Whither Jealousy?

30 June 2026

Some while back, I found myself in a public discussion with a husband who does not approve of his wife “exchanging attention” with men, which for him includes working with male coworkers, having a male chiropractor, and so on. “I just cannot share her with other men in any way,” he said. Some of their friends had objected to his approach; he felt he was just being a faithful Christian husband, but he wanted a wider range of counsel, so he’d aired the question in public to see what people would say.

Now, the culture in which we live immediately responds with a wave of condemnation. He’s controlling, abusive, jealous. He needs therapy. She should divorce him. And so on. But not so fast. Our culture approves of adultery, fornication, infanticide, and a host of other evils; nobody should be trusting the culture’s judgment. All these evils are founded on a specific spiritual poison: a worship of personal autonomy that bridles at any infringement by anybody for any reason — and at this particular cultural moment, that goes double for a man infringing on a woman’s choices.

In the conservative evangelical world, we’re tempted to notice that poison, and respond to this husband with approval. Whatever annoys our autonomous, self-worshipping, adulterous, feminist culture must be a good thing, right? It’s a tempting line of thought.

Not so fast. Our culture is certainly not an authority on healthy marriage, but it is not a universal anti-authority either. Just because it disapproves of something doesn’t make that thing good. Which is to say that we’re not relieved of the duty of discernment; we have to make our own determination. This is nothing new: “Test all things; hold fast to what is good.”

So let’s do the work. First, this man is jealous of his wife’s attentions. The world wants that to be a bad thing, but it isn’t, necessarily. Jealousy is not automatically out of bounds; God is jealous too. Righteous jealousy is a zeal for what is rightfully yours. So the question we need to ask is, is this man claiming what’s his, or is he overreaching? As always, we norm our expectations by Scripture.

As a practical matter, Scripture paints a picture that’s hard to square with this man’s sentiment. It’s difficult to see how the excellent wife of Proverbs 31 could do what she did without interacting with men: servants in her own house, other members of the community, whoever owned that field, the workers in her vineyard. It’s difficult to see how a wife could follow the instructions given her in the New Testament without interacting with men. The command that women should be “keepers-at-home” did not mean they never interacted with the world; much the contrary. Managing a first-century household was not a reclusive affair: there were merchants to interact with, servants (or masters) to work with, work to get done that, especially in a preindustrial world, would require the assistance of (physically stronger) men. What about today? Really, this hasn’t changed. Being good at the business of life means being able to interact with the people who provide the goods and services you need. A goodly chunk of them will be men.

Thus far the prudential discussion. At a purely practical level, imposing this requirement of “exchanging no attention with men” will make a modern wife’s life difficult to impossible, just as it would have done in OT or NT times. That said, if it really is a righteous requirement, then we should stick with it, trust God and forge ahead. Righteous living is frequently inconvenient, after all. Since when was that a reason not to be righteous?

But it’s not a righteous requirement. There’s no biblical basis for the claim that all of a wife’s attention and interactions belong exclusively to her husband. No passage says that, and as we’ve already seen, the instructions to wives generally require her interaction with the wider world. In all but the most unusual circumstances, she will need to interact with other men in order to be a good helper and “battle-mate” to her husband. (See Leithart’s excellent The Glory of Man for a longer discussion of what it means for the woman to be a helper.)

The biblical instructions on how to treat members of the opposite sex do not align with this husband’s sentiment either. Paul tells Titus to treat the older women as mothers and the younger as sisters. He doesn’t say “don’t exchange attention with them; all their interactions belong to their husbands.” What this husband is describing as his boundary to nip any hint of adultery in the bud is simply not biblical. He needs to go and read Genesis 3: adding our own made-up laws to God’s doesn’t make life better and safer. “Neither shall you touch it” didn’t work for Eve, and “Don’t exchange attention with any other man” isn’t going to be proof against sin either; faith in extrabiblical prohibitions is simply misplaced.

Now, to a man who has settled on “don’t exchange attention with the opposite sex” as his bulwark against adultery, the above paragraphs are going to sound like we simply don’t care about righteousness. If that’s not the answer, then how are we going to prevent adultery? Don’t we understand how destructive it is, and how capable we all are of sin? In other words, where are the brakes on this thing?

This is a sensible set of concerns, and one that every recovering legalist has to face. If the legalism isn’t the bulwark against sin that it’s supposed to be, then what is? The answer to that question starts with a realistic appraisal of the threat. The man who’s demanding more than God thinks he’s taking the threat more seriously than the rest of us, but in fact that’s not the case. He’s missing something crucial.

We are all capable of adultery. All of us are at risk — most of all the ones that think they’re not. If 1 Corinthians 10:13 is true (“No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man”), then the temptations other people fall to are common to the rest of us as well. Just because we haven’t fallen yet doesn’t mean we can’t. Difficult as it may be to imagine, there is some combination of circumstances under which you — you, personally — would want to cheat on your spouse. And the same is true for any other sin. If it tempts anybody, then there is some version of that same sin that would tempt you under the right circumstances. Same for me. The circumstances that tempt me might be easy for you, and vice versa, but none of us is immune to anything. Like the Man said, only God is good. I don’t know what it would take for any given person, but make us angry enough, triumphant enough, sad enough, happy enough, lonely enough, desperate enough for something, anything, to numb the pain…everybody has weaknesses. We’re all in danger, and it’s silly to think we’re not.

It’s equally silly to pretend that sticking to some rule we made up will change that. Even God’s laws cannot keep us from sin. What are the chances that man’s laws will do what God’s cannot? “If there had been a law that could have given life, then truly righteousness would have been through the Law” (Gal. 3:21), but law can’t do that.

So where’s the hedge against sin? If we don’t make up a bunch of extra rules to protect ourselves from adultery (or whatever else), then how do we do it? Paul gives us the answer: “For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit” (Rom. 8:3-4). As he will go on to say a bit later in the chapter, there is no solution to this problem other than the Spirit being at work in you, bringing life where there should be only death.

I’ve been married almost 23 years. Neither of us has ever cheated. Opportunities have come up; we’ve shut them down, hard. I lost a friend over one such situation; I don’t care. If you won’t be a friend of my marriage, you ain’t no friend of mine! We protect our marriage energetically. So should you. But do it in a way that fits with Scripture, not in a way that’s at odds with what God has taught us. That doesn’t mean you have no habits you can’t attach a verse to. I’m not saying that a boundary like (say) the Billy Graham rule is always nonsense; it was probably wise for Billy Graham and Mike Pence, and may be wise for other people too. Each couple gets to work things out between them, to a point. But it seems worth noticing that the rule ain’t in the Bible anywhere, and Jesus violated it good and hard.

Once upon a time, Jesus sent all His accountability partners to the grocery store, and when they came back, they found him engrossed in a conversation with a woman, alone — and exactly the sort of woman a virtuous man “shouldn’t” be alone with, too! (For the rest of the story, see John 4.) For a particular person, being like Jesus in that way might be off the table for a time, in the same way that a recovering drunkard shouldn’t hang around with people who are drinking (although again, Jesus did). That’s a weakness we should be honest about, but also looking to correct, but likely not a “boundary” we should be committed to for all time. It doesn’t seem wise to decide in advance that we’re going to just commit to being unlike Jesus. There’s nothing wrong with fleeing temptation; it’s a great idea! But when your protections get so tight they’re in the way of fulfilling Scripture, something is wrong. Real protection comes from norming ourselves to God’s way of thinking, feeling, and living, not from performative and/or immature reactions to our ungoverned passions.

Leave a Comment » | Equality and Difference of Man and Woman, New Fundamentals, Social Reality of the Fall, Unity and Community of Christ's Body | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Tim Nichols

Altered States of Consciousness, Part 2: God Gave Ecstasy

15 February 2009

He did, you know.

The squinty-eyed fellow from the Living Way Christian Discernment Ministry* isn’t having any of this.

“No, no, you don’t understand,” he says.  “When you’re in an ecstatic state, you can’t think clearly.  Your defenses are down, you can’t think rationally, and that leaves you open to whatever influences may wander by.  It’s dangerous.”

“How about mid-orgasm?”  I ask him.  “I’d have to say, I’m not at the height of my reasoning powers just then.  Does that make it dangerous, something I should avoid at all costs?”

He looks at me funny, his face reddening.  I think he’s embarrassed that I said the word “orgasm” out loud in the middle of a Christian conversation.

But think about it.

I mean, do we really think that God looks down at a husband and wife and says, “You know Gabriel, if I’d thought it out a little more carefully, I would have done it differently.  Who knew they’d have so much fun with the plumbing?  They’re getting so excited that they’re not thinking about doctrine at all.”

But no.  God knew what He was doing, and every gift of God is good:

Go, eat your bread with joy,
And drink your wine with a merry heart;
For God has already accepted your works.
Let your garments always be white,
And let your head lack no oil.

Live joyfully with the wife whom you love all the days of your vaporous life which He has given you under the sun, all your days of vapor; for that is your portion in life; and in the labor which you perform under the sun.

But it gets better.  Read the Song of Solomon.  Then read the Ecclesiastes quote above, again.  Then read 1 Corinthians 7:3-5:

Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man possess his own wife, and let each woman possess her own husband.  The husband must give his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband.  The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does, and likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.  Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

So taken in its proper biblical context, the command is for husband and wife to practice the Song of Solomon as often as at least one of them desires; in fact Paul specifically warns about the dangers of abstinence.

Now, Song of Solomon gives us a view of lovemaking as a mutually delightful feast for the senses.  And this necessarily involves a state of consciousness rather different from everyday waking awareness — that is to say, an altered state of consciousness.

Married people have no choice but to enter regularly into this altered state of consciousness.  It is a sin not to.

Hmmm.

It gets even better: God requires a husband to be drunk on his wife’s charms all the time.  (Here, not being a wife, I’m going to speak to husbands.  There’s an analogue for wives, but I’m not the person to discuss it.)

Solomon gives some very specific instructions to his sons on attitudes toward their wives:

Let your fountain be blessed,
And rejoice with the wife of your youth.
As a loving deer and a graceful doe,
Let her breasts sate you at all times,
And always be drunk on her loving.

Yeah, I know, old King James says “satisfy” and “enraptured” instead of “sate” and “drunk” — I altered the translation for a reason.  The first word means to be drenched, satiated, well-drunk, with connotations of flooding or drunkenness, depending on the context.  The second word means to wander, stray, or weave about, and by metonymy, to be drunk.  Add it all up, and a husband is to be absolutely besotted with his wife, out of his head, all objectivity completely gone.  She is the only woman in the world.  He may know, intellectually, that there are other women in the world who are sexually attractive, but he can’t quite get over his wife enough to see any other woman that way.

You’ll note that the commands here are not of the grim, moralizing sort: “Young man, the woman you marry is going to get old, and she won’t be so attractive, and you’re going to want to stray, but don’t you dare.  Grit your teeth and bear it, and God will make it worth your while in heaven.”  That’s not at all what Solomon says.  Solomon says, “Son, your job is to be absolutely lost in your wife’s physical charms.”  At risk of belaboring the point, he is not just talking about her great personality.**  

It’s a truism in Christian circles that it’s not a sin to be tempted, but only to yield to it.  This is one case where that’s not really true.  A husband who is seriously tempted to stray (including mentally, in the way Jesus talks about) has already violated this command; if he’s thinking about some other woman’s body, he’s not sufficiently drunk on his wife.  By the same token, a Christian husband who thinks of himself as  “breast man” or a “thigh man” is a contradiction in terms; a Christian husband must be drunk on his wife’s breasts, not breasts generally.  The inner workings of this are another discussion; for now, suffice it to say that it’s a very enjoyable and God-honoring form of meditation.

And it is to be cultivated, not just some of the time, but constantly — note the word “always.”  This is not just when she’s present and in the midst of seducing him, but when he’s at work, when she’s eight months pregnant, when they’ve just had a fight — all the time.  Obviously, this is a profoundly altered state of consciousness.  In fact, the Bible even uses the language of drunkenness to describe it.  

This was just the really obvious example; there are other, similarly altered states we could discuss.  Proper exercise will induce euphoria, for example.  I’m not talking about doing something cruel to your body that kills brain cells and makes you see pretty colors.  I’m talking about inducing, and then pushing through, cardio-respiratory distress.  The result is neuro-immuno-endocrine adaptation; your whole internal physiology reorganizes to meet the increased demands of the exercise.  It’s a complete overhaul — neuromuscular coordination, lactic acid transport, oxygen uptake, the works — very, very healthy for you.  And oooooooooh my, does it feel gooooood.

Singing triumphant, God-glorifying psalms for a good stretch will induce a similar state of euphoria; physiologically, it has to do with the way singing regulates your breathing, and music enhances the effect upon your emotions.  Even an extended responsive reading, carried out vigorously in a group, can do it.  It’s not uncommon for a person in that state to be so overcome that he’s temporarily unable to speak or sing.

Now all these — sexual communion between husband and wife, proper exercise, psalm-singing, and public reading and recitation of Scripture — are things we must do, even if they do feel really good.  If it turned out that all of these things involved mild pain, say, like getting a papercut, then we would preach the joys of serving God in spite of how it may feel at the moment.  We’d quote Paul saying, “the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that will be revealed in us.”  And so on.  In short, we’d be all gung-ho about it.

Well, it turns out that these things are pleasurable instead of painful.  And something about that makes them hard to accept.  It’s hard to get a good self-righteous buzz going when you’re doing something fun.  It’s incredibly revealing — of uour character, of our view of God — that we have such trouble with pleasure.  

But we still need to just obey.  So may I suggest that at the very minimum, we should obey God in spite of how it might feel?  If it turns out that obeying God engenders a hit of endorphins, we’re just going to have to grit our teeth and trust Him to get us through it, in spite of the pleasure.  It’s a tough job, but Christian living can’t always be a bed of thorns.

Of course, we should go much further than that — we should thank God for His good gifts, and enjoy what He has given us, as we are commanded to do.

The squinty-eyed fellow thinks for a moment.  “But the Bible says that if we follow Christ, we’ll have tribulation.”

“So we will,” I tell him, “but does it ever say that it will be tribulation every moment?”

He is silent.  I continue: “Doesn’t it also say that God gives us all things richly to enjoy?  Doesn’t it also say, for example, that the heavens declare the glory of God?  Shouldn’t I enjoy the sunset?”

“Sure you should,” he says.  “But God’s doing that.  When you’re exercising so that you’ll get high, that seems a little different.  It sounds addictive.”

“‘Exercising to get high’ is not quite what I said, but maybe we can come back to that later.  Let’s talk about ‘addictive.’  What does that mean, exactly?” I ask.

“Well, you know,” he says.  “You do something, and you like it, so you get to doing it more, and you like it more, and pretty soon it’s all you can think about.”

“So your solution is to not do anything you like?”  I ask.  “Sounds a little drastic to me.”

“It works,” he says primly.  “I’m not addicted to anything, either.”

“That’s arguable,” I say.  “Paul has some pretty spiky comments about neglect of the body not having any spiritual benefit.  But let’s explore this addiction thing further, because I think you have a valid concern.  It is certainly possible to abuse the pleasures God gives.”

He nods.  “Exactly.”

“So let’s talk about alcohol,” I say.  “It seems like the ideal test case — it’s discussed quite a bit in the Bible, it can be physically addictive, and a person could avoid it altogether and live a perfectly healthy life, so it’s totally optional on that level.”

By this time, he’s a little suspicious.  “Okay…” he says doubtfully.

to be continued…

*See the disclaimer in Part 1.

**Real beauty begins internally, and the Bible has a lot to say about that.  It goes way beyond “having a great personality” — true beauty is both true beauty and true beauty; there is a physical outworking of the internal condition.  But here, Solomon is not talking about internal beauty, and in fact there are no exception clauses for internal ugliness.  He must still be absolutely besotted with her body, no matter what the state of her internal beauty.

3 Comments | Meditations, Worship | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Tim Nichols

Anti-Gnostic Song of Solomon Translations and Commentaries

6 July 2008

Commentary and translation choices are always tricky. The Bible has inspired a lot of comment and translation over the years, and a surprising amount has been poorly done. Nowhere is this more true than with the Song of Solomon.

The first and most blatant problem is the number of interpreters whose starting point is a red-faced “It can’t possibly be saying that!!! So they gin up a flimsy excuse and explain how the Song is really about Christ’s love for the church.

Apparently the church has captivating hair, an intoxicating navel, and really nice breasts (Song 7:1-5). Of course, the real problem with this view is not the patent absurdity of it — and it is absurd — but the starting premise. Why shouldn’t the Song be exactly what it sounds like — a frank celebration of married love in all its complexity, delicacy, and lush sensual splendor?

Read the rest of this entry »

Comments Off on Anti-Gnostic Song of Solomon Translations and Commentaries | Reviews | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Tim Nichols