be made?
 
One of the things I enjoy about studying the construct of the Biblical Family is that it is more of a holistic approach to the family.

Something to keep in mind is that the creation of a child does not guarantee a Godly seed. Nor does a Godly parent or set of parents. Nor does immersion in a Biblical culture or an entire lifetime devoted to molding the child.

The procreation approach IMO is a small but no doubt important factor in a Godly seed, but, to focus on one small factor to the exclusion of the whole will lead to an unsavory smell and can negate the message as a whole.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top