In some circles it has become axiomatic that sexual sins are no worse and no different from any other sins. This is only half true. To be faithful to Scripture we must divide the question because there are two things to be considered here: the natural order and the moral law.
According to the moral law, namely the seventh commandment (numbered in the Reformed churches), sexual immorality is a transgression of God’s holy law. It says, “You shall not commit adultery” (Exod 20:14; ESV). Following the historic and ecumenical understanding of this commandment, the Reformed churches confess that this commandment covers all sexual immorality. In the Heidelberg Catechism (1563) We confess:
108. What does the seventh Commandment teach us?
That all unchastity is accursed of God, and that we should therefore loathe it with our whole heart, and live chastely and modestly, whether in holy wedlock or in single life.
109. Does God forbid nothing more in this commandment than adultery and such gross sins?
Since both our holy body and soul are temples of this Holy Spirit, it is His will that we keep both pure and holy. Therefore, He forbids all unchaste actions, gestures, words, thoughts, desires, and whatever may entice thereto.
We should note a few things. As always, there is a positive command and a prohibition. First, positively, it teaches us that chastity is to be observed both within marriage and outside of it. The Oxford English Dictionary gives three definitions for the adjective chaste: (1) “abstaining from extramarital, or from all, sexual intercourse;” (2) “not having any sexual nature or intention;” (3) “without unnecessary ornamentation; simple or restrained.” The catechism has in mind all three of these aspects of chastity.
Second, we understand the seventh commandment to forbid not just obvious sexual sins such as adultery (when married persons have sex with someone who is not their spouse) and fornication (sexual activity outside of marriage) but “all unchastity.” This covers pornography, prostitution etc., ad infin. Third, we invoke (by way of allusion) Paul’s teaching on sexual morality in 1 Corinthians 6:18–20 about which I will say more below.
From that passage we draw the good and necessary inference that “all unchaste actions, gestures, words, thoughts, desires, and whatever may entice thereto” are forbidden. We know from our Lord’s teaching in Matthew 5:28 that unchaste “thoughts and desires” are forbidden. He says, “But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (ESV). Perhaps the most overlooked but important clause to consider in our hyper-sexualized context is the phrase “and whatever may entice thereto.” As it has become axiomatic for some that all sins are the same, so too it seems to have become axiomatic than enticing no longer exists. Were that the case, however, the advertising business should have ended along with the death of enticement. Of course it exists. The purpose of advertising is to entice customers to buy things.
We may not doubt that sexual sins are no more or less sinful than violations of the other commandments. Idolatry, corrupt worship, profaning the Lord’s name, sabbath breaking, defying authority, murder, theft, and coveting are equally sinful. This is not to say, however, that all sins are the same in their nature. Scripture clearly distinguishes some sins from others by their nature (i.e., what they are in themselves).
In the nature of things, after the fall, it is possible for godly, regenerate men and women to be enticed (or to entice one another) into sin. We must not fall into the trap of perfectionism when it comes to sexual temptation and sin. We should not think that when one is given new life and true faith that one no longer suffers from sexual temptation. In previous eras we recognized this reality. Those who have been born in the wake of the 2nd sexual revolution (post 1967) have had their moral compasses recalibrated and thus may not be able to tell north from south without deliberately re-calibrating. Because of the sexual revolution, we hardly know what chastity is any more. Under this heading we could discuss dress, and decorum but we need first to grasp an underlying concept. Chastity is the recognition that, after puberty, humans are sexual beings. This recognition is not, as has been alleged, “Freudian.” It is biblical. Chastity is not “sublimation.” It is the recognition of reality. Superman does not sublimate his power, he conceals it. There is a real difference. To look at his alter ego, mild-mannered Clark Kent, one would never know that he was Superman. He has his powers but he does not brandish them about. One cannot imagine Superman saying, “Sun’s out, guns out!” It would be out of character. It would be immodest. Chastity is sexual modesty.
We need not appeal to Clark Kent, however, because we have Paul’s own instruction:
Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret (Eph 5:11-12).
This is modesty in speech. Some things are so contrary to God’s moral law, to piety, that we should not only avoid them, we should not even speak of them.
Paul was realistic about human sexuality after the fall. He was aware that it is possible for pious Christians to become ensnared in sin (1 Tim 2:26). Further, some sexual sins (e.g., homosexuality) are not only sinful they are against nature itself. This is a truth seems too frequently ignored in the contemporary discussions. God’s Word says that some sins are not only sins but they are against nature itself: “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature” (Rom 1:26). The plain truth is that heterosexual sex outside of marriage is sin but homosexual acts are not only sinful but males were never intended to have sex with other males and females were never intended to have sex with females. It is contrary to the natural order instituted by God.
Further, Paul expressly places sexual sins in a distinct category:
Flee sexual immorality (πορνείαν). Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the one committing sexual immorality (πορνεύων) sins against his own body or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. Therefore glorify God with your body (1 Cor 6:18–20).
There are two classes of sin: those outside the body (e.g., theft and murder) and those “against the body,” namely sexual immorality. It is ironic that we speak so freely of “porn” because that is the root of the words that Paul uses for sexuality immorality. In it we have the clearest example of the sort of enticement to which the catechism refers and that Paul has in mind.
We are told that, when confronted with a moral threat, humans have two basic impulses: flight or fight. Sometimes we must stand and fight. Paul uses that very imagery in Ephesians 6:10–16. He speaks of “fighting the good fight twice (1 Tim 6:12; 2 Tim 4:7). Sometimes, however, running away is the better choice. Self-defense experts tell us that whenever possible, run away. Fighting or killing someone is a last, desperate resort. Some sins are so dangerous, so ensnaring, that the only thing to do is to run away.
Wisdom knows when to fight and when to run. Wisdom also recognizes the existence of the differences between men and women, that by creation, we are wired differently. That is to say that we would be different even without the fall but that after the fall, those natural differences are corrupted and instead of being complementary they become opportunities for discord, strife, and sin. Men and women look at sex differently. Both are tempted to sexual immorality in different ways. Men and women are both sinners, both in need of grace, both in need of repentance, and both in need of sanctification of their sexuality but the way that works itself will probably be different for men and women.
All sins are violations of God’s holy law but all sins are not the same. Some, such as sexual sins, are “against the body” and against the soul in a way that other sins are not. Christians ought to recognize this distinction and, by God’s grace alone, in union with Christ, the Holy Spirit helping us, act accordingly.
R. Scott Clark
R.Scott Clark is the President of the Heidelberg Reformation Association, the author and editor of, and contributor to several books and the author of many articles. He has taught church history and historical theology since 1997 at Westminster Seminary California. He has also taught at Wheaton College, Reformed Theological Seminary, and Concordia University. He has hosted the Heidelblog since 2007.
More by R. Scott Clark ›
The problem is that our understanding of “porneia” as it was used in Paul’s day is different from what the authors of the Confessions understood it to mean. They translated it to mean “fornication,” but this is almost universally rejected today. Today most translations use “sexual immorality” to translate porneia, but this is an incredibly broad and vague term. There is a lot of scholarly activity going into exactly what the NT authors (including Jesus) had in mind when they wrote to flee porneia. Today the scholarly consensus seems to be that, in its broadest usage, porneia means any sexual immorality as defined in the Torah. Other translators use the context in which porneia was used; Jesus, for example, was clearly talking about adultery when using porneia.
Regardless, it’s hard to make the case that “porneia” refers to all sexuality outside of marriage. The Torah makes no such prohibition, and if porneia refers to sexuality forbidden in the Torah, then the boundaries of sexual sin are not nearly as clear cut as the Reformers thought and as many Christians think today. Sexual sin is dangerous and should be scrupulously avoided. At the same time, we shouldn’t build unnecessary fences that effectively bind consciences beyond what Scripture commands.
Mason,
I’m allowing your comment to stand because it’s a good opportunity to refute this nonsense. Four standard NT and LXX references are sufficient:
BAGD:
Louw-Nida:
and on the LXX:
On the LXX, MT, NT, and Apostolic Fathers:
On the relationship of sexual perversion and other gross sin, I wonder if HB readers are aware of the case of Toronto serial killer, Bruce McArthur. Bruce McArthur is a homosexual and a landscaper who used his landscaping business to hide the remains of other homosexual men he killed during homosexual sex acts. So far he has been charged with the murder of eight homosexual men, and the attempted murder of another man that they found chained to a bed in McArthur’s apartment. They are still searching for, and finding new human remains, on property that McArthur landscaped. The case has also prompted investigations of other missing homosexual men. They think he may have been active for many years.
RSC — Yes, I’m tracking with you. It seems inescapable that Paul intends to describe an increasing degradation of the creature (slippery slope).
rfwhite,
I find your comment very interesting. There is a continual war going on between God and Satan. Satan is always on a mission to destroy God’s creation. Sex is the way God completes His people in the natural order, so Satan is trying to pervert it. Throughout the Scripture sexual sin has the unique distinction of being a type for idolatry, that leads to a vortex of Satanic perversion. The worship of Baal and false religion features all manner of sexual perversion, which goes against God’s intended use for sex as between a man and a woman who would give birth and nurture their children in the family unit. God’s promise is, I will be a God to you AND your children. That promise depends on the right use of sexual relations and passing on the spiritual promise in the family unit.
RSC — Appreciate your post. Your statement that “some sins are not only sins but they are against nature itself” caught my attention. The phrase ‘contrary to/against nature’ in Rom 1 provoked a question. It is arresting that Paul attributes the trait ‘contrary to nature’ to homosexual acts. My question is, does he attribute that trait *uniquely* to homosexual acts, or is it a trait also attributable to other sins? For example, is the sin of bestiality also ‘contrary to nature’ in that it is contrary to man’s nature as human and the beast’s nature as animal? Further, might we say that all sins are ‘contrary to man’s nature’ in that all sins are contrary to man’s nature as a creature who owes service to his Creator? I expect it’s agreeable that all sins are idolatrous and contrary to man’s nature as creature. Interestingly, Paul describes both idolatry and homosexual relations as involving an act of ‘exchange’ and, by implication, as contrary to nature (cf. 1.25 with 1.26b).
Fowler,
I’m reasonably sure that, if homosexual acts are contrary to nature, we can infer that bestial acts (Ex 22:19) are also contrary to nature.
It’s not an entirely theoretical question:
https://heidelblog.net/2013/03/hide-your-pets/
While I’m at it:
https://heidelblog.net/2017/02/the-normalization-of-pedophilia-approaches/
https://heidelblog.net/2013/01/if-its-news-is-it-still-a-slippery-slope/
Good reminder on the sinfulness of sexual sins.
If you’re having immense difficulty with sexual sins and temptations, bring it to Christ, and a trusted friend in the Lord, and even a church leader/elder.
In Christ there is hope, restoration, forgiveness, and a community of believers to aid and encourage those who battle sexual sins of all stripes (Heb 12:1-2).
Perhaps, Angela, all sins are uniquely offensive in some different way to God. Paul does not assign a relative heinousness to other sins, in saying a person sins against his own body, but does assign a unique attribute to the sins against our own body, a self-reference from perpetrator to victim that is akin to the spilling of food somewhere, compared to the spilling of food upon oneself. The description “against his own body” has a wisdom-saying feel to it, as if to say, “how wise is that?”
Thank you Larry, for this remarkable insight. Other sins are against God and neighbor, but sexual sin has a unique component in that it is uniquely against our own person, that defiles us.
Larry,
Thank you for this insightful comment. Other sins are against God and\or neighbor but sexual sin has a unique component, as it is against ourselves, defiling our own body.
These posts on sexual sin, and the previous post, Born Of A Woman, are cause to reflect on how amazing this gift of a human body really is, and how sin that defiles it is a unique affront to God. Christ condescended to join His deity to a body just like ours, so that He could not only be our representative, but to have fellowship with us. He seems to have delighted in calling Himself the Son of Man. The temple, the centre of OT worship, was typological of the human body of Christ, so that he prophesied that if you destroy it, He would raise it in three days. God is making us like Him by regeneration of the indwelling Spirit, in this body of ours, His purchased possession. This very body will be raised incorruptible and glorified. When everything was taken from him, Job gloried that with his very eyes he would see God. When we consider how wonderful this body is, it is God’s masterpiece, created in His own image, it should give us every incentive to avoid defiling it, and from tempting others by sinful choices and actions.
Thank you Angela for the (duplicated) praise. 😉
By professor saying that immorality is sin a a way that other sins are not (against a person’s own body), and by my saying that all sins are uniquely offensive in some way to God, I didn’t mean to imply that immorality in various forms cannot be compared to other sins for severity.
I have heard an argument that Jesus did not preach against homosexuality, even though He mentions Sodom. This argument supposedly is buttressed by using Ez 16:49 (but not 16:50!), to the effect that mentioning Sodom, by itself, is only to specify Ez 16:49 sins.
But when He mentions Sodom, it is precisely to point out comparisons of severity between sins! All sins are not alike … and some sins are far worse than others, namely, the sin Christ indicts in mentioning Sodom: unbelief in Him. It’s not merely that unbelief in Him is worse than not tithing one’s garden herbs: it will be more tolerable “for Sodom” in the day of judgment than for the unbelieving towns (Mt 10:15; Lk 10:12), because of the notorious severity of its sins. If the Lord’s comparison to Sodom doesn’t depend on the severity of the sins of Sodom, than His indictment of the unbelieving towns is emptied of force.
Thank you, Larry. I agree, rejecting Christ is the unforgivable sin. Every other sin can be forgiven through our High Priest and His sacrifice, but if we reject Him there is nothing left but a fearful looking for the judgement. Hebrews 10: 27
What brings me back to my senses is the thought that it’s my sin that killed Jesus as well as inherited sin – we are saved by Grace and are In Christ Jesus – Father sees us as Righteous in His Son – and the sanctity process is lifelong with us all.
What an amazing God we serve
This is an excellent explanation of Heidelberg 108 and 109. It also ties in perfectly with the post on Pastors, the Graham Rule, and Wisdom. God considers sexual sin particularly heinous because our bodies are His property! They were purchased with the blood of His precious Son! Our bodies are indwelt by His Holy Spirit. Sexual sin is therefore uniquely offensive to God, that is why any temptation or situation that might lead us to fall into it should always be avoided. This idea that we are above such temptation, or that we have the strength to resist it, when we allow ourselves to be in potentially dangerous situations is just the mistake that Satan is waiting to take advantage of. Aside from the devastating effects infidelity has on the sinner, his family, and everyone involved with him, it is a sin that defiles his body, the blood bought property of our Lord and Savior, which He intends as a temple where God is glorified. Run from it! Thank you for making this point.