Two adults agree. Neither is pressured, neither is lying, and both are kind. Many people would say that settles the moral question. Scripture says it does not. Consent is required, and violating it is always wrong, but the Bible measures sex by covenant: the lifelong, exclusive promise of marriage. Jude 3 Project holds that historic Christian ethic, that sexual intimacy belongs within marriage. This guide runs the consent view and the covenant view through the same test cases, reads the texts the covenant view depends on, faces the strongest objection, and ends with a practice for holding the conviction without shame. You can work through it alone in about an hour, or with a group in one session split at the exercise.
Run both views through the same cases
First, state each view at its strongest. The consent view, at its best, is careful. Sex is acceptable when both people are adults, both freely agree, neither is deceived or pressured, and both treat the other with respect. The wrong in sexual sin is overriding another person’s will. The covenant view keeps consent as a requirement and adds a second measure: sex is meant to express and seal a lifelong promise, so freely chosen sex outside that promise still falls short of what it is for.
Now give both views the same four hypothetical cases and see where they actually differ.
- One person pressures or forces the other. Both views call this wrong.
- A husband treats his wife’s body as his to use regardless of her wishes. The consent view condemns it because she did not agree. The covenant view condemns it too, for reasons we will see in 1 Corinthians 7:4.
- Someone agrees to sex after being told a lie about plans to marry. The consent view has to stretch here. Agreement was given, so the view must argue the agreement was invalid because it rested on a false picture of the future. The covenant view calls it wrong without strain.
- Two honest adults with no deception and no plan to marry. The consent view approves. The covenant view does not.
The map is revealing. The two views agree on the first two cases, mostly converge on the third, and split only at the fourth. The real disagreement is narrower than the public argument suggests, and that narrow place is where the reasoning has to happen.
Case three also exposes something. To condemn the lie, the consent view has to bring in conditions about the future: honesty about intentions, about commitment, about what the act means. Agreement in the moment cannot do that work alone.
The premise underneath
The consent view rests on an unspoken premise: if both people agreed, no one was wronged. In a Jude 3 Project conversation with Lisa Fields, Dr. Esau McCaulley challenges exactly that premise. He insists he values consent: “I’m not saying that consent isn’t a thing that exists.” But he argues that “you can be exploited in a consensual relationship,” and he describes the person who wakes up thinking, “although I consented to this, I don’t feel great about it.”
His conclusion is that Scripture does not locate “the morality or the immorality of something at the place of consent. It places in the context of covenant.” He also calls the opposite view, that consent in a Christian setting rules out sin, “a sub biblical idea.”
Reading the covenant texts
Read each passage twice before reading the comment on it.
Genesis 2:24 reads: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” This is narrative describing the design of creation. Note the order of the verbs. Leaving and cleaving come before becoming one flesh. In McCaulley’s reading, commitment is what lets the other person respond in trust, so that “you can give yourself to me and not have it be exploitative.” He summarizes the biblical picture this way: “sexual expression is meant to be a manifestation of or flow out of a lifelong covenant.”
1 Corinthians 7:4 reads: “The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.” The archaic phrase “hath not power” means neither spouse holds sole authority over their own body. The second half is the surprise: in a culture that assumed husbands held authority, Paul tells the husband his body belongs to his wife. McCaulley reads this as requiring a husband to respect his wife’s dignity and agreement inside marriage. That is why case two is condemned by both views. The covenant view keeps consent and places it inside a promise.
1 Corinthians 7:9 reads: “But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.” “Contain” means self-control, and “burn” refers to burning with desire. Lisa Fields points out what the verse assumes. If sex between consenting unmarried adults were acceptable, Paul’s counsel to someone struggling with desire would make little sense. He points them toward marriage.
The strongest objection
The best reply to case four runs like this: Add honesty, mutual care and clear expectations to consent. Then a relationship outside marriage is fine.
McCaulley proposes a test. He asks listeners to “think through all the ways that exploitation is possible within the context of consent,” and then remove each one. List them: deception about intentions, unequal commitment, the freedom to leave once the other has given everything, using someone’s loneliness. Then ask what would rule each one out for good. His answer: “by the time you remove all of those things, you basically have gotten yourself into a marriage contract.”
The argument is about function. The protections a person needs to give themselves completely and safely are the same protections a public, permanent, exclusive promise supplies. Each condition the improved consent view adds moves it closer to marriage.
A second objection says the biblical texts addressed a world of rich men exploiting slaves and the poor, not equal adults today. McCaulley grants that most first-century sexual sin was exploitative. His reply turns on Matthew 15:19: “For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:” Adultery already names sexual betrayal of a spouse. If fornications meant only the same thing, listing it separately would add nothing. The separate entry suggests a category of sexual sin where no spouse is betrayed, which in a world where most adults married would include sex between the unmarried. McCaulley adds that New Testament dictionaries define porneia broadly as sexual immorality.
Be honest about the limits. Lists in Scripture can overlap, so a separate entry is strong evidence of a distinct category rather than proof. Interpreters also debate the exact range of porneia in particular passages, such as the exception in Matthew 5:32 or the requirement in Acts 15. The broad sense is widely held, but specific verses remain discussed.
What the argument shows, and what it does not
The test cases and counterexamples show that consent can be insufficient, and they make it likely that sex detached from lasting commitment often carries hidden harm. By themselves they do not prove that every unmarried sexual relationship is wrong. That conclusion rests on the texts: Genesis 2:24’s order, Paul’s direction of desire toward marriage, and the broad use of porneia. The practical argument explains why the biblical teaching is wise; the texts are what establish it.
Several things do not follow:
- That sexual sin is worse than other sin. McCaulley says Christianity is hard about money and honesty too.
- That marriage permits anything. 1 Corinthians 7:4 places obligations on both spouses.
- That someone abused carries guilt for what was done to them. Assault is a sin against a person.
- That a person’s past decides their future. McCaulley’s answer to that lie is that “a long sin is not a permanent sin.”
- That anyone must stay in a dangerous relationship. If you are in an abusive relationship, the National Domestic Violence Hotline is available at 1-800-799-7233.
Exercise: map case four
Do this on paper. In a group, work in pairs and compare maps afterward.
- Write the consent view’s verdict on case four as three short premises and a conclusion, in your own words.
- Circle the premise that carries the most weight. Write a realistic hypothetical that tests it. Do not use anyone you know.
- Write the covenant view’s verdict the same way. Mark which premise comes from a specific text and name the text.
- Find the weakest point in the covenant map and write the objection as strongly as you can.
- For each map, answer: What evidence would change my mind about this? If your answer for the view you hold is “nothing,” look again. Your view may still be right, but you have not yet seen what it depends on.
Facilitators: aim for clarity, not a vote. If someone holds the consent view, ask them whether the group’s version of it is fair before anyone responds to it.
Discussion questions
- Where in ordinary conversation does the word consent settle a question about sex, and where does it leave the question open?
- In case three, is the wrong best described as a failure of consent or a failure of commitment? What turns on the answer?
- Genesis 2:24 puts commitment before union. What would change in how people relate if that order were taken seriously?
- How does 1 Corinthians 7:4 complicate the idea that marriage simply licenses sex?
- McCaulley describes sin as a moment when God’s wisdom seems impractical: “It’s an implicit doubt of God’s wisdom.” Does this description fit or fail to fit your experience of temptation?
- Which carries more weight for you, the biblical texts or the practical argument about exploitation? What would a view built on only one of them look like?
Practice: one conviction, three listeners
Lisa Fields names a real harm. Some people’s first sexual experience was abuse they did not choose, and teaching that treats virginity as a badge has added shame to that injury. Of her own choice to wait, she says, “my decision doesn’t make me better than anyone.” She also refuses to let that harm decide the question: “you don’t combat the misuse of scripture by misusing it.” McCaulley warns teachers that they are often “not always aware of the trauma that might be in the audience,” and describes his aim this way: “I’m trying to be compassionately passionate about the truth.”
Try this. Write two or three sentences explaining why sex belongs within marriage, as you would say them to a friend who already agrees. Then rewrite them for someone whose first experience was abuse. Then rewrite them for someone who has lived differently for years and is wondering whether faith has room for them.
Compare the three versions. Some words will change in tone, and they should. Now check the substance. If the conviction itself had to bend for the second or third listener, ask why. If it stayed the same while the shame dropped out, you have found the difference between a conviction and a verdict on a person.
Facilitators: no one should be asked to share their sexual history. Let people read their rewrites if they choose, or simply describe what changed. If someone discloses abuse or ongoing harm, thank them, follow up privately, and connect them with a pastor or counselor who can walk with them.