Fidelity, when a marriage has broken down

This essay seeks to set out a Christian ethical position on fidelity, when a marriage has broken down. In examining the definition and nature of marriage and fidelity, it is quite clear that the scriptural definition of marriage is a monogamous union of a male and female in a lifelong commitment to one another which is to be characterised by fidelity. The nature of this union is best described as a covenantal union under the standards of the divine law. Then, examining ethical theories including deontological, teleological, ontological and situational ethics, I came to the conclusion one should still maintain fidelity in a marriage that has broken down. The only exception to this is where there is complete physical or psychological destruction of a person, such as the situation of domestic violence, as this kind of marriage no longer fulfils any of the purposes it was meant to serve.

This essay seeks to set out a Christian ethical position on fidelity, when a marriage has broken down. I will first examine the definition and nature of marriage and fidelity. Then I will explore various positions for and against fidelity when a marriage has broken down using ethical theories including deontological, teleological ontological and situational ethics before I draw my own conclusion. 

Genesis say that “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them (1:27)”, as “it is not good for the man to be alone (2:18)”, and “a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh (2:24). Westermann[1] believes this is saying that human beings are to live in community. Every theoretical and institutional separation of man and woman can endanger the very existence of humanity. In fact, the “one flesh” term points to the basic power of love between man and woman as “spiritual unity”[2], where the man enters into lasting community with his wife because of his love for her. This does not mean a social state but a situation of fidelity.[3] Furthermore, male and female are created in God’s image, so Gregory of Nyssa believes “one who is made in the image of God has the task of becoming who he is”.[4] Matthew19:6 emphasises the sanctity of marriage in community where the marital bond is that “they are no longer two, but one… what God has joined together, let man not separate.”[5] Therefore, God hates divorce because it tears apart what should be considered a permanent union.[6] Overall, these verses illustrates that marriage involves a monogamous union of a male and female in a lifelong commitment to one another which is to be characterised by fidelity.[7]

The key phrase in Matthew19:6 is “what God has joined together” because humans can then and now join themselves with various others outside the will of God. In early Judaism there was no marriage certificate from the state, marriage in a sacred building, and marriage by official clergy. In other words, the usual tests of what legally makes a marriage in today’s world did not apply then. For Jesus, the main question was whether they were joined together by God, and if so, then the ruling is no divorce.[8] Köstenberger and Jones further elaborates that there are three basic views on the nature of marriage: Marriage as a sacrament, marriage as a contract, and marriage as a covenant.^[9] The prerequisite for a Christian marriage is not the “sacramental blessing” of the institutionalised church, but becoming “new creatures” in Christ (2Corinthians 5:17).^[10] They also believe that the contractual model is reductionist because although an agreement is made between a man and woman in marriage, this does not cover the whole of what marriage is. Furthermore, if one spouse commits a grievous enough sin to break the contract, the partner is free to dissolve the union, so it provides an extremely weak basis for the permanence of marriage. They believe that the covenantal model best describes marriage because it roots marriage in the standards of divine law rather than church law or civil law.^[11] Implications of a covenant view of marriage include the permanence, sacredness, intimacy, mutuality and exclusiveness of marriage.^[12] 

Deontological/Principle ethics contends that there are inherent goods, rights, wrongs, and duties in life, regardless of what the consequences might be.[13] The classical Christian position on sexual behaviour is often summed up through two principles: purity before marriage and fidelity within marriage. We can see from the above discussions that there is clear scriptural basis for these principles. Other clear-cut scriptural commands are: “You shall not commit adultery (Exodus 20:14)”, “Abstain from fornication (Acts 15:20)” and “The marriage bed should be kept pure (Hebrews 13:4)”. Adultery breaks three of the Ten Commandments.^[14] These all points to “sexual intercourse outside of the marital covenant is intrinsically wrong, and sex within the marital covenant is a moral good”.[15] However, proponents of the open marriage concept point to a perceived internal inconsistency within the biblical documents themselves, claiming that people of God practiced a double standard, at least in the Old Testament (OT) era.[16] However, they fail to differentiate what arose in the ancient society and what the OT presents as the intention of the Creator. The Genesis creation narratives must be given central emphasis. OT Laws designed to govern sexual conduct do not present the ideal, but are attempts to mitigate the evil, unjust effects of human failure to follow that ideal. Secondly, the New Testament (NT), as reflecting and expanding the sexual ethic of the OT, must be given priority over the practices of the ancient society.[17] Although there is no explicit condemnation of these practices is found in the OT[18], they actually highlight the commitment of the biblical documents as a whole to the ideal of the permanent, monogamous relationship between male and female as the foundational context for the expression of human sexuality.[19] 

We can also look at fidelity from a teleological/consequentialist ethics perspective, where we make moral judgment on the basis of the consequences that accrue from their actions. Then we get the question, “consequences for whom?” If it is for the individual moral actor, then this is called “ethical egoism”.[20] Epicurus takes a hedonist view that pleasure was the highest good of an individual and the primary factor in our moral actions.[21] Concerning sexual ethics, Russell[22] believed that traditional morality was harmful to the well-being of individuals. Another author says, “Having sex makes you feel good, and increasing your erotic sophistication improves your self-esteem.” Interestingly, Christian sexual ethics can also be defended on the grounds of self-interest. For example, one might get hurt emotionally, get pregnant or acquire sexually transmitted disease through casual sex, and thus it is in their best interest to keep sex linked to the marital bond.[23] In fact, it is often said that the Bible is “a user’s manual for how to live life”, so from an eternal perspective I believe following God’s commands are actually in our best interest.[24] Some may see an “open marriage” as a solution to a marriage that has broken down. However, the inclusion of a third party destroys the spouse’s self-esteem and produces feelings of guilt. It also undercuts trust and openness between the marital partners.^[25]

Utilitarianism is the more predominant form of consequentialism where the decision is based on the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Singer[26] believes that “casual sexual intercourse may be wrong when it leads to the existence of children who cannot be adequately cared for, and not wrong when, because of the existence of effective contraception, it does not lead to reproduction at all.” However, in the case of marriage breakdown, there may already be children. Genesis 1:28 is a command to procreate. The family remains the primary training ground for the future citizens of the land, who are the future participants in the society.[27] Studies confirm the importance of stable marriages to the development of children[28], as children learn primary attitudes about fidelity and relationship from their parents, specifically from the way in which their parents treat each other.[29] Furthermore, fidelity between spouses and stable marriage relationships are crucial to fidelity in society and for this reason to social well-being, because the manner in which one relates to one’s spouse will quite naturally shape the way a person relates to others in the wider social life beyond marriage.[30] Therefore, marriage serves as an agent of expansion of the church through the influence of the believer in the home where the spouse and children are influenced.[31] Marriage is also a vehicle for the outreach mission of the church when godly families influence the wider society.[32] All societies have had some interest in limiting sexual behaviour even if their norms were wide of the mark of Christian ethics.^[33] Unwin^[34] found that sexual restraint was essential to cultural flourishing. Cultures without monogamy and sexual restraint before and during marriage inevitably fell into cultural and societal decline. He found no societies in history that were exceptions to these findings.

Although there is a command to procreate, the completion of the chid-rearing function does not signal the end of the marriage bond, and the bond is present even when no children are produced.[35] So there is much more to marriage than procreation. Ontological/character ethics is not about “what should I do?” but “what should I be?” Character ethicists contend that ethics is less about what we do and more about who we are.[36] Marriage can be a sanctifying experience. None of us enters marriage as fully mature persons, but we are challenged to grow in the context of this intense relationship.[37] According to the Australian Institute of Family Studies, communication problems is the most commonly perceived reason for divorce amongst divorced couples.[38] There is no such thing as a completely compatible couple so conflict will be an inevitable part of a relationship as intimate as marriage. Conflict is the fertiliser of life. To deny conflict is to deny an opportunity to grow. The marriage relationship becomes a crucible in which conflicts can heat things up to the breaking point or can be a refining process of transforming growth In other words, conflict can either make or break the marriage. Good marriages are those where conflict are dealt with in a manner that facilitates the growth of the relationship.^[39] Good communication skills are essential when dealing with conflicts, and such skills can be developed. Therefore, couples should persevere with marriage even when it seems to be breaking down.

Deddo points out that the particular pattern of right relationship is most fully and concretely revealed in the relationships between Jesus, the Father and Holy Spirit depicted in the New Testament.^[40] God is a unity of three persons who share the one divine nature but who are distinct from each other. This aspect of the Trinitarian life of God is reflected in marriage itself.^[41] Balswick believes God’s intention for marriage is that two spouses become one through a mutual, reciprocating process in which interdependence develops through the coexistence of distinction and unity in relationship.^[42] Weaving two lives together into a threefold cord with Christ at the centre is the ultimate goal of differentiated unity. Marriage is made up of two flawed spouses who must negotiate their relationship in a broken world. “Brokenness is not the opposite of wholeness, but the means toward it.” Knowing most of us are far from the ideal moves us to humility. While God’s love is never emptied in the giving, spousal love is bound to fail and disappoint. Our humanness keeps us ever so humble and in continuous need of God’s grace and strength.^[43] Spouses are transformed into a unity that transcends what either spouse can be alone.^[44]

When spouses live according to the covenant principle, “to love and be loved,” the grace principle, “to forgive and be forgiven,” the empowerment principle, to “serve and be served” through mutual servanthood, and the intimacy principle, “to know and be known,” they will reap rich rewards of following God’s more excellent ways.^[45] Grenz observes that surrendering one’s personal will to the will of God places Christ at the centre of each spouse’s identity. As the Spirit enters a person, the self becomes less self-centred and more Christ-centred. “He must increase and I must decrease (John 3:30)”. Therefore he believes the primary meaning of marriage is found in its function as a spiritual metaphor: The exclusive love found within the Trinity and the exclusive, holy nature of God’s love for creation are to be reflected in the exclusive love shared by husband and wife.^[46]

Proponents of the concept of “open marriage” work from the premise that no individual can completely to fulfil all the needs of one’s spouse so one should not look to their spouse as the total fulfilment of one’s physical, emotional, and even sexual needs. Proponents of this position advocate sacrificing sexual exclusiveness within marriage for the sake of marital permanence, for, it is assumed, both cannot be maintained together. Biblically speaking, it is true that no person can ever hope to be the source of total fulfilment for another, for only God is our final resting place.^[47] Even the best marriage can offer only a partial reflection of the glorious future state.^[48] In fact, we see from 1Corinthians6:12-20 that some men within the early Christian community argue that they had the right to go to prostitutes because, being people of the Spirit has moved them to a higher plane, the realm of spirit, where they are unaffected by behaviour that has merely to do with the body.[49]

Dualisms of this type are quite foreign to the basically holistic or unitary anthropology developed by the ancient Hebrews.^[50] Paul’s response is a theological affirmation that human body is a good thing, and that the believer’s body is also to be understood as a temple. This is an argument against dualism.[51] When something holy is joined to what is unholy, the shrine becomes desecrated and made unfit for the Holy Spirit.[52] When one has sex with a “prostitute”, what God intends to be a means of sharing one’s life with another is dehumanised into a momentary coupling for the sole purpose of sexual release. It leaves a legacy of alienation and guilt rather than loving intimacy and mutual commitment.[53] Hettlinger^[54] concludes, “There can be no question that recreational sex is always in danger of treating people as merely convenient objects for pleasure.” 

Another aspect of personal theology revealed through the choice of fidelity or infidelity is related to a person’s understanding concerning the nature of the divine reality. To practice infidelity is to imply that ultimate reality is capricious. It asserts that the universe is characterised fundamentally by unfaithfulness and the world is ultimately disorderly and untrustworthy. This connection between sexual infidelity and personal perceptions of the nature of ultimate reality is reflected in the link made in the OT biblical materials between idolatry and sexual unfaithfulness, like the marital relationship between Yahweh and Israel. In contrast to promiscuity, sexual fidelity affirms the eternal faithfulness of God. For this reason the covenant between male and female in the fellowship of marriage is analogous to the relationship between Christ and the church (Ephesians 5:22-23).^[55] In the covenant of marriage our total being is to exude trustworthiness: words, actions, emotions, and character. Such fidelity to the one spouse is a reflection of our worship to the one God as well as our overall trustworthiness in life, for as whole creatures what happens in one dimension reflects and impacts what happens in other dimensions of our lives.^[56]

Some argue that in Matthew19:8 Jesus says Moses permitted divorce. Lifetime marriage is God’s ideal, but the ideal is not always achievable as we live in a fallen world and sometimes we must do the next best thing. Jesus recognised the difference between the ideal and the real when he distinguished between God’s command not to divorce and his permission of divorce in the OT.[57] Witherington[58] notes that this ruling took into account human fallenness and is not meant to licence divorce. Jesus states that “I tell that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness (porneia) and marries another woman, commits adultery.[59] Farley identifies three situations where a commitment no longer obligates: 1) When the commitment becomes impossible to keep; 2) it no longer fulfils any of the purposes it was meant to serve; 3) another obligation comes in conflict with the first obligation, and the second is judged to override the first.[60] From a situational ethics perspective, situations where the commitment can be impossible to keep could be irremediable and irreconcilable rupture in a relationship, utter helplessness in the face of violence, or inability to go on in a relationship that threatens one’s very identity as a person.[61] Situations where another obligation conflicts with and takes priority over the commitment to marriage include obligations such as fundamental obligations to God, to children, to society, even to one’s spouse, because no relationship should be sustained that entails the complete physical or psychological destruction of a person, including oneself.[62] All of the above can occur in the case of domestic violence.

Having done a detailed exploration into the various ethical positions on fidelity when a marriage has broken down, I would like to summarise my findings. Looking at Genesis1&2 and Matthew19:6, it is clear that marriage involves a monogamous union of a male and female in a lifelong commitment to one another which is to be characterised by fidelity. There is a special emphasis on “what God has joined together”, because humans can then and now join themselves with various others quite outside the will of God. If the couple has been joined by the will of God, then the ruling is no divorce, as the nature of this union is a covenantal union under the standards of the divine law rather than church law or civil law. From a principle ethics perspective, the classical Christian position on sexual behaviour is often summed up through two principles: purity before marriage and fidelity within marriage. There is clear scriptural basis commanding this, and to commit adultery breaks three of the Ten Commandments. Supporters of open marriages focuses on the claim that people of God practiced a double standard, at least in the OT era. However, they fail to differentiate what arose in the ancient society and what the OT presents as the intention of the Creator. The commands in the NT, which actually highlights fidelity in marriage, must be given priority over the practices of the ancient society.

Proponents of open marriages argue that no individual can completely to fulfil all the needs of one’s spouse and advocate sacrificing sexual exclusiveness within marriage for the sake of marital permanence. However, from a consequentialist ethics perspective, fidelity in a marriage that has broken down serves in the couple’s best interest because on a personal level, sex outside of marriage can lead to further emotional pain, unwanted pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases, and on a societal level, it adversely impacts the development of children and the way a person relates to others in the wider social life beyond marriage. From a character ethics perspective, maintaining fidelity in a broken marriage helps develop character and is a display of virtue. Statistically, most marriages break down because of communication problems, which is inevitable due to our fallen nature. This is why a Trinitarian view to marriage where two lives are weaved together into a threefold cord with Christ at the centre is so critical in making marriage a sanctifying experience. Conflicts provide opportunities to grow, which is why couples should persevere in marriages that seems to be breaking down.

Supporters of dualistic anthropology argue that they had the right to go to prostitutes because, being people of the Spirit has moved them to a higher plane, the realm of spirit, where they are unaffected by behaviour that has merely to do with the body. However, dualisms of this type are quite foreign to the basically holistic anthropology developed by the ancient Hebrews. To practice infidelity not only involves dehumanising people for the sole purpose of sexual release, but also implies that ultimate reality is capricious as it asserts that the world is ultimately disorderly and untrustworthy. The only exception to maintaining fidelity in a marriage breakdown I can find is one which entails the complete physical or psychological destruction of a person, such as the situation of domestic violence, as this kind of marriage no longer fulfils any of the purposes it was meant to serve.

Bibliography:

Balswick, Jack O. and Balswick, Judith K. A Model for Marriage: Covenant, Grace, Empowerment and Intimacy. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2006.

Berger, Peter. The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion. Garden City: Doubleday, 1969.

Branson, Mark Lau. “Marriage as sanctification.” Radix Magazine, March/April, 1984.

Brunner, Emil. The Divine Imperative. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1947.

Deddo, Gary W. Karl Barth’s theology of relations: Trinitarian, Christological, and human: Towards an ethic of the family. New York: Peter Lang, 1999.

Farley, Margaret A. Just Love: A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics. New York: Continuum, 2006.

Farley, Margaret A. “The Meaning of Commitment.” In Perspectives on Marriage, edited by Kieran Scott and Michael Warren, 344-356. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Fee, Gordon D. The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 2014.

Fletcher, Joseph. Situation Ethics: The New Morality. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966.

Garland, Diana S. Richmond, and Garland, David E. Beyond Companionship. Philadelphia: Westminister, 1986.

Garland, David E. 1 Corinthians: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003.

Geisler, Norman L. Christian Ethics: Contemporary Issues & Options. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010.

Grenz, Stanley J. Sexual Ethics: An Evangelical Perspective. Louisville: Westminister John Knox Press, 1990.

Gundry, Patricia. Heirs together: Mutual submission in your marriage. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980.

Hettlinger, Richard. Sex Isn’t That Simple. New York: Seabury, 1974.

Hollinger, Dennis P. The Meaning of Sex: Christian Ethics and the Moral Life. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009.

Köstenberger, Andreas J., and Jones, David W. God, Marriage & Family: Rebuilding the Biblical Foundation. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2004.

Lusterman, Don-David. Infidelity: A Survival Guide. Oakland: New Harbinger Publications, 1998.

Mackin, Theodore. What is Marriage? New York: Paulist, 1982.

Russell, Bertrand. Marriage and Morals. New York: Liveright, 1957.

Singer, Peter. Writing on an Ethical Life. New York: Ecco, 2000.

Smedes, Lewis B. Sex for Christians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976.

Smedes, Lewis B. Love within limits. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

Stevens, Paul. Marriage spirituality: Ten disciplines for couples who love God. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1989.

Unwin, J.D. Sex and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1934.

Volf, Miroslav. After our likeness: The church as the image of the Trinity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

Waltke, Bruce. Genesis: A commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001.

Wang, Ying-fan Yvonne. Dr Yvonne Wang’s Blabberings. Last modified October15, 2015. http://dryvonnewang.blogspot.com.au.

Westermann, Claus. Genesis 1-11: A commentary. Minneapolis: Ausburg Publishing House, 1984.

Wilkins, Michael J. The NIV Application Commentary: Matthew. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004.

Witherington, Ben III. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary: Matthew. Macon: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 2006.

Wolcott, Ilene and Hughes, Jody. “Towards Understanding the Reasons for Divorce.” Australian Institute of Family Studies, 20 (1999). Accessed September 12, 2015. http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/WP20.html.

---

[1] Claus Westermann, Genesis 1-11: A commentary (Minneapolis: Ausburg Publishing House, 1984), 160.

[2] Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 233.

Westermann believes neither the explanation of “one flesh” as sexual intercourse or the child in which man and woman become one flesh are correct. This passage is talking about the community of man and woman rather than marriage as an institution for the begetting of descendants. Sexual intercourse is too one sided as the Hebrew describes human existence as a whole under the aspect of corporality.

[3] Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 234.

[4] Andrew Louth, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Genesis 1-11 (Downer’s Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2001), 35.

[5] Stanley J. Grenz, Sexual Ethics: An Evangelical Perspective (Louisville: Westminister John Knox Press, 1990), 58.

[6] Michael J. Wilkins, The NIV Application Commentary: Matthew (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 643.

[7] Grenz, Sexual Ethics, 58.

[8] Ben III Witherington, Matthew (Macon: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 2006), 362.

[9] Andreas J. Köstenberger and David W. Jones, God, Marriage & Family: Rebuilding the Biblical Foundation (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2004), 81.

[10] Köstenberger and Jones, God, Marriage & Family, 82-83. Therefore the sacramental model is largely a product of patristic and medieval mystical thought.

[11] Köstenberger and Jones, God, Marriage & Family, 85-86. divine law= authoritative divine revelation found in the Scripture itself.

[12] Köstenberger and Jones, God, Marriage & Family, 89-90.

[13] Dennis P. Hollinger, The Meaning of Sex: Christian Ethics and the Moral Life (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), 30.

[14] Hollinger, The Meaning of Sex, 168. Adultery breaks: thou shall not commit adultery, thou not lie, thou shall not covet your neighbour’s wife. (Exodus 20:14-17).

[15] Hollinger, The Meaning of Sex, 30.

[16] Joseph Fletcher, Situation Ethics: The New Morality (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966), 108.

[17] Fletcher, Situation Ethics, 109.

[18] Grenz, Sexual Ethics, 99.

[19] Grenz, Sexual Ethics, 101.

[20] Hollinger, The Meaning of Sex, 24. Here, there’s no right or wrong, for morality is grounded and determined purely by weighing the consequences of actions.

[21] Hollinger, The Meaning of Sex, 25.

[22] Bertrand Russell, Marriage and Morals (New York: Liveright, 1957), 140. As “Love can only flourish only as long as it is free and spontaneous; it tends to be killed by the thought that it is a duty.”

[23] Hollinger, The Meaning of Sex, 27.

[24] Hollinger, The Meaning of Sex, 29. In open marriages, “humans are then functionally reduced to their material impulses that ultimately seek pleasure, happiness, or their own interests. Such a framework can hardly lead us to moral goodness in sex, for we are dealing with a powerful physical drive in which the line between genuine happiness and hormones gets quite blurred among finite, fallen creatures”.

[25] Grenz, Sexual Ethics, 106.

[26] Peter Singer, Writing on an Ethical Life (New York: Ecco, 2000), 16.

[27] Fletcher, Situation Ethics, 115.

[28] Grenz, Sexual Ethics, 68.

[29] Fletcher, Situation Ethics, 115.

[30] Fletcher, Situation Ethics, 115. If a person develops a pattern of infidelity in the marriage bond, he or she may likewise practice unfaithfulness in other areas of social life.

[31] Grenz, Sexual Ethics, 60.

[32] Grenz, Sexual Ethics, 60.

[33] Hollinger, The Meaning of Sex, 19.

[34] J.D. Unwin, Sex and Culture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1934), 431.

[35] Grenz, Sexual Ethics, 68. In Song of Songs, the longest presentation of the beauty of martial love in the bible, there’s no mention of procreation in its celebration of sexual relations.

[36] Hollinger, The Meaning of Sex, 38.

[37] Jack O. Balswick, and Judith K. Balswick, A Model for Marriage: Covenant, Grace, Empowerment and Intimacy (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2006), 107.

[38] Ilene Wolcott and Jody Hughes, “Towards Understanding the Reasons for Divorce,” Australian Institute of Family Studies, 20 (1999): 8. Accessed September 12, 2015. http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/WP20.html.

[39] Balswick and Balswick, A Model for Marriage, 118. In fact, if a couple claims never to have conflicts, we can only make one of several assumptions: they haven’t been married very long; they don’t talk to each other very much; one spouse has all the power and the other has none; or they are in denial.

[40] Balswick and Balswick, A Model for Marriage, 27.

[41] Grenz, Sexual Ethics, 65.

[42] Balswick and Balswick, A Model for Marriage, 33.

[43] Balswick and Balswick, A Model for Marriage, 45. And though one might prevail against another, two will withstand one. A threefold cord is not quickly broken (Ecclesiastes 4:12).

[44] Balswick and Balswick, A Model for Marriage, 33.

[45] Balswick and Balswick, A Model for Marriage, 38.

[46] Grenz, Sexual Ethics, 70.

[47] Grenz, Sexual Ethics, 104.

[48] Grenz, Sexual Ethics, 105.

[49] Gordon D. Fee, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 2014), 276.

[50] Grenz, Sexual Ethics, 79. This indulgent attitude is based on a dualistic anthropology that divides the human person into two parts, body and soul, which puts forth the soul as the focus of the “real” person and reduces the body to being at best the vehicle for the expression of the “true” person.

[51] Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 277.

[52] David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 235.

[53] Garland, 1 Corinthians, 237.

[54] Richard Hettlinger, Sex Isn’t That Simple (New York: Seabury, 1974), 80.

[55] Fletcher, Situation Ethics, 114.

[56] Hollinger, The Meaning of Sex, 167.

[57] Norman L. Geisler, Christian Ethics: Contemporary Issues & Options (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010), 308.

[58] Witherington, Matthew, 362.

[59] Witherington, Matthew, 363. The semantic range of porneia includes whatever intentionally divides the marital relationship, possibly including, but not limited to, related sexual sins such as incest, homonsexuality, prostitution, molestation, or indecent exposure.

[60] Farley, Just Love, 305.

[61] Farley, Just Love, 306. A marriage commitment which has completely lost its purpose is one where it becomes a threat to the very love it is to serve.

[62] Farley, Just Love, 307.