(Archive of other audio sermons)

or

Sunday 10 March 2002 - `Sexual purity'

(Summary of sermon by Rev Peet Botha)

Jer 37:1 - 2; 1 Cor 6:12 - 7:4

   Let the father persuade his son,
   and the mother her daughter
   to live in chastity for Christ,
   for children are common to both of them.

             Author unknown

SEXUAL PURITY BEFORE MARRIAGE

1 CORINTHIANS 6:12 – 7:40

 What is the Biblical answer today for the unmarried regarding sexual purity?

Is sexual purity a Biblical imperative? Can sexual purity be regarded as only a historical cultural phenomenon that has no application within a modern 21^st century community?

 The central theoretical argument being tested is whether sexual purity implies that physical contact between unmarried people must be denounced in the light of 1 Corinthians 6:12–7:40.

The above portion in the letter to Corinth addresses sexuality within and outside of marriage. Paul is adamant that the body is not meant for sexual immorality (6:13). Porneia (sexual immorality) is rejected in no uncertain terms as a sin against the self as well as sin against the Lord. Porneia robs the Lord of that which belongs to Him (6:15) and is in essence anti-Christian. Porneia is the enemy who aims to destroy marriage. Therefore Paul gives the advice to flee from porneia as one would flee from a mighty enemy in a war situation (6:18). Porneiva replaces the focus on eternity with a focus on the temporal (6:19).

This portion (6:12-20) defines porneia in terms of its essence. Paul’s whole argument is meant to define porneia as a rejectable sin, which has eternal consequences. Porneia
undermines the intention of God for humans with regard to sexual purity. The person who practices porneia ignores and denies that God’s purpose with regard to sexuality is localized. It is meant to be realised within the constraints of marriage.

1 Corinthians 6:12-16 is the prelude to chapter 7 (verse 1-40). After Paul has defined the essence of porneia (6:12-20) he writes- it is good for a man not to touch a woman (7:1). Touch is used here with a sexual intention. In conjunction with purousthai(sexual desire) in 7:9 Paul formulates a principle regarding sexual purity. Not only is porneia rejected in totality, but all situations that could give rise to purousthai has to be avoided. Where it becomes impossible to avoid purousthai (sexual desire), the couple must marry so that purousthai can be quenched within marriage, that is between husband and wife.

Paul shows clearly that sexual contact outside of wedlock is sin and needs to be classified as porneia. It is regarded as sin against the physical body, the temple of the Lord. This correlates with you are not your own. 6:19, therefore glorify God in your body. 6:20 and the body is for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 6:13. There can thus be no uncertainty regarding the intention of Paul. Sexual contact outside of marriage is porneia and is rejected.

This study has shown that porneia (sexual immorality) is rejected in the Bible (Galatians 5:19; Colossians 3:5). Porneia is all extra-marital sex. It is also clear that pre-marital sex is to be regarded as porneia (1 Corinthians 7:1). This has not only reference to the sexual deed, but includes kissing, necking, hugging, touching, et cetera. All are actions which would give rise to purousthai. Sexual purity implies not only the avoidance of physical contact, but also the avoidance of porneia in one’s thoughts (Matthew 5:28). There is a total incompatibility between porneia and the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9; Ephesians 5:5).

The parthenos (virgin) symbolises a pure lifestyle. This is a lifestyle free from porneia (sexual immorality). The virgin can only yield her virginity within the scope of marriage (7:36). As an alternative to marriage virginity may be retained in service to the Lord (7:37-38). Virginity is a gift from God and this gift can only be yielded in marriage. Parthenos has the very clear meaning that it is a person (male or female) who has never had any sexual contact with another person (Revelations 14:4).

It is clear that in the evaluation of sexual purity before marriage there are two schools of thought. Christ teaches us by His Spirit to understand God’s Word. In the understanding of His Word the Holy Spirit should always be present (Floor, 1990:24). Is it possible that the Spirit can lead two groups of theologians to understand the Bible so differently? The difference seems to lie in the hermeneutic axioms. This means there is a difference in the basic point of departure that the Bible is the eternal and everlasting Word of God. Some regard the Bible as a book about God. Others regard the Bible as the Word of God. The golden rule of Reformed interpretation of the Bible is: Sacra Scriptura sui ipsius interpres – the Holy Scripture is for itself its own interpreter. This means that Scripture cannot interpret against itself. When this thesis is evaluated according to whether it has reached the outcomes set for it, the hermeneutic axioms of the two schools of thought must be kept in mind.

It would seem therefore that God’s revelation regarding sexual purity is quite clear. All sexual relationships outside of marriage are porneia. Therefore all sexual relationships outside of marriage are wrong and in terms of the Biblical evaluation thereof, it is sin. A contemporary application of this viewpoint would imply that believers need to be taught that sexual relationships before marriage are forbidden by the Bible and must be regarded as sin. God’s revelation of sexual purity ordains that it is a Biblical imperative to avoid all sexual contact before marriage. This includes any physical contact (kissing, necking, hugging, et cetera).

Kwasizabantu Mission is evaluated for their teaching on sexual purity before marriage. Their teaching stipulates that all sexual contact before marriage is sin and to be rejected. Further to that it is taught that there should be no physical contact whatsoever between young men and young women. Kwasizabantu Mission regards the Bible as the Word of God. It has been shown that their teaching concerning sexual purity before marriage has its roots in the Bible and not in Zulu culture. In the light of the socio-historical and theological research done for this study, it is concluded that the teaching of Kwasizabantu Mission regarding sexual purity before marriage, is Biblical.