• 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

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.

I agree, procreation does not guarantee Godly offspring but it is the essential first step. Never procreating or homosexuality will certainly never produce Godly offspring.

Once the child is born our duty then is to train them in Godliness.

“Start children off on the way they should go, and even when they are old they will not turn from it.” - Prov 22:6

Children will of course have their own decisions to make and temptations to overcome as they become adults but we, and the Lord we taught them about, will be there to guide.
 
My point is more to the effect that procreation for a Godly seed is the natural outcome of a Biblical Family construct. The absence of that construct virtually ensures (minus the grace of God) an ungodly seed in the next generation if not the first. Focus on the whole and the procreation factor will naturally align in God’s will and timing.
 
My point is more to the effect that procreation for a Godly seed is the natural outcome of a Biblical Family construct. The absence of that construct virtually ensures (minus the grace of God) an ungodly seed in the next generation if not the first. Focus on the whole and the procreation factor will naturally align in God’s will and timing.

Agreed. Good point!
 
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

I agree. The meaning that its not a pleasing thing to Him comes across comes in both translations. I've just seen the God says He hates divorce thrown down like a trump card to emotional manipulate someone into resignation of their fate instead of talking to them and helping them work through the issues they are having and why they are having them. Whether its a wife whos not submitting to a Husband, usually because she is in all out rebellion or having trust issues that need to be addressed to get her heart back on the right track or A Husband who is breaking His Vows, to me not knowing you had other options like polygyny is not an excuse were told not to break our oaths/vows better to be men of our words and let our yes be yes and our no be no, you made the oath you must be released from it, but I digress.

I personally have a hang up about the exact wording. Never just take my translation or anyone's as accurate. Check it out for yourself. Strongs is not a good source for Hebrew. Also if your interested Zola's Introduction To Hebrew will help you with the fundamentals. @IshChayil is still by far the best translator here so pick his mind if you want.

כִּֽי־שָׂנֵ֣א שַׁלַּ֗ח אָמַ֤ר יְהוָה֙ אֱלֹהֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וְכִסָּ֤ה חָמָס֙ עַל־לְבוּשֹׁ֔ו אָמַ֖ר יְהוָ֣ה צְבָאֹ֑ות וְנִשְׁמַרְתֶּ֥ם בְּרוּחֲכֶ֖ם וְלֹ֥א תִבְגֹּֽדוּ׃ ס
 
I'm playing catch up and skimming, so please forgive me if this is redundant.

I don't know if you've read any Stephen B. Clark, but he suggests in Man and Woman in Christ that when God was solving the 'not good that man be alone' problem, he didn't give man the woman primarily to be a companion and soulmate, but to generate children with, specifically sons. A man's principal companionship and 'not-aloneness' comes from his brotherhood with other men.

If you're like me, you'll have to incubate that awhile....
 
I'm playing catch up and skimming, so please forgive me if this is redundant.

I don't know if you've read any Stephen B. Clark, but he suggests in Man and Woman in Christ that when God was solving the 'not good that man be alone' problem, he didn't give man the woman primarily to be a companion and soulmate, but to generate children with, specifically sons. A man's principal companionship and 'not-aloneness' comes from his brotherhood with other men.

If you're like me, you'll have to incubate that awhile....
Well now, that’s a horse of a different color!
 
I'm playing catch up and skimming, so please forgive me if this is redundant.

I don't know if you've read any Stephen B. Clark, but he suggests in Man and Woman in Christ that when God was solving the 'not good that man be alone' problem, he didn't give man the woman primarily to be a companion and soulmate, but to generate children with, specifically sons. A man's principal companionship and 'not-aloneness' comes from his brotherhood with other men.

If you're like me, you'll have to incubate that awhile....
Definitely needs incubation. Not sure I buy it, but I will let it marinate.

I just think of all those men in prison, having looootttss of brotherhood time. Inevitably they look for companionship, but not the kind I want...o_O
 
I'm playing catch up and skimming, so please forgive me if this is redundant.

I don't know if you've read any Stephen B. Clark, but he suggests in Man and Woman in Christ that when God was solving the 'not good that man be alone' problem, he didn't give man the woman primarily to be a companion and soulmate, but to generate children with, specifically sons. A man's principal companionship and 'not-aloneness' comes from his brotherhood with other men.

If you're like me, you'll have to incubate that awhile....

Wow, awesome point!
 
A man's principal companionship and 'not-aloneness' comes from his brotherhood with other men.
I just think of all those men in prison, having looootttss of brotherhood time. Inevitably they look for companionship, but not the kind I want...o_O

As I sit on my perch of things, surveying all that is under my wings, I feel hollow. I am the master and the teacher of all in my house and my word is law. Inside my domain, all points of view are subject to being overridden by me. I love them all, but the nature of my relationship with them is that they are malleable to me. But outside my grasp are men who stand free from my influence and are my peers that are not malleable, but change as they see fit. It is those among that number that can see what I see, or can see better than I see, that I feel that I am not alone.
 
I don't know if you've read any Stephen B. Clark, but he suggests in Man and Woman in Christ that when God was solving the 'not good that man be alone' problem, he didn't give man the woman primarily to be a companion and soulmate, but to generate children with, specifically sons. A man's principal companionship and 'not-aloneness' comes from his brotherhood with other men.
Interesting idea. My hubby gets along with people, and can talk with men or women in work or in being neighborly. He also enjoys spending time with our children and doing things with our adult sons. That said I am his favorite companion, and the one he would always choose to accompany him running errands or on a road trip. He may be a "rare breed" but he really doesn't like hanging with the guys very much.
*shrugs*
As I sit on my perch of things, surveying all that is under my wings, I feel hollow. I am the master and the teacher of all in my house and my word is law. Inside my domain, all points of view are subject to being overridden by me. I love them all, but the nature of my relationship with them is that they are malleable to me. But outside my grasp are men who stand free from my influence and are my peers that are not malleable, but change as they see fit. It is those among that number that can see what I see, or can see better than I see, that I feel that I am not alone.
If this explains @andrew 's point I get it completely!
 
As I sit on my perch of things, surveying all that is under my wings, I feel hollow. I am the master and the teacher of all in my house and my word is law. Inside my domain, all points of view are subject to being overridden by me. I love them all, but the nature of my relationship with them is that they are malleable to me. But outside my grasp are men who stand free from my influence and are my peers that are not malleable, but change as they see fit. It is those among that number that can see what I see, or can see better than I see, that I feel that I am not alone.
Well said (as usual).

Men. And. Women. Are. Different. (Big duh in this group, I know, but sometimes these days it's worth repeating.) Consequently, male/male, male/female, and female/female relationships are all Different.

And @Joleneakamama, I'm not arguing with you, because I think we're talking about two different things, but notice that you described your husband's seeking pleasant company on an errand trip or a road trip. That is a completely different kind of 'not being alone' from the kind that has to do with being a man and doing specifically man stuff. And I can't improve any on what Slumber wrote about being peers, so I'll just leave it at that.
 
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.

I agree with much of your outline. I very much disagree with your hierarchy. The reason is that the scripture does not explicitly teach it.

I see you offering evidence of your hierarchy and implications that support your hierarchy. What I don't see is anywhere the scripture explicitly teaches it.

I encourage you not to teach something publicly that isn't explicitly taught in scripture.

Teaching via what scripture "infers" is the way people demonize polygyny, slander the prophets, slander the patriarchs, slander Torah...

You are on a rare path and a good path to be a pastor and to support the biblical teachings on polygyny and mens and womens roles. I am not your judge but I feel strongly that God must be pleased with your boldness. So can I respectfully plead with you not to make hierarchys or lists unless they are explicitly in the scripture. I hope you can hear my respect for your work. I pray that your teachings be pure and free from the influence of eisegesis and leaven.

The other reason I encourage you to stay clear of purely inferential teachings no matter how sure you feel about the inference is so that you will be powerful and shut every mouth that comes against you.

Let me also say that I'm referring to teaching in public. If you are advising people privately that if very different.

May God bless your ministry and make it fruitful!
 
I agree with much of your outline. I very much disagree with your hierarchy. The reason is that the scripture does not explicitly teach it.

I see you offering evidence of your hierarchy and implications that support your hierarchy. What I don't see is anywhere the scripture explicitly teaches it.

I encourage you not to teach something publicly that isn't explicitly taught in scripture.

Teaching via what scripture "infers" is the way people demonize polygyny, slander the prophets, slander the patriarchs, slander Torah...

You are on a rare path and a good path to be a pastor and to support the biblical teachings on polygyny and mens and womens roles. I am not your judge but I feel strongly that God must be pleased with your boldness. So can I respectfully plead with you not to make hierarchys or lists unless they are explicitly in the scripture. I hope you can hear my respect for your work. I pray that your teachings be pure and free from the influence of eisegesis and leaven.

The other reason I encourage you to stay clear of purely inferential teachings no matter how sure you feel about the inference is so that you will be powerful and shut every mouth that comes against you.

Let me also say that I'm referring to teaching in public. If you are advising people privately that if very different.

May God bless your ministry and make it fruitful!

Hi Paulsen, thank you for your response and encouragement!

I wouldn’t be too quick to declare that a hierarchy for sex is non existent in Scripture or that this teaching is extra-biblical. Please consider the following:

1a. The first time sex is ever presented in Scripture, God defines its purpose (and consequently the purpose for His making Eve for Adam).

“God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth...” - Genesis 1:28

“Be fruitful” = have sex

Why have relations? The answer is given immediately.

“Increase in number; fill the Earth” = procreate

The very first time sex is ever mentioned by God, He explicitly states to use it to make children. This sets the precedent for the rest of Scripture and all the Law declares righteous or sinful with regards to sexual relationships. Acts that prevent or slow down “increase in number” are declared sin.

Example: one can successfully argue in favor of homosexuality if human sexual relations exist for intimacy’s sake. However, one cannot successfully argue in favor of homosexuality if human sexual relations exist for procreation’s sake.

1b. Again, when Noah and his family were tasked with repopulating Earth...

“Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth.” - Genesis 9:1

Had Adam or Noah and his sons simply ignored God and merely had sex for pleasure and intimacy's sake, mankind would have gone extinct.

1c. The Early Church likewise had this understanding that marriage is primarily for procreation.

In writing to Timothy, Paul states that older widows (60yrs+) did not need to get married again, while younger widows ought to marry. Why? The elder widow was not expected to procreate any longer (she already has children in verse 10), while the younger was (in order to have children in verse 14).

“No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over sixty...” - 1 Tim 5:9

“So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children...” - 1 Tim 5:14

1d. Marriage ceases in Heaven; certainly affection and intimacy continue eternally but there will be no more need for procreation, hence marriage ends.

“Luke 20:34-35 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,”

2a. Hierarchies are presented by Jesus with regards to the Law.

““Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.” - Matthew 23:23

Jesus took issue with the Pharisees because they had failed to apply a proper hierarchy to matters outlined in the Law. They had made smaller matters the priority and consequently “neglected the more important matters.”

It was acceptable and necessary to practice the smaller matters (tithing spices) but not at the expense of the more important ones (caring for the poor, forgiving neighbors, sticking with commitments).

Jesus reveals this hierarchy existed and was expected to be perceived by the Pharisees but they failed to do so. I’m afraid we’re doing the same with regards to sex.

2b. Another Scriptural hierarchy we’re all familiar with is the Biblical Family.

“But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” - 1 Cor 11:3

“Ephesians 5:23-25 NIV
[23] For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. [24] Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. [25] Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her …”

Father > Son > Husband > Wife > Children

3. Nature, created by God, has natural hierarchies that do not require Scripture for us to comprehend.

Consider water; water is useful for drinking, bathing, cooking, cleansing, etc... but what is its primary (or first) purpose?

Drinking. If a man bathes, cooks, and cleans but does not drink, he will die.

So it is with sex; if all mankind has sexual relations throughout life but never procreates, humanity goes extinct.

Overall, we were created by the Creator to be creators like Him; this is what it means to be made in His Image. Sadly, we’ve chosen to be destroyers serving the Destroyer. This video is a call for people to repent and return to the Creator and be creators with Him again.
 
Last edited:
Example: one can successfully argue in favor of homosexuality if human sexual relations exist for intimacy’s sake. However, one cannot successfully argue in favor of homosexuality if human sexual relations exist for procreation’s sake.

This objection melts away when you realize that the main role of sex/marriage is to serve as a metaphor of the relationship between God and man. In that metaphor men represent God and women represent mankind. Homosexual relations would then represent two gods; controverting the fundamental truth of existence, there is only one God. This way you don't have to explain why so many righteous people in the Bible seemed to struggle with fertility or invalidate the marriages of millions of believers who are childless against their will.
 
I dunno. To me this is what happens when the blind men start arguing about the nature of the elephant. Does there have to be only one "main" purpose of sex or marriage or anything?

All the metaphorical stuff gets put on the marriage relationship by Paul way down the road, and it's interesting and helpful stuff. But Rich has a very simple and plain point: In the garden, God sees that the man is alone, judges that situation to be 'not good', creates a woman, presents her to the man, and says "go make babies, lots of 'em", apparently solving the loneliness problem once and for all (and man has never had any peace since... ;)).

Maybe we could just agree that both purposes are important, so far as we understand them, and that each of our understandings is going to be limited by factors outside of our control, and the best holographic image we're going to get of what the reality of the situation is will be produced when we compare and synthesize our perspectives, not when we argue over the supremacy of individual perspectives.
 
Meanwhile, to Rich's point, blended with Zec's point, if reproduction and metaphor are both more important than soulmate companionship (if that's even on the list), then one might argue from the garden and Ephesians that God's purpose in constituting the church is not just for the bride to hang around the groom and make him feel good about himself, but to get to work to produce lots more sons and daughters....
 
Meanwhile, to Rich's point, blended with Zec's point, if reproduction and metaphor are both more important than soulmate companionship (if that's even on the list), then one might argue from the garden and Ephesians that God's purpose in constituting the church is not just for the bride to hang around the groom and make him feel good about himself, but to get to work to produce lots more sons and daughters....
Boom!
 
This objection melts away when you realize that the main role of sex/marriage is to serve as a metaphor of the relationship between God and man. In that metaphor men represent God and women represent mankind. Homosexual relations would then represent two gods; controverting the fundamental truth of existence, there is only one God. This way you don't have to explain why so many righteous people in the Bible seemed to struggle with fertility or invalidate the marriages of millions of believers who are childless against their will.

Regarding the metaphorical understanding of marriage, I believe Andrew has given very thoughtful answers.

Regarding infertility, it is undoubtedly a complicated and emotional subject (i.e. Hannah's story in 1 Samuel 1:1-20). Yet even in cases of infertility, God has offered an equally valuable opportunity for Christians to grow Biblical families: adoption. In fact, adoption is so desirable a method of family building, God employed it when He welcomed each of us into His family (Eph 1:5, Rom 8:15).

While sex exists for procreation in the general sense, I believe the goal is Godly family building; children having a Godly Mom and Dad, Moms and Dads raising up Godly children. Thankfully, Christian men and women can be parents even if not biologically. Every year in the USA, there are 20,000 children who are never adopted and age-out of foster care. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of children are currently in care longing for foster and adoptive families. This is a crisis the Christian Church is capable of solving when we foster and adopt.

An encouraging example: A good friend of mine was unable to conceive for years; after many expensive attempts, modern medicine declared it would be impossible for her due to several factors. She and her husband decided they would instead adopt, believing it was God's will for their family; adoption relieved the heartache she repeatedly experienced and joy filled theirs and their children's lives again. Today they have 3 beautiful adopted children and later she naturally conceived and miraculously gave birth to two biological children! It was an awesome surprise! All I know is they submitted to the will of God, trusted in His goodness, obeyed His repeated commands to look after the fatherless (James 1:27, Isaiah 1:17, etc) and He subsequently opened her womb to have 2 more; God blessed an infertile woman with 5 kids!

"A father to the fatherless, a defender of widows, is God in his holy dwelling. God sets the lonely in families..." - Psalm 68:5-6

Overall, I believe it is God's will for married couples to build a family whether by birth or adoption. God wills to set the lonely orphan and the lonely infertile woman into a family together; He does good for them both through adoption.
 
Last edited:
Regarding the metaphorical understanding of marriage, I believe Andrew has given very thoughtful answers.

Regarding infertility, it is undoubtedly a complicated and emotional subject (i.e. Hannah's story in 1 Samuel 1:1-20). Yet even in cases of infertility, God has offered an equally valuable opportunity for Christians to grow Biblical families: adoption. In fact, adoption is so desirable a method of family building, God employed it when He welcomed each of us into His family (Eph 1:5, Rom 8:15).

While sex exists for procreation in the general sense, I believe the goal is Godly family building; children having a Godly Mom and Dad, Moms and Dads raising up Godly children. Thankfully, Christian men and women can be parents even if not biologically. Every year in the USA, there are 20,000 children who are never adopted and age-out of foster care. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of children are currently in care longing for foster and adoptive families. This is a crisis the Christian Church is capable of solving when we foster and adopt.

An encouraging example: A good friend of mine was unable to conceive for years; after many expensive attempts, modern medicine declared it would be impossible for her due to several factors. She and her husband decided they would instead adopt, believing it was God's will for their family; adoption relieved the heartache she repeatedly experienced and joy filled theirs and their children's lives again. Today they have 3 beautiful adopted children and later she naturally conceived and miraculously gave birth to two biological children! It was an awesome surprise! All I know is they submitted to the will of God, trusted in His goodness, obeyed His repeated commands to look after the fatherless (James 1:27, Isaiah 1:17, etc) and He subsequently opened her womb to have 2 more; God blessed an infertile woman with 5 kids!

"A father to the fatherless, a defender of widows, is God in his holy dwelling. God sets the lonely in families..." - Psalm 68:5-6

Overall, I believe it is God's will for married couples to build a family whether by birth or adoption. God wills to set the lonely orphan and the lonely infertile woman into a family together; He does good for them both through adoption.
Beautiful and well said.
I saw this beautiful documentary on the subject of infertility and adoption, showing that it was beyond doubt The Father's plan for this family.
 
Back
Top