Why Consent Alone Doesn’t Make Something Moral: Lessons from the Ancient World and Our Modern Error

 Why Consent Alone Doesn’t Make Something Moral: Lessons from the Ancient World and Our Modern Error

In our modern Western culture, “consent” has become the moral measuring stick, especially in areas of sexuality, bodily autonomy, and relationships. The idea is simple: as long as everyone agrees, it must be good—or at least permissible. While consent is necessary to prevent coercion and abuse, it’s a mistake to assume that consent alone makes something moral. This idea would have been foreign to the ancient world, especially the biblical worldview. In both the Ancient Near East (ANE) and the first-century Jewish context, morality was never based solely on personal will or mutual agreement. It was grounded in divine order, covenant loyalty, and communal integrity. To elevate consent as the ultimate moral test is not just historically shallow—it’s spiritually dangerous.

Consent Does Not Equal Righteousness

Two people can agree to lie, cheat, exploit, or even destroy each other—and many do. But mutual agreement does not transform sin into righteousness. A married person may “consent” to adultery. A community may “consent” to injustice (Matthew 27:20–23). A teenager may “consent” to self-harm. But no matter how sincere the agreement, the moral damage remains. Consent can be shaped by ignorance, manipulation, trauma, or desperation. It does not guarantee goodness—it only removes coercion. We need a moral compass that goes beyond what people are willing to do to what is right to do.

Where Did the Modern Consent Ethic Come From?

The rise of consent as a moral foundation came from the Enlightenment and later secular humanist movements. Thinkers like John Locke and Immanuel Kant emphasized individual autonomy, self-ownership, and rational choice. This deeply influenced Western liberal democracies and eventually modern ethics. In the 20th and 21st centuries, particularly after the sexual revolution, consent became the chief criterion for sexual ethics. As long as two (or more) adults consent, the thinking goes, no one has the right to say it’s wrong. But this shift replaced a transcendent moral framework with a relativistic one. Without any reference to God's design, human dignity became unmoored from objective truth and tied instead to momentary agreement. Consent, once a legal safeguard, became a moral substitute.

The Ancient Near East: Morality by Covenant, Not Consent

In the ANE, moral behavior was determined by divine command, social harmony, and covenantal loyalty—not individual autonomy. Take Genesis 16: Sarai consents to give her maidservant Hagar to Abram to produce a child. Technically, everyone involved participates. But the result is conflict, abuse, and divine disapproval. The action, though consensual, is morally flawed because it bypasses God’s promise and exploits another human being.

Similarly, Canaanite religious rituals involving temple prostitution were likely consensual in a technical sense—but condemned in the Torah (Deuteronomy 23:17–18). Consent did not redeem these acts from spiritual corruption.

First-Century Judeo-Christian Thought: Holiness Over Agreement

In the first-century Jewish and early Christian world, ethics were measured against God’s revealed will. Paul’s letters reflect a strong moral standard that doesn’t waver based on cultural acceptance or human consent. In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul rebukes a believer for a sexual relationship with his father’s wife. There is no indication of coercion—it was consensual. But Paul calls it “sexual immorality… that even pagans do not tolerate.” Consent did not sanctify what was against God’s design. Romans 1:32 is even clearer. Paul says people not only commit wicked acts but “approve of those who practice them.” In other words, people give consent and even applause to sin—but that does not make it moral. It simply reveals how far the human heart can drift from the truth.

Even Secular Law Sets Limits on Consent

Ironically, even modern legal systems recognize that consent isn’t everything. You can’t:

Consent to be murdered.

Consent to sell yourself into slavery.

Legally consent to sex as a minor.

Consent to fight someone without legal consequences.

Why? Because society still acknowledges—however inconsistently—that some things are inherently harmful, regardless of agreement. That truth points us back to a deeper foundation for morality than consent can provide.

True Morality: Anchored in God, Not Human Will

Consent is important, but it is not absolute. In Scripture, morality is based on the nature of God, the purpose of creation, and the flourishing of His people. Proverbs 14:12 warns, “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.” Just because something feels right or is mutually agreed upon does not make it good. Throughout history, people have justified idolatry, exploitation, and injustice under the banner of consent. But God’s justice pierces through the fog of cultural agreement. He calls people to holiness, not merely harmony. To covenant, not compromise.

Conclusion

The modern world has confused freedom with goodness. It has traded covenant for contract, and divine order for personal autonomy. While consent is a vital component of justice, it cannot determine righteousness on its own. From the ancient world to today, true morality comes not from what people agree to do, but from what God has called them to be.