With that disclaimer, let’s look into other marriage arrangements that have been promulgated now and in times past.

Living Together

We mentioned this in the last article, so I won’t dwell on this one long, other than to say the following. While most people don’t view this as a marriage, if sexual intercourse has taken place, it is. If not, then it is merely living together.

The problem with this arrangement, when sexual intercourse is involved, is that there is often not a marital commitment made by the couple. It is understood more as a dating/going-steady type relationship that could end at any time. The expectation is either couple could decide to switch partners, in effect divorcing their spouse and marrying another. So there is no understanding of this being a marriage, even though in reality it is. Children that may have been conceived will bear witness to that reality.

In essence, the only missing marital bond in most of these cases is legal. Because a lot of people living together don’t have that, they don’t think of themselves as married, not tied down, and will tend to easily tear asunder what God and nature have joined.

Bottom line, if you’ve had sex, you are not merely living together, you are married. One should treat it as such and fully commit to that person as a spouse, not as a “partner.”

Polygamy

Polygamy is a marital arrangement where one spouse has multiple spouses. Traditionally, one man marries multiple wives, but could be reversed. Such marital arrangements are seen throughout the Old Testament. For instance, Abraham had two wives. Some of the kings like David and Solomon had several, often for political reasons more than personal desire.

However, these multiple spouses were not as common back then as some might think. Often the ability to have more than one wife was linked to one’s wealth and status. The poorer folk didn’t have the means to support more than one wife. Additionally, these arrangements often involved a lot of jealousy among the wives, and fed low self-esteem if they felt neglected. Our built in emotional need for monogamy tends to eat away at such family relationships. As can be seen even today, the descendants of Abraham’s two wives are still at each other’s throats four thousand years later.

Per our discussion on marriage, this arrangement has two big problems. One, it violates God’s ideal for marriage. As Jesus related, God’s design was for a man and a woman to be united into one flesh, period. Uniting to another involves divorcing and remarrying again, committing adultery each time. In effect, a man with multiple wives isn’t married to them all in reality, but to one at a time, whoever he’s had sex with last. He is also committing adultery constantly, rending asunder over and over again each marital union created.

Polygamy involves the constant uniting and rending asunder of that marital union, no matter what is legally allowed. So why was it allowed in the Old Testament?

One, there are no Bible passages that allow it. Merely none prohibiting it. Big difference.

Two, it was a culturally accepted practice at the time. While it didn’t meet God’s ideal, a lot of things didn’t due to our fallen nature. God had to pick his “fights,” so to speak. It isn’t until Jesus comes along that this original intention of God is more fully explained. It is then in the New Testament qualifications for bishops, deacons, and the office of widow, that they be the spouse of one other person, not multiple. Because God’s representatives were to reflect God’s ideal in marriage.

So how could Abraham and others be called righteous if they were wrong to have multiple wives? Because as St. Paul says, where there is no law, there is no sin. If God had come down and told them, “You can’t do that, because I consider it a form of adultery,” then they would have been held accountable for not obeying. But knowing their culture and fallen nature, God chose not to make it an issue at the time. Therefore, they were not held accountable for this violation, because they “did not know what they did.”

The one area that polygamy does have an advantage over all other alternate forms of marriage is that it treats the sexual union as a real marriage, with the accompanying commitments and support such a union deserves, at least in theory. As we’ll see, this is not the case with most alternate arrangements.

Open Marriage

An open marriage usually involves the freedom of either spouse to have sexual relations with someone other than their “spouse,” most often within a set of rules or boundaries. Though it is possible to be totally open with whoever without accountability, most boundaries involve keeping each other informed of one’s sex partners and measures preventing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

This is a similar arrangement to polygamy, except though one is not “married” to they’re partners, but are more like mistresses than wives. This arrangement has a lot of the same problems that a polygamist marriage does. But it has the additional problem that living together has, but in greater measure. It treats sex as not uniting two people into one, but as a mere recreational activity. Most extra partners have no social/cultural union with either spouse, and often no emotional union much less a legal union. Consequently, the commitment to life-long union and establishing a family basis with a spouse is lost, violating the uniting aspect of sex.

Homosexual Marriage

Much of late has been made of homosexual marriage on the legal front. The last election cycle saw several states legalize “same-sex” marriages. Homosexuals see marriage as a right the state grants which has been denied them, while many against it see it as legitimizing sin and making it the moral equivalent of marriage, even understanding the effort to be “redefining” marriage.

However, as we have detailed, the government can’t define marriage, it can only recognize it and provide support for it. Because the state calls something a marriage doesn’t mean it is. Nor does it have the power to change reality any more than it can turn an apple into an orange by passing a law that it is so.

Rather, biologically, two people can only be considered married who have a sexual union potentially capable of producing children. Since homosexual sex can never do that, real marriage is impossible, biologically. Without the possibility of biological parenthood attached to homosexual sex, there is no marital union taking place. It cannot replicate what sex between a man and a woman does.

Likewise, Biblically, homosexual marriage is impossible. There can be no “two becoming one flesh” without the potential of children from that union. This is why Jesus said, “a man and a woman” can unite into one flesh, specifically. Quite apart from the moral issues surrounding homosexual sex, such acts cannot produce a biological family unit, which starts with the parents uniting in an act that can create a family.

“But we love one another!” “But we’ve said vows to one another!” “I’m as committed to him as much as any husband and wife!” That all may be true. But none of that makes it a marriage. Even if a man and woman live together, are emotionally united to one another, become legally married, call each other husband and wife, and live that way until thy die in total commitment to one another, yet if they have sex of every type save intercourse, they would not in reality be married—they would not be one flesh. They would be no different than two very close friends who care intimately for each other.

So is the case for homosexual “unions.” Apart from the questions of sin and whether one can be homosexual, such “unions” are nothing more than two very good friends living together, having committed themselves to one another in various ways, and participating in sexual play for purely recreational/love value. But love does not make a marriage real. There are many friends who love another friend more deeply than many spouses. The lack of love does not invalidate a marriage, nor does its presence create one. It supports a marital bond created by sexual union, as we documented in the three previous articles.

We should note, that this does not invalidate any legal discrimination at the heart of the homosexual drive to legalize same-sex marriages. I personally think it is a bad idea to label them “marriages,” because they aren’t and it isn’t accurate, but a case could be made for a “civil union” to address the legal issues involved. Because that is all the state can do—legally unite two people into a committed relationship. It cannot create a marriage where none exists or can exist.

Conclusions

All of these alternate forms of marriage violate God’s ideal as Jesus laid it out: one man and one woman uniting into one flesh via sexual union for their entire lives, with no one else involved. All involve repeated or planned adultery (not necessarily cheating) by a spouse uniting to someone else, thus divorcing their spouse and remarrying another, except in the case of a couple living together who never break up or have sex with another. The only people, Biblically, who don’t commit adultery in that situation are when the other spouse has already committed adultery, or they have died.

This is all true, except for homosexuals. Since they cannot be married, it is impossible for them to commit adultery. They can cheat and be unfaithful to their commitments to one another, but there is no marital union to tear asunder nor can their type of sexual activities create a marriage that would divorce a real spouse.

Next time, we will look at the myths behind divorce, adultery, and marriage.

When most people think of marriage, they frame it in terms of cultural characteristics. Many see marriage as a culturally conditioned living arrangement and not much more. Too many view marriage as society’s official permission to have sexual relations. However, this is a backwards view of the reality.

Common Cultural Characteristics

First, let’s consider the common culturally expected characteristics. This is by necessity a general view. There are always exceptions and variations. These, however, will be what most people think of as being “married.”

Legal union. If you ask most secular people what makes a person married, you’ll most often hear some form of when the state grants a couple a marriage license or recognizes their union in some fashion. Especially this tends to be a dominate view of the homosexual community who views marriage as a right granted by the government, of which they are being unfairly discriminated against.

The problem is many Christians tend to buy into this view as well, thus the concern that granting homosexuals marital rights will somehow redefine marriage. There may be legal concerns at stake, but as we will see, the government has no ability to change the definition of marriage. We will leave this issue for a fuller discussion in the next article.

What is often missing from most people’s understanding of this basis is history. It wasn’t until the Byzantine empire that a government granted marriage license. Prior to that, it was handled at the family level. A betrothal was a contract between two families to allow a union to take place between their children. At that point, even though marriage had not yet been finalized, a couple would have to divorce to derail the proceedings. But couples nor their families had to get permission from the government to marry.

In the history of man, it is a relatively recent phenomenon that the state granted permission for anyone to marry. The main reason for state involvement was to recognize a union so that if it broke up, assets could be divided equitably through the courts and family ties recorded to prevent inbreeding. The state didn’t grant someone the right to marry. The state recognized that someone was married, and the need to do that arose from the existing or pending marriage, not creating or defining what marriage is.

This reality is obvious in the United States, in that most states have some form of “common law” marriage. That is, if a couple meets certain criteria without getting a formal marriage license, the state will considered them married. Some states require a certain amount of time living together to have passed. Others are even easier.

In Texas, for instance, as of this writing, for a couple to be considered legally married, all they have to do is present themselves as such before witnesses. A dating couple could attend a party and introduce each other as husband and wife, and they’d be legally married in Texas without ever darkening the door of a government office building to secure a license.

A government may attach certain legal benefits designed to support a family structure created by such unions, but it has no power to make anyone married. Marriage is not based upon a legal license, but as we’ve seen, upon a biological and Biblical basis. A legal “right” of marriage is a myth. The government cannot grant such a right, nor take it away. Only support or discourage it through legal channels.

Ceremonial union. The other element most often associated with getting married is the wedding ceremony. Often done at a church, but also at a courthouse or other location by someone the state authorizes to finalize the marriage license. For most, just showing up at a party in Texas and presenting themselves as married doesn’t cut it. They need a wedding ceremony.

We shouldn’t short-change the power of a ceremony. It often makes concrete an abstract idea or belief. It also adds some weight and importance to the occasion you can’t receive any other way. For the secular person, that’s about the extent of it.

I’m in no way advocating that we ditch wedding ceremonies. But does the ceremony itself make one married?

There are two main streams of thought in the Christian community which will undoubtedly parallel other religious beliefs. One, that the ceremony simply recognizes and gives the communion’s blessing upon a couple’s union. The church’s official structure and members act as witnesses that the couple will be united as one, but no more.

Two, that the church performs a sacrament of marriage, by which is meant that God does something to unite the two into one. In this understanding, the church ceremony is not merely a passive witness to a couple uniting, but spiritual realities are actively happening in conjunction with the proceedings as God blesses the union of the two.

One might suspect that based upon the previous two articles, that I would hold to the former view rather than the latter. After all, if sexual union is the point at which a couple become “one flesh,” what is left for a ceremony to accomplish?

If you assumed such, you’d be wrong. This comes from a misunderstanding of sacrament and ceremony, confusing the two. A sacramental act is God acting. A ceremony is us calling on God to act.

This is illustrated by baptism. There can be little doubt the Bible views the ceremony of baptism as important and needed to join one to the Church, and God’s saving act is united to the ceremony. A read of Romans 6 makes this abundantly clear as St. Paul describes God’s activity putting to death the old man and raising us to new life with the ceremony of baptism. Yet we also know that God can act without the ceremony when necessary, like the thief on the cross who was granted entry into Paradise without going through a formal baptismal ceremony.

Likewise, our asking for the two to become one flesh by God’s activity through a wedding ceremony doesn’t preclude God providing not only His blessing upon the union, but at the right time, uniting the two into one flesh upon the consummation of that union. For while the two may take the action to unite sexually, as Jesus noted, it is what God has joined together that we are not to rend asunder. Denoting that God’s activity called upon in the wedding ceremony is completed with the sexual union of the two.

This denotes two main points no matter which of the two views a person may have about wedding ceremonies. While not downgrading their importance and need, God can and does act apart from them to unite a couple upon sexual union, as noted in the previous article on the Biblical basis for marriage. Indeed, like the legal aspect, it wasn’t until the Byzantine empire that the church took on a more formal role in weddings.

This is more clearly indicated in the Jewish wedding, which were what Jesus and Paul were familiar with. The standard wedding involved a bit of drama with the bridegroom arriving at a certain time (which Christ used in the parable of the foolish and wise virgins), but at one point the couple would go into a specially prepared area to consummate the marriage. Upon so doing, a big party lasting a week would begin. It was such a party that Jesus attended at the wedding at Cana.

But while sometimes a rabbi was there to bless them, a rabbi was not required. Weddings were not religious observances. When God was understood to have united the couple is when they sexually united for the first time. One still sees this symbolically represented in the modern day Jewish wedding ceremony, where at a point, the couple go into a private room for a few minutes to rest, but points to the two uniting physically with each other.

The bottom line is, God was busy uniting people sacramentally in marriage long before it was understood to be a church sacrament. It isn’t that the wedding ceremony is not sacramental, only that it is God who does the action when He decides, even if we are calling upon Him to act. The difference in time is not a factor. But, it is still not the ceremony itself that unites, but God doing so through the physical union as clearly spelled out in the Bible.

Living together. This one is not so much seen as a basis for one being married, but is understood to be a normal characteristic of a married person. After all, if marriage is a union designed to foster families, it would be a poor marriage if the couple didn’t normally live together and interact on a regular basis.

But living together is its own type of union, nonetheless. Financially, socially, and emotionally, the two who live together are invested in each other. They share living space and assets and time.

That said, few would claim that merely living in the same house with another constitutes marriage. Friends live together. Roommates live together. Brothers and sisters live together. If sex is not involved between any of them, they are not married.

Full Union

One might suspect that I consider these cultural marriage characteristics to be unimportant, since they are not what makes a marriage a marriage when it comes down to it. May it never be! They may not be the point at which a marital union is realized, but they are what make a marital union full and complete. Sexual union is meant to consummate a marriage, not stand as the only union of a marriage.

For a full marital union, one needs an emotional union, a financial union, a legal union, a social union, a spiritual union, as well as the physical union. As mentioned before, remove sexual union from that mix, and you have good friends living together, sharing living expenses, and keeping each other company.

But take away the others and leave only sexual union, and while you may have a “two becoming one flesh” reality going on, you don’t have an emotional, financial, social, or spiritual support for that union. Without that support, the marriage created by that sexual union isn’t a serious union. It was done purely to have a good time. The union created is real, but the ability to make that a lasting union is compromised.

Creating a marital union between two people involves a big commitment. They need to emotionally invest in each other, to keep the passion burning in their relationship so a strong and secure emotional environment for raising kids is created for years. Both need to make a financial and time investment to sustain a family over the long haul. The state’s witness upon the union acts as a legal commitment, a contract, between the two, making it harder to break apart without good cause, providing stability. Spiritually, the couple needs to be united to bring up children in a their faith. Without a full union in these areas, a marriage created by a sexual union is left dangling. Such a union is very high on the probability ranking to be torn asunder by one or both committing adultery by joining with another.

The cultural aspects of what makes up a marriage may not be what creates a marriage, but it is the necessary ingredients to sustain a marriage and provide a stable environment for the raising of children produced by that sexual union.

Next time we’ll examine some other marital arrangements and see how they jive with the understanding of marriage we’ve developed in these three articles.

Is this important for non-Christians to understand? Yes. Because if one does not understand these basic points, one will tend to respond to straw men arguments instead of the true Biblical model. Also, a lack of understanding here will fail to see how well the Biblical basis blends with the biological one discussed last time.

Unfortunately many of the straw men have been promoted by Christians themselves, so one can hardly fault non-Christians for arguing against them. Some of them I would argue against as well. So it is most critical that Christians reexamine what marriage is based upon Biblical principles rather than from pop theology.

To that end, we will look first at God’s design, then the theological design, and end with some conclusions.

God’s Design for Marriage

The most complete snapshot of God’s intentions in creating marriage, and what it is, is from the words of Jesus Christ Himself.

And there came unto him Pharisees, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? trying him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. But Jesus said unto them, For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of the creation, Male and female made he them. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh: so that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (Mar 10:2-9 ASV)

Jesus takes this opportunity to quote Genesis 2:24. The two shall become one flesh. Note this refers to “flesh.” This is a physical union. So much so that Jesus says they are no longer “two, but one flesh.” This reflects two main truths about this marital union, that is, the basis for marriage from the Biblical perspective.

Sexual intercourse unites a man and woman into one flesh. This is at the heart of marriage. Jesus makes this clear in the next verses following the above:

And in the house the disciples asked him again of this matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her: and if she herself shall put away her husband, and marry another, she committeth adultery. (Mar 10:10-12 ASV)

We’ll get to the issues of divorce and adultery later. For now, Jesus is clarifying for His disciples about his comments to the people quoted earlier. For He said, “What God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” How is that done? Certainly not by a piece of paper.

Instead, Jesus shows that the way such a union is broken asunder is by committing adultery: to have sexual intercourse with someone other than one’s spouse. His whole argument with the Pharisees is based on the fact that when a physical union is sealed through sex, it is “torn asunder” when adultery, having sex with another, is committed.

St. Paul also has this in mind when he said, “Or know ye not that he that is joined to a harlot is one body? for, The twain, saith he, shall become one flesh.” (1Co 6:16 ASV)

Clearly, from a Biblical standpoint, and from God’s perspective, sexual intercourse joins two people into one flesh—no matter how serious the two people take it. Not needed is a legal certificate saying you’re married. It is not needed that you live together. It is not needed that anyone thinks or believes you are united in marriage, even the couple themselves. Even a marriage ceremony is not needed. By the act of sexual intercourse, from God’s perspective, the two are joined into one. Even if it is merely a harlot you pay to have a one-night stand with.

This is why premarital sex is an oxymoron. There is no such animal. When you have sex, you are marrying that person. Sex is a marital forming act. As we noted in the biological basis, one can live together, share expenses, be the most intimate of friends, but without that sexual union, it is simply good friends living together. Sexual union forms the basis of joining the two into one, and therefore the core beginning of a family.

And therefore, according to Jesus, when you have sex with another person after joining to a spouse, you are tearing asunder that bond created with the first, save if the other spouse has committed adultery before you. Standing before a minister, many think they are getting married for the first time. Yet if they have “sown their wild oats” before that ceremony, they are deceived. They’ve already been married and committed adultery with as many people as they have had sex with.

It is clear from Jesus’ words that God’s design was for us to join with one person, and not tear that asunder by uniting to another. But due to our fallen condition, our hardness of heart, deviation from the ideal is treated in an attempt to provide healing.

Creating one flesh is fulfilled literally in the offspring of sexual acts. As we noted in the biological basis, it is the potential creation of children inherent in the act of sexual union that provides for the uniting factor. What more literal fulfillment of the two becoming one is there than in the children produced from that sexual union? Both husband and wife’s DNA, united into a new person. The child is literally the one flesh of the two.

Without this potential reality, sex would not be uniting. It is the mingling of the two’s seed that at the same time provides for the possibility of children, and the two becoming one flesh through the act designed to give birth to new life. Without that fact, sex would only be one more way among many options to have a good time.

Jesus, with these words, links the biological design of God with God’s design and purpose. The two are fully synced into one reality. Participating in sexual intercourse with someone is tantamount to saying to them, “I want to have your children and create a family with you.” Because that is the purpose of doing that act. The potential is always there each time sexual union happens, no matter the reason the couple is doing it.

I know, there is the pill, and abortion. Since the 1960s, people have had the option to get rid of the purpose of sex: children. If the pill or other modes of contraception don’t prevent a pregnancy, there is always the option to kill the child before it can escape the womb. Be that as it may, it doesn’t change the nature of the act to make it non-uniting. The fact is, whether a person ever has a child or not, the act unites the two into one flesh simply because that is what the act is designed to do biologically as God created it.

One union, not torn asunder. That is God’s design for marriage. Have we violated that ideal? If statistics are anywhere close, a clear majority of the readers of this blog have not followed that prescription, for whatever reason. This does not mean it is the end of the world. There is healing and forgiveness. But it is oh, so easy to take the fallen state and want to make that “normal” because we’d rather not face our guilt than acknowledge it and deal with it openly.

God’s Theological Intent for Marriage

St. Paul makes it clear that our marriage is an image of our union with God.

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh. This mystery is great: but I speak in regard of Christ and of the church. (Eph 5:31-32 ASV)

Prior to these verses, St. Paul speaks of how husbands and wives should show love for one another, and each one is related to Christ and His bride, the Church, the Body of Christ. St. Paul says, “for no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as Christ also the church; because we are members of his body.” (Eph 5:29-30 ASV)

As one body, we are united to Christ in baptism. (Romans 6:5) And that bride is to be presented to Christ in the next life. (Revelations 19:7) What we have now in human marriage is a shadow of that union. As Jesus prayed, we’d become one with Him. (John 17:21-23) Therefore our union with each other in marriage is an image of our union with God.

As such, it is meant to reflect that ideal. What image does sexual union with more than one person create? Multiple gods? Switching from one god to another? Likewise, what picture does uniting with multiple people for the sole purpose of having a good time paint? Union to God isn’t to be taken seriously? Is for our own selfish fulfillment? Everything centers around us and not Him?

This is why St. Paul instructs Timothy and Titus that a bishop and deacon should only be from those who only had one wife. (1 Timothy 3:2, 12, Titus 1:6) Even for the office of widow, among other criteria, they had to be the wife of one husband. (1 Timothy 5:9) Because those ministering as the hands and feet of Christ among the people should reflect a proper theological marriage to God through their earthly marriage. They had to conform to God’s design specs in order to represent Him in an official capacity.

Is divorce allowed? Is remarriage allowed after divorce? After the death of a spouse? Yes. According to Christ, due to our hardness of heart, our fallen condition, the ideal design specs that Christ presents is often not achieved and allowance is made.

But it is still the design specs Christ gives as the Christian understanding of marriage. Sexual union unites us into one flesh with another. Sexual union with another causes us to commit adultery with the first, and so on down the line, save when adultery has already been committed by the other spouse. Or by the death of a spouse, in St. Paul’s opinion, though he encourages them to not remarry. (1 Corinthians 7:39)

We will examine divorce and adultery in more detail later. Here we note this indicates God’s original design spec is “a man and a woman” joined in marriage for life through the action of creating children, whether or not any children are ever brought forth. In this, the biological basis for marriage that syncs with the Biblical basis for marriage. God considers such a union, a marriage, and not to be torn asunder by sexual union with another.

Next time we’ll examine the cultural basis for marriage.

The Mind Game review comes from a professional review site: Reader’s Favorites. Here’s an except of what they had to say:

This is a well-written, exciting story with lots of adventure. It appeals to all ages of science fiction/fantasy fans, new and old. There are references to new technology for younger readers along with references to older popular science fiction/fantasy movies for older readers. The characters are very relatable.

Not too shabby. Today I received word that author Lisa Godfrees, who had reviewed Mind Game previously, giving it high marks, just reviewed the second book in the series, Hero Game, at her book review site, and among other things, had these comments:

Anyone that likes sci-fi would enjoy this book. I believe that middle-graders especially would love it, both guys and girls. I plan to buy copies for our elementary school library.

Bottom line, if you like fun sci-fi, you can’t go wrong here! Thanks for checking them out, reading, and reviewing.

But the arguments focus on two main areas: legal definition of marriage and the biblical classification of homosexual sex as a sin. Homosexual groups tend to focus on the inequality of the former, while religious groups focus on the latter. Meanwhile, few seem to be asking what marriage really is. Not purely based upon legal questions, or purely based upon Biblical prohibitions, but on a holistic approach that takes all aspects that define marriage into consideration.

To that end, I am going to do a series of posts about marriage. This will not be a complete historical run down, but will involve the following main topics:

• What is Marriage?
• Alternate Forms of Marriage
• Divorce, Remarriage, Adultery
• Healing Marital Devaluation

Some of these topics will overlap, but I think they can lay the groundwork to a fuller understanding of these controversial issues by all sides, as well as other issues that are often ignored by our culture and the Church. So let’s tackle the first topic:

What is Marriage?

Marriage is defined by biology and culture. For the Christian, also by biblical theology. The later will only matter to Christians directly, but if understood in context, syncs nicely with biology and can inform the cultural aspects. Non-Christians may appreciate understanding its basis if they can get past preconceived ideas about the topic.

In this installment, I’ll examine:

The Biological Basis for Marriage

Often people will survey the structure of “husband and wife” in the animal kingdom to prove the diversity of marital and familial makeups on display. For sure, there are many. All the way from a mate eating the other directly after sex to lifetime partners. However, what often isn’t focused on is the similarities.

Sex. In one form or another, it always involves the sharing of DNA for the purpose of conception. Sure, there may be an off beat example out there, but the basic biological purpose of two entities coming together in a sexual union is for procreation. Without that purpose, there would be no basis for a marriage or family structure, however that might play out in any individual species.

From species to species, the purpose of sex, the purpose of forming a husband/wife relationship, is to ensure the propagation of the species. If an activity cannot potentially create that outcome, whether it does or not, there is no biological marital union.

Look at it this way. There are countless activities that we share with each other, many of them pleasurable. Whether it is eating together, going to a movie, or enjoying a game of tennis, none of those activities are seen as creating a marriage or union.

Meanwhile, our society views sex as just one more enjoyable activity to share with someone you like. No more bonding than sharing a bowl of ice cream. Yet, when one considers the biological foundation of marriage, it boils down to sex. For practically every animal, sex and the creation of offspring is the foundation of that union.

If you think about it logically, it should be obvious. Take a husband and wife. Let’s suggest they appear married in every way. They live together. They spend quality time together. They share their intimate lives together. They have a legal paper saying they are married. Even a wedding. Yet, neither has ever had sex with the other. Answer this question. In what way is this living arrangement any different than best of friends sharing living expenses under a mutual contract?

The obvious answer is, it isn’t any different. I could easily set up a living arrangement with my best male friend or even a woman who wished to live a celibate life, and duplicate the same scenario. If all marriage involves is mutually shared living arrangements and friendships, then how is that deserving of any special recognition? Anyone can create a contract to set up such an arrangement.

But add sex into the mix, and one has a totally different animal. Then DNA is shared, and potentially merged, creating a union of the two into a new person. Once you have that potential, the marriage of the two species takes on purpose. Because only that act creates a family structure. Without sex creating a union, you have two good friends living together, and sex is just one among many pleasures that are shared but means nothing more than going out to watch a movie.

Mammals. While in the animal kingdom at large, how “marriage” and families are structured varies widely, in the sub-classification of mammals, less so. In fact, one of the characteristics of this class is the care for children within a family structure of a father and mother. Can you find exceptions? Yes. Yet the vast majority of mammals, of which humans are one, have a father and mother living together to care for the offspring produced by having sex. The fact humans for over at least 6000 years of our known history do this, is one reason we are classified as a mammal.

What does this prove? Very simply, this. At its foundation, the basis for a family structure, and therefore the basis for two people to be married, is sexual union in a way that potentially produces offspring. All other marital characteristics flow from this fact. Even Jesus, as we will see, acknowledges this reality.

This physical union turns the “water into wine.” Living together is changed into familial bonds. Legal contracts are turned into sacred vows. Pleasure is transformed into loving bonds. Man and woman are united as husband and wife.

What is marriage biologically? It is the sexual union of two people to form the core of a family. I’ve heard many say, “Oh, we’re just living together. We’re not married.” I say, “Oh yes you are. If you’ve had sex, you may not be legally married, but in reality, you are.” Just have either one of you cheat on the other, and tell me you won’t react just as strongly about it as any “married” couple would.

Why? Because sex creates a marital union between two people. It is a biological reality that’s been with us since creation.

Next time, the Biblical basis for marriage.

But I’ve noticed there has been a growing backlash to this mode of writing. Why is it being rejected as a valid guideline for new writers to write fiction? I think for the following reasons:

1. Extreme usage in critique groups. One such person attempted to tell me that one should have no telling in fiction, everything had to be shown. So he would point out any telling, and appeared to refuse to offer any other constructive feedback until I “fixed” this one issue. If a person encounters too many like that, it is easy to overreact to the opposite extreme and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
2. Show, don’t tell is the answer to every issue. Related to the above, some critiquers go overboard to using show, don’t tell for the solution to any number of unrelated writing problems. Writers hearing “You’re not showing here, just telling,” when addressing a character’s dialog only shows they don’t know what they are talking about, using the rule as a crutch because they don’t know what else to say. Enough of those, and a writer is tempted to ditch the rule as lame simply because they encounter people who are using it lamely.
3. Hate any perceived rules. Some folk are just anti-rule. Any perceived guideline that says one should do X, Y, or Z in writing automatically gets push back. “I’ll show them” attitude prevails. Especially true if the person gets someone saying you always have to do it this way if you want to keep a reader’s attention.
4. Lazy writers not looking to improve. Some writers don’t care. They just want to write a story and have everyone praise them. They aren’t looking for critiques. They don’t want to know how to improve their writing. They feel what comes natural to them is correct for them, and any effort to write differently is artificial. So they don’t gain the writing skills through practice, including knowing when and how to show instead of tell.

If you’ve fallen into one of these reactions to the show, don’t tell rule, maybe it is time to take a step back and gain a balanced perspective. The last group may find this the hardest to do, so let’s look first at why one needs to show in fiction, instead of tell.

Non-fiction conveys information; fiction conveys an experience. Few pick up a work of fiction hoping to learn how to grow a garden or how to change the starter in a car. Not that one can’t learn how to do those things from a work of fiction, but that’s not the reason most buy a fictional story. They buy a fictional story to be entertained. To be immersed into another person’s world and experiences. To see the world from a different set of eyes.

The showing mode of writing is not an efficient means to convey information. This is why non-fiction doesn’t use much, if any, showing. Even the stories told in a non-fiction book are told in telling mode, because the point is to illustrate a truth, not have the reader experience another person’s life. For instance, you’ll note the stories in the Bible are primarily told not shown.

However, to have a reader sink into another person’s world, to see from their eyes, showing becomes critical. Telling can’t effectively do that. To accomplish its goal, fiction has to be primarily showing, using telling when needed. In short, to experience another person’s world, you have to convey to the reader what they are experiencing, not simply what happens to them.

A quick example. This would be telling: “Paul saw the dagger as it sank into him.” It conveys the information of what happened to Paul efficiently. It does not convey what Paul experienced.

Showing would be more like this: “Paul saw the sun glint off a blade flashing his direction. He jerked back, but a pain echoed through his nerves, his skin numbed, and warmth flowed down his side, soaking his clothing. His knees buckled as darkness swept over him.”

The showing doesn’t efficiently convey what happened, but it does efficiently tell you what Paul experienced, thus providing emotional impact. Emotional impact is the key to entertaining fiction. Without showing, there would be little emotion conveyed, and would not be as entertaining as it could be. If a person ditches showing for one of the above reasons, then you need to be honest with yourself. You are writing fiction as if it were non-fiction.

Some will tell me, “But this writer did it effectively.” Usually they are pointing to a “classic” written years ago. An omniscient narrator used to be the standard story telling mode, which involved more telling. In that day, an author didn’t have to compete with more emotionally engaging stories, so writing in telling mode could still stand out, not to mention the number of published books back then per year was smaller, so easier for a well-told story to stand out.

This is not true today. You are competing with story-tellers who know how to engage their reader’s emotions through effective showing. This is why you’ll hear if Tolkien were submitting his Lord of the Rings book today, it is unlikely he’d gain a following. By today’s standards it has a lot of problems. But you’ll notice even in that work, Tolkien does show, even if it is not as much as most authors do today.

So, how does one know when to tell and when to show in fiction? I have the following general guidelines I use once I’ve finished my first draft and am ready to edit.

How critical is the phrase, sentence, paragraph in the movement of the story and/or character arc? The more important to these goals, the more important it is to show instead of tell.

For instance, let’s say we need to get Jane to answer the telephone. The call itself moves the story forward. The ensuing conversation provides a clue to the mystery, but the fact she answers the phone isn’t important other than the fact she does it. It isn’t something the reader needs to experience for the story to move forward.

Indeed, to show that would likely bore the reader if they read, “A ringing echoed through Jane’s head. The phone! It must be him. Her shoes snapped against the wooden floor, creaking the planks under her weight so much she wondered if she would fall through them. She wrapped her fingers around the smooth, black dial phone. A cold plastic greeted her hands. The ringing ceased as she lifted the receiver, lighter than she expected. ‘Hello’?”

Unless you are building tension for a big moment/reveal, you’re building emotional investment for nothing. People don’t notice that level of detail unless it is new or they sense a moment of importance. You’re convincing the reader something important is about to happen, and when it doesn’t, they’ll tend to wonder why the emotional investment was made. If you simply need to tell the reader that she answered the phone, it would be more efficient to say, “The phone rang. ‘Hello’?”

To maintain the pacing of your story. Related to the last point, sometimes you need to move your characters from point A to B, but nothing happens during that time which moves the story forward. So to show all the detail of that trip would bore the reader. Reducing the trip down to a handful of descriptive words and a telling summary will keep the pacing of the novel from bogging down into drudgery.

Transitional paragraphs. Often you have a transitional paragraph between scenes that requires moving through a period of time to the next scene were story-moving dialog/action will take place. Like the last reason, it would be pretty boring to show someone on watch all night when nothing happens of significance. A simple, “George struggled to fight off sleep until the first rays of dawn arrived and Henry arrived to relieve him,” gets the reader quickly through an otherwise uneventful time frame with little loss of interest.

Dialog. It is rare that you hear someone talking in showing mode. When is the last time you heard someone describe their reaction to a joke like this: “My gut tightened. I squeezed my lips tight in hopes of blocking the impending spray of coffee from my mouth. But the pressure grew to the point of shoving my lips apart. Hot liquid careened into his face.” No, instead you’re more likely to hear, “I laughed so hard I spewed coffee all over him.”

Dialog is predominately telling. Leave the showing for the narration if you don’t want unnatural dialog littering your story. Included in this is a character telling a story to another. Unless the story goes into a full flashback, in-story mode, a story told by a character in the story would tend to be more telling than showing, unless they were attempting to dramatize it.

Non-fiction. If you are writing non-fiction, one naturally uses telling mode to communicate information effectively. But there are times in fiction where a writer may want to convey some information. Back story is often given in more telling mode, often by a character. Dishing out back story needs to be in short bursts, on a need-to-know basis. You don’t want long paragraphs of back story, so you don’t want to show it unless there is a good reason to do so. When you need to convey information, a telling mode gets the job done much quicker.

Creating emotional distance. There are times a writer may need to create emotional distance. Especially if it is something that the point of view character is not that emotionally invested in or you want to minimize the impact on the reader. For instance, if you have a rape scene, to minimize any emotional reactions from readers who have gone through it, it could be told instead of shown.

One could come up with other instances of using telling instead of showing, but if you want your scenes to have emotional impact, in-the-story feel, you need to ensure important story-moving segments are shown instead of merely told. The uniqueness of reading a story is the immersion into another’s experience, another’s thoughts, another’s worldview. Movies can’t easily accomplish this. If you fail to take advantage of this strength in your stories for one of the reasons listed at the beginning, you’ll shortchange the reader, and not give them a reason to read the next book, much less finish the one in their hands.

Do you think some of the negative attitudes toward show, don’t tell are a valid reaction or an over-reaction?

Okay. As I was saying, there were three little pigs. One day Papa Pig says to the three, “I’m getting old and can no longer work the farm. I need to give you each your inheritance so you can invest it and provide from me into my old age.”

And so he did. To pig number one, Sam, Papa Pig gave him $500,000 dollars. To pig number two, Jake, he gave $300,000. To Bubba, pig number three, he gave $100,000.

Sam decided he would invest his money in stocks. Surely the profits he would get would more than pay for his Papa’s retirement. So he bought $500,000 of stocks in real estate notes.

Jake thought it better to invest in something more solid. He decided to buy property. Then not only would his Papa gain an investment, but a nice place to live that was paid for.

Bubba thought for a while and then decided both of them were wrong. He hit the streets and found the lame and beggars. He gave them $1000 with the words, “This is from Papa Pig to help you.”

As luck would have it, a big, bad wolf…what? No, no, no! Not that big, bad wolf. This is altogether different. Trust me.

Now, there came a big, bad wolf market to Sam’s investments…oh, I see I got the animal wrong, didn’t I. My bad. There came a big, bad bear market. It knocked on Sam’s computer market tracking software and said, “Little pig, little pig, let me in. Trade off your stocks or I’ll growl and I’ll snarl and I’ll eat them up!”

Yeah, yeah, I know. Not the same punch, but like I said, this ain’t your mama’s three little pig story. Now where were we?

Sam said, “Not by the…click of one little mouse.” So the bear growled and he snarled and he ate the stocks up!

Sam ran to Jake’s house, and lamented his losses. He cried, “I’ve lost all $500,000 of my Papa’s money. It is left to you to provide for him. We know Bubba doesn’t have any business sense. He gave all his away.”

Jake patted a wall of his mansion. “Papa will do just fine. I knew those stocks you bought were risky.”

But then the big, bad, wolf…I know I got it wrong last time. I’m on track now. Let me finish. The big, bad, wolf in sheep’s clothing, otherwise known as a politician, knocked on Jake’s door. He said, “Little pig, little pig, let me in. Or I’ll write a 5000 page bill and add it as an amendment to the “Keep our Kids Safe from Drugs and Bullies” bill (otherwise known as KKSDB), and I’ll confiscate all your land.”

Jake shook his head. “Not by the vote of the next election.”

So the big, bad wolf in sheep’s clothing stayed up into the night writing a huge bill, introduced it to Congress, added it to the “Keep our Kids Safe from Drugs and Bullies” bill, and it passed by a vote of one.

Jake then heard another knock at his door. “Who’s there?”

“We’re from the EPA, and your land is the only habitat for the endangered albino wolf. We’ll have to take your land and kick you out.”

So Sam and Jake ran to Bubba’s humble abode. They both decried their poor fortune at losing their inheritance, and Sam pointed out, “And you have nothing to show as well. Our Papa will live in poverty for the rest of his life.”

Bubba shook his head. “Yusa jist don’t git it, do ya?” A knock at the door interrupted him. “Who’s banging?”

It just so happened to be the big bad wolf in sheep’s clothing again. “Little pig, little pig, let me in. Or I’ll…I’ll…” The wolf in sheep’s clothing grumbled. “What did you invest your money in?”

Bubba snickered. “I gone and put it in peoples.”

“Peoples? I mean, people?”

“Yes. I giv it away to folks who need it.”

The WISC snarked. “That’s government’s job. You can’t give it away.”

“Too late. Already gone and done it.”

The WISC remained silent for five seconds, and then said, “I’ll need to expand the gift tax. Yes, it needs attention.” Then he left.

Jake threw up his hands. “We got rid of the wolf, but not before he drained all of our Papa’s retirement away.”

Bubba shook his head. “When a person gives, it comes back ten-fold and stores treasure in heaven.”

Sam slapped his forehead. “What good will that treasure do him now, unless you plan on speeding up his death from starvation?”

Bubba opened his door. “Fowler me.” The two shrugged and followed. Bubba led them to their Papa’s house.

Some men worked on house repairs. One family carried a crock-pot full of slop to the door.

Bubba pointed at the house. “Looks like he’sa gitten cared for right nicely, if you’sa to ask me.”

Sam and Jake stared wide-eyed. Sam said, “Friends in this life.”

Jake nodded. “And a treasure in the next.”

Bubba smiled. “And no wolf cana take that away, no how.”

Mickey stopped thumping his pencil against his desk and sat up. About time. Maybe we’ll get to see some pictures.

Sirens wailed in the distance.

Mickey frowned. Probably nothing. Surely the authorities could handle it. Not like he could be everywhere at once. Well, almost, but not quite.

The teacher pulled down a graphic of the female reproductive organs. “First, we will go over the names of the parts.”

Mickey sighed. What if it was something? What if Blue Nova could make a difference? Mickey rubbed his forehead before slipping his hand into the air.

“Okay, class. Repeat after me. Urethra.”

“Urethra,” the students echoed back like robots.

Mickey waved his hand. Did this woman think she was teaching kids instead of teens?

The teacher breathed in to say the next part when she turned her head. “Mickey, do you have a question?”

“Yes, ma’am. Can I be excused to visit the restroom?”

Snickers echoed across the classroom. Robert said, “I think he’s scared of girls.”

Laughter erupted across the classroom. Mickey’s face grew hot.

The teacher snapped her pointer stick across her desk. The laughter died as fast as it erupted. “Class, that is quite enough.” She frowned at Mickey. “You’re excused. Don’t be gone long or I’ll send someone to check on you.”

Mickey hopped up from his seat and headed to the door. “Yes, ma’am. Thank you.” As soon as the door closed behind him, he raced to the bathroom, entered a stall, and seated himself on the toilet. He pulled his mask from his pocket and pulled it over his head.

“Hero game time!” He snuggled his body against the side wall and hoped he didn’t fall over while out. “Suit, appear here as Blue Nova.”

The stall faded out and then back in, except he now stood over himself, apparently asleep on the toilet. “Blue Nova to the rescue. Fast as light and just as bright!”

Blue Nova sped out of the stall, bathroom, and the school doors in less than a second. He zipped along the roads until he arrived at a row of flashing patrol car lights around an office. A group of officers huddled behind one car while individual ones pointed pistols at the office over the hoods of their vehicles.

Mickey stopped beside the group of officers. They jumped upon noticing him. He forgot from their perspective, he had appeared out of thin air. “Sorry, officers. Didn’t mean to frighten you.”

One of them gritted his teeth. “Get out of here, son. This is no place for you to play.”

Play? Really? “What seems to be the problem, officer?” He’d always wanted to say that.

“You’re becoming the problem. Do I need to escort you away?”

Mickey put his hands on his hips. “Officer, I’m Blue Nova.”

“Is that supposed to mean something to me?”

Mickey’s face fell. “You mean, you haven’t heard of me? Fast as light and just as bright?”

The officer pointed at one of his men. The man reached out to grab Mickey. Mickey flashed around him to his back.

The man grabbed thin air. “What. . .  Where did he go?”

A man holding a gun to a young girl’s head appeared at an open window of the office building. “You have one minute left, officers, to give me passage out of here, or the girl gets it.”

Mickey smiled. “So that’s the problem. I can take care of this guy.”

The head officer pointed at him. “Don’t you dare do anything. This is a delicate situation. We’re trained for this. Now leave or I’ll have you in jail.”

This guy didn’t understand what he could do. He’d have to prove it. “Just watch, sir. I’m faster than a speeding bullet too.” Mickey cupped a hand around his mouth and yelled, “You might as well go ahead and shoot her. We’re taking you down.”

The officer’s face turned beat red and he ground his teeth together. “You idiot! You don’t know what you’re doing.”

The man poked his head out the window of the office building. “Have it your way, officers. I have plenty of hostages to go through.” He ducked back in and the beginning sound of a gunshot hit Mickey’s ears.

Mickey raced for the door. From his perspective, every movement slowed to a bare crawl as he fled through the door of the office. He saw the girl on her knees, hands tied behind her back. The man who had talked with the officers stood over her, a gun pointed at the back of her head about four feet away. A bullet inched its way toward the back of her skull.

Sweet. I’ll just knock the bullet up toward the ceiling. Don’t want to put my hand in front of it. He sped to her, stopping as the bullet neared her neck. He only had one shot at this. He swung his hand underneath the bullet to meet it about an inch from her neck.

He didn’t connect in the middle of the flying metal, but only nicked it, causing it to wobble up toward the top of her skull. “Blast it all!” He only had one option left.

Mickey snagged the base of the bullet with his right hand, clamped down as hard as he could, and braced his right arm with his left. Then he pulled as hard as he could.

The bullet neared her skin. Mickey yelled as he pulled back, throwing his body into it. He could feel the bullet slipping from his fingers. I can’t let it go! Mickey bore down and grunted. He could feel the edge of the bullet moving across his fingertips. No! It escaped his grasp.

Mickey watched as the projectile pierced her skin. Blood slowly shot out, though he knew in normal speed it was spewing. The bullet stopped moving. It didn’t go into the head. He must have slowed it down enough it didn’t totally penetrate!

As the girl’s head reacted to the impact, Mickey raced to each of the armed men, pulled the gun from their hands, and gave them a blow to the back of their heads, collapsing them onto the floor in slow-mo. He threw the weapons out the window, then scooped the young girl into his arms and fled out of the office building.

He exited speed mode by a waiting ambulance. “She needs attention. A bullet is lodged in her skull.”

The medics jumped into action. Mickey laid her on a rolling bed and they examined the wound.

“Is she going to be okay?”

One of the medics glanced over his shoulders. “Won’t know for sure until we get some x-rays, but from the looks of it, the worst it might have done is fracture her skull.”

The other medic shook his head. “But she must have one hard head to stop a bullet like that. Never seen the likes of it before. By all rights she should be dead.”

Mickey’s gut churned. A hand rested on his shoulder.

The head officer stood beside him. “Sorry, Blue Nova. I guess I was wrong about you. You did know what you were doing.”

Mickey stared at the young girl as her eyes blinked open. “No, sir. I didn’t.”

“I’d like to get your real name, to give you a commendation.”

Mickey realized he had been holding his breath. He sucked in air. “Exit, suit.” The business district faded away to be replaced by the bathroom stall.

“Mick. Are you in here?” Robert’s voice sounded as stall doors opened and shut.

Mickey yanked his mask off and stuffed it into his pocket. The stall door opened and Robert stood before him. Mickey sat up.

Robert put a hand over his mouth and tried to hold back a laugh, without much success. “I see your problem, dim wit. It helps if you take your pants off first.”

Mickey knew he’d never hear the end of this. “Not enough sleep last night, I’m afraid.” He yawned. “I must have fell asleep.”

“Whatever. But the teacher sent me in here to get you. Are you going to come peaceably like or not?”

Mickey stood up. “Let’s go.”

“By the way, you missed all the cool pictures.”

Mickey figured he toyed with him, but it peeved him off anyway to think it might be true. He followed Robert back to the classroom and settled into his seat.

The teacher stared at Mickey for a moment before continuing. “Now class, we will have a pop quiz over the parts of the reproductive system.

Mickey grimaced. A piercing pain grew in his bladder. She would never believe him now. He lifted his hand.

With Mickey’s body safely in bed, he virtually sat in the control room at the Titan base as Vulture, watching blankly the bank of monitors displaying TV feeds from all over Earth.

“Hey, Mick.” Jeremy as Astro Man sat in a seat next to him. “How goes it? What adventures are on tap for tonight’s hero game?”

Mickey jerked his head around. “Those are real people, Bucko. Not some non-existent video game characters who will never care.”

Jeremy backed away. “Hey. I know that more than anyone. What gives?”

Mickey returned to staring at the monitors. “Let’s just say, I realized our ‘game’ isn’t one to the people we’re saving. We shouldn’t treat it that way either.”

Jeremy nodded. “I agree. But what brought about this realization?”

Mickey moistened his lips. “Knowing I can fail.”

Jeremy patted Mickey on the shoulder. “Welcome to reality, Mick.”

There is some truth to the viewpoint. That is, there are commandments in the Old Testament that we no longer follow. There were some changes made along the way. Some would attribute them to cultural differences, but we must not assume too quickly this is the case. Especially when the reason for those changes are spelled out in the Bible itself.

Therein lies the problem. People point to changes and then assume that means everything is up in the air and available for redefining in the manner we want to define, so as to allow for our favorite sin. When we become the arbitrators of which commandments to keep and which commandments to dump, then we have invalidated the authority of Scripture to be any kind of reliable guide and moral compass. Indeed, that appears to be the goal of many groups, to relegate Scriptures out of the realm of moral teaching and restrict it to purely “spiritual” applications.

However, the spiritual cannot be artificially separated from the rest of life. If God intended anything, it was to have us live a way of life that promotes physical, emotional, moral, social, and spiritual health. The whole person. The commandments were not given just to have rules, but to guide us into living within our design specs so that we will find the greatest fulfillment.

The answer to the changes is in the Scriptures itself, and falls under two main categories: fulfillment and clarification. All changes and subsequent leaving behind certain commandments are due to one or a combination of both reasons. Let’s take a look at some examples to illustrate what we are talking about.

The sacrificial system. This is an example of Jesus fulfilling the sacrificial system of the Old Testament. There is ample scriptures supporting that because of Jesus’ sacrifice, there was no longer a need for the image of animal sacrifices which pointed to Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. Jesus fulfilled that section of the Law, wiping out pages of commandments that no longer apply to us. Once the real sacrifice had been made, there was no longer any need for the blood of goats and rams.

Stoning of adulterers. The Old Testament Law said that those caught in the act of adultery must be stoned. There were similar seemingly harsh laws in response to sin. This is another example of fulfillment. What Jesus did on the cross and through His resurrection was to bring a new healing to each person that up until then did not exist. Death reigned, but Christ defeated death by death and by rising to life again.

A medical example helps here. Let’s say a certain infection has no cure, so when a limb gets infected, the only way to save the person is to cut off the limb. It is drastic, it is harsh, but better than the whole body being destroyed. But then one day, someone discovers a cure for this disease. Cutting off one’s limb is no longer necessary, would even be considered an irresponsible and stupid decision. For why cut it off when it can be saved?

Before Christ, there was no healing for sin. Left unchecked among the people, sin acted like an infection. The only way to keep the whole of God’s people from being lost was to cut off those who had become infected to the point they would infect others. To put them in quarantine, so to speak. The only solution to check sin was a radical one.

Once Christ came, however, sin had a cure. This is why the story of the woman caught in adultery is so critical to this understanding. (John 8:3-11) Most people focus on how Jesus deflected the Pharisees who were testing him. They figured if He went lenient on her, they could accuse Him of not following the law. If He was strict, they could accuse Him of not being flexible and realistic. But He told them, “He who is without sin cast the first stone.” They all left, leaving Jesus alone with her.

Keep in mind, according to the law she should have been stoned. According to what Jesus said, He was the only person in the crowd, being without sin, who could cast the first stone. Being God, He would have been within His rights to follow His own law and cast the stone. But He didn’t. Instead He said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.” Why the change? Because she would be healed and infect no one else with her viewpoint. Because her encounter with Christ changed her.

But this did not make adultery no longer a sin, it simply showed that because of Christ that sin could be healed. Same with many others that before required the radical cutting off of of people infected by sin. Through healing, that aspect was fulfilled and the former commandment no longer applied.

Avoiding work on the Sabbath. Numerous times the Pharisees accused Jesus of promoting work on the Sabbath, something explicitly prohibited by Law. Or at least, as the Pharisees interpreted “work,” Jesus was guilty. They had huge volumes listing out what was work and what wasn’t. Jesus alludes to one of them when He said, “What man is there among you who shall have one sheep, and if it should fall into a ditch on the Sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it out?” (Mat 12:11)

Jesus then concludes in the next verse, “How much more valuable then is a man than a sheep! So then it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.” By this he clarifies what was meant by “work.” Indeed, He makes it plain that the Sabbath was not meant to be a burden to man, but a blessing: “The Sabbath came into being for the sake of man, and not man for the sake of the Sabbath.” (Mrk 2:27)

Multiple wives. There was no commandment to have multiple wives, and nothing in the New Testament against it save when the New Testament Church wanted leaders, then the rule was a bishop or presbyter or deacon should be the husband of only one wife. (1Tim 3:2, 12, Tit 1:6) Also, for the Church to enroll a woman as a widow, she had to be the wife of only one husband. (1Tim 5:9) The later indicates what is discussed isn’t one at a time, but one spouse for one’s whole life. A widow by definition has no current husband, so it could only be referring to one previous husband.

This is illustrated clearly by Jesus when He is asked by the Pharisees whether it is lawful to “put away” his wife. (Mrk 10:2) Jesus asks them what Moses said, and they replied Moses permitted the giving of a certificate of divorce. Jesus then goes on to clarify not only why Moses permitted that, but also that marriage is for one man and woman, not multiple of either.

First he lays out the design of marriage as God originally intended. That is, that a man shall take a wife, and the two shall become one flesh. What God has joined, let not man put asunder. But how does one put such a union asunder. He clarifies that in the next comments.

“So He said to them, ‘Whoever should put away his wife and marry another commits adultery against her. And if a wife should put away her husband and be married to another, she commits adultery.’” (Mrk 10:11-12)

Note the linkage. Divorce alone isn’t the problem. It is marrying another, that is, having sexual relationships with a new person. That is committing adultery, and rends asunder the previous union when it is done. Which is why a man or woman is not sinning by marrying another when the other spouse commits adultery, because that union has already been destroyed.

Jesus clarifies for us what divorce is, when it becomes real divorce by committing adultery, and that God’s design is for a man or woman to have only one spouse through their lifetime. Whether one at a time, or several at the same time, Jesus made it clear either situation was sinful, and that it was allowed in times past because of our stubbornness. Not because God wanted it that way.

In most every instance we could bring up where something was practiced or commanded in the Old Testament, but appeared to have changed, the reason could be shown to arise from one or a combination of these two factors: fulfillment and/or clarification. So to demonstrate why we should change or drop other commandments in the Old Testament, one would have to clearly show what was fulfilled or clarified to justify the change.

When it comes to the sinfulness of certain moral codes like sex outside of marriage, whether “premarital” or adultery, homosexuality, or other types, not only is there no fulfillment that would make them no longer applicable, or clarification that excuses their classification as a sin, instead one finds reinforcement of their continued sinfulness.

The Church leaders met in council to determine which of the Jewish Law the Gentile Christian converts would need to follow. They only passed on three specific parts of the Law, one of which was to abstain from “sexual immorality.” (Acts 15:20) This clearly shows that the Old Testament morality about sexual matters was passed on as valid to the growing Gentile Church. Indeed, at no point in Christian history did the Church ever back off of these activities as being sin, until post-modern times among some Christian groups.

So not only do you not find any justification in Scriptures that these moral laws changed either through fulfillment or Jesus clarifying what was meant, you don’t have any indication that these activities have ever been considered not sinful from Moses to this day. There is no change. There is no basis upon which to dismiss them simply because you can point to items that have changed and you want to lump these activities in with them based upon personal bias against them.

For these reasons, the obsoleteness of certain sections of the Old Testament cannot be used to justify declaring something as not sinful, or to ignore clear injunctions in the Old Testament that haven’t changed nor is there any basis upon which to do so.

Can sin stop being sinful?

The ending of Reality’s Fire left open the possibility of a spin-off series. Which I’ve taken advantage of, and planned a five-book series which I’ve tentatively titled, “The Legend of the Dragons’ Dying Field.” So far I’ve written two of the books in that series and started on a third one: The Magic Within, The Dragon Within, The Dragon Without. The first of those, The Magic Within, I submitted to AltWit Press back in January. Splashdown Books was willing to look at it, but we both thought some cross-pollination would be good for all involved and she encouraged me to check out some other options.

This week, in communication with AltWit Press, they indicated they wanted to publish the story. Today, a contract with my signature left my mailbox. So, being it is official, you will all be excited to know that the first book of this series has a home! I’m thankful to Pauline at AltWit for adding me to their line up and look forward to some profitable years together.

The tentative release date, if all goes as planned, will be this coming fall, in time for your Christmas shopping. Stay tuned for any news as this publication progresses.