Book Divine Sex FREE Online Part 1 of 4Pages 1 to 65
http://inkaboutit4u.com/?p=Book_Divine_Sex_FREE_Online_Part_1_of_4
Divine Sex
Liberating Sex from Religious Tradition
Philo Thelos
© Copyright 2002 Philo Thelos. All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the written prior permission
of the author.
Printed in Victoria, Canada
National Library of Canada Cataloguing in Publication
Thelos, Philo
Divine sex : liberating sex from religious tradition /
Philo Thelos.
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 1-55395-400-9
I. Title.
BS680.S5T48 2002 241'.66
This book was published on-demand in cooperation with Trafford Publishing.
On-demand publishing is a unique process and service of making a book available for retail
sale to the public taking advantage of on-demand manufacturing and Internet marketing.
On-demand publishing includes promotions, retail sales, manufacturing, order fulfilment,
accounting and collecting royalties on behalf of the author.
Suite 6E - 2333 Government St., Victoria, B.C. V8T 4P4, CANADA
Phone 250-383-6864 Toll-free 1-888-232-4444 (Canada & US)
Fax 250-383-6804 E-mail sales@trafford.com
Web site www.trafford.com TRAFFORD PUBLISHING IS A DIVISION OF TRAFFORD HOLDINGS LTD.
Trafford Catalogue #02-1115
www.trafford.com/robots/02-1115.html
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3
A
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword page i
Introduction page xi
Chapter One, What Makes A Thing “Sinful?” page 1
Sin defined by Scripture page 3
Missing the mark page 6
Principles that control personal liberty page 9
How can this be right if everyone thinks it is wrong? page 18
The nature and purpose of law page 19
Chapter Two, Naked and Unashamed page 22
Comments from other authors page 22
Observations and conclusions page 36
Women and “modest apparel” page 51
Chapter Three, Polygamy, Monogamy, Concubinage page 54
Polygamy in Scripture page 54
Monogamy page 64
Concubinage page 77
Chapter Four, God’s Erotic Poetry –
The Song Of Solomon page 81
Chapter Five, Adultery page 92
Scripture references to adultery page 94
Comments and observations page 99
Notes on Romans 7:1-4 relating to “adultery” page 116
The “Open Marriage” page 119
Chapter Six, Lust of the Eyes page 124
Scripture references page 126
What exactly is “pornography?” page 134
Chapter Seven, Fornication page 149
Sex and single people page 155
Multiple Sex Partners page 163
Can one person love more than one other person? page 169
Is sexual enjoyment adverse to holiness? page 171
Chapter Eight, Fornication part 2 page 178
Scripture references page 178
Comments and observations page 183
Chapter Nine, Prostitution page 191
Definitions page 191
Scripture references page 192
Comments from other authors page 200
Chapter Ten, Forbidden Sex Practices page 205
Incest page 205
Rape page 207
Bestiality page 207
Certain forms of homosexuality page 208
Chapter Eleven, The Unchanging Nature of God page 216
A crucial principle page 221
Sex and Christian liberty page 225
Liberty is not license page 228
Liberty operates in love page 229
The necessity of experiencing freedom page 230
Chapter Twelve, Sex and Holiness page 238
Definitions page 240
Scripture references page 242
Comments from other authors page 244
The issue of purity page 246
What “defiles” a person? page 247
The ultimate deciding factor page 250
Everything God created is inherently good page 251
Nothing is inherently unclean page 255
Are sex and holiness incompatible? page 264
Chapter Thirteen, The Law of Love and Sex Issues page 275
Sex and vulnerability page 282
Appendix:
The Non-Negotiables of Bible Study/Research page 283
What are the authors against; what are they for? page 291
What is the true meaning of the original words? page 293
What is the literary context of those words? page 296
What is the cultural/historical context? page 298
What geographical elements might be important in
understanding the text? page 300
What social customs are important in understanding
this text? page 301
Does the passage truly speak to our present situation? page 301
Finding The Historical Context page 303
Do I have the courage to stand alone if necessary? page 304
Other Books By This Author page 306
A Selected Bibliography page 307
i
FOREWORD
We want to ask some pointed questions about sex. These
questions address practical issues of living on earth in the flesh,
surrounded by men and women who are all sexual creatures and
all of whom have a multitude of questions about their sexuality for
which no one either has answers, or even dares to ask the
questions.
Most people will never ask these questions of another
person simply because to ask them would raise doubt in the other
person’s mind about the querist’s spirituality. These questions
relate directly to issues of what is holy and what is not; what is
acceptable and what is not. Some of these questions are asked
because conventional sexual attitudes just don’t make sense when
applied to some real life situations.
Especially when we compare
contemporary sexual ethics with what is written very plainly on the
pages of the Bible our reaction is “How can that be true?” Biblical
sexual morality does not even resemble modern “Christian” sexual
morality.
We began asking a few of these questions years ago because
counseling sessions with people who were struggling with sexual
issues usually ended with frustration on the part of everyone
involved. Some of the counselee’s questions we could not answer
with strict Biblical integrity. What we had been trained to say
simply did not match what we found in Scripture and we knew it.
But we didn’t have a better answer than the ones we had heard.
Finding ministerial peers with whom to discuss these questions is
almost impossible because we all know that we don’t have real
answers to some very crucial questions. Not many ministers will
risk asking really difficult sexual questions of a peer because of the
suspicion it raises about one’s personal sexual practices or desires.
But eventually the questions were too numerous to simply
disregard any longer so we set out on a quest to find real Biblical
answers. We think we have found them. Our questions may not be
exactly the same as yours but these are important questions and we
will risk asking them and risk even more in giving our own
answers.
• Why is the OT filled with examples of men practicing
polygamy and having sex with concubines and slaves? Why don’t
we ever read even one line of correction from God about this
ii
practice? If this practice is so bad how could God bless such men as
Abraham, Jacob, David and others and use them mightily for His
purposes, and develop special relationships with them? These men
loved God and would have done anything He told them. Why
didn’t God tell them He didn’t like their multiple sexual
relationships?
If David could have sex with a hundred wives,
concubines and slaves and still go to Heaven, why do you and I go
to Hell if we have sex with even one other woman than our wife?
• How could God simply turn His head and appear to not
know that some of His servants, like Jacob and Samson, consorted
with prostitutes?
God never hesitated to punish or at least to
rebuke the evil behavior of His servants. Why not once does he
indicate that He is even slightly concerned about prostitution?
Why
is there no Biblical law against prostitution per se? Why didn’t
Solomon punish the two prostitutes who fought over one baby?
• Can’t a man even look at a beautiful woman and be aware
that she is sexually desirable without committing “adultery in his
heart?”
If not, is sexual attraction not a legitimate part of the
dating/mating process?
• When does nudity become sinful? We laugh at small
children running naked and even comment on how “cute” they are.
When does it stop being “cute” and become “shameful?” And
exactly why does this change occur? And how do we prove it by the
Bible?
• What is the great difference between sex as animals practice
it and sex as humans practice it? God is not concerned – to any
degree – about how animals practice sex. Why is He concerned
about how humans do it?
Specifically, what is there about the
function of a human penis or a vagina that concerns God more than
the animal equivalents?
What is there about human sexual climax
that makes more difference to God than animal climax? Neither of
these is an issue at all in the animal realm. Animal sex organs
function exactly as humans do and animals climax the same as
humans do. Why do we suppose there is a difference with God?
Does the difference exists only in our imagination? Have humans
somehow contrived the idea that God has placed human sexuality
in a totally different realm than animal sexuality, and has created
special rules to govern it that have no counterpart in the animal
“instinct?” What we know of animal sexual practices we attribute
to animal “instinct” which we believe was created by God. But
iii
some sexual practices that are “normal” in the animal realm are
Divinely forbidden to humans. So we believe that God created
animals with a “natural instinct” to copulate with many different
mates, for example, but forbids humans to do the same thing. What
sense does that make?
Does the Bible really teach this to be true? In
the animal kingdom it is universally common that one male
services an unlimited number of females. That “instinct” came from
God, Who did not change that instinct when He created humans,
for polygamy was natural to humanity from the earliest time and
God never corrected it.
What Divine law establishes that God
frowns upon the human practice of what He created as a natural
instinct within all segments of the animal kingdom?
What is there about the physical act of sex, for either animals or
humans, that causes God to have any concern about how, or with
whom (and how many) it is performed?
If we tried to parallel in the
human realm what we observe in the animal realm what
conclusions might we reach in light of what Scripture actually does
say and what it does not say?
For example, seeing that animal
“polygamy” parallels human polygamy as revealed in Scripture,
and finding no Divine correction of that practice for humans, what
can we conclude except that God approved of polygamy in both
realms?
Sin does not account for polygamy in animals because
animals cannot sin. They do what they do because they are created
that way. If the instinct for polygamy is in animals it is there because
GOD PUT IT THERE! We must draw the same conclusion about
polygamous instincts in humans. God placed that instinct in man
just as He did in animals and when it appears on the human scene
in Gen. 4:23, it appears naturally, without a fuss made about it. It is
probable that other examples of polygamy existed at that time.
Lamech’s polygamy is introduced as nothing unusual.
It appears obvious to us after looking at all the Scriptures that
reference human sexuality that with God the issue has nothing to do
with biological function of human sex organs and climaxes, but with
human relationships of faithfulness, responsibility, etc.
What distinguishes animal sex from human sex in God’s eyes, is not who
is having sex with whom, how often, and what do they do.
God is ultimately concerned that people honor the rights and needs of
other people in the sexual area as in all other areas. The regulations
God placed upon sex are not just plucked from thin air. Each serves
to protect people from abusing others and being abused in sexual
iv
activities.
There is nothing inherently dirty or sinful about any sex
practice whether done by animal or human. What makes any sex act sinful is the evil effect it has upon other people.
• What is there about the physical act of sex that makes it a
spiritual or moral issue for humans?
Animals do the act with no moral implication. So it is not the act that is immoral but something else. What is that?
At what point does the physical act of sex take on
spiritual dimensions for the human?
It seems obvious to us that Biblically, the crucial issue with God is the manner in which we relate to the person we have sex with.
God’s law restricts the physical act for humans so that we do
not trespass on other people’s private, exclusive property, i.e. their
control of their own person.
God requires that we do not take
forcibly what others either cannot or will not voluntarily give, as in
child abuse and rape. It is a sin to take from someone’s person such
an intimate gift without giving something in return.
God’s sex laws
all relate to the issue of treating other people with absolute fairness,
consideration and concern for their well being. There is nothing
inherent in the sex act for either animals or humans that makes it a
moral issue. It is a moral issue for humans because we are spiritual
beings, and how we treat others is a spiritual matter.
• If it is a moral issue, what makes any sex act a “sin?” Since
the Bible itself says “where there is no law there is no sin” and “sin is
transgression of the law” then nothing can legitimately define any sex
act as sin except God’s law!
If no law exists concerning masturbation can that act be sinful?
The answer is “NO!”
If no law exists concerning oral sex can that act be sinful? The
answer is “NO!”
Must we “let every man be convinced in his own mind” (Rom. 14:5)
in aspects of sexuality where God has not legislated? And must we
also “not judge one another any more” in those areas (Rom. 14:13)?
Must we not also allow each person to “have their own conviction
before God” and live by the rule that “happy is the man who does not
condemn himself in what he approves,” (Rom. 14:22)? The answer in
every case is “YES!”
Nothing is sinful because “it just seems to be wrong.” Subjective
opinions, even if followed by the masses, can never establish a
thing as sinful, otherwise sin becomes whatever people think sin to
be. Sin is only what God says it is. If God does not prohibit it, it isn’t sin.
V
Most of us rightfully reject the opinions of those who have moral
convictions about such things as the “sinfulness” of Christmas,
playing cards, movies, makeup, jewelry, women cutting their hair,
or wearing head coverings, etc. Why then do we submit to human
opinion about sexual matters concerning which God has made no
law?
Can we be free to practice those things if it can be done in a
way that will not affect others in a harmful way?
Yes we can!
• Why is it unthinkable to watch humans copulate? God sees
animals have sex every day and pays no attention to it. God also
sees humans having sex everyday and pays no attention to it except
for those situations in which humans do it in disregard of the
welfare of others. Humans can watch the sex act between animals,
show it on nature programs on TV, etc. with no second thoughts
about watching it. How did we derive the conclusion that it is
sinful to watch humans enjoy sex but not sinful to watch animals
do exactly the same thing?
What makes the difference?
• We make much of masturbation in these studies, because it is
the sexual practice people most often ask us about. In fact it is
almost the only practice people will risk asking about.
If masturbation is sinful where is the Biblical law that says so. How
can a sexual practice that involves no one but the practitioner, be
evil?
And when does that evil begin? Has the small child sinned
when (s)he discovers that touching the genitals feels good?
When they discover that playing with their sex organs produces sexual
climax, have they sinned?
Is the “sinfulness” of masturbation determined by one’s age? by how often one touches one’s genitals?
how much pleasure one derives from the practice?
If it is sinful how do we actually know that, and what exactly is it that makes it a
sin?
When children discover the differences between male and
female anatomy and naturally touch the parts of another person’s
body that are different from their own, is it sin?
If that is not “lust”
at what point does it become “lust?” If they continue to
“experiment” this way and a boy has an erection while touching a
girls breast or vagina, has he sinned? Has the girl sinned? If the girl
is fascinated with the boy’s erection and touches it, has she sinned?
If she strokes it and the boy climaxes, is it sin? If the boy touches
her clitoris and she allows him to do so until she has a climax, have
they both sinned? If any of these experiences are sin, how exactly
vi
do we prove that? If one or more of them is sin but the others are
not, how do we know the difference?
At what point do we conclude that “natural curiosity” becomes
sinful, or that experiencing sexual pleasure is sinful?
Why do we
think it becomes sinful? What Bible teaching – that is God’s Law –
makes it sinful? Most parents accept that in children, sexual
curiosity and experimentation is normal. If so, at what point does it
become abnormal? Is it an age thing? Is it the point at which it causes
arousal?
If we teach little Johnny that it is wrong for him to look at
neighbor Suzie’s crotch and he must never again let her see his
penis, what Bible verses do we use?
It is our parental right to tell them
we do not want them to do such things and forbid them to do so.
But if it is only a parental preference, do we dare teach them that God
disapproves, or shame them or create fear in them regarding a
natural physical act?
• How do we come to Bible/God honoring conclusions on
issues like these:
A woman displays her body for the admiration and even sexual
excitement of a man. What is her moral and spiritual condition? Is
she a sinner because of that act?
If a man looks at a beautiful woman, is sexually aroused and is
moved to ask the woman for a date, has he sinned?
Is a man’s delight in a woman’s sexuality legitimate as part of his desire to
marry her?
Is sexual stimulation a natural part of the courting process?
A man is aroused by the physical/sexual beauty of a married
woman. Is this arousal sin?
That is, if a man is sexually excited by
the beauty of a married woman, yet has no desire and forms no
intention to take her away from her husband, has he sinned?
Where is the sin – in the look? in the sexual excitement? What Biblical word
or phrase describes this act as sin?
Is being sexually aroused the same
as desiring to possess a person? Isn’t there a difference between
looking with delight at a thing versus “lusting” after it? “Lusting”
is the desire to possess for oneself what belongs to another.
If the looking does not have that “lust” quality then it is not sinful. So if a
man looks at a woman, married or unmarried, or if a woman looks
at a man, married or unmarried, and delight in the sight, is it sin?
If a man is sexually aroused by a picture of a naked woman is it
sin? If so, based on what Scripture?
Is it possible for a woman to admire a sexually attractive man
without wanting to go to bed with
vii
him?
Is it possible for a woman to look at a man in a swimsuit and
be sexually aroused by his body, without sinning?
If she accidentally observed a naked man and enjoyed the sight did she sin?
If she looked at a photograph of a nude man and was aroused did she
sin?
• What if King David stood on his balcony, saw Bathsheba
bathing naked, became sexually aroused, but did not ask her to
come to his bed?
Would he be guilty of sin? If so, what was the sin;
seeing her naked body? sexual arousal? Suppose he stood and
watched until she finished bathing. Knowing she was married, he
had no desire to have sex with her and no intention of ever making
physical contact with her. Did he sin by watching her and admiring
her sexual beauty?
What if Bathsheba knew he was watching and deliberately let
him watch. Did she sin? Did she commit adultery even though she
did not have sex with him nor even desire to do so?
What if her husband went up on the roof, found Bathsheba
bathing, bathed with her, then had sex with her on the roof and
David watched the whole thing. Did David sin?
Did they sin because someone saw them? If they were aware that David was
watching, did they sin?
Suppose the table was turned on David, and he was bathing on
his roof, and Bathsheba happened to walk out on her roof, saw him,
and watched him. Did she sin?
What if David knew she was there
and did not cover himself. Did he sin?
What if either or both of
them was aroused sexually such that they masturbated. Did they
sin?
The issue is actually very simple. The Bible specifically says
that to look with the desire to possess what belongs to another is sin. But
to simply look with sexual arousal is in no way condemned in the
Scriptures. God specifies one as sin. Why did He not specify the
other as sin? The obvious answer is that it is not sin to look where
there is no intention to steal a mate from a spouse.
• The related question: is sexual arousal inherently sinful if it is
experienced in any context other than that of sexual activity
between a married couple? May a person intentionally arouse
oneself and enjoy sexual orgasm via masturbation as long as that
person does not entertain adultery in his/her mind?
• Suppose a woman likes working around the house naked.
She is naked while vacuuming the living room and her male
neighbor walks across the front of the house to ask for a cup of
viii
flour. As he approaches the window he glances in and sees her
naked back to him. He stops and backs up a bit to hide himself
around the corner but watches as long as she vacuums the living
room. Has he sinned in watching her?
If he had an erection was
that sin? If he was so stimulated that he went back into his house
and masturbated, was that sin? At what point was there sin, if at any
point, and what Biblically establishes it as sin?
Consider a real life, personal situation. Years ago, while living
in another city, we had a group of young men to the house for
some reason. It was evening and while we men were visiting in the
den my wife walked in wearing her nightgown and asked if we
wanted anything. We said no and she left. Later, one of the men, a
friend, commented on how beautiful she looked and said seeing
her in her nightgown began to arouse him sexually and he said “I
had to shift my legs around and ‘fix myself’,” that is, he had to hide
a growing erection.
Did he sin because he had a natural sexual reaction to the sight
of a beautiful woman? Did she sin because she was beautiful and
appeared before those men dressed such (in an opaque gown, very
discreet as I recall) that at least one of them was sexually aroused
and perhaps the others too?
Was there sin in the natural, God-created biological stimulation
that happens when a man looks at a woman? Since the man did not
want to take her away from me and have her for himself he did not
“lust after her in his heart.”
There was no “adultery” involved in
his looking and sexual arousal. If sin was involved, who sinned and
exactly what act constituted that sin according to the Bible?
Multitudes of questions could be asked covering many
imaginary scenarios. One reason for asking such pointed questions
is to demonstrate that we respond automatically to answer most, if
not all the above questions by saying such things are “sinful.” But
why do we react that way.
Do we react on the basis of God’s laws or
on the basis of preconceptions that arise from cultural standards
and church traditions? If the basis of our response is not Scripture
we have no legitimate basis at all. If Scripture does not make a thing
sin then we need not have any guilt about admitting the
acceptability of a thing and we must not condemn one who approves
it.
Ix
Some of these questions and certainly the answers we have
given, will disturb some readers. We believe that the reason for this
disturbance is that after looking at the full Biblical picture of sex we
cannot find the answers we once thought were unquestionable. The
fact we must deal with is that such sexual situations and many
others are a part of every day life, all around us, either in people’s
minds or in actuality.
Even saved people need answers to many of
these questions. How can we relate Biblically to these things if we
are afraid to raise the questions? What right do we have to advise
people about these things if we cannot give them an honest Biblical
response?
If we find that our opinions are not based on Gods laws
but on man made rules, how dare we continue to tell people they
are sinning in any of these things about which God has not spoken?
The bottom line is that only Scripture establishes “truth…that makes
us free.”
It does not matter what we have “heard said by them of old
time.”
It does not matter what social standard exists at any time.
It does not matter what conventional church dogma says.
It matters only that we discover what God actually said, and avoid
putting words in His mouth.
If God said something is sin then there is no room for argument.
If God did not forbid it then it does not need to be forbidden.
Humans cannot improve on God’s moral standards.
If God has not said a thing is sin it is not sin regardless of what
anyone thinks about it. If a thing is not sin we still must avoid
doing it under circumstances where it harms someone else.
Yet we may still exercise our liberty in ways that others will not be
affected. Knowing that others believe what we do is sin should
have no effect upon our liberty to do it without personal guilt.
Examples of some things that fall in this category:
Eating meat offered to idols. (1st century example)
Drinking wine.
Being naked.
Masturbating.
Oral sex.
Vibrators/sex toys.
X
Looking at and being excited by the body of the opposite sex.
Enjoying writings, photos, films of explicit sexual nature.
The reasons all of these activities are considered by this author
to be within the parameters of what is allowable because not
condemned by God, are detailed in the various individual sections
of this study. Please read it all before settling upon any conclusions
that may be stirring within your heart.
Xi
INTRODUCTION
Before reading this book please read this introduction.
Contemporary attitudes on the subject of humans and sex are easily
learned via a plethora of books, articles and movies dealing with
the subject. Many careful studies exist on the subject of human
sexuality and some of them deal with this subject from a “Biblical”
perspective.
The Christian church is especially outspoken about
what it views as the sole, universally applicable divinely acceptable
sexual standard, claiming that this standard come directly from the
Christian/Hebrew Bible.
Even the secular Western world, with its claims to moral enlightenment and transcendent civilization, claims to be the moral leader of planet Earth.
The West’s sexual standard
occupies large place in its claim also to cultural superiority. While
not purposely and knowingly basing its standards on Biblical
revelation
Western civilization nonetheless agrees in some
important areas with the church in contrast to many “third world”
cultures in such areas, for example, as polygamy, concubinage,
prostitution, public nudity, homosexuality, “perversion” and any
sort of sex outside of marriage.
The reason for this agreement is that from the beginning of America’s founding, Western civilization has been thoroughly permeated with the concepts of the church.
The views of “Christianity” underlie the standards of Western morality.
This would be good if it were true that contemporary Christian/Church views were all valid.
However the studies in this volume will demonstrate that the contemporary view of the Church toward sexuality is far from being truly and consistently “Biblical.”
During the 2,000 years of its existence every
aspect of Christianity has suffered severe declension and the
modern church is not at all like the original church. Its views of all
things, including sex, can not legitimately be called “Biblical”
because the church’s modern view of all things is the result of the
development of human tradition and interpretation that has taken
it far afield from the original Biblical truth.
Just as did the Pharisees
of the first century, the church now accepts as normative, the
“tradition of the elders,” truly believing this tradition to be no less
than the exact representation of pure Biblical truth.
But, as Jesus
said to those Pharisees, “Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold
to the tradition of men…you set aside the commandment of God in order
to honor your traditions” (Mk. 7:8, 9).
Human nature has not changed. Religious leaders still feel that God has not done an
Xii
adequate job of establishing morals, leaving many crucial “gaps”
which must be filled in by the church, i.e. church leaders. Religious
“doctors” and “elders” have labored long in the development of
their additions to what the Bible says about sex.
Over time these additions become traditions,
which eventually become church dogma,
which finally becomes church law.
The preachers proclaim these human laws saying, “Thus saith the Lord,” and evidently the people love to have it so.
Nowadays, no church member suspects
that what passes to them from the pulpit as “Divine Law on sexual
morality” is nothing better than the well refined reasoning of men
exactly like themselves.
The change from what the Bible actually says,
to what men say the Bible means, has been so gradual, and is
presented with such “spit and polish” that the persons packing the pews have no inkling that their entire sexual standard is built upon purely human authority.
But church leaders are just as clueless.
Preachers, pastors, church leaders in general,
learn their concepts from their peers just like all men do.
Few of them are willing to expend the time and energy required examining, for themselves, every line of Biblical text.
It is just too easy to take for granted what passes muster in the
majority of churches, as being the “biblical norm.” As an ex-pastor I
can say from experience that it is unusual to find preachers who do
their own study.
Most of them are pressed for time and know too
little about using Bible study tools.
Copying their messages from
another’s material is a standard solution for many Christian
teachers.
Thus in many areas, what is preached is merely what has
been preached, and only occasionally does it meet the test of true
biblical scholarship.
What rules the day as “Biblical morality” is not
truly Biblical at all. It is religious morality, but most of it is not true
to the Bible.
Modern religious sexual standards have been
developed over time by the human penchant for filling in the gaps
left by God’s silence on most sexual topics. That these human
standards have become almost universally accepted in the church
does not make them other than human standards. They still lack
God’s authority.
The Bible still does not teach them despite the
many who believe otherwise. The purpose of this present volume is
to demonstrate the truth of that statement.
So the sexual standards of the Western world, while purporting
to be the very best because based on Scripture, are no more than the
corrupted views of generally honest and sincere people whose
xiii
efforts to understand and apply Bible truth have suffered from the
common human infirmities of fallibility, subjectivism and poor
study habits.
The modern Christian church is a self-appointed,
worldwide enforcer of a multitude of heavy sexual burdens that it has “laid upon men’s shoulders” (Matt. 23:4),
threatening people everywhere with eternity in Hell if they do not accept and live under these burdens.
Millions of people are afraid of sex, confused about sex, and guilty about sex all because of the faulty standards set by an apostate church.
Sex has become the unmentionable subject, and a “nasty” practice because of the church’s ignorance.
We were raised in that church environment from infancy. As
small children we experienced the hand-slapping, finger-shaking,
frowning face and reproachful “No, no, no, you mustn’t!” that
taught us that virtually everything sexual was taboo. That concept of
sexuality was reinforced through the years by the preachers and
teachers we listened to. When we began preaching we knew
nothing else to preach on sexual matters except what we had
always heard. Yet some things we read in Scripture conflicted
severely with our “borrowed theology.” Things like polygamy,
practiced by the very heroes of faith with God’s obvious approval.
Things like the “Levirate marriage law” that required a man to
impregnate his brother’s widow if he had died childless. “If,” we
thought, “God truly loathes any practice of sex except
monogamous intercourse, what sense can I make of all these
contrary examples?”
But in the last few years it has become truly
apparent that many of the things taken for granted in the area of
human sexuality are not merely difficult but actually impossible to
defend by a pure reading of Scripture.
Years of thinking and
praying about these issues, along with short spates of low-intensity
study, produced nothing but a growing sense that we must
discover for ourselves what the Bible actually says about these
matters.
We could see that what the church says does not harmonize
with actual human experience even in the Western world and the
church. If the environment in which a thesis is most thoroughly
embraced, fails to demonstrate the validity of that thesis in actual
human experience, then we must conclude that the thesis is wrong.
It seemed clear that what the church teaches about sexuality does not
square with Scripture, and that applying current religious sexual
standards brought no enhancement to people’s sexual experience
and no relief to those experiencing “sex problems.” In fact, attempts
xiv
to counsel people with sex problems, using prevailing notions of
“biblical morality” brought only greater confusion,
discouragement, guilt and bondage.
It was easy to see that from
both negative and positive vantage points the standards failed. As a
pastor we could no longer, with good conscience, just give our
counselees the same “tried but found untrue” advice.
We finally
decided to examine with care and detail what the Bible actually says
and what it does not say about sex. We wanted to know what is
wrong with the “thesis on human sexuality” as embraced by the
church.
Many other works purporting to examine sex as it is revealed in
the Bible are written by those who deny the inspiration of the Bible
and who reject the Bible as a reliable foundation for morality,
religion and ethics.
Such authors ridicule the idea that a holy and
righteous God could either condone or allow such things as we find
recorded in the Bible.
They decide, independently of a truly
objective moral standard, what is and is not acceptable in the sexual
arena then impose their strictly human standards upon the reading
of the Bible.
As a result they conclude that the Bible cannot be
reliable because it seems to disallow some things they accept and
seems to allow some things they reject.
In doing so, they show
themselves to be as bad at establishing moral standards as are the
“Christian fundamentalists” they ridicule. Still others write from a
viewpoint that takes the Bible as merely one of many guidelines by
which to establish morality and ethics.
To such authors the exact
words of the Bible do not particularly matter. They believe the Bible
must be interpreted in light of historical development: that each
generation and each culture will find its individual truth from the
Bible even though each may come to different, even opposite,
conclusions.
We cannot believe that a Bible that can be understood
in antithetical ways can possibly be reliable in any sense.
If what the Bible actually does and does not say cannot be firmly established then
the Bible is virtually useless as a moral guide.
If Biblical ethics can change with generational and cultural changes then Biblical ethics
are not genuine ethics after all.
The objective of this study is to find what God really says about
sex. The nature of this study is unusual because of its perspective.
The author has been a Christian all his life, a Pastor for 36 years,
and is absolutely committed to the authority of the Bible in moral
and spiritual matters. He accepts the principle of verbal, plenary
xv
inspiration and authority. He believes that the God of the Bible is
perfectly Holy, Righteous and Pure. He also believes that humans
must conform their sexual practices to the standards God has
revealed in the Bible.
Therefore this study is a defense of truly Biblical sex rather than a
caricature of it. However, we have expressed our view that over
many generations human concepts of sexuality have digressed from
the Biblical pattern.
What humanity as a whole accepts or rejects is meaningless.
What the church accepts or rejects is likewise meaningless.
The church is no longer a
reliable guide in sexual matters for the same reason the ruling
religious parties of Jesus’ day – the Scribes and Pharisees – were not
dependable guides in Jewish religion.
Religious leaders in both
Jesus’ day and ours have not been able to avoid the spiritual trap of
making laws where God made none.
The penchant of human
beings for trying to “help” God is universal and timeless. Religious
leaders especially are unable as a class, to stop where God stops.
Where God has granted liberty the church has denied it.
What God has not seen fit to even comment on, the church has boldly and adamantly legislated on.
Our effort here is to disregard all humanly originated standards and laws and to do our best to simply understand what God Himself says about sex.
Then we intend to accept it as good even if it conflicts with majority opinion.
We are reminded that it is “truth” that “sets free.”
No one can have freedom in sex or any other area unless they know, embrace and practice what God’s truth reveals.
We hope this study helps some along the path to sexual freedom.
Not many people desire to discuss issues like masturbation, oral
sex, bestiality, incest, polygamy, etc. But human experience requires
us to deal with them.
Many, if not most religious teachers categorize masturbation and
oral sex as sinful. Some take absurd positions such as: that husband
and wife cannot copulate except in darkness, should not bathe together,
should never observe their mate while “using the restroom,” etc.
Some believe that in
copulation anything other than the “missionary position” is sinful
and unnatural; as we heard one teacher state to her class, “humans
are created to have sex face to face, and that is the only acceptable
way.”
It is obviously irrelative to her that no Scripture says any
such thing, nor even hints at it. Another said to us, “My husband
and I used to do it in a position we liked, but God spoke to me and
said ‘That’s the way dogs do it.’ So we don’t do it like that
xvi
anymore.” We replied to her that it was most unlikely that God was
the author of such a statement. But such silliness and dogmatism
illustrates what passes today for “Biblical” teaching and concepts of
acceptable sexual practice.
There is a prevailing attitude both inside and outside the
church, that there is something inherently nasty, unholy and
unspiritual about the sex act. It is hard for many adults in our
culture to imagine a holy person, especially a church leader,
participating in the sex act with any enjoyment.
To many minds sexuality and spirituality are antithetical: one surely cannot be both
sexual and spiritual. Yet even a cursory reading of Scripture reveals
that God’s choicest servants – men like Abraham, Jacob, David,
Gideon and many others – enjoyed sex enough that they were
motivated to marry many wives and obtain many concubines.
Is sexual activity inconsistent with spirituality?
Can a person be “holy” and totally committed to God and a productive servant in
His kingdom while at the same time enjoying the sexual experience
in as many forms as Scripture warrants?
Does sexual activity diminish spirituality?
This is one focus of this study.
The other focus of this study is the simple question: “What does
the Bible actually say about sex?” We will look at every sexual
subject with which the Bible deals and attempt to draw some
conclusions based on what we actually find rather than what we wish
was there, or what we heard was there.
In the process we will ask some
very pointed questions and imagine some real-life scenarios for
purposes of coming to specific conclusions about situations people
deal with in daily life.
The method we used in pursuing this study was to read the
entire Bible, noting every verse that had anything to do with sex. We
then grouped and studied these verses by topic. We examined
original Hebrew and Greek words to determine, as far as possible,
precise meanings.
We consulted recognized scholars for their
comments on the various subjects. Then we drew our own
conclusions based on what we believe Scripture requires. We spent
much time reading, re-reading, discussing and revising each topic
touched on in this study.
The results you read here are those of one
whose desire is to know what truth is on this subject, firstly for our
personal understanding and practice, and then wherever possible
to help others who are struggling with issues they ought not be
xvii
struggling with. We hope to give some Biblical answers to difficult
sexual questions that plague many sincere Christians.
Our introductory chapter is crucial to this study. Please read
carefully and intently, the first chapter, “What makes a thing
sinful?” and be sure you understand it before you proceed.
The answer to that question is absolutely crucial to a study like this because so much of sexual activity is considered to be “sinful.”
If there is no objective standard by which to decide what makes an act
sinful, nothing productive will be gained from this study. Thus no
genuine spiritual benefit can be gained by this study nor will there
be any true spiritual, emotional or sexual freedom gained without
understanding the first chapter.
Please read, re-read if necessary
and think until the principles of this chapter are fully grasped. Read
carefully and open-mindedly. It may be that some things you have
taken for granted, should be discarded.
We encourage you to also read the appendix. In the quest for
truth on any Bible subject, correct study methods are absolutely
essential. There are several non-negotiable requirements for
objective Bible study.
Most Christians, including many professional
ministers, simply do not know how to study the Bible.
Too many people simply take it for granted that what appears to them to lie
on the surface of the text after a quick reading, must be the text’s
true meaning.
Consequently the Christian church is full of church
members who bite and devour each other as they wage war over
their different conclusions about what the Bible teaches.
Each one will quote a text and say, “That is what the Bible says. I believe it.
That settles it.” Few can admit that their individual perception of
what is intended by their English translation is fallible. Few
understand the dynamics involved in attempting to translate
ancient, original documents into modern language while retaining
the original meaning of the original authors. Few have even an
inkling of what tools are available for objective Bible study. And
few of those who are aware of such tools have the ability to use
them. One of the strangest phenomena in all Christendom, is the
fact that millions of people willingly entrust their whole spiritual
destiny to the truth of the Bible, yet they are unwilling to do the
hard work necessary to ensure that they truly understand what the
Bible actually says. What sort of insanity causes people to fight for
a Bible whose every word has been “God-breathed” into the
xviii
original author, but who never learn how to determine the original
meaning of those “inspired” words?
The appendix provides some guidelines for effective Bible study
that are recognized by scholars world-wide. Examples of how to
use these guidelines are given to illustrate how using the proper
study methods can clear up confusion over disputed texts.
The Bible text has suffered at the hands of translators in many areas.
But their treatment of the text relative to sexual matters is
inexcusable. In many crucial texts dealing with sexual matters,
what lies on the surface of many modern translations is not at all
consonant with the original meaning of the authors of those texts.
One can easily discover this by using some of the basic tools of
scholarship.
We have provided abundant evidence of this in the
body of this volume. The appendix provides the basic methodology
for such study, and if one will practice the guidelines discussed
there, one will be able to study the Bible independently, objectively
and effectively.
Until one learns to do this, one will never escape
the bondage of having to trust the word of a “professional” who is
not likely to have done his homework. Jesus said “the truth will
make you free.” Reader, what is it worth to you to be confident that
you really know the truth?
1
CHAPTER ONE
WHAT MAKES A THING SINFUL?
Our first concern in this study is to clearly answer the question,
“What is sin according to the Bible?” It matters not what any human
thinks is sin. What matters is how the Bible defines sin. For Bible
believers, sin cannot be defined by humanity, the church, social
customs, community standards or personal conscience.
The world
and the church have suffered far too long at the hands of those who
have sought to establish a thing as sinful, therefore forbidden, on
such bases as personal conclusion, personal preference, and
personal revulsion, rather than on the sole foundation of what God
forbids as revealed in the Bible.
God has protected us from the
vagaries of human law-makers. Moral law, by definition, must be
established by the Author of morality. Humans cannot know
innately what is or is not acceptable in the moral or spiritual realm.
Bible believers accept the fact that for the entire universe of men
and angels, there is only One Lawgiver. We call Him God. At no
point does He authorize humans or angels to codify behavior or
attitudes.
Jesus fought spiritually with the first century Pharisees
on exactly this basis. His scathing denunciation of them was that
they worshipped
God in vain because they replaced divine
doctrine with human commandment (Matt. 15:8, 9; Mk. 7:7). He
cursed them for establishing human rules and customs as
authoritative in the spiritual realm, many times even above God’s
law (Matt. 15:1-14; 23:4, 13, 16-22, 23, 25, 32-33).
When humans take
the seat of divine authority by presuming to make laws where God
has not made them they take the supremely arrogant position that
God has not adequately done his job.
Human lawmakers thereby
suggest that we humans know better how to regulate behavior or
teaching that we find offensive, and so we must help God.
Because
such folly and pride is bound up in the hearts of man God has been
careful to inform us of two fundamental issues:
[1 His written law is the only acceptable legal code for human
behavior. Human input is neither needed nor desirable. Indeed
every human attempt to “clarify” or “supplement“ God’s laws
is a contemptibly arrogant accusation against God’s adequacy
as Law-giver.
[2 If His law has not codified a thing as sin, then it is not sin unless it
violates Christ’s “Law of Love.” There are two considerations here:
2
• Whatever humans may or may not think about it, nothing is
sinful unless God Himself declares it to be so. This eliminates the
use of faulty human reasoning, inadequate knowledge,
prejudice, personal injury, upbringing, former teaching, and a
host of other considerations, as acceptable means of
determining whether something is forbidden or permitted,
moral or immoral.
God has not left us to try to decide on our
own if a thing is sin. Spiritual destiny depends on our knowing for
sure what is sin. God has therefore not left us to our own best
efforts at making the right deductions or inferences from
imprecise revelation. In His mercy God has given us clear
guidelines for what we cannot do.
Outside that realm of
Divinely excluded behavior we are free to be and to do as we
choose. Two biblical principles cover the morality/immorality
of all possible human behaviors. The first principle is simple:
• God forbids a few specific actions as examples of what breaches the
law of love. These practices remain condemned for all time.
Freedom is granted to humans to pursue and enjoy what life
has to offer as long as God does not forbid a practice. Rather
than attempt to tell us everything that is permissible, God chose
only to tell us what is forbidden.
This makes it so much easier to
ferret our way through the many possibilities offered by life on
a fallen earth. Learning God’s law makes it possible for us to
enjoy life without falling prey either to what truly condemns us,
or to the merely human rules that serve only to enslave us. The
second principle is likewise simple to understand and apply.
• Through the Law of Love God forbids all actions that harm
other people or dishonors Himself. The ramifications of this
principle are covered thoroughly in our book, The Royal Law of
Liberty. The gist of the matter is this: We must examine all
behaviors that God has not forbidden, to decide if that action
harms another person or dishonors God.
If our honest
conclusion is that such action is not thus harmful, then it is
permissible. We may enjoy that action if we choose without self condemnation
(Rom. 14:22).
In the category of things not
specifically forbidden by Scripture each individual is
responsible for reaching his/her own personal conclusions
(Rom. 14:5).
And we are commanded to allow all people to draw
their own conclusions without judging and condemning or even
“regarding with contempt” those whose conclusions are different
3
from our own (Rom. 14:3-12). So, stated concisely, the general
rule for establishing Biblical morality is:
We must not do what God specifically condemns.
We must not do what harms other people or dishonors God.
Everything else is a matter of personal choice.
Our concern in these studies is not to defend either public
conceptions of morality or the church’s understanding of propriety.
We desire to know what God’s Word says about moral/sexual
issues.
Our study and our conclusions about all things sexual will
move strictly along Divinely approved lines as revealed in the
Bible.
No human can be absolutely objective in a study like this. But
we will try our best to avoid making conclusions that are not
warranted by clearly defined principles. The following principles
are transparently clear as to what constitutes “sin.”
Sin Defined By Scripture
[1] “Through law comes the knowledge of sin,” Rom. 3:20.
This is Paul’s statement that the only way man can know of
the existence of sin, and what constitutes sin, is to learn it through
God’s law. God is the sole moral governor of the universe. Sin is
what God says it is.
He must reveal to us the nature of sin or we
cannot know it. If we learn to think of something as “sin” apart
from Biblical revelation then our understanding of “sin” is
illegitimate. Social standards do not teach us about sin. Church
dogma, church councils, church leaders or church creeds do not
teach us about sin. God’s law, and that alone, teaches us about
sin. Knowledge of sin does not come from our experience
whether good or bad. Only as God’s law defines sin, can any
human know what is sin.
For purposes of this study then, we affirm that, “through
God’s law comes the knowledge of all sexual activity that God
considers to be sinful.” Nothing else will settle this issue. If a
sexual matter is not specifically addressed in Scripture then it
cannot be made “sinful” unless it can be proved to violate love
for God or neighbor.
[2]“Where there is no law, there is no transgression,” Rom. 4:15.
This statement forthrightly declares that if God did not make
a law against a thing, then doing that thing cannot possibly
4
violate God’s law. Therefore doing that thing is not sinful
regardless of what even the whole world thinks of it. An act is
sin only if God makes a law against it.
He thereby makes that act a
spiritual crime. If an act is not in His statute book as a criminal
offense then it is not sin. Accepting this one principle will
eliminate most of our problems with understanding what is
sinful.
Those who believe the Bible to be inspired by the Holy
Spirit simply cannot reject what the Holy Spirit says here.
However repugnant to our senses or how hated an act may be
to us personally, if God did not give a law prohibiting that act
then doing it does not transgress God’s law. Therefore it cannot
be sin.
For purposes of this study then, we affirm that, “If there is
no law in God’s book against a specific sex act then that act is
not forbidden and is not sinful.”
A practice may violate all
social standards, all church tradition, etc. but if God did not
“outlaw” a thing then no one else in the universe has the power
or authority to do so. If an act is not specifically outlawed and
does not breach the Law of Love for God and man, it is a matter
of human choice.
[3]“I would not have come to know sin except through the law;
for I would not have known about coveting, if the law had not
said, “You shall not covet,” Rom. 7:7.
Again Paul says the only way we can know anything is sinful
is if God says so in His law. In Paul’s example, if God’s Law did
not specifically say “you shall not covet” then no one can know
that coveting is sin.
For purposes of this study then, we affirm that, “We cannot
know that any specific sex act is sinful unless God in His law
says that act is sinful.” If God does not, in His law, say certain
acts are sinful then no one can say that they are. We are free to
choose, governed only by the principle of love for God and love
for man.
[4]“Sin is lawlessness,” 1 Jn. 3:4.
This verse states positively that the nature of sin is that it is
something that breaks God’s law. If there is no law to be broken
then there can be no sin. One cannot possibly break a rule that
does not exist!
5
For purposes of this study then we affirm that, “If there is no
law in God’s law book against a specific sex act then to practice
that sex act is not lawlessness and is not sin.” Again, Christ’s
Law of Love becomes our sole guide as to the propriety of
practicing that act.
[5]“All unrighteousness is sin,” 1 Jn. 5:17.
“Unrighteousness” is anything that is not right in God’s
sight. Previous Scriptures prove that God alone can tell us what
is right or wrong in His sight. No human, nor group of humans,
has the capacity to figure out what God deems righteous or
unrighteous. If God does not condemn a thing in His law, then
it is not unrighteous.
For purposes of this study then we affirm that, “If there is no
law in God’s law book against a specific sex act, then that act is
not opposed to what God declares is right and so it is not
unrighteous.” Such an act becomes purely a matter of choice,
governed solely by its affect upon God and other people.
[6] “Whatever is not of faith is sin,” Rom. 14:23.
The context of this statement shows that Paul is dealing with
those who do things they actually believe to be wrong. Because
this violates one’s personal conscience about morals God
forbids it even if the act is inherently innocent. The meaning of the
above phrase is, “whatever one does, believing it to be wrong, is
sin.”
Thus sin can be committed even when doing something
not forbidden by God’s law, if one does what violates his
conscience. And we must observe that this is true only because
God says so in His Word. If God did not make violation of
conscience a sin, then it would not be sin.
We must be content to
be guided only by what His Word teaches us relative to sin.
For purposes of our study then we affirm that, “If one is
personally convinced that a specific sex act is sinful then one
must not practice that act.” However, if that act is not defined as
sin in God’s word, then for anyone else to practice that same act
with a clear conscience is not sin.
[7] “To him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is
sin,” Jas. 4:17.
The context of this statement relates to considering God’s
sovereignty above our own. We are required to pursue life with
6
God’s will for us uppermost in our minds. We must make our
plans contingent upon God’s sovereignty. To do otherwise is “sin.”
If we reach beyond the specific context of James 4, we must
consider Paul’s statement that “All Scripture is inspired…that the man
of God might be equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16, 17). Thus
“good” is defined by God’s revelation in the Bible. James’ statement
then would include the idea that whatever God has defined for
man as “good” is necessary for man to do as opportunity exists. To
refuse to do what God recommends is “sin.”
For purposes of our study then we affirm that, “Whatever may
be defined by God as ‘good’ with reference to any specific sex act,
must be honored. To engage in a sex act in such a way that it
violates the good of another, is sin.”
The manner in which this
might be done is to engage in sex so as to disregard the welfare,
rights, person-hood, etc. of another person. This violates the
principle of “love your neighbor as you love yourself” that is
fundamental to all moral issues.
On the basis of the above Biblically defined principles of what
constitutes sin, we affirm that:
Any sex act that is not specifically forbidden by God’s law, does
not violates one’s personal conscience and does not violate the good
of others, is innocent, moral and permissible.
Missing the Mark
A more general definition of sin is contained within the
meaning of the original word used by Bible writers. The Greek
word translated as “sin” is hamartia, and is simply defined, “to miss
the mark.” (Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, one
vol. Edition, p. 48).
To use this definition as a way to learn what is
“sin” we must ask the obvious questions:
What is the “mark” that is missed, and whose “mark” is missed?”
The foregoing Scriptures
make it unmistakable that God’s law is the mark that establishes
anything as right or wrong. And sin is committed only when God’s
“mark” is missed. Man’s “marks” – and there are hundreds of them
– are of no moral consequence.
If we fail to hit God’s mark it is sin.
If we fail to hit anyone else’s mark it is not sin because no human has
authority to establish “marks” for morality.
7
The Jews in Jesus’ day set their own religious “marks” and
made things “sinful” by their traditions, and Jesus pronounced a
curse upon them for it. They had handed down centuries of
religious tradition that everyone accepted as God’s law but Jesus
corrected their traditions with, “but I say unto you...” (Matt. 5:21ff,
27ff, 33ff, 38ff, 43ff).
This process is not a whit improved upon in
our day by the fact that “them of old time” to whom we have
listened have been our own highly esteemed preachers, elders,
pastors, etc.
At no time does God allow even the most venerable of
saints to occupy the place of lawgiver. Our modern teachers,
interpreters, translators and such, are not immune to error.
We must not place the traditions and rules received from them on the
plane of equality with Divine authority. And we may exercise the
greatest liberty in choosing to ignore their spiritual prescriptions at
any place where we find them to be at variance with, or
unsubstantiated by God’s plainly revealed word.
Even if the most
saintly men or women of the past have decried a practice, it is not
sin unless God decried that practice. If an act works no harm to our
neighbor and is not forbidden by God’s law, then we can safely
disregard godly saints wherever their opinions disagree with or are not
confirmed by Scripture.
Paul made some recommendations, while under the inspiration of
the Holy Spirit, but said they were not commands from God, (1
Cor. 7:25.) His was inspired advise yet it was not binding on those to
whom he wrote. The mass of what comes down to us from our
teachers and Bible expositors is in the same category though it is
uninspired.
And how much of God’s own directions might be in that
same category? God often states His preferences then allows us to
make our own choices in those areas in which He does not
definitely state that a thing is sin. It is not Biblical to take the
position that God has an absolute will concerning every act that
one can possibly perform.
God may indeed have a preference in all
things. But God allows His children to make choices for what is less
than perfect without condemning them. We are not robots. And
there is no liberty where there is no choice. Freedom requires
options.
God does not constrict us so that we have no real freedom.
He desires that we always choose the best, holiest and highest. But
He also “knows our frame, He remembers that we are dust,” (Ps. 103:14).
He allows us the same freedom we allow our own children.
God gives us the freedom to choose in matters where His law has not
8
restricted us. Many of our choices will be for that which is less than
perfect.
But God is not a despot, waiting with whip in hand to beat
us because we make human errors. No human parent of sound
mind will disown or even discipline their children for making less
than perfect choices.
If we specifically forbid a thing, discipline and
punishment is appropriate where those orders are disobeyed. But
godly parents do not strip their children of all rights to make
personal choices outside the parameters of specific prohibitions. So
it is with God.
God allows us to be humans and to learn to live life
according to what is beneficial, enjoyable and good for self and
others. To make this possible, He grants freedom of choice in most
matters of human action.
To guide us into His preferred path, He
gave some specific laws in the Old Testament to teach us what it
means to violate the Higher Law of Love.
Then Jesus replaced those
original moral laws with His personal Law of Love (Jn. 13:34; 15:12,
17; 1 Jn. 2:7f; 3:11, 23; 2 Jn. 5). Jesus abolished law as a ruling
principle, (Rom. 10:4) and placed us “under grace” (Rom. 6:14) to
govern ourselves by the principle of love.
If we do our best to
decide behavior according to this Law of Love then we can live in
freedom, sexually and otherwise, without fearing God’s wrath
because we make some wrong choices.
And mark this well: Sexual
sin is in no sense “worse” than other kinds of sin. God does not
grant grace and mercy for our mistakes in all other areas, only to
wield an iron fist against any sexual mistake. It is man who has
demonized sex, not God.
Is everything God disagrees with or disapproves of, a sin? Is
there any leeway for us as we try to find and practice truth? If we
are honestly wrong, is there grace for our mistake? Can we go to
Heaven if we are not perfect in knowledge or obedience?
Is there such a thing as making a choice for something less than God’s
perfect will, and still going to heaven? We believe it is so, and that
the Scripture contains many examples of men and women making
such choices.
Every human, regardless of spiritual experience, is in
the growth process. Not one of us has reached perfection. God
allows for the inevitability of mistakes, as we grow toward His
ideal. Our salvation does not hang on knowing everything
perfectly, and doing it all perfectly. Rebellion is not tolerated.
Intentional disregard for God’s explicit law will be punished. But
personal choices outside the scope of specific law are allowed, even
if those choices are not what God desires. This is what makes
9
“grace” so wonderful. Grace makes it possible for sincere and
loving but imperfect people to serve God acceptably though not
perfectly. This principle works in all matters, including sexual
things. Sex activities are not in a singular category. Sex is simply
one aspect of human behavior, no more or less important than any
other.
Can a person be a true worshipper, anointed, faithful servant of
God and fulfill his/her spiritual destiny, even though that person
does not measure up to all God’s personal desires?
Can David,
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Gideon, etc., practice polygamy and
concubinage their whole adult lives, and still fulfill their destiny?
Can a Samson consort with harlots, marry multiple women, take personal vengeance on his enemies, and still fulfill his destiny?
Can one be “godly” in all that word implies, and masturbate or have
oral sex with one’s partner, and even engage in sex before
marriage, and still have a spiritual future?
Is there anything
inherently “unholy” or “nasty” in the human sex act? Is there any
lee-way in sexual conduct that allows for some freedoms we never
thought we had?
Answering such questions is the point of these studies.
Truth is valuable for truth’s sake.
Only truth makes us free (Jn. 8:32) from
human strictures, personal bondage, guilt and shame.
The world and the church suffer a multitude of bondage to guilt and shame related to sexual practices. Most of this bondage comes not from
God’s word, but from church tradition, misinformed counselors,
“puritan” (not necessarily Biblical) ethics, cultural rules,
“community standards” and so forth.
If God’s word does not support the rules and traditions that bring such bondage then learning truth will bring freedom and legitimate pleasure to those who have the courage to embrace the truth.
Principles That Control Personal Liberty To Do What Others
Object To
We feel it is beneficial to address this subject here because there
are many innocent things that conscientious people may choose to
practice, that are nevertheless condemned by well-meaning but
misguided people.
If, for example, I like to smoke an occasional
cigar, and a fellow Christian becomes aware of that, what is my
proper response to this fellow saint if (s)he should say to me, “How
10
can you smoke cigars? Don’t you know that smoking is harmful to
your body, and therefore sinful?” So the question is: If my brother
or sister believes a thing to be sin, yet I believe it to be innocent,
may I choose that thing in spite of their objections? The Apostle
Paul gives us much specific instruction on this very issue. Here are
his basic principles.
Are You Weak or Are You Strong?
God is much concerned that those of His children who are
“strong” in understanding, in faith and in confidence in their
standing with Him, do not hinder those who are “weak” in those
areas. So He provided us with two extended discussions about our
responsibilities in this area (Rom. 14—15:6; 1 Cor. 8 — 10).
The fundamental teaching from these Scriptures is this: Stronger saints
are not required to totally avoid activities that might hinder other
saints; they merely need to modify their behavior in any situation
which might cause weak saints to stumble and sin. Interestingly the
“strong” referred to in these verses are those who do not see
“uncleanness” as an issue in what they choose to do.
Note this: “I
know and am persuaded in myself that nothing is unclean of itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean,” (Rom.14:14).
That an apostle of Jesus Christ could say such a thing about
“cleanness” must be compelling for all who take the inspiration of
Scripture seriously. If this is what the Holy Spirit led Paul to write
then we must accept that nothing is inherently unclean – including sex.
Meditate on that fact until it gets into your spirit.
No sex act is
inherently unclean. Any forbidden sex act is forbidden for reasons
other than inherent uncleanness. All regulations of sexual activity
have to do with honoring the rights, property and welfare of
others. “Cleanness” has nothing at all to do with it. Necessarily
then the Scriptures that control a Christian’s freedom to do what is
inherently innocent, apply not to the behavior itself, but to the effect of
their behavior upon other Christians.
Paul’s argument of this principle from 1Cor. 8 and 10:
The controlling factor in our behavior is not “I am right,” but “I
love my brothers and sisters,” (1 Cor. 8:1-3). Some saints lack
sufficient knowledge to be able to do things more mature saints can
do.
The strong must then be careful to not use their “liberty” to
become a stumbling block to the weak (1 Cor. 8:5-9). A weak saint
11
might be encouraged by a stronger saint’s actions to do something
they are convinced is wrong. This would cause offense to their
conscience and would be a sin against both them and Christ (1 Cor.
8: 10-13). Paul’s conclusion is that he would not do anything to
cause his brother to stumble.
Strong saints must ask whether the action they are considering,
or its effect upon others, will be “beneficial.” Even though an action
may be inherently innocent its effect on others may be harmful.
Therefore the strong must decide in favor of “benefit” to the
weaker saint (1 Cor. 10:23, 24). However if a thing is innocent and
the strong saint desires to participate in it he may do so without
guilty conscience and he need not stop to inquire about it for fear of
hindering others.
A strong saint can legitimately enjoy all the good
that God has created (1 Cor. 10:25-27). But if someone shows a
weak conscience about what you are doing then stop doing it in
their presence lest they be hindered (1 Cor. 10:28).
Another’s weak
conscience does not make the behavior of the strong wrong (1 Cor.
10:29-30); it merely defines some circumstance in which the strong
must be careful about exercising his freedom. The strong may “eat
or drink or whatever” and glorify God for His blessings (1 Cor. 10:31-
32). But he must be careful not to offend the consciences of the
weak (1 Cor. 10:32-33).
When in the company either of believers or unbelievers, a saint
is not obligated to try to figure out in advance what they might
think of his behavior. If what saints do is inherently innocent then
they may do it without concern about the potential reaction of
unbelievers. Note especially “Eat anything sold in the market place
without asking questions, for conscience sake, for the earth is the Lord’s
and everything in it” (1 Cor. 10:25, 26). Let us imagine that we find
dancing to be Biblically acceptable. We might then paraphrase the
preceding verses to say: “therefore be free to dance in the presence
of unbelievers without wondering what they think of it, for
conscience sake, for dancing is a harmless blessing from the Lord.”
And note: “If an unbeliever invites you and you wish to go, eat anything
that is set before you without asking questions for conscience sake. But if
anyone should say to you, ‘This is meat sacrificed to idols,’ then do not eat
it, for the sake of the one who informed you and for conscience’ sake.” (1
Cor. 10:27,28). Again we might paraphrase this: “If you have
opportunity to go dancing among unbelievers, feel free to do so,
without asking what their reaction may be. But if one of them says,
12
‘I didn’t think a Christian could dance,’ then do not do it, for the
sake of the one who questioned you, and for conscience sake.”
Further, Paul makes it plain that if a Christian’s own informed
conscience is clear about what he allows, (1 Cor. 10:29), then he
may “partake with thankfulness,” (1 Cor. 10:30). In Rom. 14:5, 10, 22
he argues that each saint is free to form personal convictions about
behavior and that we are not to judge one another concerning these
matters.
God grants to each of us the right to decide for ourselves
and to exercise our “faith” in good conscience before God with
thankfulness. One can live a “happy” life free from “condemnation,”
(Rom. 14:22) as he pursues those pleasures he does not find
condemned by God’s word. Mature saints will accept these truths
and will both form their own personal conviction about moral
issues, and will allow all others to do the same without
condemning, reproaching or judging them.
Paul’s argument from Romans 14:
In Rom. 14, Paul balances what we have seen in the previous
Scriptures by forbidding the “weak” to judge the “strong” and vice
versa. Each must form their own convictions about what is
acceptable and then live by those conviction without pointing
fingers at those who disagree. We must accept the reality that our
fellow saints are not our judges and we are not theirs. Only God has the
right to judge our behavior and we are commanded to honor that
(Rom. 14:1-5).
If my brother feels convicted about a particular action such as
observing a specific “holy day,” and my own conviction is
different, then we are both commanded to honor the other’s
convictions.
I must allow him the liberty to do as he feels he should
and he must allow me liberty to do the same. Whether we do or
don’t do, is not the fundamental issue. The fundamental issue is that
what we do, we do with praise and thanksgiving to God (Rom. 14:5-9),
and that we love and respect our brothers with whom we disagree.
The reason for this is that no person will ultimately judge another
person for his or her behavior.
Only God is Judge and He
commands us to leave all judgment in His own hands (Rom. 14:10-
12).
The only prohibition God sets against our freedom is that we
must be careful that we do not put a stumbling block in the way of
a fellow saint, (Rom. 14:13). The context of this verse, accompanied
13
by 1 Cor. 8 — 10, makes it clear that Paul is restricting the strong
saint’s behavior only to the extent it actually causes another saint to
stumble into doing something that their conscience condemns them
for. Paul is not saying that we cannot do anything that another
saint objects to or says they are “offended” by.
That would make us
virtual prisoners to pettiness and ignorance of others, would destroy
all liberty, and would eliminate virtually all behavior, for people
will be offended by almost anything we might do. “Offense” in
these Scriptures, has to do with influencing someone to do what they
believe is wrong. If my action “offends” them but does not motivate
them to violate their own conscience, then I am not required to
avoid what I desire to do. My liberty is restricted only to the extent that
it might influence another saint to do something that violates their
conscience.
“I know and am convinced in myself, that nothing is unclean in itself;
but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean,”
(Rom. 14:14). This is such an incredible Scripture that every
Christian should memorize it. The idea of sexual “uncleanness”
pervades Western society and the church especially. Children’s
hands are slapped and they hear the word “naughty” when they
innocently touch their sexual organs.
Thus they are taught from
infancy that “sex is dirty.” And sex remains “dirty” even for adults
to talk about. Yet this apostle, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit,
and knowing God’s law better than most in his day and definitely
better than any of us, declares that nothing is inherently unclean or
unholy. If we are required to avoid an activity, then avoidance must
be based on something other than “uncleanness.”
This Scripture makes it clear: sex is not dirty. Sex in all its forms
is inherently clean, wonderful, pure. Sex is not unholy. For any sex
act to become unclean or unholy, something must be added to it.
Specifically, masturbation, oral sex and anal sex, for example, are
not unclean sex acts.
Any of them may become unclean as a result of
adding something illegitimate to the act. If one forces one’s objecting
partner to perform oral sex, then sin is committed because of the
breach of love for the other person. The mere act of oral sex is
neither clean nor unclean. It is simply one of many possible sex
acts. It may be enjoyed by those who choose to do so, as long as it is
not done in a way that harms other people.
If God has specifically forbidden a sex act – such as bestiality,
rape, incest – man must avoid it. If a sex act violates love for other
14
people, it must be avoided.
What God does not forbid by either of
these principles may be enjoyed as a blessing from God. If it is not
forbidden, it is allowed. And it is clean. We need so desperately to
grow up in our attitude toward sex and see it as a clean,
wholesome, God-ordained activity.
Our understanding of the inherent cleanness of various sexual
activities and our liberty to enjoy them must be controlled only to
the extent that such actions harm another person (Rom. 14:15-16).
The purpose of our salvation and life in God’s kingdom is not to
simply enjoy our freedoms, but rather to promote “righteousness,
peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit.” So we behave ourselves around
others so as to build them up (Rom. 14:17-19).
All things are good in and of themselves, but even a good thing
becomes evil if it is done in a way that harms another person (Rom.
14:20). It is good to do nothing, however innocent an act may be, if
it causes another saint to stumble (Rom. 14:21). Yet this prohibition
is not absolute. One cannot literally do nothing that might possibly
cause another person to stumble. That is the ideal. But reality is that
we can only exercise caution about any action that we know might
be objectionable to some, and try not to cause others to stumble. If
we exercise our liberty with such caution, we can exercise our
liberty without guilt.
Another incredible statement follows in Rom. 14:22. “The faith
that you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who
does not condemn himself in what he approves.” This verse grants
outright liberty for God’s children to exercise their own best
judgment about all things that God has not specifically prohibited.
If one desires to engage in any sexual practice that God does not
prohibit, one is free to do so if that act does not harm another
person. If one’s personal conviction will allow one to masturbate or
enjoy oral sex, then one is free to do so.
God’s law, having nothing
to say about such practices, leaves all men free to form their own
convictions about them. If one finds an act repulsive one is free to
avoid that act. But if another person desires to enjoy that same act
then he is free to enjoy it and we are commanded to not judge him
for it.
We must add here that even when one’s personal conscience
disallows an otherwise innocent activity one can study God’s word,
educate the conscience more thoroughly, and get rid of invalid
conscientious scruples. Most conscientious scruples in the area of
sex come, not from the Bible, but from a church and society that has
15
set purely human standards for sexual morality. As we said above,
all humans are free to simply ignore all such human standards.
If God’s law does not classify an act as sin then one should not have a
guilty conscience in enjoying that act. And any person, whose
conscience presently forbids those activities, can gain freedom from
that guilt by going solely to God’s law for the basis of his morality.
One is not hopelessly bound to an invalid conscience. One can
grow into full liberty in Christ if one will commit to the necessary
study.
To many people the concept of sexual freedom is radical. Many
cannot believe that humans have any sexual freedom at all. The
concept prevails in the minds of most people that if a thing is
sexual then it is inherently nasty or dirty and that we can’t do it
unless God specifically says so.
To think that some sexual practices
are left up to the like or dislike of individuals is unthinkable,
especially to church leaders. Most of the rules that circumscribe
sexual activity do not come from God.
They come from church
leaders who do not believe any sexual activity can be a matter of
choice. They are compelled to help God by filling in the gaps left
where God did not legislate about such things as masturbation, oral
sex and other equally innocent practices.
Like the Pharisees in
Jesus’ day they pile their own regulations atop God’s law and give
their own laws pre-eminence. We have absolutely no responsibility
to be regulated by any rule that cannot be read from Scripture. If
God did not prohibit a practice we are free to decide for ourselves
about it. And we are obligated to allow everyone else the same
privilege.
Paul’s clear statement is that in the realm of those things
God does not prohibit, I can be “happy” in the practices of which my
conscience approves. And he says that this is “faith” that I can
exercise “before God.” That is, I can be sure that God allows my
behavior as long as I do not offend another’s conscience, or my
own.
The “faith” in this verse is “faith” that comes as a result of my
own reasoning and decision. It is not “faith” in the sense of
believing what the Bible says, because the whole argument of
Romans 14 has to do with things about which Scripture is silent.
So we are dealing specifically with sexual issues about which the Bible
has said nothing in the way either of condemnation or approval.
Regarding such sexual practices, after I have considered all the
evidence available to me I have God’s authority to form my
16
personal opinion and then act on that opinion with “faith.” I need
feel no constraint because of the objections of others.
This does not mean that I must settle every possible question
that might arise about a practice. Paul writes, “He who doubts is
condemned if he eats, because his eating is nor from faith; and whatever is
not from faith is sin” (Rom. 14:23). The “doubt” that makes a thing
“sin” in this verse is an actual believing that there is something wrong
with the activity.
Such is the case with one who believes it is wrong
to eat meat sacrificed to idols yet does it anyway because he sees
another brother doing so. He eats with an offended conscience and
therefore sins. It is not possible for humans to answer all questions
and quell all possible fears about all possible activities. And God
does not require us to eliminate from our lives all activities about
which we are not omniscient. A man who wants to eat meat that
has been sacrificed to idols may do so even if he is not absolutely
sure about it.
As long as his heart does not tell him “this is sin,” he
has not offended his conscience. In the same way a man or woman
may yield to the sexual urge to masturbate even though they might
confess to themselves, “I am not absolutely sure about this. But I
know God’s word says nothing about it, therefore it is probably
okay.
Even though I know many church leaders condemn
masturbation, I don’t find their arguments convincing. It may be
wrong, but I don’t believe that it is. It seems more like a blessing of
personal pleasure that I am free to choose. So I am going to do it.”
So may the reasoning process go with many things about which
God has not spoken.
A good rule of thumb here is this: If God has not specifically
prohibited an action then I can safely think it through, pray it
through and come to the best decision I can about it. Even though I
may not have an answer to every question, yet because I know God
has not made it a sin then it is not a sin unless it harms another
person and I am safe in doing it since I know God has not legislated
against it.
There is no other way people can live with any peace in their
hearts. If we are compelled to be sure that we do not offend anyone,
in any way, with anything we do regardless of the circumstances,
then we will all quickly become basket cases. We cannot possibly
figure out in advance what others will think about every action that
we want to take.
We simply cannot live with the obligation to do
nothing that will in any way offend others. God frees us to come to
17
our personal conclusions about our desires and conduct, then freely
act on those convictions unless we have reason to believe that doing so
will bring spiritual harm to another saint. We are not required to
investigate in advance what others may think of our actions.
We are simply required to operate with due respect to our spiritual
family and not intentionally do things that circumstances suggest
might cause them to violate their own consciences.
A final word on this specific issue. The prohibition here relates
only to avoiding what will cause our brother to sin. It has nothing to
do with what the unbeliever thinks about our behavior. Since
unbelievers are unable to do anything that threatens their salvation
Paul’s instructions do not apply.
This does not mean that we need
not have any concern about how our behavior affects unbelievers.
It simply means that a Christian’s liberty to do what is innocent is
not restricted by the spiritual blindness and deadness that
characterizes unbelievers.
Christ truly makes His people free. Since
unbelievers have no capacity to understand and appropriately
judge spiritual things, the saint does not need to be concerned
about being judged by unbelievers, (1 Cor. 2:14,15). In this regard,
the frequently repeated maxim, “You must be careful to protect
your Christian witness,” is merely a human maxim.
Most Christians receive it as a virtual spiritual law but it is not from God.
It may indeed be a wise principle. But it is an invention of men.
This statement is used often as a weapon against people who do
things some Christians do not like. For example, one might hear
this: “You should not smoke. That will harm your Christian
witness.” Or “You should not wear shorts in public, because it will
weaken your Christian witness.” And on and on we go.
We simply say here that our freedom to enjoy what God has made is not
restricted by what unbelievers think about it. If an act is innocent
we may do it regardless of the attitude of unbelievers.
Our “Christian witness” will only be harmed if we engage in actual sin.
Society’s standards or the church’s traditions cannot make a
thing sinful to any degree. If God’s law does not forbid an act and
one does it without guilt, he is free regardless of what others think.
If society and the church frowns on an act a Christian who knows
better may still enjoy that act as long as he or she tries to do it in
circumstances where others will not be led to offend their weak
consciences. If this is not true, how do we apply these Scriptures
that teach it is okay to eat meat if we do not harm another’s
18
conscience by doing so? Paul could and probably did eat meat
sacrificed to idols in privacy, even though some of the Corinthians
would have thought him a sinner if they knew he did it. His liberty
is not eliminated by the weak consciences of others. He simply
controls his use of liberty.
It is important that we grasp this principle. If we do not live this
way then we become virtually imprisoned by the conscientious
scruples of others. For example, because some Christians object,
we could not attend movies, rent videos, or own a TV or a
computer,
women couldn’t wear makeup or jewelry, cut their hair, wear
shorts, bathing suits or pants,
we could not celebrate Christmas, Easter or any other religious
holiday,
we could not play cards, or roll dice,
we could not have sex in any position other than the
missionary position,
we could not look at the naked body of our mate,
and on and on it goes.
None of the above is sinful except for those whose uninformed
consciences tell them so. If at any point they learn better and
understand that “nothing is unclean of itself,” and that God has not
condemned these things and that they are therefore free to do
them, then they can do so without scruples and without sin. In
other words, what would have been sin at one time because of
ignorance, no longer is sin because their conscience is enlightened.
How Can This Be Right If Everyone Thinks It Is Wrong?
How can any view be right if the church and “civilized society”
says otherwise? We realize that any position that contradicts
prevailing opinion should, for that reason, be examined very
carefully and embraced only when the evidence truly supports it.
But we must remind ourselves that the church and society at large
are frequently wrong about a host of things.
When Luther and the other Reformers attacked the doctrine of
salvation by works they went to battle against the entire body of
“Christianity.” No one in their day believed in salvation by grace.
But their position proved to be true according to Scripture and we
reap the blessing today of their willingness to embrace and defend
against fierce odds, the Biblical doctrine of salvation by grace
19
through faith. These same leaders won victories for humanity in
other areas where heresies were universally believed.
Where would we be today if such men as William Seymour had
refused to teach and practice the Biblical truth about Holy Spirit
baptism? Where would the church be without the Azusa Street
revival? Yet in the day of the greatest modern outbreak of the Holy
Spirit upon the church, Seymour and others like him had to stand
against the entire organized church. Today we reap the benefit of
their courage and conviction.
Other instances could be given. The point is that truth is not
determined by how many people accept or reject an idea, how long
it has been believed, how many scholars believe it, etc. Jesus says
“Thy word is truth,” (Jn. 17:17). Truth is determined only by what the
Scripture says. The church does not speak authoritatively for God on
subjects of morality and sin.
God has spoken for Himself. As long
as we adhere to His word we are safe. We must learn what God has
prohibited, and then avoid those prohibited things. Otherwise we
are not bound by church dogma or social standards. And once we
discover what Scripture says we must resist the effort to augment it
at those points where it does not condemn things we find offensive,
or where we think God should have been more careful to explain
Himself.
All lawful things can be practiced in situations where doing so
will not harm another person. Our motive must always be to seek
the good of others rather than our personal, selfish desires. This
principle allows us to enjoy all sexual practices that God has not
forbidden.
The Nature And Purpose Of Law
A final word might be in order as to the nature of “law.”
Sometimes we hear, “But the Bible does not say we CAN do that.”
This indicates a need to understand the nature and purpose of law.
Law is not normally written to permit anything. Whether we
consider civil law or Divine law, we do not look to law for
permission to do anything. Law is written either to require necessary
positive behavior or to prohibit negative behavior.
Examples of positive mandates in the Decalogue, (Ex. 20)
“Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy,” (vs. 8).
“Honor your father and mother,” (vs. 12).
Examples of negative mandates in the Decalogue, (Ex. 20)
20
“You shall have no other gods before Me,” (vs. 3).
“You shall not make for yourself an idol…you shall not worship
them…” (vs. 4, 5).
“You shall not take the name of the Lord God in vain,” (vs. 7).
“You shall not murder,” (vs. 13).
“You shall not commit adultery,” (vs.14).
“You shall not steal,” (vs. 15).
“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor,” (vs. 16).
“You shall not covet…anything that belongs to your neighbor,”
(vs. 17).
It is noticeable that 80% of the Ten Commandments, are negative
prohibitions. This illustrates the basic fact that law is written
primarily to prohibit wrong behavior. As a rule people do not have to
be required to do what is good so there is no reason to write laws
demanding they do so in most cases. But people do have a
tendency to do wrong. Therefore it is necessary to establish limits
to their behavior in order to protect other people. All law is written
this way.
This is easily illustrated by traffic laws. No state, city or
municipality writes traffic laws that tell an automobile driver what
he is permitted to do. Traffic law is written to forbid driving in a way
that endangers others. Thus we have speed limits, stop signs, etc.
Outside the parameters of these prohibitions a driver is free to
drive as he/she will. If a traffic law does not exist it cannot be
broken. No traffic cop would think of ticketing a driver for driving
with his window down.
No law exists giving permission to drive
with windows down. It is permissible simply because there is no
law prohibiting driving with a window down. No qualified police
officer would say, “our traffic laws do not say you can drive with
your window down.” To ticket a driver for such an action would
subject the officer to ridicule and censure from his or her superiors.
Such a ticket would be summarily dismissed in traffic court.
The same is true relative to moral or spiritual behavior that God
regulates by His law. God wrote His law to make it clear what our
moral limits are. This is the whole purpose of the Ten
Commandments. Especially in the sexual area, God dealt more
specifically and in detail than with any other area of human life.
This is doubtless due to the power of human sex drive and the
tendency of fallen humanity to fall easily and quickly into sexual
21
sin.
In order that humans might know exactly what our sexual
boundaries are God specified what He prohibits. He did not command
any positive sex act. Humans are not required to engage in sexual
conduct. God’s mandates tell us what sexual behavior we must
avoid. In no other area of human life did God go into such minute
detail as to restrictions and prohibitions. Once we have learned
what God prohibits sexually we can then confidently enjoy
whatever sexual activity is possible outside those prohibitions.
If God’s law does not forbid a particular sex act, then it is
impossible for a human to violate God’s law by enjoying that sex act.
If there is no law against an act it is permitted. One cannot possibly
violate a law that does not exist.
Thus humans are free to do
sexually whatever God has not prohibited. We are free to do even
those things that society frowns upon and which the church
condemns if God has not made it unlawful. Only God establishes
the morality of any act. Neither society nor the church has been
granted the privilege of mandating morality. If God’s law does not
prohibit it, humans may do it even if the majority of people in a
culture think it is immoral.
Granted, it may be necessary for such
frowned upon acts to be performed in privacy, but if it is not made
sin by God no human law can make it so.
This study is an attempt to learn what God said about sex. We
need to know exactly what sexual activity God forbids. If we can
learn that, then we can know for certain what sexual activity is
permitted: it will be whatever is not on the forbidden list. And then we
may be free to enjoy, with God’s approval, everything that is not
forbidden.
We do not need a list of “You may do this” from God.
All we need is His list of “You may not do this.” Everything else is
a matter of individual choice, restricted only by loving
consideration for other people.
What does the Bible say? This is our only quest.
22
CHAPTER TWO
NAKED AND UNASHAMED
Comments about nakedness from other authors:
As expected, we find that contemporary religious writers and
church leaders declare human nakedness to be doubtlessly sinful
unless it is done in total privacy. As example of some of their
comments, consider these quotes.
“A term indicating various stages of undress, from being
inappropriately clad, to being totally nude. The naked body was
taboo in Hebrew society … in part because bodily fluids were
“unclean”…Clothing confined the fluids and prevented them from
contaminating public areas.
“In Heb. usage “nakedness” is often a euphemism for sexual
relations (cf. Lev. 18). This usage helps explain the incident as Gen.
9:20-27, where Ham apparently took advantage of his father’s
drunken state and had sexual relations with him.
“Public nakedness was normally considered an occasion for
shame, a characteristic of the prostitute or the adulteress (1 Sam.
20:30; Rev. 17:16). The prophets often spoke of the lascivious, naked
prostitute as a visual symbol of Israel’s apostasy (Ezek. 16:15-43; ch.
23; Hos. 2:1-13).
But nakedness might also be a result of extreme
poverty (Dt. 28:48; Rev. 3:17-18 (figuratively) and therefore an
opportunity for good works (Mt. 25:36-44).
“Nakedness was forbidden in Israelite religious ceremonies,
largely because of its association with Canaanite rites (Lev. 20:23).
The priests wore linen garments to cover themselves (Ex. 28:42) and
altars were built without steps lest the priest’s nakedness be
exposed to the crowd below (Ex. 20:26).
Aaron, under the people’s
influence, made a calf before which the people danced naked (Ex.
31:25).
Saul lay naked all night and prophesied (1 Sam. 19:24).
Isaiah walked naked and barefoot 3 years as a prophecy of doom
against Egypt, Is. 20:2-4).
David, wearing a linen ephod, danced so
enthusiastically before the returning ark, that he became
“uncovered” (2Sam.6:20).”
– Eerdman’s Bible Dictionary, pg. 746. –
“Occasionally “nakedness” is a euphemism for sexual organs.
Thus the laws of Ex. 20:26 and 28:42 prohibit the exposure of
23
priest’s “nakedness” because it would be cultically defiling.
“Uncover the nakedness” in Lev. 18 and 20 refers to incest.
It also
refers to the results of incest, i.e. bringing shame upon the
aggrieved party.
“Shame is also associated with nakedness and is seen as
originating in the garden of Eden. When man and woman became
aware that they were naked, they were ashamed.
Prior to the
disobedience, nakedness was natural as it continued to be for
animals.
“The practice of sleeping unclothed is attested in Rev. 16:15
where being awake and clothed is contrasted with being asleep and
naked.”
– International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE) vol. 3, pg. 480)
Scripture References:
Adam and Eve were created by God as naked and unashamed.
Man’s normal, original and Divinely intended condition was
nakedness, (Gen.2:25).
Adam and Eve’s children and the human
race would still be naked if not for the fall. When God looked at His
creation and pronounced it “very good,” he was looking at naked
humanity, Gen. 1:26-31.
Nakedness itself is not shameful. The very
beginnings of humanity demonstrate that God’s preference for man
and woman, is that they be naked exactly as all other living
creatures are.
The guilt of sin causes Adam and Eve to be ashamed at their
nakedness, (Gen. 3:7,10). Sin brings shame, but it is not necessary to
think that Adam and Eve’s shame was due specifically to the physical
nakedness of their sexual organs.
Why were they ashamed: because
their physical bodies were unclothed, or because suddenly they
have become self-consciously guilty of sin, and realize that each
other and God know of the guilt?
From the beginning, all they had
known was physical nakedness, so how does their sin cause them
to find something wrong with nakedness as such?
It is more likely
to think that their physical nakedness represents to their mind that
they are now open to the spiritual gaze of each other and of God.
Their motivation is to hide from God, not to cover their sex organs.
Their shame at being uncovered is in the same category as that of
the criminal who hides his face from the TV camera as he is being
led away in handcuffs. It is similar to the sheepishness of a child
caught with a hand in the cookie jar? Since their sin had nothing to
24
do with their physical nakedness, and did not involve their sex
organs, why do we jump to the conclusion that their attempt at
clothing, was to hide their body? More on this later.
Ham “sees” Noah naked. Noah curses him, not for seeing him
naked, but for what Ham “did, ” (Gen. 9:21ff.). What did he “do?”
It was not seeing his father naked that was sinful, but something
more drastic. As suggested in the above quote from Eerdman’s
Bible Dictionary, Ham must have committed sexual offense against
his father, committing an act of incest. For this he is cursed.
If seeing his father naked and remarking about it to his brothers was
his offense, then any condemnation of nakedness based on this
incident must conclude that it is shameful and worthy of cursing a
child if (s)he should see a parent naked and say anything about it.
Israel was required to build her altars without steps lest the
priest’s nakedness be exposed to the crowd below, (Ex. 20:26).
The priests wore linen garments to cover themselves, (Ex. 28:42).
Nakedness was forbidden in Israelite religious ceremonies,
(Lev. 20:23), as the above quote from Eerdman’s Bible Dictionary
indicates, “largely because of its association with Canaanite rites.”
These Scriptures are set in the culture of a people surrounded by
nations that customarily made sex a part of their religious exercise.
To protect against all such corruption of their religious ritual, as
well as to remove anything that would surely distract from
worship as would be the case with a priest’s sexual exposure, God
ordained this precaution. It is interesting to observe that no such
precaution is made for other situations.
For example, Moses
climbed Sinai twice to obtain God’s law. If going up in the presence
of Israel would expose a man’s genitals, why not the same
prohibition here, if God’s interest is solely to keep genitalia from
public gaze?
When God commanded Israelites to go outside the
camp to have a bowel movement, and to bury the results with a
shovel, why did He not also precaution them to be sure they hid so
no one saw their genitals?
Why did God never make such a
requirement in any other circumstance than this one that related to
a priest’s ministry in Israel’s presence?
It was because of the pagan
use of sexual practice in their worship. God was very careful to
eliminate any practice that might lead Israel to consider including
sex as apart of worship to Him. This was an unusual request for
25
God to make of the priests. That they had to be specifically
instructed to wear “underwear” means that they would not
ordinarily wear such garments.
Wearing panties and briefs was not
a common thing in Israel’s culture, nor was it common in the
nations around them. If carefully covering one’s genitals is
important to God, we should expect to read a command like this
addressed to all men and all women applicable to all
circumstances. But, of course, such is not the case.
We who attach
shame to sex organs, make such undergarments “necessary.” To
some in our society it is “shocking” to think a man or woman
would choose to not wear underwear under their clothes. Many
think it is shameful for a “godly” woman to go “bare legged.”
Many think it is tasteless and even vulgar for women to go bra-less.
Yet there is nothing inherently negative, unclean or tasteless about
not wearing underwear.
Public opinion must be considered before
going bra-less in public, but otherwise, nothing negative can
legitimately be said about it.
Ruth, seeking to offer herself to Boaz as his wife, is told by
Naomi to go to his bed while he sleeps and “uncover his feet” and lie
down until he awakes and tells her what to do, (Ruth. 3:7).
The action Ruth is to take here is not merely to simply lay down at the
foot of his bed and put the end of the blanket over herself.
“Uncover the feet” was a well known euphemism in that culture for “expose the genitals.”
Moffatt translates the Hebrew words this
way: “uncovered his waist and lay down there.” She was advised
to uncover Boaz’s genitals and lay down beside him.
When he awoke with his genitals uncovered and Ruth lying beside him, he did not have to guess what she wanted!
She was offering herself to him sexually, and he was willing! When she asked him to “spread your covering over me” she used a euphemism for sexual intercourse.
This phrase arose because in sexual intercourse, a
woman lying on her back lays open her robe to the man. The man
spreads his robe apart as he lies on top of her.
Thus the phrase “cover with my robe (or skirt, or covering)” also came to refer to sexual intercourse.
Today if a man asks a woman, “will you go to bed with me” we know he is not asking for a place to sleep! In the same way, in that Israelite culture when a man asked a woman if he could “cover you with my robe” he was asking for sex. So Ruth is unabashedly asking Boaz to copulate with her. He says “I will do
26
whatever you desire,” (vs. 11), which probably means that he had
intercourse with her that night, for they indeed spent the night
together, (vs. 13, 14).
There is no need to be offended by such suggestions.
Firstly, the Biblical words themselves warrant such an explanation of the
scene.
Secondly, these people were not living under the heap of
purely human traditions and religious regulations that have been
handed down to us. Thirdly, the action achieved its result;
Boaz accepted her sexual proposal, and they were married and became
the parents from whom eventually David and Solomon descended.
It is worthy of note that these two doubtless had sexual intercourse
before they were officially married. At any rate, there was nothing
shameful to these people about “naked” sex organs.
Such an approach by a woman to a man, while considering both
of them to be righteous people, is almost sacrilegious to most
religious people today. Yet to Ruth, Boaz and Naomi, it was an
expression of a freedom and naturalness about sex that found
nothing dirty or unholy about it. Our struggles arise from the
mistaken notion that our attitudes toward sex must necessarily be
the same as God’s attitudes. In a culture where most of us are
reluctant to even talk about sex we cannot imagine that the godly
men and women of Scripture could be so free, unashamed and
natural about sex, regarding both its functions and its pleasures, as
the Bible shows them to be.
Sexual freedom and openness about it all was a hallmark of
these people. They shared none of our hang-ups and consequently
none of our false guilt. To neither Naomi, Ruth nor Boaz would
Ruth’s behavior be “brazen” or offensive. Men and women have
sex. And men’s and women’s genitals are neither “holy” nor
“horrid.”
Even in an age when we consider God’s Levitical Law to
be totally controlling of Israel’s behavior, such scenes as these are
played out time and again in Scripture with never a solitary hint
that God is displeased. Given God’s demand for holiness, His care
to inform His people of all offenses against holiness and His primafacie
acceptance of nakedness; and given the Biblical depiction of
overt sexual advances of men and women toward each other with
never a correction from God, our conclusion can only be that God
did not view exposure of one’s genitals to be either a spiritual crime
or “uncleanness.” Though one could not expose another’s
nakedness against their will, for purely personal satisfaction, (Hab.
27
2:15) one could do so in a situation like this, where the intent and
method honored the dignity and rights of the other person.
Boaz actually thanked Ruth for showing such interest in his sexuality,
(Ruth 3:10).
In a more famous incident God’s demonstrates His acceptance
of human nakedness even when displayed before members of the
opposite sex.
David, wearing a linen ephod, danced so
enthusiastically before the returning ark of the covenant that he
became “uncovered,” exposing himself to the “maidens,” (2Sam.6:20).
It is apparent that during his vigorous dancing movement his
genitals were visible to the men and women who thronged the
streets to watch the parade. Five Hebrew words describe David’s
actions as he danced “with all his might.” David “danced,” “rotated,”
“jumped,” “whirled,” and “skipped.”
There is no indication if his “uncovering” resulted from David’s “ephod” (vs. 14) flapping loosely as he gyrated, or if he took it off. An ephod was no more than a
long cloth with a hole in the center through which one put his head.
It fell down the front and down the back, sometimes with ties to
hold the sides together. From verse 14 it appears that this is all
David wore and its specific mention seems to be given to explain
how he could have been “uncovered.”
Wearing undergarments is a modern invention.
David was not wearing his “fruit of the looms.”
As he danced he either intentionally threw off his ephod and
danced naked, or it flapped open exposing his genitals.
If one is repulsed at the suggestion that David might have intentionally
danced naked, we remark that nude dancing was well established
in virtually all cultures of that day. Women and young girls
especially, danced naked in public parades and celebrations.
Israelites stripped and danced naked around the golden calf (Ex.
32:6, 25).
God’s displeasure with them on this occasion related not
to their nakedness per se, nor even to sexual activity, but to their
worship of an idol, Aaron’s golden calf.
Isaiah was commanded by
God to walk naked and barefoot through Jerusalem for three years,
(Isa. 20:1-4). Nakedness in general was not as evil to Israel and
surrounding nations as it is to us. And it is apparent that God by no
means thinks of nakedness as vile and shameful. Man put the
stigma of shame and sin on nakedness.
God did not.
David was sufficiently exposed to invoke his wife’s anger and
contempt. The words “uncovered” and “shamelessly” are translated
from a Hebrew word meaning to “denude” (Strong’s # 1540). It is
28
used of Noah when he was uncovered in his tent, (Gen. 9:21).
In
Lev. 18:6-19 it is used repeatedly in reference to uncovering one’s
sexual organs. Consider these translations:
“… exposed himself to the girls along the street like a common
pervert!”
(The Living Bible)
“…exposing himself before women…as any loose fellow would
expose himself indecently.” (Moffatt)
“...as he stripped himself in the sight of the maid servants…as a
common rake exposes himself! (Goodspeed)
“…uncovering himself this day to be ogled by the female
servants…as some worthless fellow would strip himself.” (Modern
Language Version)
So David was not just dancing “shirtless.” His sexuality was
exposed, and this “strip tease” was reprehensible to Michal. She
did not object to his exuberant dancing.
She objected in jealousy to
the fact that the women in the street had seen his genitals!
Rather than being shamed by her jealous anger, David replied, “It was an
act of celebration and worship to God and I am willing to go even further than this. When I do I may humble myself, but the maidens of whom you are so jealous, will hold me in high esteem.” (2 Sam. 6:21, 22)
The only explanation for Michal’s anger, seems to be jealousy. The fact is that
men, women and children in Israel did not “look at” sexual organs
the same way we do. It was not all that unusual for men to see
women’s genitalia, and vice versa.
If God was repelled by this public, uninhibited display of
David’s genitals, and that women along the road had seen them,
why do we have no word that even hints at such Divine
displeasure?
Why did God not correct David for his “vulgarity and
excess?” Now that we know “the rest of the story” about David’s
actual nakedness in this dance, it astounds us that God accepted his
abandoned, uninhibited worship!
The fact that God blessed David
and cursed Michal because of her reproach of David’s “exposed”
dancing, proves God did not find David’s exposure either sinful or
distasteful. Human nakedness does not bother God any more than
does the nakedness of animals.
Nakedness bothers humans who
have been brow-beaten by decades of false teaching and who do
not know how to deal with their internal guilt and shame. Clothes
are nothing more than an artificial cover-up for what is wrong
inside us. The invention of clothing didn’t work for Adam and Eve,
as we shall show, and it will not work for us.
29
“Uncover the nakedness” in Lev. 18 and 20 refers to incest. It
also refers to the results of incest, i.e. bringing shame upon the
aggrieved party. “Uncover the nakedness” is a euphemism for
sexual intercourse.
Public nakedness was a characteristic of the adulterous
prostitute and considered an occasion for shame, (1 Sam. 20:30;
Rev. 17:16). The prophets often spoke of the lascivious, naked
prostitute as a visual symbol of Israel’s adultery, (Ezek. 16:15-43;
ch. 23; Hos. 2:1-13). These verses do not make nakedness, as such,
shameful. It is the relationship of nakedness to sexual sin that is
shameful. It is nakedness used for enticement to adultery, that is
shameful.
Saul lay naked all night and prophesied, (1 Sam. 19:24). Was this
a shameful act? No hint of such is found here.
Isaiah walked naked and barefoot 3 years as a prophecy of
doom against Egypt, (Is. 20:2-4). Did God command Isaiah to
commit what is “normally”(?) a sin, in order to make His point
with Israel? While public nudity may not have been normal in
Israelite society, there is no proof from Scripture that they
considered nudity a sin. There certainly is no Divine law that
makes it so.
Babylon’s “nakedness” will be exposed & her shame
“uncovered” as God’s judgment, (Isa. 47:1-3).
Nineveh is cursed because of “wanton lust of a harlot…who
enslaves nations by prostitution and witchcraft,” so God will “expose her
nakedness,” (Nahum 3:4-8). In all such cases, “exposing nakedness”
is to force sexual exposure upon one.
This has nothing to do with
any supposed inherent shamefulness of physical nakedness. As
indicated by the Word Biblical Commentary on Isa. 47:3, stripping
one of clothing was an act of humiliation, involuntarily exposing
one to public taunting, ridicule and vulgar treatment that was used
against slaves especially.
To “expose one’s nakedness” is to leave
one without any covering or defense.
“Woe to him who makes his neighbors drunk so he can gaze at their
naked bodies,” (Hab. 2:15). It “is your turn to be so exposed,” (vs. 16).
This is taking from someone what they are unwilling to give. To
30
expose anyone against their will for sexual exploitation, is sinful.
There is no word here to indicates that voluntary nakedness is
wrong.
The Christians in Laodicea must get white garments “that the
shame of their nakedness may not be revealed,” (Rev. 3:18). This is a
reproach of their thinking they are independent of a need for God.
King Ahasuerus, during a large feast with many guests, sent
servants to call his queen, Vashti, to appear before the guests in
order that they might admire her great beauty. (Esther 1:11)
She was an uncommonly beautiful woman, and this verse suggests that
the king wanted her to appear naked so as to display her total glory
to all admirers.
The Jewish Targum says she was commanded to
appear naked, as do Josephus and a Midrashic passage (Megillah
12b), (Kevin Aaron, Journey From Eden, p.47) There is good reason
to accept this as the real situation.
The circumstance that she
refused to appear before the king’s guests has been used as an
indication of her great virtue, and her “example” has been used in
many sermons designed to instill in women a sense of shame at
being unclothed in the presence of other people. This incident is
also touted as an example of the crudity and sinfulness of a man
desiring to display his wife’s beauty to others.
However, neither
conclusion can be legitimately drawn from the Biblical text. Both
are examples of imposing present concepts upon the text, based
upon our cultural setting and paradigms, rather than deriving the
meaning from the text in a way that is consistent with what we
know about the culture in which it was written.
Is it necessary or even possible to conjecture that Vashti was a
“morally virtuous” woman who was “repelled” at the idea of
appearing naked before the king’s guests?
Not one word in the text
gives any basis for such a conjecture. Any conclusion about Vashti’s
motives can never be more than opinion. So since we are
considering opinions, let us offer one of our own, based on what
we can learn about that culture.
In that pagan society, known for
sexual liberty of every kind by both sexes, it is more likely that
Vashti would have been naturally eager to show off her physical
beauty, especially knowing it would bring special favor from the
king. That the moral standards of such a pagan woman would have
been too high to allow her to appear naked in such a situation, is
disproved by well documented practices of all human history,
31
including our own day. History demonstrates the willingness and
even eagerness of women to strip before men specifically to display
their body, and especially for payment of money or for other
favors. Where would Vashti have gotten such a boldly different
moral view of this since it was then, and still is, common practice
among “unbelievers?”
Interestingly, no one comments on the contrast between “pagan
Vashti’s” supposed moral virtue and “Israelite Esther’s”
participation in a sexual relay with this same king. Vashti is
heralded as pure and righteous for refusing to appear naked for the
king’s guests, then Esther is also heralded as the righteous, faithful
servant of God whose faith and courage save the nation of Israel.
Yet Esther, with her uncle Mordecai’s knowledge and consent,
willingly participated in the nightly “sex-capades” by which the
king chose his new bride.
Now, on the one hand, we applaud
Vashti for refusing to appear naked before the king’s guests. On the
other hand, we say nothing about the fact that Esther did not refuse
to participate in the king’s sexual merry-go-round. Do we think it
was worse for Vashti to appear naked, than for Esther to simply join
the line-up of sexual playthings for the king? Why is Esther not
castigated for not refusing to participate in such a “degenerate”
act?
As long as we must conjecture, it is more probable that Vashti’s
refusal had selfish reasons, calculated to gain some special favor,
perhaps thinking that the king might offer extra favors for her
appearance before his guests. Or she may have been angry with the
king, or ill, in her menstrual period, or perhaps a number of
reasons could explain her refusal of the king’s command, none of
which have anything to do with a sense of moral impropriety.
Esther knew what she was getting into and acted voluntarily at
the advice of her uncle. However the king did not merely “ask”
Vashti to appear naked before his guests. He demanded it. Had he
asked, allowing her to make the decision for herself, might the
situation have been different? Who knows? There is no Biblical
reason for such a request to be looked upon as vulgar, filthy,
perverted, or any such thing..
This story illustrates a common trait of men that people are
reluctant to consider nowadays: A man is more proud of his wife’s
beauty than he is of anything else he “possesses.” As eager as a
man is to invite other men and women to look at, examine, caress,
32
etc. and thoroughly enjoy his beautiful car, his guns, his boat, etc.
so are most men eager to show off their wives. A common fantasy
of most men, is their desire to show off their wife’s body, especially
to other men. It has to do with male self-esteem. In our society, that
desire is not overtly demonstrated except in very limited occasions,
such as beauty contests which boyfriends and husbands support
strongly, encouraging and helping their girlfriends or wives
prepare, and watching with delight as they walk the runway in
bikinis and revealing gowns, for all to see their glory. Years ago a
friend, commenting on a mutual acquaintance's penchant for
wanting his very beautiful wife to dress in short skirts, and without
bras, said “he likes the guys to see what he has at home.”
Some will
respond by saying, “It is different with one’s wife, than with one’s
car, boat. etc.” Perhaps. But exactly how is it different? And who
says so? If it is no more than a human opinion, then it is worthless
for this discussion.
The question is, does such a desire mean a man is wicked,
debased, vulgar, etc.? Nowhere in Scripture is such a suggestion
made. If it is sinful for men to have such thoughts about displaying
their wife before others, the Bible makes no mention of it and we
can learn it only by human reasoning. As we have already said, we
refuse to accept moral standards that cannot be supported by
Scripture.
Morality based on human reasoning can never be God’s
morality. No human should feel the slightest compulsion to accept
human doctrines and man made rules for moral behavior. If God
didn’t say it, we can safely discard it.
Why would any husband desire others to look at his wife’s
beauty? The obvious reason has already been suggested: his male
ego is fed by the admiration of others for what he alone possesses,
just as with the display of his car, etc. There is also the desire of a
self-assured man to allow his wife the satisfaction of being admired,
with the ego boosting and self-assurance and self-confidence that
such brings to her. Women have been held in the background and
treated as if they should never expect to be encouraged to enjoy
being who they are, or to enjoy their beauty, or to seek and receive
praise from others because they are beautiful. Such a desire on
woman’s part is not vanity or pride. It is normal. If men would
more overtly work at encouraging their wives to be independent,
self-confident, etc. what a wonderful change it would make in our
women. Women want and need to feel that they are beautiful and
33
that their husbands are proud of their beauty. For a man to
encourage and enable his wife to so display herself that she might
receive praise for her beauty would be a wonderfully liberating
thing for her. What motivates a man to allow his wife to enter a
beauty contest, to wear revealing gowns, and to strut her stuff in
the “swimsuit competition?” No one really thinks much about a
man actually encouraging or “supporting” his wife to do such a
thing. The motive for the man is both his own self esteem in having
such a beautiful wife, and in ministering to his wife’s desire and
need for recognition and admiration, and congratulations for her
physical charms. If men were confident in their own identity, if
they were assured of their wives’ love for them, and if they were
not filled with fear and jealousy at the thought that other men
would look at their wives with admiration for their beauty, how
much would it do for women everywhere, to be free to receive, and
bask in such affirmation of their beauty? Tell me, what is
fundamentally different about a man’s wife posing, strutting in a
beauty contest in a swimsuit, and this king’s request of Vashti? Do
we say, “well, the beauty contestants have some clothes on?” Still
the purpose is exactly the same – to display the beauty of woman’s
body. The human body is gloriously beautiful and was made by
God to be that way. Nothing about nudity is inherently sinful. And
there is nothing inherently sinful about people admiring the beauty
of other people’s bodies. For a man to look at a woman’s nakedness
and relish the sight, or for a woman to look at a man’s nakedness
with admiration, for example at a “Mr. Universe” contest, is of the
same nature as God’s looking at his naked man and woman and
saying, “that’s very good.” If God looked and pronounced it good,
how can we look and pronounce it evil?
The Song of Solomon is the most straightforwardly sexual book
in the Bible. It’s theme is that of two lovers who take pure delight in
each other’s bodies and sexual love. In 4:1-5, the man describes the
woman’s body in detail, using Hebrew words that have strong
sexual meaning. In 5:11-15, the woman describes the man’s naked
body, from head to toe, including euphemistic references to his
penis (“belly,” cf. Strong’s #4578) or as one translator put it, “His
rod is arrogant ivory.” In 7:1-6, the girl is wearing nothing but shoes,
for the boy’s description of her body moves from feet to head.
Admiring her “navel” refers to her vulva, according to The
34
Interpreter’s Bible. In the context, the girl is dancing, (thus the shoes)
and the people call to her to turn around so they can look at her.
Her back was turned and they could not see her full naked beauty.
The man is pleased with their admiration of “his girl,” and asks
teasingly, why they love to look at the girl who dances (6:13). Of
course, he knows why they look: they look because she is beautiful
from head to feet, and he delights in their admiration of her body.
The Interpreter’s Bible commentary says this was some special
dance apparently performed in the nude. The Pulpit Commentary
says the dancing girl may have worn clothing of a light texture
through which the outlines of her body and breasts were seen,
“according to the mode of dancing in the East.” (Journey From Eden, p.
49). Such nude dances as these were common in that culture. Adam
Clark thinks she wore “transparent garments,” which allowed her
body to be viewed. The girl was dancing in such fashion that her
breasts were visible and described as a perfectly matching pair,
“two young roes that are twins.” As she danced her breasts bounced
like young roes jumping on the hill. This girl had breasts like
“towers” – large, firm breasts – and this was a major factor that
caused the man to delight in her, (8:10).
Given the jaundice with which especially religious people have
learned to look at sex and nudity, it is impossible for most
Christians to handle such imagery as used in the Song of Solomon.
But it is nevertheless there for all the world to read and to profit
from. Churches have tried their best to help God out, since
apparently, in many minds, He did not do an adequate job of
defining decency. Modern religious people are offended at the
suggestion that God would actually inspire such a book as Song of
Solomon. Most commentators refuse to deal straightforwardly with
its explicitly sexual language. Adam Clarke suggested that the
sexual references in this book were so explicit that even a medical
Doctor would be embarrassed to use them. Yet the fact remains that
this book is part of inspired Scripture. Any suggestion that it’s
language and sexual references are crude, unacceptable for decent
society, vulgar, etc, is an accusation against God’s personal
holiness, purity and righteousness. On the other hand, if we can
accept that this book is inspired by God Himself and that its sexual
content is not shameful, unholy or in any other way foreign to
God’s character, then we are in a position to be able to understand
God’s true attitude toward sex. God made sex. God made sex
35
enjoyable. God made human bodies. God made them beautiful to look
at. God also created men’s and women’s sexual reaction to the
naked bodies of others. God sees this as good. And it all
harmonizes with His essentially Holy nature. In God’s mind there
is no dirt connected with sex or human nakedness. All the dirt
exists in human minds. We have taken our human standards so
seriously that we believe we are able to define (since God did not)
what is “decent” and what is not. Humans (religious ones) have
through the years, shown just how expertly they can define
morality. They have at different times prescribed exactly how short
is too short for skirts, that a woman’s knees should not be seen, that
she should wear long sleeves so no one will be excited by her naked
arms, that she must not allow her legs to be seen at all, that she
cannot be seen in public wearing a “swimsuit,” or if she does, it
must be a one-piece suit, etc. If holiness is defined by how much
clothing one wears, then surely those religions that require women
to cover everything, including their faces, are the most holy of all.
Against this modern backdrop, imagine if you can, the fact that
as the church developed, in many churches nude baptism was
conducted. Will Durant said: “Total nude immersion was required
lest a devil should hide in some clothing…”(The Age of Faith, pg.
75). References to nude baptism are contained in writings by
Chrysostom, Ambrose, Cyril of Jerusalem and others (Rousas
Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, pg. 758).
It is well known that in Greece, athletic contests and training
were conducted in the nude. The word “gymnasium” means “a
place for naked exercise.” Our modern Olympics is the offspring of
these Greek games. Today, both men and women in these games
wear such brief attire that nothing about their physique is left to the
imagination. They could as well imitate the Greeks and simply
“run naked.” Outlandish as it sounds to most people in our society
this is not inconsistent with anything in the Bible. The Bible does
not advocate nudity, but neither does it condemn it. In fact, as the
Song of Solomon and David’s dancing indicate, God even accepts it.
We will then make this bold, radical statement: No Scripture
exists that calls forth God’s judgment upon humans appearing naked
before other humans. No law exists in God’s book that makes public
nudity sinful. While this may sound outlandishly radical, the test is
easy for anyone to take: simply read through the Bible trying to
find such a law. It does not exist. There are some occasions where
36
nakedness is forbidden (e.g. Priests must wear undergarments
when ministering above the crowd below; exposure for purpose of
enticing to adultery). There is a law against exposing other’s
nakedness against their will, for purposes of selfish sexual
enjoyment (getting someone drunk, then undressing them for
sexual exploitation). God condemns those who display their
nakedness for purposes of enticing others to adultery (e.g. married
prostitutes who appeared naked in public). But there is no law
against being naked, even in public. Make of this what we will, it is a
fact. Indeed we have seen Biblical examples of public nakedness of
which God approved. In view of the principles established in
chapter one, What Makes a Thing Sinful, we must re-think
carefully the conclusions we have made about human nudity and
establish, if necessary, new rules based on the Bible rather than on
our own opinions.
Additional Observations and Conclusions:
Nakedness is neither moral nor immoral. Because God created
nakedness as the original and “very good” condition of humanity it
cannot possibly be thought to be immoral, nor questionable. What
God saw as “very good” was human and animal nakedness. This
was God’s ideal. Clothing is a hiding of God’s perfect creation. In
God’s perfect scheme, nakedness is perfection. Clothing is not
desirable. Nakedness remains the norm today for all creatures
except man. The awakening of human conscience, the awareness of
sin, the shame of guilt, etc. cannot transform an inherently moral
condition into an immoral condition. If nakedness itself is not
immoral or sinful then acts of sin cannot make it so. Just as eating
too much may cause one to sin through gluttony, the act of eating is
not thereby made sinful. Drinking wine is acceptable and even
recommended by God to be a blessing. But drinking too much and
becoming habitually drunk, is sinful. The sin of drunkenness does
not make it a sin to merely drink wine. The Bible does not teach
that nakedness became sinful on the basis that Adam and Eve
sinned. It is not nakedness that is shameful; it is the guilt of
disobedience that creates shame. Clothing was not invented by
Adam and Eve as an attempt to hide the shame of physical
nakedness; it was their attempt to hide the spiritual shame of sin. It
is possible for humans to be naked in front of each other without
guilt.
37
Nakedness was the normal state of everything God created. His
original intention was stated in the form and character in which He
created man and animals. Animals cannot sin thus no shame can
attach to anything they do and their nakedness has no moral
implications. When God looked at the state of His totally naked
creation, He announced that it was “very good.” God never intended
people to wear clothes. Their physical beauty, like that of animals,
should have borne perpetual testimony to the awesome handiwork
of the Creator. That human bodies are covered detracts from the
glorious tribute to God’s creative genius that should come from all
God’s creation. Certainly, nothing God made is so beautiful as the
human body, which is proven by the fact that history’s greatest
artists have painted, sculpted and photographed the naked human
body for the collective (even if in most cases, furtive) admiration of
all who see their images. This should be normal.
The entrance of sin brought shame and a compulsion to hide. It
is most unlikely that Adam and Eve were ashamed of the mere fact
that their bodies were naked. It is more likely that their shame was
at the realization of their disobedience and their total exposure to
the holy gaze of God. They were now aware that they were
violators of that holiness and that they could not hide that fact from
each other or from God. This is demonstrated by the fact that they
did not stop at clothing their bodies. They were compelled to try to
hide among the trees of the garden. Their clothing, like their
cowering behind trees, was a factor of their transparent
disobedience – not of the shamefulness of their physical nakedness.
God’s act of clothing them with animal skins was not His testimony
that man must now be clothed, but was God’s dramatic
demonstration of the spiritual fact that man cannot hide the
consequences of sin. Only God can cover sin and only blood
sacrifice can do that, thus the animal skins. If mere clothing was the
issue God could have shown Adam and Eve how to make sufficient
clothing without killing an animal. And if clothing becomes
mandatory for us because Adam and Eve were ashamed, why does
it not also become mandatory that we hide behind trees from each
other?
If nakedness was the inherently innocent, “very good” aspect of
creation that God said it was before the fall, then the fall of Adam
and Eve did not change nakedness itself into something inherently
shameful. Man’s sin does not transform the nature of any of God’s
38
creation. But sin does place all of God’s creation in a less than ideal
condition. Sin changes man’s ability to relate to God’s creation in
total innocence. Sin becomes a matter, in most instances, of using
God’s “very good” creation in wrong ways and for wrong
purposes. Such is the case with the whole realm of sexual activity
with which this study deals and with nakedness. Apart from sinful
use of nakedness, nakedness itself is no more sin now than when
man was originally created. Nakedness becomes shameful and sinful
only when it is misused. Nakedness is misused when it is used for
enticement, to disgrace another, to expose one against their will, to
flaunt public morals, to hurt another’s conscience, etc.
Since, at the fall, there were only Adam and Eve to see each
other’s nakedness, and they hid from each other via clothes, do we
conclude that to be naked in the presence of our mates is sinful or
shameful? The shame in this instance had nothing to do with their
mate or any other human (had there been others) seeing their
naked bodies, nor is there any verse that indicates that their shame
consisted of being seen by each other. If this situation is the
platform upon which to build an attack upon human nudity under
any circumstances, then it is certainly a platform upon which to
build a case against nudity between husband and wife. In which
case, those who advocate marital sex only under circumstances
wherein a husband and wife do not see each other’s naked bodies,
are right. Who can believe it?
The factual case is that “nakedness” “shame” “clothing” appear
in a context where the only parties involved are a husband and wife. Do
we conclude that husbands should always be clothed when in the
presence of their wives and vice versa? Any case against nudity
built on these verses, makes this position mandatory, for these
verses cannot legitimately be forced to serve in debate against
nakedness on a general scale, if they have nothing to do with
nakedness on the particular scale. If we eliminate certain
conclusions on the particular scale, and that scale being the only
one under consideration in the passage, then we thereby eliminate
those conclusions on the general scale. If the clothing of Adam and
Eve proves anything as to the “sin of nudity,” it proves it is wrong
for a husband and wife to be nude together. It would thus be
wrong for a man and wife to bathe together. A husband must not
enter the bathroom while his wife is naked in the shower, etc. Most
of us can see that such application to the particular situation
39
involving Adam and Eve/husband and wife, are absurd. We
should be able then to see the absurdity of trying to make generally
applicable, what will not serve the particular situation. The very
absurdity of such ideas should help us realize that some of our
other conclusions about nudity may also be wrong.
Why did Adam and Eve hide themselves from God “among the
trees of the garden,” (Gen. 3:8)? What does this have to do with “and
they knew that they were naked,” (vs. 7)? Why did they clothe their
bodies? What did their sin of eating the fruit have to do with their
realization that they were naked and why did this specific
realization motivate them to clothe themselves? Is it a shame to be
naked in God’s presence? Were Adam and Eve hiding their bodies
from each other? from God? from the animals? Who else was there?
And is fallen man to be ashamed of his physical nakedness in
God’s presence and his wife’s presence? Since they were naked and
unashamed from the start, but sinless, was their “shame” the result
of seeing each other’s nakedness? Do we suppose they were
somehow blinded to each other’s bodies before the fall? Is the
passage dealing with nakedness itself, or is there more to this than
meets the eye?
Adam and Eve had seen each other’s naked bodies before the
fall without shame. God had seen their naked bodies before the fall
and they were not ashamed. It is not possible that Adam had never
noticed that Eve was “different” from himself; that her anatomy
and his were not only different but that the difference was
compelling. Who can believe that Eve had never noticed that Adam
had a penis and she did not? As they looked at each other’s bodies,
and as God looked at their bodies, there was nothing unusual about
the sight. They knew the difference in their anatomies and Adam
and Eve had doubtless investigated each other’s specific differences
relative to penis, testicles, vulva, breasts. God’s mandate to them
and animals was to “multiply and replenish the earth.” Do we
suppose that they and animals were ignorant of the means of doing
this until the fall? If so we must conclude that man had no way to
fulfill God’s mandate until he sinned! What an absurd idea! Sexual
activity, copulation by both humans and animals, must have been a
part of life in Eden before the fall. Adam and Eve could not have
been ignorant of their sexuality and had surely enjoyed the
pleasures of sexual love. Whatever was the source of their “shame”
40
at being naked, it could not have attached to physical nakedness as
such. And the fall did not involve sexual sin, so there was nothing
attached to the use of their sex organs or to the sight of them, to
which the fall applied. Therefore no sexual connotation could be
made of their nakedness. Adam saw Eve’s breasts and vulva before
the fall and neither of them were ashamed. Eve looked at Adam’s
penis and testicles before the fall and neither she nor he were
ashamed. God saw all these sexual parts and neither He nor they
were ashamed. Since Adam and Eve’s sexual organs were made for
sexual activity just as was the sexual apparatus of animals, may we
not conclude that Adam and Eve had “done what comes naturally”
and animals had done so as well, before the fall?
Did they begin to
actually relate to each other as husband and wife before the fall?
Did sexual activity not begin for animals or man until the fall?
Common sense tells us that Adam and Eve were not oblivious to
each other’s sex organs before the fall. So what happened at the fall
that caused them be ashamed of their bodies? They were not seeing
each other’s naked sex organs for the first time! They were not just
at that moment, for the very first time, aware that they had no
physical clothes on. They had never seen a living creature of any
variety wearing clothes, so they had no context for thinking
something was amiss because they had no clothes. It was not their
bodies that fell, but their souls. Their realization was that they had
absolutely no way to hide their guilt from each other or from God.
It was the natural reaction of a moral creature to personal
recognition of wrongdoing. Guilt in their soul produced the effort
to hide themselves as persons. What they are inside is now fully
exposed and the shame is too great to bear. They are not ashamed
that their flesh is naked. Nothing about their sin had to do with
naked flesh. Nothing about their sin had to do with sex organs.
They are ashamed that their soul is naked before each other and God
and they are compelled to hide – in the only way they could think
of at the time – by putting something artificial around them and by
hiding among the trees. People still do the same today: hiding from
cameras, hiding behind other people, hiding faces from view, etc.
The clothing provided by God required the sacrifice of an
animal, (Gen. 3:9). The Bible nowhere says or even implies that fig
leaf aprons were “insufficient clothing.” This is man’s guesswork
theology, and has zero authority. There are at least two more logical
and theologically consistent reasons:
41
[1] Adam and Eve are to be expelled from the garden into an
environment unlike the mild and healthful state of the garden.
Outside the garden, in a world cursed by sin’s effects such as
harsh fluctuations between cold and heat, adequate clothing
becomes a practical issue, but not a moral issue. Even then, where
climate does not recommend clothing there is nothing moral,
Biblical or spiritual that mandates it.
[2] Adam and Eve must understand that man’s effort to
cover the consequences of his sin are never enough. Man cannot
hide his sin or his guilt. Only God can do so. God’s way of
dealing with sin, guilt, shame, is always the same - sacrifice of
an innocent victim as substitute. God Himself gave Adam and
Eve proper covering for their guilt by providing a sacrifice for
them. As they left the garden they wore on their back the
constant reminder of the consequences of their sin. No clothing
of their own making could possibly have taught them this
lesson. Nor could anything but substitute sacrifice provide the
cancellation of that penalty of death “in the day thou eatest.” By
slaying animals in their behalf God provided “salvation” for
them from His announced penalty of death, and by making
clothes for them of the hides He taught them that the only
covering for sin is blood sacrifice, and only God can provide it.
Consider these comments from various Biblical Scholars:
“Now for the first time, blood was shed, and it was shed by
God Himself. To use the skins of animals, it was necessary to
slay them. This God did, and it would be difficult to find a
simpler object lesson to show us that it would take the death of
the Savior, the Son of God, to clothe us with a righteousness
which is not our own, but which comes from Him by virtue of
His atoning death.” (Donald Grey Barnhouse, Genesis, a
Devotional Commentary, p. 27)
“Man is ever seeking fig leaves to hide his shame and cover
his sins, but they are ever visible to the all-seeing eye of God.”
(Lange’s Commentary on Genesis)
“This verse (3:21), gives us a typical picture of a sinner’s
salvation. It was the first gospel sermon, preached by God
Himself, not in words, but in symbol and action…It was the
initial declaration of the fundamental fact that “without
42
shedding of blood, there is no remission.” It was a blessed
illustration of substitution – the innocent dying in the stead of
the guilty.” (Arthur Pink, Gleaning in Genesis, p. 44)
“Here is the beginning of animal sacrifices: God sheds blood
in order to make clothing for Adam and Eve. He made them
from skins of animals therefore those animal’s lives were
sacrificed to clothe Adam and Eve. (Ray Stedman, Expository
Studies in Genesis 2 & 3, p. 104)
“The text tells us that they saw that they were naked, that is,
[1] That they were stripped, deprived of all the honors and joys
of their paradise state. They were disarmed; their defense had
departed from them. [2] That they were ashamed. They saw
themselves laid open to the contempt and reproach of heaven,
and earth, and their own consciences….Adam and eve made for
themselves aprons of fig-leaves, a covering too narrow for them
to wrap themselves in. Such are the all the rags of our own
righteousness. But God made them coats of skins, large, strong
and durable, and fit for them; such is the righteousness of
Christ. Therefore ‘Put on the Lord Jesus Christ’.” (Matthew
Henry’ Commentary, on Gen. 2, 3.)
“Having become conscious of their shame Adam and Eve at
once endeavored to hide it by making unto themselves aprons
of fig leaves. This action was highly significant. Instead of
seeking God and openly confessing their guilt, they attempted
to conceal it both from Him and from themselves…Church
going, religious exercise, attention to ordinances, philanthropy
and altruism are the fig leaves which many today are weaving
into aprons to cover their spiritual shame.” (Pink, p.38).
“It was not skin nakedness that they discovered, but the
nakedness of their dead souls…They became aware of their
condition and they sought to cover themselves as quickly as
possible…Fig leaves were a substitute for righteousness.”
(Donald Grey Barnhouse, Genesis, a Devotional Commentary, p.19,
20)
“They sew together for themselves girdles of leaves. For
what end? That they may keep God at a distance, as by an
invincible barrier…with a covering so light they attempted to
43
hide themselves from the presence of God.” (Calvin’s
Commentaries, Vol. 1, Genesis, p.158, 159)
“What is involved here? It is not a matter of physical sight.
Adam and Eve were not blind before the fall. Adam’s eyes were
not opened physically for the first time so that he saw Eve’s
nakedness now, though not before, and became aware of his
own nakedness also. What is involved, is spiritual nakedness, that
is, nakedness before the eyes of that Holy God against whom
they had sinned. It was their sinful state they were aware of,
which their nakedness symbolized.” (James M. Boice, Genesis, An
Expositional Commentary, p.118)
“The reason why we do not like staring is that we associate
staring with prying, and are ashamed to have anyone pry into
what we actually are like. So we hide ourselves. We wear
masks, pretending to be what we think other people will respect
and admire. In a psychologically related manner, we project
these false images but reveal our true psychological and
spiritual nakedness through the choice and use of clothes. So
did Adam and Eve. They made fig-leaf clothes. And when they
heard God coming toward them in the garden, they hid,
knowing that their clothes were inadequate to disguise their true
selves.” (James M. Boice, Genesis, An Expositional Commentary,
p.119)
The compulsion to clothe themselves is not necessarily anything
more deeply significant than the normal(?) human reaction of
humans, even today, who are embarrassed when attention is
drawn to them. They may giggle, hide their face, blush, etc. The fall
brought self-consciousness, and with that came awareness of things
about self that had not previously been significant. Specifically,
their self-awareness was infused with the knowledge that they had
violated their Creators’ law and were condemned. As they looked
at each other and themselves in this new light, mutual sinconsciousness
produced compulsion to hide from each other and
from God. Their nakedness was the physical symbol of their
spiritual vulnerability and their attempt at clothing was an attempt
to insulate themselves from the knowing of, and being known by
others, especially by God. The need to clothe ourselves is not
spiritual, but psychological. Clothing helps us feel more comfortable,
44
more secure, more adequate, less vulnerable around others.
Clothing, even today, has more to do with the mind than with the
body. Clothing is largely a means of hiding our real self from
others. It projects an image that is not true to reality. Amazingly,
people’s self image changes dramatically simply by changing
clothes! In Adam’s and Eve’s case their intense guilt and fear
produced their compulsion to hide from each other and from God.
Their clothes could not suffice, and when God came calling they
tried to hide behind the trees. Their “clothing themselves with fig
leaves” no more sets a precedent for humans to wear clothes than
does their hiding amongst the trees.
Hiding is the instinctive reaction to guilt, whether it takes the
form of putting on clothes or covering one’s face, or a host of other
devices. Adam and Eve clothing their physical nakedness is no
more to be received by all humanity as the “norm for fallen
creatures,” than if they had made masks for their faces. After the
fall, their physical nakedness was no more shameful and sinful
than it was before the fall. They were ashamed because they knew
they were defenseless and exposed to each other and to God, and
any device to cover themselves in a crisis was brought into being.
Nothing about the fall made physical nakedness inherently
shameful or sinful. Nothing in man’s mind today can make nudity
inherently sinful or shameful. If nakedness between Adam and Eve
was God’s original plan, their rebellion did not change God’s
goodness into sinfulness. Their choice of physical clothes to hide
spiritual guilt cannot be made a moral norm for all society for all
time. Doubtless, people will always choose to wear clothes in order
to insulate themselves from the gaze of others. But the choice to do
so is not a moral choice, but is rather a psychological choice. There is
nothing inherently sinful in looking at another person’s naked body.
(The case of a man “looking upon a woman to lust after her…” in Matt.
5:28, is discussed in detail later.) Public nudity is not inherently
sinful now any more than it was in Eden. The question of whether
it is socially acceptable is a different issue. As in many other specific
cases public nudity becomes questionable or sinful only to the
degree that it violates personal conscience, causes another person to
violate their conscience, or is done in a way that violates civil
statutes. Nudity can be practiced without sin if one takes steps to
not offend others.
45
As with everything else, the redemption purchased by Jesus
Christ, affects all creation. It affects the issue and practice of human
nakedness just as it does all other aspects of man’s nature. Fully
redeemed men and women are no longer under bondage to the
curse put upon their lives because of sin. Just as redeemed people
may expect to be rid of the curse of sickness, demonization,
poverty, etc, and from misinformed legalism, so may they expect to
be redeemed from the “curse of clothing.” Men and women who
are redeemed of sin and guilt no longer have any reason to hide
from others. The whole Biblical logic for wearing clothes is
eliminated for those whose sin and guilt have been removed by the
blood of Jesus. We straightforwardly declare that nakedness and
sexuality are not incompatible with holiness. Men’s and women’s
spiritual character is not defined by their physical appearance,
clothed or unclothed. Godliness is not a factor of how much
clothing one wears. People are neither holy nor unholy on the basis
that they either do or do not wear clothes.
In his book “The Great Divorce,” C. S. Lewis paints an
intriguing, imaginary picture of Heaven, in which he describes all
Heaven’s inhabitants as naked. This must surely be a correct
concept, for if the original state of man was unclothed, and this was
God’s best effort, then full redemption must bring us back to that
original “very good” state.
The question we must now ask is, “What are the demands upon
redeemed ones, relative to nakedness?” Part of the answer comes
from those Scriptures that require us to do nothing that will harm
the conscience of another person. Like eating meat sacrificed to
idols, the thing itself is innocent and can be indulged in by an
informed saint. But to do so in a way that hinders the faith of an
uninformed saint is forbidden. To think of a “saint” walking naked
in the outdoors seems incongruous to many. Yet we have no
problem thinking of Adam and Eve doing so. There is nothing
inherently sinful about a redeemed sinner being naked, indoors or
outdoors. What makes it sinful is the purpose of the nakedness, and
it’s effect upon others. Thus:
If the purpose of nakedness is to entice into sexual sin (like
the adulterous harlots in above referenced Scriptures), then
nakedness is sin.
46
If the purpose is to “rub people’s nose in it” by flaunting
nakedness in the face of society where it is unacceptable, then it
is sin.
If the effect upon others is to hinder their conscience and
cause them to sin, nakedness is sin.
But: if the purpose is to enjoy the normal state of God’s
original creation, and to enjoy the exhilaration and freedom of
being in the open air, under the brilliant sun, unhindered and
unhidden by clothing, it is not sin.
And if the effect has no negative bearing on the lives of
others, then it is not sin.
The question then arises about how may a Christian enjoy his
original state of nakedness, as part of the blessing of his redeemed
status?
Nakedness in one’s home is unquestionably safe. Even though
some saints, because of personal hang-ups due to ill-informed
consciences, would never walk around the house naked in view of
other members of the family, nothing in Scripture makes such
scruples valid. If one’s conscience will simply not allow one to do
so, one must avoid nakedness even in one’s own home. (Rom.
14:23) But how sad this is!
Family nudity is innocent as parents and children simply enjoy
the freedom of nudity in their own homes and even outdoors
wherever they can practice it without social repercussions. For a
whole family to be naked in their home, or in their back yard, or in
the woods, or in the desert, carries no sinful implications. For
married children to return to visit in their parent’s home with
grandchildren in tow and for them all to be nude together, is
innocent. Nothing Scripture says makes such a thing either sinful
or ill-advised. Family nudity provides a setting where parents can
teach their children by both precept and example that there is
nothing shameful about their naked body. Family nudity is one of
the many ways redeemed, holy people may take advantage of the
freedoms bought back for them by Jesus Christ. Family nudity
could only be practiced if all concerned have been taught and know
that it is right and there is no sin. All would have to learn a
different mind set than we presently have. Existing children would
need to be taught as thoroughly as possible, before beginning the
practice. But if children had the advantage of living in an
47
environment in which all family members are naked and
unashamed they would not only be able to accept their bodies as
something for which they should thank God but they would also be
more likely to discuss sex issues openly and without shame.
Many Christian people with high moral standards, and a
devout desire to please God and serve Him faithfully, are
“backyard nudists.” They shed their clothes whenever and
wherever they can do so without offending neighbors. They may
walk the desert naked and lie in a secluded place to soak up the
sun. Women can love Jesus Christ and still enjoy being nude at
home, doing their work or simply relaxing in the nude. And when
they desire to go outside they may enjoy the freedom to experience
the sun, air, rain and pool, without the encumbrance of clothes and
without apology to themselves or God. Again we remind the
reader: This is how God intended it. This is normal as God created
normality. No Christian should bear any guilt at the desire to be
“naked and unashamed.” Anywhere and at anytime they can
legitimately do so they should feel absolutely free to do so.
One of the opportunities for people, including Christians, to
experience the joy of wholesome nudity, is at a nudist resort. The
stigma that attaches to nudist resorts is unfortunate and without
either moral or logical foundation. Nudist resorts could be safely
visited by saved people because those who visit such camps have
like attitudes toward human nakedness. Their conscience would
not be offended by the participation of a Christian.
We quote the following from the preceding chapter on “What
Makes A Thing Sinful?”
“When in the company of believers or unbelievers, a saint is
not obligated to try to figure out in advance what they might
think of their behavior. If what they do is inherently innocent,
then saints may do it without concern about the potential
reaction of unbelievers. Note especially “Eat anything sold in the
market place without asking questions, for conscience sake, for the
earth is the Lord’s and everything in it” (1 Cor. 10: 25, 26).
We might paraphrase this to say “therefore be free to go naked
before unbelievers who are like-minded without asking how they
react to it, for conscience sake, for nakedness is a blessing from the
Lord.”
48
And note: “If an unbeliever invites you and you wish to go, eat
anything that is set before you without asking questions for conscience
sake. But if anyone should say to you, ‘This is meat sacrificed to idols,’
then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you and for
conscience’ sake.” (1 Cor. 10:27,28.
Again we might paraphrase this: “If you have opportunity to
practice nudity among unbelievers, feel free to do so, without
asking what their reaction may be. But if one of them says, ‘I don’t
think a Christian should practice nudity,’ then do not do it, for the
sake of the one who questioned you, and for conscience sake.”
To quote again:
“We simply cannot possibly try to figure out in advance
what others will think about every action we want to take. God
sets us free to come to our personal conclusions about our
desires and conduct, then freely act on those convictions unless
we know that doing so will bring spiritual harm to another. We
are not required to investigate in advance, what our actions will
do to others. We are simply required to operate with due
respect to those around us, and not intentionally offend them.”
In a nudist resort, for example, the question becomes irrelative.
Being nude among nudists will not offend them. And we do not
have to go around to each one in advance, and ask them if our
nakedness will cause them any offense.
Quoting again:
“Society’s standards, or the church’s traditions cannot make
a thing sinful, to any degree. If God’s law does not forbid an act,
and one does it without guilt, he is free, regardless of what
others think. If society and the church frowns on an act, a
Christian who knows better may still enjoy that act as long as it
is done in enough privacy that others will not be led to offend
their weak consciences. If this is not so, how do we apply these
Scriptures that teach it is okay to eat meat, if we do not harm
another’s conscience by doing so. Paul could and probably did
meat sacrificed to idols, in privacy, even though some of the
Corinthians would have thought him a sinner if they knew he
did it. His liberty is not eliminated by the weak consciences of
others. He must simply control his liberty.”
49
What does this say about the aforementioned practice of both
family and social nudity? Some believe it is sinful, unclean, etc. to
go around one’s own house without clothes; to undress in front of
even one’s own mate and especially in front of one’s children; for
married people to bathe together; to lay nude under the sun in
one’s private yard, etc. Even more people believe it is utterly
reprehensible for nudist resorts to even exist. For them it is
unthinkable that a Christian might visit such a resort. But what sets
the moral standard for this? Certainly Scripture does not make
these things sin. Therefore no other standard can make it sin. A
Christian can enjoy nudity as long as he/she does not knowingly
hinder another’s conscience.
Many people, including some Christians, believe it is innocent
to practice nudity even in social settings, for example, in nudist
resorts, where everyone shares the same moral values about that
specific act. The teaching of Scripture for bids us to classify this as
outright sinful simply because God has no law against it. To the
contrary, Scripture allows social nudism for those whose personal
conscience allows it. We know Scripture does not prohibit it. We also
know Scripture proves nudity to be God’s preference. That means
nudity can be enjoyed with a clear conscience by those who have no
intention of enticing another person to sin by committing adultery,
and who take care to not offend others by their practice.
Only God’s law can establish anything as sinful. So if God’s law
does not forbid nudity, what do we do with this knowledge?
Obviously, truly public nudity cannot be practiced without public
knowledge and society and church traditions would disallow
public practice. But what of the private or highly restricted practice of
such? Since nudity in the private, protected environment of a
nudist resort is not a public issue and attending such a resort
would not be a matter of “public nudity,” what is to prevent those
who desire to exercise their freedom to live without clothes, from
either occasionally visiting such resorts, or even from living in one?
To this author’s mind, there is no valid moral restriction against this
practice.
Is it a mark of “civility,” that humanity is clothed? Is public
nakedness “uncivilized?” In the Western world, we condemn as
“uncivilized savages,” cultures (African tribes, etc.) that practice
partial or full nudity. We believe it is our “Christian duty” to
50
educate and “civilize” such people and teach them to wear clothes.
In doing so we are not actually placing God’s requirement upon
them but are simply imposing our own human standards upon
them. A “televangelist” recently said something like this: “When
little Johnny was 18 months old, and running naked through the
house, it was cute and innocent. But when 18 year old Johnny runs
naked down the beach, it is lust.” In spite of the many “amens”
from the crowd, we ask the question: “Is this true because the Bible
says so?” This author does not believe the Bible teaches such a
thing.
When Adam and Eve were created, naked and unashamed,
were they “civilized?” To be perfectly “civilized” in God’s original
estimation was to be human and naked and unashamed. To simply
brand as uncivilized and savage those who wear no clothes, is to
impugn God’s original creation and is to correct God. It is no more
uncivilized to practice nudity now than when God made nakedness
to be the normal condition of human existence.
On the issue of human nakedness, as with most sexual practices,
we are free to draw conclusions and form opinions for ourselves
and establish our own rules for our personal conduct. But we must
not establish rules for the behavior of others. Only God’s law can
do this. Again the final word is, “where there is no law, there is no
sin.” If God did not legislate against human nudity as such then no
amount of human engineering can produce a valid law against it.
And if God did not make a law against nudity what insanity makes
man think he has a better concept of it than God does?
Is clothing universally attested? Some think that everybody,
everywhere, wears clothes, and that this fact establishes the
“collective human conscience” that nudity is sinful. But what of the
many tribes still practicing communal nudity, and of past
civilizations that did so until “enlightened” by cultural, religious
interference from outside? If not for our meddling and imposition
upon other cultures of our own standards, many tribes that
presently wear clothes, would not be doing so. Many tribes still do
not wear clothes (Read National Geographic, watch Public TV and
learn). Public nudity, nude beaches, nude bath houses, etc. are
common in many parts of the world. It is misinformation that
causes us to think that, “clothing is the norm all over the world.”
Even in America, many Native American tribes practiced either
51
partial or total communal nudity before the “white man” came to
“civilize” them.
The existence in so many places of the tendency toward nudity,
is not a testimony to the fallenness of man. It is rather a testimony
of the original condition of man. What was normal and “very good”
for man in his original state, still exists as a desire in his soul. The
inner desire to be naked and unashamed is a longing to get back to
our original perfection. There is nothing dirty, unclean, impure, or
sinful about either the desire or the practice.
Women and “Modest Apparel
What is the meaning of “women adorn themselves in modest
apparel,” (1 Tim. 2:9; 1 Pet. 3:3)? These verses have nothing at all to
do with how much or little clothing a woman wears. It has to do
specifically with “orderly” clothing. The Greek word is kosmois,
meaning “orderly, in regard to how women appear in public
worship (cf. R.C.H. Lenski’s commentary for example). That Paul is
not discussing amount of clothing, but the nature of clothing is
demonstrated by his prohibition of “braided hair, gold, pearls, costly
garments;” and then stating that her clothing is to be “good works,” (1
Tim. 2:10). As Lenski says, the purpose is to avoid “vanity, pride
and other improprieties. Extravagant dress is generally worn for
mere display with the secret desire to produce envy.” Spirituality
and good taste as conducive to worship, is Paul’s point. To press
these verses into service to forbid women to wear tight clothing,
shorts, sleeveless dresses, pants, swimsuits, etc. is to abuse
Scripture. The argument that a woman must be careful to dress so
that a man will not look at her with sexual desire, gives women an
impossible task. It makes woman responsible for whether a man
sins or not. By his nature, men will look at the most completely
covered woman and will have sexual thoughts. The argument that
these verses forbid a woman to go to a swimming pool wearing a
swimming suit, is invalid. Interestingly, no such arguments are
made from these or any other Scriptures, that forbids a man from
wearing swimming trunks in public. Do we conclude that God
commands women to be fully clothed in public, but that He does
not so command men? Of course not. The verses do not address
this issue, but rather the issue of women’s penchant for overdoing
dress for the sake of impressing others.
52
If we take the words of Scripture as literally as some want us to
do, pretending thereby to find a rule by which they can measure
the modesty of women’s clothing, then let us take Peter’s statement
literally. He said “Let not your adornment be external – braiding the
hair, and wearing gold jewelry, and putting on dresses; but the hidden
person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet
spirit, which is precious in the sight of God,” (1 Pet. 3:3,4). Based on this
Holy Spirit inspired statement, and taking it literally, we have
“authority” for total nudity because Peter writes very clearly that
women are not to wear either jewelry or dresses! Such a conclusion
is, of course, absurd. But it illustrates the absurdity of trying to take
words out of context in order to prove a case. Peter, as did Paul,
wants women to “adorn” themselves in the “clothing” of holy
character. He does not prescribe dress length, nor define a
“tightness factor,” nor forbid wearing pants or shorts, or halter
tops, or bikinis, or.…
On the subject of public swimming pools, One of the ways
people demonstrate their innate desire to be unclothed, is to strip to
the bare minimum in such public places as swimming pools. Both
men and women wear so little at these places that nothing is left to
the imagination. Men’s swimming trunks often are so skimpy and
tight that the outline of their penis is obvious. Women’s suits are
also so skimpy that often their pubic hair is visible, as is the outline
of their vulva and the nipples of their breasts. The material is
usually so thin that a man or woman’s full sexual splendor is not
truly concealed. The popularity of the bikini and its extreme form,
the string bikini or thong, carries this trend to the limit. One can see
on public beaches and swimming pools, as much nudity as one can
see in many striptease shows. Is it a sin for a woman to wear a
bikini to a public pool? We no longer believe so. If our society
accepted nudity at our public pools, would it be sinful? We no
longer believe so. Nudity is not condemned in Scripture, and what
condemnation is spoken as related to nudity, is related to its
connection with sexual sin (adultery, fornication) or with idol
worship. It appears to us that, this being true, whatever degree of
public nudity is acceptable in a given society, is allowable. People,
including Christians, may feel free to enjoy the freedom of
whatever degree of nudity is allowed in their culture. If this
suggestion still sounds outrageous, remember that nudity is God’s
first choice for humans. From God’s perspective clothing is not ideal,
53
nakedness is ideal. God does not mind seeing people naked. God is
not offended by human nudity any more than He is offended by
animal nakedness. Why would God be more offended by a man’s
unclothed penis than by an ape’s penis? Why would God be more
offended by a woman’s bare breasts than by a cow’s exposed
udder? God intended for earth to be populated with naked men,
women and animals. From God’s perspective, going naked in
public is what He originally intended. The invention of clothing did
not come from God, it came from man. And man’s invention of
clothing did not make clothing more preferable than God’s original
pattern of nudity. To be partially unclothed, as with swimming
apparel, or to be totally unclothed is not an issue with God. Man
must deal with his own personal attempt to hide himself from God
and others. When he is delivered from this compulsion and wishes
to practice nudity the way it was meant to be, he is free to do so as
long as he considers the effect of his freedom on others who are still
bound by various bondages of false guilt and shame. Nudity is a
human issue, not a God issue.
Why would one desire to attend a nudist resort? A related
question is: Why would one desire to go virtually naked at a public
swimming pool? We are talking about a difference of only a few
square inches of cloth. It seems that living without clothes is the
normal desire for mankind and the desire to return to this original
and normal condition exists, at least latently, in the hearts of us all;
in some more than others. It is this original condition to which
many desire to return. Since we cannot do so in most cases without
incurring the wrath of others, we must pursue such liberty
carefully. But in situations where there are none to offend, and
where nudity may be practiced without repercussions from others,
there is no reason to forego the lawful pleasure of nudity.
Since God did not condemn nakedness as such, even in fallen
man, but condemned only its misuses, then God does not forbid the
practice of nudity in those situations where it can be enjoyed
without harming the conscience of another person.
54
CHAPTER THREE
POLYGAMY, MONOGAMY AND CONCUBINAGE
The prevailing opinion throughout the Christian world is that
the Bible restricts all sexual partnerships to “one man with one
woman for all time.” The only exception to this hard and fast rule is
on the occasion of either divorce or death of one mate. No
possibility is allowed for one person to have more than one mate.
The single argument made for this position is that, though the Old
Testament allowed polygamy, concubinage and sex relations with
one’s slaves, the New Testament changed that, to totally disallow
multiple partnerships. Let us see what the Bible actually says. We
begin by listing all the texts that refer to polygamous relationships,
with brief notations.
Polygamy In Scripture
Lamech takes two wives and God neither corrects nor
condemns Lamech, (Gen.4:19). On this first mention of polygamy in
the Bible, it is strange that God did not move immediately to stamp
out this “moral vulgarism,” if indeed that is how He saw it. Many
scholars refer to the “principle of first mention” as one tool by
which to assess God’s attitudes on different issues. For example,
this principle is said to establish the sinfulness of homosexuality,
via the fact that the first time human sexuality is referred to, it is
cast in a heterosexual light. This “first mention” then is the basis for
such anti-homosexual arguments as “God made Adam and Eve,
not Adam and Steve.” But don’t you think it is strange, reader, that
the same scholars refuse to accept the implications of this “first
mention” of polygamy? Since God utters not a single negative
word about it, we can legitimately argue that “God’s prima facie
acceptance of polygamy from its first mention, is evidence that God
was not disturbed by multiple relationships.”
Arguments are also made to the effect that God simply tolerated
polygamy, though He never accepted it. For now, we simply reply
that if God was as distressed about polygamy as modern Western
Scholars say He was, how did God let Lamech’s breach of “Divine
marital law” pass without nipping this “sin” in the bud? Doesn’t
make sense does it?
55
Esau marries two wives and again there is no word of
correction, (Gen. 26:34, 35). Later Esau marries a third wife, still
with no correction and no indication that God is getting edgy about
this multiple marriage, (Gen. 28:8,9).
Jacob marries both Leah and Rachel, (Gen. 29:31ff). Jacob
became the father of Israel. He obtained God’s blessing after
wrestling all night with an angel. He is one of the great heroes of
faith, to be admired by all God’s people, for all time. But there is no
hint of God’s disapproval of his polygamous marriage. One might
argue in both Lamech’s and Esau’s cases, that neither of them were
particularly noteworthy in terms of relationship with God. But
Jacob is a different case. He is in the lineage of Messiah. He is God’s
man, with God’s blessing. If God merely tolerated polygamy among
the spiritually weak of humanity, how is it that He missed another
golden opportunity to set the record straight right here, with this
man of faith?
Laban – not God – asks Jacob to take no other wives, (Gen.
31:49, 50). Laban was not opposed to polygamy because it was his
deception that led to Jacob marrying both his daughters. Laban’s
concern is only for the security, provision, etc. for his two
daughters. Anyway, Jacob now has 4 sex partners because he has
children by the “handmaids” of his two wives. In none of this do
we find even a hint of God’s disapproval. What gives modern
Christians the spiritual hives did not concern God at all. Indeed, it
appears that God simply looked upon polygamy as a normal result
of man’s social development.
Joseph had one wife, (Gen. 41:45).
God decrees that if a man marries a woman and her mother
both are to be burned with fire, (Lev. 20:14). Whatever may be the
reason for this harsh sentence, it does not mitigate against
polygamy. In fact, it does the opposite. God says nothing at all
about polygamy, except to reference its existence among His
people. Yet He is violently opposed to a man marrying mother and
daughter at the same time. His bold condemnation of the one
multiple relationship, contrasted with His silent acceptance of
“normal” polygamy is strong evidence that He approved of it. His
legislation against this form of polygamy indicates that He would
56
have legislated against other forms of polygamy if He was indeed
opposed to them.
God warns a king to not multiply wives unto himself, “lest his
heart turn away…” (Deut. 17:17). This prohibition is not against
polygamy as such, or the sexual connection, but against the danger of
apostasy in Israel’s leaders. Note the same prohibition against
amassing silver and gold. We will see later that Israel’s greatest
kings married many wives and amassed great hordes of silver and
gold. Both the wives and the riches were said to be God’s blessings.
Thus this text is a warning of the dangers inherent in having many
wives and much riches. It is not a prohibition of either, but a
warning to realize the dangers in each case.
When Israel warred against hostile neighbors, they received
God’s specific permission to keep as plunder, all women and
children, just as they kept the animals, etc., (Deut. 20:14). These
captive women became wives, concubines and slaves.
The law of “Levirate marriage” requires that if one’s brother
dies with no son, his widow is to marry the living brother, to give
an heir to his brother, (Deut. 25:5-6). This is true even if the living
brother is already married. This is God’s law! If he refuses to marry
her, he is cursed publicly by her, (vs. 7-10). Thus we have God’s
mandate for polygamy in this situation. It is useless to argue
“special circumstances” here. If polygamy is truly a moral offense, no
special circumstance can make it morally right. If God is offended
by a person having sex with more than one other person how can
we make any sense out of this law? Sin is sin! Immoral acts cannot
be permissible simply because of circumstances. On the one hand,
God decrees the death penalty for “adultery.” On the other hand,
God decrees multiple marriage in this text. So – aren’t we missing
something?
Gideon had “many wives” who bore him 70 sons, (Jdg. 8:30;
12:9, 14). He was a valiant warrior and faithful servant, and he died
without God ever rebuking him or correcting his polygamy. He is
honored as a hero of faith, (Heb. 11:32,33). Strange that such a man
is held up as an example for Christians, if having “many wives”
was truly a spiritual disqualifier as most Christians believe. If God
57
disapproved of his many wives, it surely would have been helpful
to us for God to have said something in Heb. 11, like “…yet it was
not good that he married many wives…” The absence of God’s
correction implies His acceptance.
When Boaz marries Ruth, the elders of Israel blessed him with
these words: “May the Lord make the woman who is coming into your
home like Rachel and Leah, both of whom built the house of
Israel…Moreover, may your house be like the house of Perez whom Tamar
bore to Judah…” (Ruth 4:11, 12). This labels Jacob’s polygamy as a
blessing. It recognizes that Israel was “built” by both wives equally.
Certainly these spiritual leaders were not embarrassed by Jacob’s
polygamy, nor had they any hint that God was displeased. If
polygamy was indeed a sin then Boaz would actually have been
cursed by these words.
Boaz is also blessed as Judah was blessed by Tamar, who bore
Perez, Boaz’s forefather. This is stranger still, given our modern
mind-set, because Tamar was Judah’s daughter in law, with whom
he had sex thinking she was a prostitute! So now prostitution and
sexing a daughter in law are both used as a basis of blessing! Really,
now, do we believe that sinful relationships can be legitimately
used as grounds for blessing? Perhaps our concept of things needs
to be adjusted. Oh yes, and Perez, the offspring of that act
produced Boaz, Obed, Jesse and David. In all this not a word from
God of displeasure or correction. Not even a mild one! Strange
behavior indeed from a God whom we think must have been
inwardly seething at these “sins!”
Elkanah has 2 wives, Hannah and Peninnah, (1 Sam. 1:1-2). He
is faithful to worship God, (vs. 3), thus his worship is accepted and
commended. Still God does not even hint that his polygamy is
unacceptable. This man has a strong spiritual relationship with God
that is in no way hindered by his polygamy. This could not be true
if polygamy was a spiritual malady that offended God.
David marries wife #1, Michal, (1 Sam. 18:20ff.) then later takes
Abigail, & Ahinoam as wives, (1 Sam.25:39, 43), and lives with
them apart from Michal, (27:3). David then takes Maacah, Haggith,
Abital and Eglah for total of 7 wives, (2 Sam. 3:3-5). By this time
Michal is married to Peltiel and David demands her return, (2Sam.
58
3:13-15). David takes still more wives plus concubines, (2 Sam.
5:13). Next David watches Bathsheba bathe on her housetop and
desires her sexually. He sends for her, has sex with her and she
conceives. To cover his tracks David ensures that her husband
Uriah is killed in battle, then he takes Bathsheba for his wife, (2
Sam. 11:2-27).
In all David’s marriages & concubinages, not once is it said that,
“David has done evil in the sight of the Lord,” as it does in reference to
his dalliance with Bathsheba (2 Sam. 11:27). What was evil here is
not in marrying yet another wife. Rather, Nathan’s rebuke proves
that God’s displeasure arises from David’s adultery and murder, (2
Sam.12:9, 10). Adultery is not having more than one wife, but it is
stealing another man’s wife. Since God does not hesitate to
announce that David had done evil in this matter, what accounts
for the fact that God never breathed a word of displeasure about
the supposed “evil” of David’s multitude of wives and concubines?
After amassing countless wives and concubines, adding one more
is unworthy of mention, regardless of who she is. But the thing God
will not allow is taking another man’s mate. This is the “evil”
involved here. If Bathsheba had been single nothing more would
have been said about David taking her, than was said about all his
other women.
Now for a real “kicker!” God says He gave David’s many wives
to him, and if those were not enough, He would have given him
“many more!” (2 Sam. 12:7,8). This statement is certain to give
spiritual apoplexy to most of those who read it because it gives
overt proof that God not only blessed David’s polygamy and
concubinage; God Himself was the author of David’s plural
marriages and multiple sex partners! Look! David had so many
wives and concubines because God gave them to him! Far from
being something God merely tolerated, polygamy was a blessing
from God. And God said He would have blessed David with even
more women if what he had was not enough. In other words God
said “David, why did you have to steal another man’s wife? If you
wanted more wives why didn’t you just ask Me? I would have
given you more.” Well, this is sure to “put a hitch in some people’s
get-along.” Still believe in the inspiration of Scripture? Still believe
the word of God’s prophets (in this case Nathan) is true? Then
accept these words of God’s blessing on David’s multiple sexual
relationships. And be brave enough to draw the next and inevitable
59
conclusion: If God originated and blessed it for David, He will not
send us to Hell for doing it.
As part of God’s punishment upon David for his adultery and
murder, God will give David’s wives to his companion who will
sex them in broad daylight, (2 Sam.12:11). This companion turns
out to be his son. Who can believe that God, in order to punish
David, will select an innocent man and force him to commit a
horrible sin by having sex with David’s wives? If God will “take
your wives from before your eyes, and give them to your companion, and
he shall lie with them in broad daylight” then it is useless to argue that
God is utterly opposed to a man having sex with more than one
woman; or that it is sin for a man to have sex with another man’s
wife under any circumstance (“Adultery” is a separate issue which
we will prove later.). If such is sin, then woe be to the hapless
victim upon whom God lays this sin. If this be the case, Absalom
commits sin by God’s design! Who can believe it?
David keeps Bathsheba as wife and she bears Solomon, (2
Sam.12:24). God testifies that David did what was right in God’s
sight in everything God commanded except in the matter of Uriah
(& Bathsheba), (1 Kg. 15:5). So the many wives that God said He
gave to him, and would have given more if that had not been enough,
plus all his concubines, were “right in God’s sight!?!?” It is beyond
argument here, that in all David’s marrying and concubinage, he
never breached God’s commandment. If David was right in God’s
sight in everything God commanded, then obviously marrying
many women and having sex with many concubines does not violate
God’s commandment against adultery or fornication! Think about it!
David walks in “integrity…truth…hates wickedness,” (Ps. 26:1-12).
This is one of many passages where David makes these claims for
himself, and other Scriptures affirm this is true of him. What do we
make of this in light of his polygamy and concubinage? It is
obvious that nothing about polygamy or concubinage is
inconsistent with “integrity…truth…hating wickedness.” It is man
who demonizes polygamy, not God. David had countless sex
partners. Yet he was a righteous man, greatly anointed and highly
favored by God.
A man can “Cleanse his way by heeding God’s word,” (Ps. 119:9). If
polygamy & concubinage were in any sense “unclean” then how
do we make sense of the following verses? David hid God’s word
in his heart that he might not sin against God, (Ps. 119:11). Did
60
God’s word not enlighten him of the sin of polygamy &
concubinage? Obviously these things were not “sin” and God’s
word gave David no hint that God was in any way displeased with
his having many women.
“I restrain my feet from every evil way, that I might keep Your word,”
(Ps. 119:101). Was David “keeping God’s word,” when he had sex
with his many wives & concubines? Was there no “evil way” in this
practice?
“Through Your precept I get understanding, there fore I hate every
false way,” (Ps. 119:104). God’s “precepts” did not give David any
“understanding” that polygamy & concubinage were, in any sense,
a “false way.”
“I esteem right all Thy precepts concerning everything. I hate every
false way.” (Ps. 119:128) David did not hate polygamy &
concubinage, therefore God’s precepts did not provide him any
idea that polygamy & concubinage were wrong. David followed
what was right in “everything.” How come he did not have a clue
that God did not like polygamy?
David had sons by seven wives, “besides the sons of the
concubines,” (1 Chron. 3:1-9). David took “more wives,” (1 Chron.
14:3). Wives were not the same as concubines. Some women David
married. Others he just brought into his house basically for sexual
purposes. God had no problem with either.
Solomon marries Pharaoh’s daughter, (1 Kg. 9:24). He loved
many foreign women, (11:1). He had 700 wives, 300 concubines,
(11:3; enough women to sex 3 different women every night for one
year!). God had promised to bless Solomon if he walks in all God’s
laws, (9:4ff,) threatening to curse him and his sons if they turn from
God’s laws. But not a syllable of censure about this extreme
polygamy and extreme concubinage. The only censure is his marrying
pagan women against God’s commands, (11:2, 4, 5) and that they
turned his heart away from the Lord, (11:4, 9, 10, 11, 33; 9:4, 6). But
many of his wives were Israelites. Since there is no word of such
being a breach of law, it must not have been a breach of law! And
what sense does it make to think that God was incensed about
Solomon’s marriages to pagan wives and thus rebukes him for it,
yet never rebukes him for marrying many Israelite wives, though
He was equally incensed about that? Obviously, God was not
concerned about how many wives Solomon had. His wrath was
61
aroused by Solomon’s apostasy. Ultimately Solomon acquires a
“harem,” (Ecc. 1:8, supposing that Solomon authored this book.).
Ahab has many wives besides Jezebel, (1 Kg. 20:3, 7). Yet amid
the many censures for his great evil, polygamy was not once
condemned.
Jehoiachin had “wives,” (2 Kg. 24:14).
Caleb (son of Perez) had 2 wives, Azubah & Jerioth, and a third
Ephrath, whom he married when Azubah died, (1 Chron. 2:18, 19).
Hezron had 2 wives, (1 Chron. 2:21).
Jerahmeel had “another wife,” (1 Chron. 2:26).
Asher, father of Tekoa, had 2 wives, (1 Chron. 4:5).
Izrahiah had five sons, who, with their father’s houses, had
36,000 troops, “for they had many wives and sons,” (1 Chron. 7:3, 4).
Machir has an unnamed wife, plus Maachah, (1 Chron. 7:15).
Shaharim had children after he sent away 2 wives, Hushim and
Baara. He had sons by Hadish, his 3rd wife, (1 Chron. 8:8, 9).
Rehoboam weds Mahalath, Maachah, whom he loved “more
than all his other wives and concubines, for he took 18 wives and 60
concubines,” (2 Chron. 11:18-21).
Abijah had 14 wives, (2 Chron. 13:21).
Israel sinned by marrying pagan wives and Nehemiah curses
them for it, (Ezra 10:2, 10; Neh. 13:23-25). “Solomon sinned by these
things…pagan women caused him to sin,” (vs. 26). His sin was not in
having 700 wives. It was in having any pagan wives. Even one
pagan wife would have been sin. Israel transgressed against God
by marrying pagan women, (vs. 27). Because of this rebuke, they
covenanted with God to put these wives away, (vs. 3, 11, 14, 17, 44).
This has nothing to do with polygamy. They put away only the
pagan wives which God’s law forbade them to wed. If polygamy
itself was a sin why did God never legislate against it and why do
we not have a single example in all Scripture, of a godly man or
group of men, such as here, learning that God was displeased with
multiple wives, then repenting and “putting away all their wives
except the first one?” And if polygamy is wrong, why require that
these Israelites put away only the pagan wives? Why not require
them to divorce all their extra wives? This Ezra passage proves they
would have done so if God had desired it. But none ever did such a
thing, even though polygamy was openly practiced, even to extreme
62
degrees, God never intimated in any way, that He was displeased
with such a practice.
These same people “confessed their sins,” Neh. 9:2. We have
several examples of this national repentance in Scriptures, but not
once do we find them repenting of the “sin” of polygamy or
turning away from it.
Beautiful young virgins ar
e sought for King Ahasuerus to
choose one to replace Vashti, (Esther 2:2, 4). So Ahasuerus will have
at least 2 wives. Esther is “lovely and beautiful,” (2:7), i.e. sexually
attractive. Each virgin is to take a turn with the king; a different one
each night having sex with the king so he can choose the one he
likes best, (2:12ff). So he “promiscuously?” “fornicates?” with these
beautiful virgins until he decides upon Esther. Esther takes her turn
having sex with the king, (2:15-17). He likes her more than the
others. Is this a game of “which one turns me on the most?” If this
disgusts God, why not a syllable about it? Esther was a godly
woman, and her cousin Mordecai was godly and God-fearing. If
this “try them all, and choose the most beautiful and best sex
partner,” process would defile her, why didn’t she or Mordecai or
someone know? If no one knew, why not send a prophet to her so
she would not sin through “fornication?” Could she have
responded by saying something like, “My God has a law, and by
that law, I cannot sex you or be your wife…?” Fornication and
adultery had been against God’s law for generations by this time.
No one in Israel was ignorant of this law. Whatever else we may
say about the “pagan virgins” involved in this “sex-capade” we
must deal with both Esther and Mordecai, Israelites living under
God’s moral law.
Mordecai suggests that Esther was “come unto the kingdom for
such a time as this…” (3:14), thereby encouraging her to willingly
participate in the sexual experimentation of Ahasuerus. So how do
we fit God’s holiness into a scheme that involves what we moderns
would define as multiple sins of fornication, adultery and polygamy?
Does God resort to making Esther an adulteress, or promiscuous,
or a fornicator, in order to accomplish His holy Kingdom purposes?
Can any sane person believe it?
Evidently the king enjoyed this “selection process” so much that
even after he chose Esther as his queen, a second round of virgins is
selected for him to enjoy, (3:19). In all this, it is incredible that, if it is
63
sinful, God never says so, and even blessed Esther and Mordecai for
their parts in it, (10:1-3)! Our modern definition of fornication and
adultery fits this scenario of sexual experimentation exactly! But
how does a Holy and Just God legislate the death penalty for
adultery, then use that very sin to save His people, and then honor
not only the adulteress, but the cousin who advised her in it? What
are we missing in our definitions? Either our definitions are wrong,
or God used sin to accomplish His holy will?! Which is more likely
to be the case?
If we decide that what Esther did was neither adultery nor
fornication, then what does that do with our fundamental
definitions of those sins? If we truly believe that God is Omnipotent,
Omniscient and Sovereign over all, then we must conclude that he
could and would have found a way to bring Esther into power in the
Persian kingdom without allowing her to participate in this “sordid
sex carnival.” The fact that our Holy God used just such a scheme
to accomplish His purposes proves beyond doubt that we must reevaluate
our concepts of sexual morality. God is not the author of
sin, and God does not instigate sin to further His purposes. What
king Ahasuerus did here, what Esther and all the other virgins did,
and what Mordecai consented to, was not immoral, not fornication,
and not adultery. Allow this fact to shake you up! Then get to work
with some really hard study and some serious meditation on the
actual words of Scripture. We have taken too much for granted for
too long. It is time for us to come into the light.
God judges that Jerusalem has become a “harlot” and is
condemned. But Jerusalem is wed to God, so her harlotry is the sin
of blatant adultery. She is behaving as if she is unmarried and free
to be “married” to whomever she will, (Isa. 1:21). This is the
meaning of (Isa. 3:16), “Zion’s women are flirting with their eyes.”
In the day of destruction, 7 women will beg to be wed to one
man, (Isa. 4:1). No condemnation is suggested here. Why does God
hold Israel accountable for obvious sin in the former verses, with
condemnation, but does not do so here if indeed God deplores
polygamy as much as he does adultery?
Belshazzar has wives and concubines, besides the “queen,”
(Dan. 5:1, 3, 10).
64
Let us state some obvious conclusions based on this material.
• God allowed polygamy to enter human experience without a
word of correction.
• The Bible refers directly to at least 23 men who had more than
one wife.
• This list of polygamous husbands contains the names of the
most illustrious examples of faith and holiness in all the Bible.
• God makes polygamy mandatory in the case of the “Levirate
marriage law.”
• Israel’s elders use examples of polygamy, to bless the
marriage of Boaz and Ruth.
• God gives Israelite men permission to keep women and
children for themselves after a successful battle. Even married
men had this privilege.
• God commends the worship of a polygamous man.
• God’s prophet says David’s multiple marriages are blessings
from God, and assures David that God would have given him
more if he desired them.
• God uses the polygamous inclinations of a pagan king to
bring Esther to power, and thus to save Israel from a holocaust.
Not one time, with even one word, in all the OT record, did God
even so much as hint to His people, that he preferred that they not
practice polygamy. Not once did God refer to Adam and Eve as His
ideal for marriage. If God was displeased with polygamy, no one in
the entire scope of OT history knew it! God never told even His
most trusted servants. God simply gave us no record of His
disapproval of polygamy! It is not possible to believe that God
granted polygamy as a blessing to His people until Jesus came, but
now sees it as a sin worthy of eternal Hell. It is not possible that
God blessed David with many wives and would have given him
more, but that He will send us to Hell forever for the same thing.
God did not, and still does not disapprove of polygamy. We will look
at the sparse NT texts below. Be patient!
MONOGAMY
Now we must consider the NT texts that relate to this issue.
There are not many, and none of them address the issue of
65
polygamy directly. The consensus of church scholars is that the NT
reverses the OT view of polygamy, and makes monogamy the only
acceptable sexual relationship possible to us. It goes even beyond
that to effectively demonize polygamy and make it a sin worthy of
eternal Hell. In view of the emphatic stance of modern church
leaders, we will expect to find very clear expression in the NT of
this change in God’s attitude. Let us see what we actually find. First
let’s look again at the opinion of modern scholarship.
Comments from other authors:
“Although Polygamy is recognized and not condemned, the OT
assumes that monogamy is the basic form of marriage, or at least
that a man should be faithful above all to “the wife of his youth,”
(Prov. 5:18-19; Mal. 2:14-15). It may be that the two wives of
Lamech are emphasized (Gen. 4:19) to associate the origin of
polygamy with the evil line of Cain. Concubines and secondary
wives are associated mostly with, though by no means restricted to,
the patriarchal period and royalty.
The tendency toward monogamy or the preference of a primary
wife was reinforced most of all by love which was acknowledged
as a significant, though certainly not the only force in the initiation
and nature of marriage relationships (e.g. Gen. 24:67; 1 Sam. 18:20).
Recognizing the dangers into which sexual attraction could lead
(Prov. 7:6-27) did not draw the people into a harsh puritanism, but
rather into a celebration of the pleasure of faithful marriage (Eccl.
9:9; Song of Sol. 8:12).
A father could sell his daughter as a concubine, but the law did
seek to protect the status of such women (Ex. 21:7-11). If a man
raped or seduced an unmarried woman, he was required to pay the
marriage gift to her father and take her as his wife(Ex. 22:16-17; Dt.
22:28-29). Yet because the husband was regarded as master over his
wife, adultery was a crime only against the man whose wife or
fiance had been unfaithful; there was no sense in which it could be
a crime against the woman (Lev. 20:10; Gt. 22:22-24). But that
marriage was not as simple as an owner-property relationship is
shown by the contrast in penalties for intercourse with a betrothed
female slave (Lev. 19:20-22) and for adultery.
Monogamy continued as the norm in NT times; it was only the
few who could afford to be polygamous.
http://inkaboutit4u.com/?p=Book_Divine_Sex_FREE_Online_Part_1_of_4
Divine Sex
Liberating Sex from Religious Tradition
Philo Thelos
© Copyright 2002 Philo Thelos. All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the written prior permission
of the author.
Printed in Victoria, Canada
National Library of Canada Cataloguing in Publication
Thelos, Philo
Divine sex : liberating sex from religious tradition /
Philo Thelos.
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 1-55395-400-9
I. Title.
BS680.S5T48 2002 241'.66
This book was published on-demand in cooperation with Trafford Publishing.
On-demand publishing is a unique process and service of making a book available for retail
sale to the public taking advantage of on-demand manufacturing and Internet marketing.
On-demand publishing includes promotions, retail sales, manufacturing, order fulfilment,
accounting and collecting royalties on behalf of the author.
Suite 6E - 2333 Government St., Victoria, B.C. V8T 4P4, CANADA
Phone 250-383-6864 Toll-free 1-888-232-4444 (Canada & US)
Fax 250-383-6804 E-mail sales@trafford.com
Web site www.trafford.com TRAFFORD PUBLISHING IS A DIVISION OF TRAFFORD HOLDINGS LTD.
Trafford Catalogue #02-1115
www.trafford.com/robots/02-1115.html
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3
A
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword page i
Introduction page xi
Chapter One, What Makes A Thing “Sinful?” page 1
Sin defined by Scripture page 3
Missing the mark page 6
Principles that control personal liberty page 9
How can this be right if everyone thinks it is wrong? page 18
The nature and purpose of law page 19
Chapter Two, Naked and Unashamed page 22
Comments from other authors page 22
Observations and conclusions page 36
Women and “modest apparel” page 51
Chapter Three, Polygamy, Monogamy, Concubinage page 54
Polygamy in Scripture page 54
Monogamy page 64
Concubinage page 77
Chapter Four, God’s Erotic Poetry –
The Song Of Solomon page 81
Chapter Five, Adultery page 92
Scripture references to adultery page 94
Comments and observations page 99
Notes on Romans 7:1-4 relating to “adultery” page 116
The “Open Marriage” page 119
Chapter Six, Lust of the Eyes page 124
Scripture references page 126
What exactly is “pornography?” page 134
Chapter Seven, Fornication page 149
Sex and single people page 155
Multiple Sex Partners page 163
Can one person love more than one other person? page 169
Is sexual enjoyment adverse to holiness? page 171
Chapter Eight, Fornication part 2 page 178
Scripture references page 178
Comments and observations page 183
Chapter Nine, Prostitution page 191
Definitions page 191
Scripture references page 192
Comments from other authors page 200
Chapter Ten, Forbidden Sex Practices page 205
Incest page 205
Rape page 207
Bestiality page 207
Certain forms of homosexuality page 208
Chapter Eleven, The Unchanging Nature of God page 216
A crucial principle page 221
Sex and Christian liberty page 225
Liberty is not license page 228
Liberty operates in love page 229
The necessity of experiencing freedom page 230
Chapter Twelve, Sex and Holiness page 238
Definitions page 240
Scripture references page 242
Comments from other authors page 244
The issue of purity page 246
What “defiles” a person? page 247
The ultimate deciding factor page 250
Everything God created is inherently good page 251
Nothing is inherently unclean page 255
Are sex and holiness incompatible? page 264
Chapter Thirteen, The Law of Love and Sex Issues page 275
Sex and vulnerability page 282
Appendix:
The Non-Negotiables of Bible Study/Research page 283
What are the authors against; what are they for? page 291
What is the true meaning of the original words? page 293
What is the literary context of those words? page 296
What is the cultural/historical context? page 298
What geographical elements might be important in
understanding the text? page 300
What social customs are important in understanding
this text? page 301
Does the passage truly speak to our present situation? page 301
Finding The Historical Context page 303
Do I have the courage to stand alone if necessary? page 304
Other Books By This Author page 306
A Selected Bibliography page 307
i
FOREWORD
We want to ask some pointed questions about sex. These
questions address practical issues of living on earth in the flesh,
surrounded by men and women who are all sexual creatures and
all of whom have a multitude of questions about their sexuality for
which no one either has answers, or even dares to ask the
questions.
Most people will never ask these questions of another
person simply because to ask them would raise doubt in the other
person’s mind about the querist’s spirituality. These questions
relate directly to issues of what is holy and what is not; what is
acceptable and what is not. Some of these questions are asked
because conventional sexual attitudes just don’t make sense when
applied to some real life situations.
Especially when we compare
contemporary sexual ethics with what is written very plainly on the
pages of the Bible our reaction is “How can that be true?” Biblical
sexual morality does not even resemble modern “Christian” sexual
morality.
We began asking a few of these questions years ago because
counseling sessions with people who were struggling with sexual
issues usually ended with frustration on the part of everyone
involved. Some of the counselee’s questions we could not answer
with strict Biblical integrity. What we had been trained to say
simply did not match what we found in Scripture and we knew it.
But we didn’t have a better answer than the ones we had heard.
Finding ministerial peers with whom to discuss these questions is
almost impossible because we all know that we don’t have real
answers to some very crucial questions. Not many ministers will
risk asking really difficult sexual questions of a peer because of the
suspicion it raises about one’s personal sexual practices or desires.
But eventually the questions were too numerous to simply
disregard any longer so we set out on a quest to find real Biblical
answers. We think we have found them. Our questions may not be
exactly the same as yours but these are important questions and we
will risk asking them and risk even more in giving our own
answers.
• Why is the OT filled with examples of men practicing
polygamy and having sex with concubines and slaves? Why don’t
we ever read even one line of correction from God about this
ii
practice? If this practice is so bad how could God bless such men as
Abraham, Jacob, David and others and use them mightily for His
purposes, and develop special relationships with them? These men
loved God and would have done anything He told them. Why
didn’t God tell them He didn’t like their multiple sexual
relationships?
If David could have sex with a hundred wives,
concubines and slaves and still go to Heaven, why do you and I go
to Hell if we have sex with even one other woman than our wife?
• How could God simply turn His head and appear to not
know that some of His servants, like Jacob and Samson, consorted
with prostitutes?
God never hesitated to punish or at least to
rebuke the evil behavior of His servants. Why not once does he
indicate that He is even slightly concerned about prostitution?
Why
is there no Biblical law against prostitution per se? Why didn’t
Solomon punish the two prostitutes who fought over one baby?
• Can’t a man even look at a beautiful woman and be aware
that she is sexually desirable without committing “adultery in his
heart?”
If not, is sexual attraction not a legitimate part of the
dating/mating process?
• When does nudity become sinful? We laugh at small
children running naked and even comment on how “cute” they are.
When does it stop being “cute” and become “shameful?” And
exactly why does this change occur? And how do we prove it by the
Bible?
• What is the great difference between sex as animals practice
it and sex as humans practice it? God is not concerned – to any
degree – about how animals practice sex. Why is He concerned
about how humans do it?
Specifically, what is there about the
function of a human penis or a vagina that concerns God more than
the animal equivalents?
What is there about human sexual climax
that makes more difference to God than animal climax? Neither of
these is an issue at all in the animal realm. Animal sex organs
function exactly as humans do and animals climax the same as
humans do. Why do we suppose there is a difference with God?
Does the difference exists only in our imagination? Have humans
somehow contrived the idea that God has placed human sexuality
in a totally different realm than animal sexuality, and has created
special rules to govern it that have no counterpart in the animal
“instinct?” What we know of animal sexual practices we attribute
to animal “instinct” which we believe was created by God. But
iii
some sexual practices that are “normal” in the animal realm are
Divinely forbidden to humans. So we believe that God created
animals with a “natural instinct” to copulate with many different
mates, for example, but forbids humans to do the same thing. What
sense does that make?
Does the Bible really teach this to be true? In
the animal kingdom it is universally common that one male
services an unlimited number of females. That “instinct” came from
God, Who did not change that instinct when He created humans,
for polygamy was natural to humanity from the earliest time and
God never corrected it.
What Divine law establishes that God
frowns upon the human practice of what He created as a natural
instinct within all segments of the animal kingdom?
What is there about the physical act of sex, for either animals or
humans, that causes God to have any concern about how, or with
whom (and how many) it is performed?
If we tried to parallel in the
human realm what we observe in the animal realm what
conclusions might we reach in light of what Scripture actually does
say and what it does not say?
For example, seeing that animal
“polygamy” parallels human polygamy as revealed in Scripture,
and finding no Divine correction of that practice for humans, what
can we conclude except that God approved of polygamy in both
realms?
Sin does not account for polygamy in animals because
animals cannot sin. They do what they do because they are created
that way. If the instinct for polygamy is in animals it is there because
GOD PUT IT THERE! We must draw the same conclusion about
polygamous instincts in humans. God placed that instinct in man
just as He did in animals and when it appears on the human scene
in Gen. 4:23, it appears naturally, without a fuss made about it. It is
probable that other examples of polygamy existed at that time.
Lamech’s polygamy is introduced as nothing unusual.
It appears obvious to us after looking at all the Scriptures that
reference human sexuality that with God the issue has nothing to do
with biological function of human sex organs and climaxes, but with
human relationships of faithfulness, responsibility, etc.
What distinguishes animal sex from human sex in God’s eyes, is not who
is having sex with whom, how often, and what do they do.
God is ultimately concerned that people honor the rights and needs of
other people in the sexual area as in all other areas. The regulations
God placed upon sex are not just plucked from thin air. Each serves
to protect people from abusing others and being abused in sexual
iv
activities.
There is nothing inherently dirty or sinful about any sex
practice whether done by animal or human. What makes any sex act sinful is the evil effect it has upon other people.
• What is there about the physical act of sex that makes it a
spiritual or moral issue for humans?
Animals do the act with no moral implication. So it is not the act that is immoral but something else. What is that?
At what point does the physical act of sex take on
spiritual dimensions for the human?
It seems obvious to us that Biblically, the crucial issue with God is the manner in which we relate to the person we have sex with.
God’s law restricts the physical act for humans so that we do
not trespass on other people’s private, exclusive property, i.e. their
control of their own person.
God requires that we do not take
forcibly what others either cannot or will not voluntarily give, as in
child abuse and rape. It is a sin to take from someone’s person such
an intimate gift without giving something in return.
God’s sex laws
all relate to the issue of treating other people with absolute fairness,
consideration and concern for their well being. There is nothing
inherent in the sex act for either animals or humans that makes it a
moral issue. It is a moral issue for humans because we are spiritual
beings, and how we treat others is a spiritual matter.
• If it is a moral issue, what makes any sex act a “sin?” Since
the Bible itself says “where there is no law there is no sin” and “sin is
transgression of the law” then nothing can legitimately define any sex
act as sin except God’s law!
If no law exists concerning masturbation can that act be sinful?
The answer is “NO!”
If no law exists concerning oral sex can that act be sinful? The
answer is “NO!”
Must we “let every man be convinced in his own mind” (Rom. 14:5)
in aspects of sexuality where God has not legislated? And must we
also “not judge one another any more” in those areas (Rom. 14:13)?
Must we not also allow each person to “have their own conviction
before God” and live by the rule that “happy is the man who does not
condemn himself in what he approves,” (Rom. 14:22)? The answer in
every case is “YES!”
Nothing is sinful because “it just seems to be wrong.” Subjective
opinions, even if followed by the masses, can never establish a
thing as sinful, otherwise sin becomes whatever people think sin to
be. Sin is only what God says it is. If God does not prohibit it, it isn’t sin.
V
Most of us rightfully reject the opinions of those who have moral
convictions about such things as the “sinfulness” of Christmas,
playing cards, movies, makeup, jewelry, women cutting their hair,
or wearing head coverings, etc. Why then do we submit to human
opinion about sexual matters concerning which God has made no
law?
Can we be free to practice those things if it can be done in a
way that will not affect others in a harmful way?
Yes we can!
• Why is it unthinkable to watch humans copulate? God sees
animals have sex every day and pays no attention to it. God also
sees humans having sex everyday and pays no attention to it except
for those situations in which humans do it in disregard of the
welfare of others. Humans can watch the sex act between animals,
show it on nature programs on TV, etc. with no second thoughts
about watching it. How did we derive the conclusion that it is
sinful to watch humans enjoy sex but not sinful to watch animals
do exactly the same thing?
What makes the difference?
• We make much of masturbation in these studies, because it is
the sexual practice people most often ask us about. In fact it is
almost the only practice people will risk asking about.
If masturbation is sinful where is the Biblical law that says so. How
can a sexual practice that involves no one but the practitioner, be
evil?
And when does that evil begin? Has the small child sinned
when (s)he discovers that touching the genitals feels good?
When they discover that playing with their sex organs produces sexual
climax, have they sinned?
Is the “sinfulness” of masturbation determined by one’s age? by how often one touches one’s genitals?
how much pleasure one derives from the practice?
If it is sinful how do we actually know that, and what exactly is it that makes it a
sin?
When children discover the differences between male and
female anatomy and naturally touch the parts of another person’s
body that are different from their own, is it sin?
If that is not “lust”
at what point does it become “lust?” If they continue to
“experiment” this way and a boy has an erection while touching a
girls breast or vagina, has he sinned? Has the girl sinned? If the girl
is fascinated with the boy’s erection and touches it, has she sinned?
If she strokes it and the boy climaxes, is it sin? If the boy touches
her clitoris and she allows him to do so until she has a climax, have
they both sinned? If any of these experiences are sin, how exactly
vi
do we prove that? If one or more of them is sin but the others are
not, how do we know the difference?
At what point do we conclude that “natural curiosity” becomes
sinful, or that experiencing sexual pleasure is sinful?
Why do we
think it becomes sinful? What Bible teaching – that is God’s Law –
makes it sinful? Most parents accept that in children, sexual
curiosity and experimentation is normal. If so, at what point does it
become abnormal? Is it an age thing? Is it the point at which it causes
arousal?
If we teach little Johnny that it is wrong for him to look at
neighbor Suzie’s crotch and he must never again let her see his
penis, what Bible verses do we use?
It is our parental right to tell them
we do not want them to do such things and forbid them to do so.
But if it is only a parental preference, do we dare teach them that God
disapproves, or shame them or create fear in them regarding a
natural physical act?
• How do we come to Bible/God honoring conclusions on
issues like these:
A woman displays her body for the admiration and even sexual
excitement of a man. What is her moral and spiritual condition? Is
she a sinner because of that act?
If a man looks at a beautiful woman, is sexually aroused and is
moved to ask the woman for a date, has he sinned?
Is a man’s delight in a woman’s sexuality legitimate as part of his desire to
marry her?
Is sexual stimulation a natural part of the courting process?
A man is aroused by the physical/sexual beauty of a married
woman. Is this arousal sin?
That is, if a man is sexually excited by
the beauty of a married woman, yet has no desire and forms no
intention to take her away from her husband, has he sinned?
Where is the sin – in the look? in the sexual excitement? What Biblical word
or phrase describes this act as sin?
Is being sexually aroused the same
as desiring to possess a person? Isn’t there a difference between
looking with delight at a thing versus “lusting” after it? “Lusting”
is the desire to possess for oneself what belongs to another.
If the looking does not have that “lust” quality then it is not sinful. So if a
man looks at a woman, married or unmarried, or if a woman looks
at a man, married or unmarried, and delight in the sight, is it sin?
If a man is sexually aroused by a picture of a naked woman is it
sin? If so, based on what Scripture?
Is it possible for a woman to admire a sexually attractive man
without wanting to go to bed with
vii
him?
Is it possible for a woman to look at a man in a swimsuit and
be sexually aroused by his body, without sinning?
If she accidentally observed a naked man and enjoyed the sight did she sin?
If she looked at a photograph of a nude man and was aroused did she
sin?
• What if King David stood on his balcony, saw Bathsheba
bathing naked, became sexually aroused, but did not ask her to
come to his bed?
Would he be guilty of sin? If so, what was the sin;
seeing her naked body? sexual arousal? Suppose he stood and
watched until she finished bathing. Knowing she was married, he
had no desire to have sex with her and no intention of ever making
physical contact with her. Did he sin by watching her and admiring
her sexual beauty?
What if Bathsheba knew he was watching and deliberately let
him watch. Did she sin? Did she commit adultery even though she
did not have sex with him nor even desire to do so?
What if her husband went up on the roof, found Bathsheba
bathing, bathed with her, then had sex with her on the roof and
David watched the whole thing. Did David sin?
Did they sin because someone saw them? If they were aware that David was
watching, did they sin?
Suppose the table was turned on David, and he was bathing on
his roof, and Bathsheba happened to walk out on her roof, saw him,
and watched him. Did she sin?
What if David knew she was there
and did not cover himself. Did he sin?
What if either or both of
them was aroused sexually such that they masturbated. Did they
sin?
The issue is actually very simple. The Bible specifically says
that to look with the desire to possess what belongs to another is sin. But
to simply look with sexual arousal is in no way condemned in the
Scriptures. God specifies one as sin. Why did He not specify the
other as sin? The obvious answer is that it is not sin to look where
there is no intention to steal a mate from a spouse.
• The related question: is sexual arousal inherently sinful if it is
experienced in any context other than that of sexual activity
between a married couple? May a person intentionally arouse
oneself and enjoy sexual orgasm via masturbation as long as that
person does not entertain adultery in his/her mind?
• Suppose a woman likes working around the house naked.
She is naked while vacuuming the living room and her male
neighbor walks across the front of the house to ask for a cup of
viii
flour. As he approaches the window he glances in and sees her
naked back to him. He stops and backs up a bit to hide himself
around the corner but watches as long as she vacuums the living
room. Has he sinned in watching her?
If he had an erection was
that sin? If he was so stimulated that he went back into his house
and masturbated, was that sin? At what point was there sin, if at any
point, and what Biblically establishes it as sin?
Consider a real life, personal situation. Years ago, while living
in another city, we had a group of young men to the house for
some reason. It was evening and while we men were visiting in the
den my wife walked in wearing her nightgown and asked if we
wanted anything. We said no and she left. Later, one of the men, a
friend, commented on how beautiful she looked and said seeing
her in her nightgown began to arouse him sexually and he said “I
had to shift my legs around and ‘fix myself’,” that is, he had to hide
a growing erection.
Did he sin because he had a natural sexual reaction to the sight
of a beautiful woman? Did she sin because she was beautiful and
appeared before those men dressed such (in an opaque gown, very
discreet as I recall) that at least one of them was sexually aroused
and perhaps the others too?
Was there sin in the natural, God-created biological stimulation
that happens when a man looks at a woman? Since the man did not
want to take her away from me and have her for himself he did not
“lust after her in his heart.”
There was no “adultery” involved in
his looking and sexual arousal. If sin was involved, who sinned and
exactly what act constituted that sin according to the Bible?
Multitudes of questions could be asked covering many
imaginary scenarios. One reason for asking such pointed questions
is to demonstrate that we respond automatically to answer most, if
not all the above questions by saying such things are “sinful.” But
why do we react that way.
Do we react on the basis of God’s laws or
on the basis of preconceptions that arise from cultural standards
and church traditions? If the basis of our response is not Scripture
we have no legitimate basis at all. If Scripture does not make a thing
sin then we need not have any guilt about admitting the
acceptability of a thing and we must not condemn one who approves
it.
Ix
Some of these questions and certainly the answers we have
given, will disturb some readers. We believe that the reason for this
disturbance is that after looking at the full Biblical picture of sex we
cannot find the answers we once thought were unquestionable. The
fact we must deal with is that such sexual situations and many
others are a part of every day life, all around us, either in people’s
minds or in actuality.
Even saved people need answers to many of
these questions. How can we relate Biblically to these things if we
are afraid to raise the questions? What right do we have to advise
people about these things if we cannot give them an honest Biblical
response?
If we find that our opinions are not based on Gods laws
but on man made rules, how dare we continue to tell people they
are sinning in any of these things about which God has not spoken?
The bottom line is that only Scripture establishes “truth…that makes
us free.”
It does not matter what we have “heard said by them of old
time.”
It does not matter what social standard exists at any time.
It does not matter what conventional church dogma says.
It matters only that we discover what God actually said, and avoid
putting words in His mouth.
If God said something is sin then there is no room for argument.
If God did not forbid it then it does not need to be forbidden.
Humans cannot improve on God’s moral standards.
If God has not said a thing is sin it is not sin regardless of what
anyone thinks about it. If a thing is not sin we still must avoid
doing it under circumstances where it harms someone else.
Yet we may still exercise our liberty in ways that others will not be
affected. Knowing that others believe what we do is sin should
have no effect upon our liberty to do it without personal guilt.
Examples of some things that fall in this category:
Eating meat offered to idols. (1st century example)
Drinking wine.
Being naked.
Masturbating.
Oral sex.
Vibrators/sex toys.
X
Looking at and being excited by the body of the opposite sex.
Enjoying writings, photos, films of explicit sexual nature.
The reasons all of these activities are considered by this author
to be within the parameters of what is allowable because not
condemned by God, are detailed in the various individual sections
of this study. Please read it all before settling upon any conclusions
that may be stirring within your heart.
Xi
INTRODUCTION
Before reading this book please read this introduction.
Contemporary attitudes on the subject of humans and sex are easily
learned via a plethora of books, articles and movies dealing with
the subject. Many careful studies exist on the subject of human
sexuality and some of them deal with this subject from a “Biblical”
perspective.
The Christian church is especially outspoken about
what it views as the sole, universally applicable divinely acceptable
sexual standard, claiming that this standard come directly from the
Christian/Hebrew Bible.
Even the secular Western world, with its claims to moral enlightenment and transcendent civilization, claims to be the moral leader of planet Earth.
The West’s sexual standard
occupies large place in its claim also to cultural superiority. While
not purposely and knowingly basing its standards on Biblical
revelation
Western civilization nonetheless agrees in some
important areas with the church in contrast to many “third world”
cultures in such areas, for example, as polygamy, concubinage,
prostitution, public nudity, homosexuality, “perversion” and any
sort of sex outside of marriage.
The reason for this agreement is that from the beginning of America’s founding, Western civilization has been thoroughly permeated with the concepts of the church.
The views of “Christianity” underlie the standards of Western morality.
This would be good if it were true that contemporary Christian/Church views were all valid.
However the studies in this volume will demonstrate that the contemporary view of the Church toward sexuality is far from being truly and consistently “Biblical.”
During the 2,000 years of its existence every
aspect of Christianity has suffered severe declension and the
modern church is not at all like the original church. Its views of all
things, including sex, can not legitimately be called “Biblical”
because the church’s modern view of all things is the result of the
development of human tradition and interpretation that has taken
it far afield from the original Biblical truth.
Just as did the Pharisees
of the first century, the church now accepts as normative, the
“tradition of the elders,” truly believing this tradition to be no less
than the exact representation of pure Biblical truth.
But, as Jesus
said to those Pharisees, “Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold
to the tradition of men…you set aside the commandment of God in order
to honor your traditions” (Mk. 7:8, 9).
Human nature has not changed. Religious leaders still feel that God has not done an
Xii
adequate job of establishing morals, leaving many crucial “gaps”
which must be filled in by the church, i.e. church leaders. Religious
“doctors” and “elders” have labored long in the development of
their additions to what the Bible says about sex.
Over time these additions become traditions,
which eventually become church dogma,
which finally becomes church law.
The preachers proclaim these human laws saying, “Thus saith the Lord,” and evidently the people love to have it so.
Nowadays, no church member suspects
that what passes to them from the pulpit as “Divine Law on sexual
morality” is nothing better than the well refined reasoning of men
exactly like themselves.
The change from what the Bible actually says,
to what men say the Bible means, has been so gradual, and is
presented with such “spit and polish” that the persons packing the pews have no inkling that their entire sexual standard is built upon purely human authority.
But church leaders are just as clueless.
Preachers, pastors, church leaders in general,
learn their concepts from their peers just like all men do.
Few of them are willing to expend the time and energy required examining, for themselves, every line of Biblical text.
It is just too easy to take for granted what passes muster in the
majority of churches, as being the “biblical norm.” As an ex-pastor I
can say from experience that it is unusual to find preachers who do
their own study.
Most of them are pressed for time and know too
little about using Bible study tools.
Copying their messages from
another’s material is a standard solution for many Christian
teachers.
Thus in many areas, what is preached is merely what has
been preached, and only occasionally does it meet the test of true
biblical scholarship.
What rules the day as “Biblical morality” is not
truly Biblical at all. It is religious morality, but most of it is not true
to the Bible.
Modern religious sexual standards have been
developed over time by the human penchant for filling in the gaps
left by God’s silence on most sexual topics. That these human
standards have become almost universally accepted in the church
does not make them other than human standards. They still lack
God’s authority.
The Bible still does not teach them despite the
many who believe otherwise. The purpose of this present volume is
to demonstrate the truth of that statement.
So the sexual standards of the Western world, while purporting
to be the very best because based on Scripture, are no more than the
corrupted views of generally honest and sincere people whose
xiii
efforts to understand and apply Bible truth have suffered from the
common human infirmities of fallibility, subjectivism and poor
study habits.
The modern Christian church is a self-appointed,
worldwide enforcer of a multitude of heavy sexual burdens that it has “laid upon men’s shoulders” (Matt. 23:4),
threatening people everywhere with eternity in Hell if they do not accept and live under these burdens.
Millions of people are afraid of sex, confused about sex, and guilty about sex all because of the faulty standards set by an apostate church.
Sex has become the unmentionable subject, and a “nasty” practice because of the church’s ignorance.
We were raised in that church environment from infancy. As
small children we experienced the hand-slapping, finger-shaking,
frowning face and reproachful “No, no, no, you mustn’t!” that
taught us that virtually everything sexual was taboo. That concept of
sexuality was reinforced through the years by the preachers and
teachers we listened to. When we began preaching we knew
nothing else to preach on sexual matters except what we had
always heard. Yet some things we read in Scripture conflicted
severely with our “borrowed theology.” Things like polygamy,
practiced by the very heroes of faith with God’s obvious approval.
Things like the “Levirate marriage law” that required a man to
impregnate his brother’s widow if he had died childless. “If,” we
thought, “God truly loathes any practice of sex except
monogamous intercourse, what sense can I make of all these
contrary examples?”
But in the last few years it has become truly
apparent that many of the things taken for granted in the area of
human sexuality are not merely difficult but actually impossible to
defend by a pure reading of Scripture.
Years of thinking and
praying about these issues, along with short spates of low-intensity
study, produced nothing but a growing sense that we must
discover for ourselves what the Bible actually says about these
matters.
We could see that what the church says does not harmonize
with actual human experience even in the Western world and the
church. If the environment in which a thesis is most thoroughly
embraced, fails to demonstrate the validity of that thesis in actual
human experience, then we must conclude that the thesis is wrong.
It seemed clear that what the church teaches about sexuality does not
square with Scripture, and that applying current religious sexual
standards brought no enhancement to people’s sexual experience
and no relief to those experiencing “sex problems.” In fact, attempts
xiv
to counsel people with sex problems, using prevailing notions of
“biblical morality” brought only greater confusion,
discouragement, guilt and bondage.
It was easy to see that from
both negative and positive vantage points the standards failed. As a
pastor we could no longer, with good conscience, just give our
counselees the same “tried but found untrue” advice.
We finally
decided to examine with care and detail what the Bible actually says
and what it does not say about sex. We wanted to know what is
wrong with the “thesis on human sexuality” as embraced by the
church.
Many other works purporting to examine sex as it is revealed in
the Bible are written by those who deny the inspiration of the Bible
and who reject the Bible as a reliable foundation for morality,
religion and ethics.
Such authors ridicule the idea that a holy and
righteous God could either condone or allow such things as we find
recorded in the Bible.
They decide, independently of a truly
objective moral standard, what is and is not acceptable in the sexual
arena then impose their strictly human standards upon the reading
of the Bible.
As a result they conclude that the Bible cannot be
reliable because it seems to disallow some things they accept and
seems to allow some things they reject.
In doing so, they show
themselves to be as bad at establishing moral standards as are the
“Christian fundamentalists” they ridicule. Still others write from a
viewpoint that takes the Bible as merely one of many guidelines by
which to establish morality and ethics.
To such authors the exact
words of the Bible do not particularly matter. They believe the Bible
must be interpreted in light of historical development: that each
generation and each culture will find its individual truth from the
Bible even though each may come to different, even opposite,
conclusions.
We cannot believe that a Bible that can be understood
in antithetical ways can possibly be reliable in any sense.
If what the Bible actually does and does not say cannot be firmly established then
the Bible is virtually useless as a moral guide.
If Biblical ethics can change with generational and cultural changes then Biblical ethics
are not genuine ethics after all.
The objective of this study is to find what God really says about
sex. The nature of this study is unusual because of its perspective.
The author has been a Christian all his life, a Pastor for 36 years,
and is absolutely committed to the authority of the Bible in moral
and spiritual matters. He accepts the principle of verbal, plenary
xv
inspiration and authority. He believes that the God of the Bible is
perfectly Holy, Righteous and Pure. He also believes that humans
must conform their sexual practices to the standards God has
revealed in the Bible.
Therefore this study is a defense of truly Biblical sex rather than a
caricature of it. However, we have expressed our view that over
many generations human concepts of sexuality have digressed from
the Biblical pattern.
What humanity as a whole accepts or rejects is meaningless.
What the church accepts or rejects is likewise meaningless.
The church is no longer a
reliable guide in sexual matters for the same reason the ruling
religious parties of Jesus’ day – the Scribes and Pharisees – were not
dependable guides in Jewish religion.
Religious leaders in both
Jesus’ day and ours have not been able to avoid the spiritual trap of
making laws where God made none.
The penchant of human
beings for trying to “help” God is universal and timeless. Religious
leaders especially are unable as a class, to stop where God stops.
Where God has granted liberty the church has denied it.
What God has not seen fit to even comment on, the church has boldly and adamantly legislated on.
Our effort here is to disregard all humanly originated standards and laws and to do our best to simply understand what God Himself says about sex.
Then we intend to accept it as good even if it conflicts with majority opinion.
We are reminded that it is “truth” that “sets free.”
No one can have freedom in sex or any other area unless they know, embrace and practice what God’s truth reveals.
We hope this study helps some along the path to sexual freedom.
Not many people desire to discuss issues like masturbation, oral
sex, bestiality, incest, polygamy, etc. But human experience requires
us to deal with them.
Many, if not most religious teachers categorize masturbation and
oral sex as sinful. Some take absurd positions such as: that husband
and wife cannot copulate except in darkness, should not bathe together,
should never observe their mate while “using the restroom,” etc.
Some believe that in
copulation anything other than the “missionary position” is sinful
and unnatural; as we heard one teacher state to her class, “humans
are created to have sex face to face, and that is the only acceptable
way.”
It is obviously irrelative to her that no Scripture says any
such thing, nor even hints at it. Another said to us, “My husband
and I used to do it in a position we liked, but God spoke to me and
said ‘That’s the way dogs do it.’ So we don’t do it like that
xvi
anymore.” We replied to her that it was most unlikely that God was
the author of such a statement. But such silliness and dogmatism
illustrates what passes today for “Biblical” teaching and concepts of
acceptable sexual practice.
There is a prevailing attitude both inside and outside the
church, that there is something inherently nasty, unholy and
unspiritual about the sex act. It is hard for many adults in our
culture to imagine a holy person, especially a church leader,
participating in the sex act with any enjoyment.
To many minds sexuality and spirituality are antithetical: one surely cannot be both
sexual and spiritual. Yet even a cursory reading of Scripture reveals
that God’s choicest servants – men like Abraham, Jacob, David,
Gideon and many others – enjoyed sex enough that they were
motivated to marry many wives and obtain many concubines.
Is sexual activity inconsistent with spirituality?
Can a person be “holy” and totally committed to God and a productive servant in
His kingdom while at the same time enjoying the sexual experience
in as many forms as Scripture warrants?
Does sexual activity diminish spirituality?
This is one focus of this study.
The other focus of this study is the simple question: “What does
the Bible actually say about sex?” We will look at every sexual
subject with which the Bible deals and attempt to draw some
conclusions based on what we actually find rather than what we wish
was there, or what we heard was there.
In the process we will ask some
very pointed questions and imagine some real-life scenarios for
purposes of coming to specific conclusions about situations people
deal with in daily life.
The method we used in pursuing this study was to read the
entire Bible, noting every verse that had anything to do with sex. We
then grouped and studied these verses by topic. We examined
original Hebrew and Greek words to determine, as far as possible,
precise meanings.
We consulted recognized scholars for their
comments on the various subjects. Then we drew our own
conclusions based on what we believe Scripture requires. We spent
much time reading, re-reading, discussing and revising each topic
touched on in this study.
The results you read here are those of one
whose desire is to know what truth is on this subject, firstly for our
personal understanding and practice, and then wherever possible
to help others who are struggling with issues they ought not be
xvii
struggling with. We hope to give some Biblical answers to difficult
sexual questions that plague many sincere Christians.
Our introductory chapter is crucial to this study. Please read
carefully and intently, the first chapter, “What makes a thing
sinful?” and be sure you understand it before you proceed.
The answer to that question is absolutely crucial to a study like this because so much of sexual activity is considered to be “sinful.”
If there is no objective standard by which to decide what makes an act
sinful, nothing productive will be gained from this study. Thus no
genuine spiritual benefit can be gained by this study nor will there
be any true spiritual, emotional or sexual freedom gained without
understanding the first chapter.
Please read, re-read if necessary
and think until the principles of this chapter are fully grasped. Read
carefully and open-mindedly. It may be that some things you have
taken for granted, should be discarded.
We encourage you to also read the appendix. In the quest for
truth on any Bible subject, correct study methods are absolutely
essential. There are several non-negotiable requirements for
objective Bible study.
Most Christians, including many professional
ministers, simply do not know how to study the Bible.
Too many people simply take it for granted that what appears to them to lie
on the surface of the text after a quick reading, must be the text’s
true meaning.
Consequently the Christian church is full of church
members who bite and devour each other as they wage war over
their different conclusions about what the Bible teaches.
Each one will quote a text and say, “That is what the Bible says. I believe it.
That settles it.” Few can admit that their individual perception of
what is intended by their English translation is fallible. Few
understand the dynamics involved in attempting to translate
ancient, original documents into modern language while retaining
the original meaning of the original authors. Few have even an
inkling of what tools are available for objective Bible study. And
few of those who are aware of such tools have the ability to use
them. One of the strangest phenomena in all Christendom, is the
fact that millions of people willingly entrust their whole spiritual
destiny to the truth of the Bible, yet they are unwilling to do the
hard work necessary to ensure that they truly understand what the
Bible actually says. What sort of insanity causes people to fight for
a Bible whose every word has been “God-breathed” into the
xviii
original author, but who never learn how to determine the original
meaning of those “inspired” words?
The appendix provides some guidelines for effective Bible study
that are recognized by scholars world-wide. Examples of how to
use these guidelines are given to illustrate how using the proper
study methods can clear up confusion over disputed texts.
The Bible text has suffered at the hands of translators in many areas.
But their treatment of the text relative to sexual matters is
inexcusable. In many crucial texts dealing with sexual matters,
what lies on the surface of many modern translations is not at all
consonant with the original meaning of the authors of those texts.
One can easily discover this by using some of the basic tools of
scholarship.
We have provided abundant evidence of this in the
body of this volume. The appendix provides the basic methodology
for such study, and if one will practice the guidelines discussed
there, one will be able to study the Bible independently, objectively
and effectively.
Until one learns to do this, one will never escape
the bondage of having to trust the word of a “professional” who is
not likely to have done his homework. Jesus said “the truth will
make you free.” Reader, what is it worth to you to be confident that
you really know the truth?
1
CHAPTER ONE
WHAT MAKES A THING SINFUL?
Our first concern in this study is to clearly answer the question,
“What is sin according to the Bible?” It matters not what any human
thinks is sin. What matters is how the Bible defines sin. For Bible
believers, sin cannot be defined by humanity, the church, social
customs, community standards or personal conscience.
The world
and the church have suffered far too long at the hands of those who
have sought to establish a thing as sinful, therefore forbidden, on
such bases as personal conclusion, personal preference, and
personal revulsion, rather than on the sole foundation of what God
forbids as revealed in the Bible.
God has protected us from the
vagaries of human law-makers. Moral law, by definition, must be
established by the Author of morality. Humans cannot know
innately what is or is not acceptable in the moral or spiritual realm.
Bible believers accept the fact that for the entire universe of men
and angels, there is only One Lawgiver. We call Him God. At no
point does He authorize humans or angels to codify behavior or
attitudes.
Jesus fought spiritually with the first century Pharisees
on exactly this basis. His scathing denunciation of them was that
they worshipped
God in vain because they replaced divine
doctrine with human commandment (Matt. 15:8, 9; Mk. 7:7). He
cursed them for establishing human rules and customs as
authoritative in the spiritual realm, many times even above God’s
law (Matt. 15:1-14; 23:4, 13, 16-22, 23, 25, 32-33).
When humans take
the seat of divine authority by presuming to make laws where God
has not made them they take the supremely arrogant position that
God has not adequately done his job.
Human lawmakers thereby
suggest that we humans know better how to regulate behavior or
teaching that we find offensive, and so we must help God.
Because
such folly and pride is bound up in the hearts of man God has been
careful to inform us of two fundamental issues:
[1 His written law is the only acceptable legal code for human
behavior. Human input is neither needed nor desirable. Indeed
every human attempt to “clarify” or “supplement“ God’s laws
is a contemptibly arrogant accusation against God’s adequacy
as Law-giver.
[2 If His law has not codified a thing as sin, then it is not sin unless it
violates Christ’s “Law of Love.” There are two considerations here:
2
• Whatever humans may or may not think about it, nothing is
sinful unless God Himself declares it to be so. This eliminates the
use of faulty human reasoning, inadequate knowledge,
prejudice, personal injury, upbringing, former teaching, and a
host of other considerations, as acceptable means of
determining whether something is forbidden or permitted,
moral or immoral.
God has not left us to try to decide on our
own if a thing is sin. Spiritual destiny depends on our knowing for
sure what is sin. God has therefore not left us to our own best
efforts at making the right deductions or inferences from
imprecise revelation. In His mercy God has given us clear
guidelines for what we cannot do.
Outside that realm of
Divinely excluded behavior we are free to be and to do as we
choose. Two biblical principles cover the morality/immorality
of all possible human behaviors. The first principle is simple:
• God forbids a few specific actions as examples of what breaches the
law of love. These practices remain condemned for all time.
Freedom is granted to humans to pursue and enjoy what life
has to offer as long as God does not forbid a practice. Rather
than attempt to tell us everything that is permissible, God chose
only to tell us what is forbidden.
This makes it so much easier to
ferret our way through the many possibilities offered by life on
a fallen earth. Learning God’s law makes it possible for us to
enjoy life without falling prey either to what truly condemns us,
or to the merely human rules that serve only to enslave us. The
second principle is likewise simple to understand and apply.
• Through the Law of Love God forbids all actions that harm
other people or dishonors Himself. The ramifications of this
principle are covered thoroughly in our book, The Royal Law of
Liberty. The gist of the matter is this: We must examine all
behaviors that God has not forbidden, to decide if that action
harms another person or dishonors God.
If our honest
conclusion is that such action is not thus harmful, then it is
permissible. We may enjoy that action if we choose without self condemnation
(Rom. 14:22).
In the category of things not
specifically forbidden by Scripture each individual is
responsible for reaching his/her own personal conclusions
(Rom. 14:5).
And we are commanded to allow all people to draw
their own conclusions without judging and condemning or even
“regarding with contempt” those whose conclusions are different
3
from our own (Rom. 14:3-12). So, stated concisely, the general
rule for establishing Biblical morality is:
We must not do what God specifically condemns.
We must not do what harms other people or dishonors God.
Everything else is a matter of personal choice.
Our concern in these studies is not to defend either public
conceptions of morality or the church’s understanding of propriety.
We desire to know what God’s Word says about moral/sexual
issues.
Our study and our conclusions about all things sexual will
move strictly along Divinely approved lines as revealed in the
Bible.
No human can be absolutely objective in a study like this. But
we will try our best to avoid making conclusions that are not
warranted by clearly defined principles. The following principles
are transparently clear as to what constitutes “sin.”
Sin Defined By Scripture
[1] “Through law comes the knowledge of sin,” Rom. 3:20.
This is Paul’s statement that the only way man can know of
the existence of sin, and what constitutes sin, is to learn it through
God’s law. God is the sole moral governor of the universe. Sin is
what God says it is.
He must reveal to us the nature of sin or we
cannot know it. If we learn to think of something as “sin” apart
from Biblical revelation then our understanding of “sin” is
illegitimate. Social standards do not teach us about sin. Church
dogma, church councils, church leaders or church creeds do not
teach us about sin. God’s law, and that alone, teaches us about
sin. Knowledge of sin does not come from our experience
whether good or bad. Only as God’s law defines sin, can any
human know what is sin.
For purposes of this study then, we affirm that, “through
God’s law comes the knowledge of all sexual activity that God
considers to be sinful.” Nothing else will settle this issue. If a
sexual matter is not specifically addressed in Scripture then it
cannot be made “sinful” unless it can be proved to violate love
for God or neighbor.
[2]“Where there is no law, there is no transgression,” Rom. 4:15.
This statement forthrightly declares that if God did not make
a law against a thing, then doing that thing cannot possibly
4
violate God’s law. Therefore doing that thing is not sinful
regardless of what even the whole world thinks of it. An act is
sin only if God makes a law against it.
He thereby makes that act a
spiritual crime. If an act is not in His statute book as a criminal
offense then it is not sin. Accepting this one principle will
eliminate most of our problems with understanding what is
sinful.
Those who believe the Bible to be inspired by the Holy
Spirit simply cannot reject what the Holy Spirit says here.
However repugnant to our senses or how hated an act may be
to us personally, if God did not give a law prohibiting that act
then doing it does not transgress God’s law. Therefore it cannot
be sin.
For purposes of this study then, we affirm that, “If there is
no law in God’s book against a specific sex act then that act is
not forbidden and is not sinful.”
A practice may violate all
social standards, all church tradition, etc. but if God did not
“outlaw” a thing then no one else in the universe has the power
or authority to do so. If an act is not specifically outlawed and
does not breach the Law of Love for God and man, it is a matter
of human choice.
[3]“I would not have come to know sin except through the law;
for I would not have known about coveting, if the law had not
said, “You shall not covet,” Rom. 7:7.
Again Paul says the only way we can know anything is sinful
is if God says so in His law. In Paul’s example, if God’s Law did
not specifically say “you shall not covet” then no one can know
that coveting is sin.
For purposes of this study then, we affirm that, “We cannot
know that any specific sex act is sinful unless God in His law
says that act is sinful.” If God does not, in His law, say certain
acts are sinful then no one can say that they are. We are free to
choose, governed only by the principle of love for God and love
for man.
[4]“Sin is lawlessness,” 1 Jn. 3:4.
This verse states positively that the nature of sin is that it is
something that breaks God’s law. If there is no law to be broken
then there can be no sin. One cannot possibly break a rule that
does not exist!
5
For purposes of this study then we affirm that, “If there is no
law in God’s law book against a specific sex act then to practice
that sex act is not lawlessness and is not sin.” Again, Christ’s
Law of Love becomes our sole guide as to the propriety of
practicing that act.
[5]“All unrighteousness is sin,” 1 Jn. 5:17.
“Unrighteousness” is anything that is not right in God’s
sight. Previous Scriptures prove that God alone can tell us what
is right or wrong in His sight. No human, nor group of humans,
has the capacity to figure out what God deems righteous or
unrighteous. If God does not condemn a thing in His law, then
it is not unrighteous.
For purposes of this study then we affirm that, “If there is no
law in God’s law book against a specific sex act, then that act is
not opposed to what God declares is right and so it is not
unrighteous.” Such an act becomes purely a matter of choice,
governed solely by its affect upon God and other people.
[6] “Whatever is not of faith is sin,” Rom. 14:23.
The context of this statement shows that Paul is dealing with
those who do things they actually believe to be wrong. Because
this violates one’s personal conscience about morals God
forbids it even if the act is inherently innocent. The meaning of the
above phrase is, “whatever one does, believing it to be wrong, is
sin.”
Thus sin can be committed even when doing something
not forbidden by God’s law, if one does what violates his
conscience. And we must observe that this is true only because
God says so in His Word. If God did not make violation of
conscience a sin, then it would not be sin.
We must be content to
be guided only by what His Word teaches us relative to sin.
For purposes of our study then we affirm that, “If one is
personally convinced that a specific sex act is sinful then one
must not practice that act.” However, if that act is not defined as
sin in God’s word, then for anyone else to practice that same act
with a clear conscience is not sin.
[7] “To him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is
sin,” Jas. 4:17.
The context of this statement relates to considering God’s
sovereignty above our own. We are required to pursue life with
6
God’s will for us uppermost in our minds. We must make our
plans contingent upon God’s sovereignty. To do otherwise is “sin.”
If we reach beyond the specific context of James 4, we must
consider Paul’s statement that “All Scripture is inspired…that the man
of God might be equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16, 17). Thus
“good” is defined by God’s revelation in the Bible. James’ statement
then would include the idea that whatever God has defined for
man as “good” is necessary for man to do as opportunity exists. To
refuse to do what God recommends is “sin.”
For purposes of our study then we affirm that, “Whatever may
be defined by God as ‘good’ with reference to any specific sex act,
must be honored. To engage in a sex act in such a way that it
violates the good of another, is sin.”
The manner in which this
might be done is to engage in sex so as to disregard the welfare,
rights, person-hood, etc. of another person. This violates the
principle of “love your neighbor as you love yourself” that is
fundamental to all moral issues.
On the basis of the above Biblically defined principles of what
constitutes sin, we affirm that:
Any sex act that is not specifically forbidden by God’s law, does
not violates one’s personal conscience and does not violate the good
of others, is innocent, moral and permissible.
Missing the Mark
A more general definition of sin is contained within the
meaning of the original word used by Bible writers. The Greek
word translated as “sin” is hamartia, and is simply defined, “to miss
the mark.” (Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, one
vol. Edition, p. 48).
To use this definition as a way to learn what is
“sin” we must ask the obvious questions:
What is the “mark” that is missed, and whose “mark” is missed?”
The foregoing Scriptures
make it unmistakable that God’s law is the mark that establishes
anything as right or wrong. And sin is committed only when God’s
“mark” is missed. Man’s “marks” – and there are hundreds of them
– are of no moral consequence.
If we fail to hit God’s mark it is sin.
If we fail to hit anyone else’s mark it is not sin because no human has
authority to establish “marks” for morality.
7
The Jews in Jesus’ day set their own religious “marks” and
made things “sinful” by their traditions, and Jesus pronounced a
curse upon them for it. They had handed down centuries of
religious tradition that everyone accepted as God’s law but Jesus
corrected their traditions with, “but I say unto you...” (Matt. 5:21ff,
27ff, 33ff, 38ff, 43ff).
This process is not a whit improved upon in
our day by the fact that “them of old time” to whom we have
listened have been our own highly esteemed preachers, elders,
pastors, etc.
At no time does God allow even the most venerable of
saints to occupy the place of lawgiver. Our modern teachers,
interpreters, translators and such, are not immune to error.
We must not place the traditions and rules received from them on the
plane of equality with Divine authority. And we may exercise the
greatest liberty in choosing to ignore their spiritual prescriptions at
any place where we find them to be at variance with, or
unsubstantiated by God’s plainly revealed word.
Even if the most
saintly men or women of the past have decried a practice, it is not
sin unless God decried that practice. If an act works no harm to our
neighbor and is not forbidden by God’s law, then we can safely
disregard godly saints wherever their opinions disagree with or are not
confirmed by Scripture.
Paul made some recommendations, while under the inspiration of
the Holy Spirit, but said they were not commands from God, (1
Cor. 7:25.) His was inspired advise yet it was not binding on those to
whom he wrote. The mass of what comes down to us from our
teachers and Bible expositors is in the same category though it is
uninspired.
And how much of God’s own directions might be in that
same category? God often states His preferences then allows us to
make our own choices in those areas in which He does not
definitely state that a thing is sin. It is not Biblical to take the
position that God has an absolute will concerning every act that
one can possibly perform.
God may indeed have a preference in all
things. But God allows His children to make choices for what is less
than perfect without condemning them. We are not robots. And
there is no liberty where there is no choice. Freedom requires
options.
God does not constrict us so that we have no real freedom.
He desires that we always choose the best, holiest and highest. But
He also “knows our frame, He remembers that we are dust,” (Ps. 103:14).
He allows us the same freedom we allow our own children.
God gives us the freedom to choose in matters where His law has not
8
restricted us. Many of our choices will be for that which is less than
perfect.
But God is not a despot, waiting with whip in hand to beat
us because we make human errors. No human parent of sound
mind will disown or even discipline their children for making less
than perfect choices.
If we specifically forbid a thing, discipline and
punishment is appropriate where those orders are disobeyed. But
godly parents do not strip their children of all rights to make
personal choices outside the parameters of specific prohibitions. So
it is with God.
God allows us to be humans and to learn to live life
according to what is beneficial, enjoyable and good for self and
others. To make this possible, He grants freedom of choice in most
matters of human action.
To guide us into His preferred path, He
gave some specific laws in the Old Testament to teach us what it
means to violate the Higher Law of Love.
Then Jesus replaced those
original moral laws with His personal Law of Love (Jn. 13:34; 15:12,
17; 1 Jn. 2:7f; 3:11, 23; 2 Jn. 5). Jesus abolished law as a ruling
principle, (Rom. 10:4) and placed us “under grace” (Rom. 6:14) to
govern ourselves by the principle of love.
If we do our best to
decide behavior according to this Law of Love then we can live in
freedom, sexually and otherwise, without fearing God’s wrath
because we make some wrong choices.
And mark this well: Sexual
sin is in no sense “worse” than other kinds of sin. God does not
grant grace and mercy for our mistakes in all other areas, only to
wield an iron fist against any sexual mistake. It is man who has
demonized sex, not God.
Is everything God disagrees with or disapproves of, a sin? Is
there any leeway for us as we try to find and practice truth? If we
are honestly wrong, is there grace for our mistake? Can we go to
Heaven if we are not perfect in knowledge or obedience?
Is there such a thing as making a choice for something less than God’s
perfect will, and still going to heaven? We believe it is so, and that
the Scripture contains many examples of men and women making
such choices.
Every human, regardless of spiritual experience, is in
the growth process. Not one of us has reached perfection. God
allows for the inevitability of mistakes, as we grow toward His
ideal. Our salvation does not hang on knowing everything
perfectly, and doing it all perfectly. Rebellion is not tolerated.
Intentional disregard for God’s explicit law will be punished. But
personal choices outside the scope of specific law are allowed, even
if those choices are not what God desires. This is what makes
9
“grace” so wonderful. Grace makes it possible for sincere and
loving but imperfect people to serve God acceptably though not
perfectly. This principle works in all matters, including sexual
things. Sex activities are not in a singular category. Sex is simply
one aspect of human behavior, no more or less important than any
other.
Can a person be a true worshipper, anointed, faithful servant of
God and fulfill his/her spiritual destiny, even though that person
does not measure up to all God’s personal desires?
Can David,
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Gideon, etc., practice polygamy and
concubinage their whole adult lives, and still fulfill their destiny?
Can a Samson consort with harlots, marry multiple women, take personal vengeance on his enemies, and still fulfill his destiny?
Can one be “godly” in all that word implies, and masturbate or have
oral sex with one’s partner, and even engage in sex before
marriage, and still have a spiritual future?
Is there anything
inherently “unholy” or “nasty” in the human sex act? Is there any
lee-way in sexual conduct that allows for some freedoms we never
thought we had?
Answering such questions is the point of these studies.
Truth is valuable for truth’s sake.
Only truth makes us free (Jn. 8:32) from
human strictures, personal bondage, guilt and shame.
The world and the church suffer a multitude of bondage to guilt and shame related to sexual practices. Most of this bondage comes not from
God’s word, but from church tradition, misinformed counselors,
“puritan” (not necessarily Biblical) ethics, cultural rules,
“community standards” and so forth.
If God’s word does not support the rules and traditions that bring such bondage then learning truth will bring freedom and legitimate pleasure to those who have the courage to embrace the truth.
Principles That Control Personal Liberty To Do What Others
Object To
We feel it is beneficial to address this subject here because there
are many innocent things that conscientious people may choose to
practice, that are nevertheless condemned by well-meaning but
misguided people.
If, for example, I like to smoke an occasional
cigar, and a fellow Christian becomes aware of that, what is my
proper response to this fellow saint if (s)he should say to me, “How
10
can you smoke cigars? Don’t you know that smoking is harmful to
your body, and therefore sinful?” So the question is: If my brother
or sister believes a thing to be sin, yet I believe it to be innocent,
may I choose that thing in spite of their objections? The Apostle
Paul gives us much specific instruction on this very issue. Here are
his basic principles.
Are You Weak or Are You Strong?
God is much concerned that those of His children who are
“strong” in understanding, in faith and in confidence in their
standing with Him, do not hinder those who are “weak” in those
areas. So He provided us with two extended discussions about our
responsibilities in this area (Rom. 14—15:6; 1 Cor. 8 — 10).
The fundamental teaching from these Scriptures is this: Stronger saints
are not required to totally avoid activities that might hinder other
saints; they merely need to modify their behavior in any situation
which might cause weak saints to stumble and sin. Interestingly the
“strong” referred to in these verses are those who do not see
“uncleanness” as an issue in what they choose to do.
Note this: “I
know and am persuaded in myself that nothing is unclean of itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean,” (Rom.14:14).
That an apostle of Jesus Christ could say such a thing about
“cleanness” must be compelling for all who take the inspiration of
Scripture seriously. If this is what the Holy Spirit led Paul to write
then we must accept that nothing is inherently unclean – including sex.
Meditate on that fact until it gets into your spirit.
No sex act is
inherently unclean. Any forbidden sex act is forbidden for reasons
other than inherent uncleanness. All regulations of sexual activity
have to do with honoring the rights, property and welfare of
others. “Cleanness” has nothing at all to do with it. Necessarily
then the Scriptures that control a Christian’s freedom to do what is
inherently innocent, apply not to the behavior itself, but to the effect of
their behavior upon other Christians.
Paul’s argument of this principle from 1Cor. 8 and 10:
The controlling factor in our behavior is not “I am right,” but “I
love my brothers and sisters,” (1 Cor. 8:1-3). Some saints lack
sufficient knowledge to be able to do things more mature saints can
do.
The strong must then be careful to not use their “liberty” to
become a stumbling block to the weak (1 Cor. 8:5-9). A weak saint
11
might be encouraged by a stronger saint’s actions to do something
they are convinced is wrong. This would cause offense to their
conscience and would be a sin against both them and Christ (1 Cor.
8: 10-13). Paul’s conclusion is that he would not do anything to
cause his brother to stumble.
Strong saints must ask whether the action they are considering,
or its effect upon others, will be “beneficial.” Even though an action
may be inherently innocent its effect on others may be harmful.
Therefore the strong must decide in favor of “benefit” to the
weaker saint (1 Cor. 10:23, 24). However if a thing is innocent and
the strong saint desires to participate in it he may do so without
guilty conscience and he need not stop to inquire about it for fear of
hindering others.
A strong saint can legitimately enjoy all the good
that God has created (1 Cor. 10:25-27). But if someone shows a
weak conscience about what you are doing then stop doing it in
their presence lest they be hindered (1 Cor. 10:28).
Another’s weak
conscience does not make the behavior of the strong wrong (1 Cor.
10:29-30); it merely defines some circumstance in which the strong
must be careful about exercising his freedom. The strong may “eat
or drink or whatever” and glorify God for His blessings (1 Cor. 10:31-
32). But he must be careful not to offend the consciences of the
weak (1 Cor. 10:32-33).
When in the company either of believers or unbelievers, a saint
is not obligated to try to figure out in advance what they might
think of his behavior. If what saints do is inherently innocent then
they may do it without concern about the potential reaction of
unbelievers. Note especially “Eat anything sold in the market place
without asking questions, for conscience sake, for the earth is the Lord’s
and everything in it” (1 Cor. 10:25, 26). Let us imagine that we find
dancing to be Biblically acceptable. We might then paraphrase the
preceding verses to say: “therefore be free to dance in the presence
of unbelievers without wondering what they think of it, for
conscience sake, for dancing is a harmless blessing from the Lord.”
And note: “If an unbeliever invites you and you wish to go, eat anything
that is set before you without asking questions for conscience sake. But if
anyone should say to you, ‘This is meat sacrificed to idols,’ then do not eat
it, for the sake of the one who informed you and for conscience’ sake.” (1
Cor. 10:27,28). Again we might paraphrase this: “If you have
opportunity to go dancing among unbelievers, feel free to do so,
without asking what their reaction may be. But if one of them says,
12
‘I didn’t think a Christian could dance,’ then do not do it, for the
sake of the one who questioned you, and for conscience sake.”
Further, Paul makes it plain that if a Christian’s own informed
conscience is clear about what he allows, (1 Cor. 10:29), then he
may “partake with thankfulness,” (1 Cor. 10:30). In Rom. 14:5, 10, 22
he argues that each saint is free to form personal convictions about
behavior and that we are not to judge one another concerning these
matters.
God grants to each of us the right to decide for ourselves
and to exercise our “faith” in good conscience before God with
thankfulness. One can live a “happy” life free from “condemnation,”
(Rom. 14:22) as he pursues those pleasures he does not find
condemned by God’s word. Mature saints will accept these truths
and will both form their own personal conviction about moral
issues, and will allow all others to do the same without
condemning, reproaching or judging them.
Paul’s argument from Romans 14:
In Rom. 14, Paul balances what we have seen in the previous
Scriptures by forbidding the “weak” to judge the “strong” and vice
versa. Each must form their own convictions about what is
acceptable and then live by those conviction without pointing
fingers at those who disagree. We must accept the reality that our
fellow saints are not our judges and we are not theirs. Only God has the
right to judge our behavior and we are commanded to honor that
(Rom. 14:1-5).
If my brother feels convicted about a particular action such as
observing a specific “holy day,” and my own conviction is
different, then we are both commanded to honor the other’s
convictions.
I must allow him the liberty to do as he feels he should
and he must allow me liberty to do the same. Whether we do or
don’t do, is not the fundamental issue. The fundamental issue is that
what we do, we do with praise and thanksgiving to God (Rom. 14:5-9),
and that we love and respect our brothers with whom we disagree.
The reason for this is that no person will ultimately judge another
person for his or her behavior.
Only God is Judge and He
commands us to leave all judgment in His own hands (Rom. 14:10-
12).
The only prohibition God sets against our freedom is that we
must be careful that we do not put a stumbling block in the way of
a fellow saint, (Rom. 14:13). The context of this verse, accompanied
13
by 1 Cor. 8 — 10, makes it clear that Paul is restricting the strong
saint’s behavior only to the extent it actually causes another saint to
stumble into doing something that their conscience condemns them
for. Paul is not saying that we cannot do anything that another
saint objects to or says they are “offended” by.
That would make us
virtual prisoners to pettiness and ignorance of others, would destroy
all liberty, and would eliminate virtually all behavior, for people
will be offended by almost anything we might do. “Offense” in
these Scriptures, has to do with influencing someone to do what they
believe is wrong. If my action “offends” them but does not motivate
them to violate their own conscience, then I am not required to
avoid what I desire to do. My liberty is restricted only to the extent that
it might influence another saint to do something that violates their
conscience.
“I know and am convinced in myself, that nothing is unclean in itself;
but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean,”
(Rom. 14:14). This is such an incredible Scripture that every
Christian should memorize it. The idea of sexual “uncleanness”
pervades Western society and the church especially. Children’s
hands are slapped and they hear the word “naughty” when they
innocently touch their sexual organs.
Thus they are taught from
infancy that “sex is dirty.” And sex remains “dirty” even for adults
to talk about. Yet this apostle, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit,
and knowing God’s law better than most in his day and definitely
better than any of us, declares that nothing is inherently unclean or
unholy. If we are required to avoid an activity, then avoidance must
be based on something other than “uncleanness.”
This Scripture makes it clear: sex is not dirty. Sex in all its forms
is inherently clean, wonderful, pure. Sex is not unholy. For any sex
act to become unclean or unholy, something must be added to it.
Specifically, masturbation, oral sex and anal sex, for example, are
not unclean sex acts.
Any of them may become unclean as a result of
adding something illegitimate to the act. If one forces one’s objecting
partner to perform oral sex, then sin is committed because of the
breach of love for the other person. The mere act of oral sex is
neither clean nor unclean. It is simply one of many possible sex
acts. It may be enjoyed by those who choose to do so, as long as it is
not done in a way that harms other people.
If God has specifically forbidden a sex act – such as bestiality,
rape, incest – man must avoid it. If a sex act violates love for other
14
people, it must be avoided.
What God does not forbid by either of
these principles may be enjoyed as a blessing from God. If it is not
forbidden, it is allowed. And it is clean. We need so desperately to
grow up in our attitude toward sex and see it as a clean,
wholesome, God-ordained activity.
Our understanding of the inherent cleanness of various sexual
activities and our liberty to enjoy them must be controlled only to
the extent that such actions harm another person (Rom. 14:15-16).
The purpose of our salvation and life in God’s kingdom is not to
simply enjoy our freedoms, but rather to promote “righteousness,
peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit.” So we behave ourselves around
others so as to build them up (Rom. 14:17-19).
All things are good in and of themselves, but even a good thing
becomes evil if it is done in a way that harms another person (Rom.
14:20). It is good to do nothing, however innocent an act may be, if
it causes another saint to stumble (Rom. 14:21). Yet this prohibition
is not absolute. One cannot literally do nothing that might possibly
cause another person to stumble. That is the ideal. But reality is that
we can only exercise caution about any action that we know might
be objectionable to some, and try not to cause others to stumble. If
we exercise our liberty with such caution, we can exercise our
liberty without guilt.
Another incredible statement follows in Rom. 14:22. “The faith
that you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who
does not condemn himself in what he approves.” This verse grants
outright liberty for God’s children to exercise their own best
judgment about all things that God has not specifically prohibited.
If one desires to engage in any sexual practice that God does not
prohibit, one is free to do so if that act does not harm another
person. If one’s personal conviction will allow one to masturbate or
enjoy oral sex, then one is free to do so.
God’s law, having nothing
to say about such practices, leaves all men free to form their own
convictions about them. If one finds an act repulsive one is free to
avoid that act. But if another person desires to enjoy that same act
then he is free to enjoy it and we are commanded to not judge him
for it.
We must add here that even when one’s personal conscience
disallows an otherwise innocent activity one can study God’s word,
educate the conscience more thoroughly, and get rid of invalid
conscientious scruples. Most conscientious scruples in the area of
sex come, not from the Bible, but from a church and society that has
15
set purely human standards for sexual morality. As we said above,
all humans are free to simply ignore all such human standards.
If God’s law does not classify an act as sin then one should not have a
guilty conscience in enjoying that act. And any person, whose
conscience presently forbids those activities, can gain freedom from
that guilt by going solely to God’s law for the basis of his morality.
One is not hopelessly bound to an invalid conscience. One can
grow into full liberty in Christ if one will commit to the necessary
study.
To many people the concept of sexual freedom is radical. Many
cannot believe that humans have any sexual freedom at all. The
concept prevails in the minds of most people that if a thing is
sexual then it is inherently nasty or dirty and that we can’t do it
unless God specifically says so.
To think that some sexual practices
are left up to the like or dislike of individuals is unthinkable,
especially to church leaders. Most of the rules that circumscribe
sexual activity do not come from God.
They come from church
leaders who do not believe any sexual activity can be a matter of
choice. They are compelled to help God by filling in the gaps left
where God did not legislate about such things as masturbation, oral
sex and other equally innocent practices.
Like the Pharisees in
Jesus’ day they pile their own regulations atop God’s law and give
their own laws pre-eminence. We have absolutely no responsibility
to be regulated by any rule that cannot be read from Scripture. If
God did not prohibit a practice we are free to decide for ourselves
about it. And we are obligated to allow everyone else the same
privilege.
Paul’s clear statement is that in the realm of those things
God does not prohibit, I can be “happy” in the practices of which my
conscience approves. And he says that this is “faith” that I can
exercise “before God.” That is, I can be sure that God allows my
behavior as long as I do not offend another’s conscience, or my
own.
The “faith” in this verse is “faith” that comes as a result of my
own reasoning and decision. It is not “faith” in the sense of
believing what the Bible says, because the whole argument of
Romans 14 has to do with things about which Scripture is silent.
So we are dealing specifically with sexual issues about which the Bible
has said nothing in the way either of condemnation or approval.
Regarding such sexual practices, after I have considered all the
evidence available to me I have God’s authority to form my
16
personal opinion and then act on that opinion with “faith.” I need
feel no constraint because of the objections of others.
This does not mean that I must settle every possible question
that might arise about a practice. Paul writes, “He who doubts is
condemned if he eats, because his eating is nor from faith; and whatever is
not from faith is sin” (Rom. 14:23). The “doubt” that makes a thing
“sin” in this verse is an actual believing that there is something wrong
with the activity.
Such is the case with one who believes it is wrong
to eat meat sacrificed to idols yet does it anyway because he sees
another brother doing so. He eats with an offended conscience and
therefore sins. It is not possible for humans to answer all questions
and quell all possible fears about all possible activities. And God
does not require us to eliminate from our lives all activities about
which we are not omniscient. A man who wants to eat meat that
has been sacrificed to idols may do so even if he is not absolutely
sure about it.
As long as his heart does not tell him “this is sin,” he
has not offended his conscience. In the same way a man or woman
may yield to the sexual urge to masturbate even though they might
confess to themselves, “I am not absolutely sure about this. But I
know God’s word says nothing about it, therefore it is probably
okay.
Even though I know many church leaders condemn
masturbation, I don’t find their arguments convincing. It may be
wrong, but I don’t believe that it is. It seems more like a blessing of
personal pleasure that I am free to choose. So I am going to do it.”
So may the reasoning process go with many things about which
God has not spoken.
A good rule of thumb here is this: If God has not specifically
prohibited an action then I can safely think it through, pray it
through and come to the best decision I can about it. Even though I
may not have an answer to every question, yet because I know God
has not made it a sin then it is not a sin unless it harms another
person and I am safe in doing it since I know God has not legislated
against it.
There is no other way people can live with any peace in their
hearts. If we are compelled to be sure that we do not offend anyone,
in any way, with anything we do regardless of the circumstances,
then we will all quickly become basket cases. We cannot possibly
figure out in advance what others will think about every action that
we want to take.
We simply cannot live with the obligation to do
nothing that will in any way offend others. God frees us to come to
17
our personal conclusions about our desires and conduct, then freely
act on those convictions unless we have reason to believe that doing so
will bring spiritual harm to another saint. We are not required to
investigate in advance what others may think of our actions.
We are simply required to operate with due respect to our spiritual
family and not intentionally do things that circumstances suggest
might cause them to violate their own consciences.
A final word on this specific issue. The prohibition here relates
only to avoiding what will cause our brother to sin. It has nothing to
do with what the unbeliever thinks about our behavior. Since
unbelievers are unable to do anything that threatens their salvation
Paul’s instructions do not apply.
This does not mean that we need
not have any concern about how our behavior affects unbelievers.
It simply means that a Christian’s liberty to do what is innocent is
not restricted by the spiritual blindness and deadness that
characterizes unbelievers.
Christ truly makes His people free. Since
unbelievers have no capacity to understand and appropriately
judge spiritual things, the saint does not need to be concerned
about being judged by unbelievers, (1 Cor. 2:14,15). In this regard,
the frequently repeated maxim, “You must be careful to protect
your Christian witness,” is merely a human maxim.
Most Christians receive it as a virtual spiritual law but it is not from God.
It may indeed be a wise principle. But it is an invention of men.
This statement is used often as a weapon against people who do
things some Christians do not like. For example, one might hear
this: “You should not smoke. That will harm your Christian
witness.” Or “You should not wear shorts in public, because it will
weaken your Christian witness.” And on and on we go.
We simply say here that our freedom to enjoy what God has made is not
restricted by what unbelievers think about it. If an act is innocent
we may do it regardless of the attitude of unbelievers.
Our “Christian witness” will only be harmed if we engage in actual sin.
Society’s standards or the church’s traditions cannot make a
thing sinful to any degree. If God’s law does not forbid an act and
one does it without guilt, he is free regardless of what others think.
If society and the church frowns on an act a Christian who knows
better may still enjoy that act as long as he or she tries to do it in
circumstances where others will not be led to offend their weak
consciences. If this is not true, how do we apply these Scriptures
that teach it is okay to eat meat if we do not harm another’s
18
conscience by doing so? Paul could and probably did eat meat
sacrificed to idols in privacy, even though some of the Corinthians
would have thought him a sinner if they knew he did it. His liberty
is not eliminated by the weak consciences of others. He simply
controls his use of liberty.
It is important that we grasp this principle. If we do not live this
way then we become virtually imprisoned by the conscientious
scruples of others. For example, because some Christians object,
we could not attend movies, rent videos, or own a TV or a
computer,
women couldn’t wear makeup or jewelry, cut their hair, wear
shorts, bathing suits or pants,
we could not celebrate Christmas, Easter or any other religious
holiday,
we could not play cards, or roll dice,
we could not have sex in any position other than the
missionary position,
we could not look at the naked body of our mate,
and on and on it goes.
None of the above is sinful except for those whose uninformed
consciences tell them so. If at any point they learn better and
understand that “nothing is unclean of itself,” and that God has not
condemned these things and that they are therefore free to do
them, then they can do so without scruples and without sin. In
other words, what would have been sin at one time because of
ignorance, no longer is sin because their conscience is enlightened.
How Can This Be Right If Everyone Thinks It Is Wrong?
How can any view be right if the church and “civilized society”
says otherwise? We realize that any position that contradicts
prevailing opinion should, for that reason, be examined very
carefully and embraced only when the evidence truly supports it.
But we must remind ourselves that the church and society at large
are frequently wrong about a host of things.
When Luther and the other Reformers attacked the doctrine of
salvation by works they went to battle against the entire body of
“Christianity.” No one in their day believed in salvation by grace.
But their position proved to be true according to Scripture and we
reap the blessing today of their willingness to embrace and defend
against fierce odds, the Biblical doctrine of salvation by grace
19
through faith. These same leaders won victories for humanity in
other areas where heresies were universally believed.
Where would we be today if such men as William Seymour had
refused to teach and practice the Biblical truth about Holy Spirit
baptism? Where would the church be without the Azusa Street
revival? Yet in the day of the greatest modern outbreak of the Holy
Spirit upon the church, Seymour and others like him had to stand
against the entire organized church. Today we reap the benefit of
their courage and conviction.
Other instances could be given. The point is that truth is not
determined by how many people accept or reject an idea, how long
it has been believed, how many scholars believe it, etc. Jesus says
“Thy word is truth,” (Jn. 17:17). Truth is determined only by what the
Scripture says. The church does not speak authoritatively for God on
subjects of morality and sin.
God has spoken for Himself. As long
as we adhere to His word we are safe. We must learn what God has
prohibited, and then avoid those prohibited things. Otherwise we
are not bound by church dogma or social standards. And once we
discover what Scripture says we must resist the effort to augment it
at those points where it does not condemn things we find offensive,
or where we think God should have been more careful to explain
Himself.
All lawful things can be practiced in situations where doing so
will not harm another person. Our motive must always be to seek
the good of others rather than our personal, selfish desires. This
principle allows us to enjoy all sexual practices that God has not
forbidden.
The Nature And Purpose Of Law
A final word might be in order as to the nature of “law.”
Sometimes we hear, “But the Bible does not say we CAN do that.”
This indicates a need to understand the nature and purpose of law.
Law is not normally written to permit anything. Whether we
consider civil law or Divine law, we do not look to law for
permission to do anything. Law is written either to require necessary
positive behavior or to prohibit negative behavior.
Examples of positive mandates in the Decalogue, (Ex. 20)
“Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy,” (vs. 8).
“Honor your father and mother,” (vs. 12).
Examples of negative mandates in the Decalogue, (Ex. 20)
20
“You shall have no other gods before Me,” (vs. 3).
“You shall not make for yourself an idol…you shall not worship
them…” (vs. 4, 5).
“You shall not take the name of the Lord God in vain,” (vs. 7).
“You shall not murder,” (vs. 13).
“You shall not commit adultery,” (vs.14).
“You shall not steal,” (vs. 15).
“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor,” (vs. 16).
“You shall not covet…anything that belongs to your neighbor,”
(vs. 17).
It is noticeable that 80% of the Ten Commandments, are negative
prohibitions. This illustrates the basic fact that law is written
primarily to prohibit wrong behavior. As a rule people do not have to
be required to do what is good so there is no reason to write laws
demanding they do so in most cases. But people do have a
tendency to do wrong. Therefore it is necessary to establish limits
to their behavior in order to protect other people. All law is written
this way.
This is easily illustrated by traffic laws. No state, city or
municipality writes traffic laws that tell an automobile driver what
he is permitted to do. Traffic law is written to forbid driving in a way
that endangers others. Thus we have speed limits, stop signs, etc.
Outside the parameters of these prohibitions a driver is free to
drive as he/she will. If a traffic law does not exist it cannot be
broken. No traffic cop would think of ticketing a driver for driving
with his window down.
No law exists giving permission to drive
with windows down. It is permissible simply because there is no
law prohibiting driving with a window down. No qualified police
officer would say, “our traffic laws do not say you can drive with
your window down.” To ticket a driver for such an action would
subject the officer to ridicule and censure from his or her superiors.
Such a ticket would be summarily dismissed in traffic court.
The same is true relative to moral or spiritual behavior that God
regulates by His law. God wrote His law to make it clear what our
moral limits are. This is the whole purpose of the Ten
Commandments. Especially in the sexual area, God dealt more
specifically and in detail than with any other area of human life.
This is doubtless due to the power of human sex drive and the
tendency of fallen humanity to fall easily and quickly into sexual
21
sin.
In order that humans might know exactly what our sexual
boundaries are God specified what He prohibits. He did not command
any positive sex act. Humans are not required to engage in sexual
conduct. God’s mandates tell us what sexual behavior we must
avoid. In no other area of human life did God go into such minute
detail as to restrictions and prohibitions. Once we have learned
what God prohibits sexually we can then confidently enjoy
whatever sexual activity is possible outside those prohibitions.
If God’s law does not forbid a particular sex act, then it is
impossible for a human to violate God’s law by enjoying that sex act.
If there is no law against an act it is permitted. One cannot possibly
violate a law that does not exist.
Thus humans are free to do
sexually whatever God has not prohibited. We are free to do even
those things that society frowns upon and which the church
condemns if God has not made it unlawful. Only God establishes
the morality of any act. Neither society nor the church has been
granted the privilege of mandating morality. If God’s law does not
prohibit it, humans may do it even if the majority of people in a
culture think it is immoral.
Granted, it may be necessary for such
frowned upon acts to be performed in privacy, but if it is not made
sin by God no human law can make it so.
This study is an attempt to learn what God said about sex. We
need to know exactly what sexual activity God forbids. If we can
learn that, then we can know for certain what sexual activity is
permitted: it will be whatever is not on the forbidden list. And then we
may be free to enjoy, with God’s approval, everything that is not
forbidden.
We do not need a list of “You may do this” from God.
All we need is His list of “You may not do this.” Everything else is
a matter of individual choice, restricted only by loving
consideration for other people.
What does the Bible say? This is our only quest.
22
CHAPTER TWO
NAKED AND UNASHAMED
Comments about nakedness from other authors:
As expected, we find that contemporary religious writers and
church leaders declare human nakedness to be doubtlessly sinful
unless it is done in total privacy. As example of some of their
comments, consider these quotes.
“A term indicating various stages of undress, from being
inappropriately clad, to being totally nude. The naked body was
taboo in Hebrew society … in part because bodily fluids were
“unclean”…Clothing confined the fluids and prevented them from
contaminating public areas.
“In Heb. usage “nakedness” is often a euphemism for sexual
relations (cf. Lev. 18). This usage helps explain the incident as Gen.
9:20-27, where Ham apparently took advantage of his father’s
drunken state and had sexual relations with him.
“Public nakedness was normally considered an occasion for
shame, a characteristic of the prostitute or the adulteress (1 Sam.
20:30; Rev. 17:16). The prophets often spoke of the lascivious, naked
prostitute as a visual symbol of Israel’s apostasy (Ezek. 16:15-43; ch.
23; Hos. 2:1-13).
But nakedness might also be a result of extreme
poverty (Dt. 28:48; Rev. 3:17-18 (figuratively) and therefore an
opportunity for good works (Mt. 25:36-44).
“Nakedness was forbidden in Israelite religious ceremonies,
largely because of its association with Canaanite rites (Lev. 20:23).
The priests wore linen garments to cover themselves (Ex. 28:42) and
altars were built without steps lest the priest’s nakedness be
exposed to the crowd below (Ex. 20:26).
Aaron, under the people’s
influence, made a calf before which the people danced naked (Ex.
31:25).
Saul lay naked all night and prophesied (1 Sam. 19:24).
Isaiah walked naked and barefoot 3 years as a prophecy of doom
against Egypt, Is. 20:2-4).
David, wearing a linen ephod, danced so
enthusiastically before the returning ark, that he became
“uncovered” (2Sam.6:20).”
– Eerdman’s Bible Dictionary, pg. 746. –
“Occasionally “nakedness” is a euphemism for sexual organs.
Thus the laws of Ex. 20:26 and 28:42 prohibit the exposure of
23
priest’s “nakedness” because it would be cultically defiling.
“Uncover the nakedness” in Lev. 18 and 20 refers to incest.
It also
refers to the results of incest, i.e. bringing shame upon the
aggrieved party.
“Shame is also associated with nakedness and is seen as
originating in the garden of Eden. When man and woman became
aware that they were naked, they were ashamed.
Prior to the
disobedience, nakedness was natural as it continued to be for
animals.
“The practice of sleeping unclothed is attested in Rev. 16:15
where being awake and clothed is contrasted with being asleep and
naked.”
– International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE) vol. 3, pg. 480)
Scripture References:
Adam and Eve were created by God as naked and unashamed.
Man’s normal, original and Divinely intended condition was
nakedness, (Gen.2:25).
Adam and Eve’s children and the human
race would still be naked if not for the fall. When God looked at His
creation and pronounced it “very good,” he was looking at naked
humanity, Gen. 1:26-31.
Nakedness itself is not shameful. The very
beginnings of humanity demonstrate that God’s preference for man
and woman, is that they be naked exactly as all other living
creatures are.
The guilt of sin causes Adam and Eve to be ashamed at their
nakedness, (Gen. 3:7,10). Sin brings shame, but it is not necessary to
think that Adam and Eve’s shame was due specifically to the physical
nakedness of their sexual organs.
Why were they ashamed: because
their physical bodies were unclothed, or because suddenly they
have become self-consciously guilty of sin, and realize that each
other and God know of the guilt?
From the beginning, all they had
known was physical nakedness, so how does their sin cause them
to find something wrong with nakedness as such?
It is more likely
to think that their physical nakedness represents to their mind that
they are now open to the spiritual gaze of each other and of God.
Their motivation is to hide from God, not to cover their sex organs.
Their shame at being uncovered is in the same category as that of
the criminal who hides his face from the TV camera as he is being
led away in handcuffs. It is similar to the sheepishness of a child
caught with a hand in the cookie jar? Since their sin had nothing to
24
do with their physical nakedness, and did not involve their sex
organs, why do we jump to the conclusion that their attempt at
clothing, was to hide their body? More on this later.
Ham “sees” Noah naked. Noah curses him, not for seeing him
naked, but for what Ham “did, ” (Gen. 9:21ff.). What did he “do?”
It was not seeing his father naked that was sinful, but something
more drastic. As suggested in the above quote from Eerdman’s
Bible Dictionary, Ham must have committed sexual offense against
his father, committing an act of incest. For this he is cursed.
If seeing his father naked and remarking about it to his brothers was
his offense, then any condemnation of nakedness based on this
incident must conclude that it is shameful and worthy of cursing a
child if (s)he should see a parent naked and say anything about it.
Israel was required to build her altars without steps lest the
priest’s nakedness be exposed to the crowd below, (Ex. 20:26).
The priests wore linen garments to cover themselves, (Ex. 28:42).
Nakedness was forbidden in Israelite religious ceremonies,
(Lev. 20:23), as the above quote from Eerdman’s Bible Dictionary
indicates, “largely because of its association with Canaanite rites.”
These Scriptures are set in the culture of a people surrounded by
nations that customarily made sex a part of their religious exercise.
To protect against all such corruption of their religious ritual, as
well as to remove anything that would surely distract from
worship as would be the case with a priest’s sexual exposure, God
ordained this precaution. It is interesting to observe that no such
precaution is made for other situations.
For example, Moses
climbed Sinai twice to obtain God’s law. If going up in the presence
of Israel would expose a man’s genitals, why not the same
prohibition here, if God’s interest is solely to keep genitalia from
public gaze?
When God commanded Israelites to go outside the
camp to have a bowel movement, and to bury the results with a
shovel, why did He not also precaution them to be sure they hid so
no one saw their genitals?
Why did God never make such a
requirement in any other circumstance than this one that related to
a priest’s ministry in Israel’s presence?
It was because of the pagan
use of sexual practice in their worship. God was very careful to
eliminate any practice that might lead Israel to consider including
sex as apart of worship to Him. This was an unusual request for
25
God to make of the priests. That they had to be specifically
instructed to wear “underwear” means that they would not
ordinarily wear such garments.
Wearing panties and briefs was not
a common thing in Israel’s culture, nor was it common in the
nations around them. If carefully covering one’s genitals is
important to God, we should expect to read a command like this
addressed to all men and all women applicable to all
circumstances. But, of course, such is not the case.
We who attach
shame to sex organs, make such undergarments “necessary.” To
some in our society it is “shocking” to think a man or woman
would choose to not wear underwear under their clothes. Many
think it is shameful for a “godly” woman to go “bare legged.”
Many think it is tasteless and even vulgar for women to go bra-less.
Yet there is nothing inherently negative, unclean or tasteless about
not wearing underwear.
Public opinion must be considered before
going bra-less in public, but otherwise, nothing negative can
legitimately be said about it.
Ruth, seeking to offer herself to Boaz as his wife, is told by
Naomi to go to his bed while he sleeps and “uncover his feet” and lie
down until he awakes and tells her what to do, (Ruth. 3:7).
The action Ruth is to take here is not merely to simply lay down at the
foot of his bed and put the end of the blanket over herself.
“Uncover the feet” was a well known euphemism in that culture for “expose the genitals.”
Moffatt translates the Hebrew words this
way: “uncovered his waist and lay down there.” She was advised
to uncover Boaz’s genitals and lay down beside him.
When he awoke with his genitals uncovered and Ruth lying beside him, he did not have to guess what she wanted!
She was offering herself to him sexually, and he was willing! When she asked him to “spread your covering over me” she used a euphemism for sexual intercourse.
This phrase arose because in sexual intercourse, a
woman lying on her back lays open her robe to the man. The man
spreads his robe apart as he lies on top of her.
Thus the phrase “cover with my robe (or skirt, or covering)” also came to refer to sexual intercourse.
Today if a man asks a woman, “will you go to bed with me” we know he is not asking for a place to sleep! In the same way, in that Israelite culture when a man asked a woman if he could “cover you with my robe” he was asking for sex. So Ruth is unabashedly asking Boaz to copulate with her. He says “I will do
26
whatever you desire,” (vs. 11), which probably means that he had
intercourse with her that night, for they indeed spent the night
together, (vs. 13, 14).
There is no need to be offended by such suggestions.
Firstly, the Biblical words themselves warrant such an explanation of the
scene.
Secondly, these people were not living under the heap of
purely human traditions and religious regulations that have been
handed down to us. Thirdly, the action achieved its result;
Boaz accepted her sexual proposal, and they were married and became
the parents from whom eventually David and Solomon descended.
It is worthy of note that these two doubtless had sexual intercourse
before they were officially married. At any rate, there was nothing
shameful to these people about “naked” sex organs.
Such an approach by a woman to a man, while considering both
of them to be righteous people, is almost sacrilegious to most
religious people today. Yet to Ruth, Boaz and Naomi, it was an
expression of a freedom and naturalness about sex that found
nothing dirty or unholy about it. Our struggles arise from the
mistaken notion that our attitudes toward sex must necessarily be
the same as God’s attitudes. In a culture where most of us are
reluctant to even talk about sex we cannot imagine that the godly
men and women of Scripture could be so free, unashamed and
natural about sex, regarding both its functions and its pleasures, as
the Bible shows them to be.
Sexual freedom and openness about it all was a hallmark of
these people. They shared none of our hang-ups and consequently
none of our false guilt. To neither Naomi, Ruth nor Boaz would
Ruth’s behavior be “brazen” or offensive. Men and women have
sex. And men’s and women’s genitals are neither “holy” nor
“horrid.”
Even in an age when we consider God’s Levitical Law to
be totally controlling of Israel’s behavior, such scenes as these are
played out time and again in Scripture with never a solitary hint
that God is displeased. Given God’s demand for holiness, His care
to inform His people of all offenses against holiness and His primafacie
acceptance of nakedness; and given the Biblical depiction of
overt sexual advances of men and women toward each other with
never a correction from God, our conclusion can only be that God
did not view exposure of one’s genitals to be either a spiritual crime
or “uncleanness.” Though one could not expose another’s
nakedness against their will, for purely personal satisfaction, (Hab.
27
2:15) one could do so in a situation like this, where the intent and
method honored the dignity and rights of the other person.
Boaz actually thanked Ruth for showing such interest in his sexuality,
(Ruth 3:10).
In a more famous incident God’s demonstrates His acceptance
of human nakedness even when displayed before members of the
opposite sex.
David, wearing a linen ephod, danced so
enthusiastically before the returning ark of the covenant that he
became “uncovered,” exposing himself to the “maidens,” (2Sam.6:20).
It is apparent that during his vigorous dancing movement his
genitals were visible to the men and women who thronged the
streets to watch the parade. Five Hebrew words describe David’s
actions as he danced “with all his might.” David “danced,” “rotated,”
“jumped,” “whirled,” and “skipped.”
There is no indication if his “uncovering” resulted from David’s “ephod” (vs. 14) flapping loosely as he gyrated, or if he took it off. An ephod was no more than a
long cloth with a hole in the center through which one put his head.
It fell down the front and down the back, sometimes with ties to
hold the sides together. From verse 14 it appears that this is all
David wore and its specific mention seems to be given to explain
how he could have been “uncovered.”
Wearing undergarments is a modern invention.
David was not wearing his “fruit of the looms.”
As he danced he either intentionally threw off his ephod and
danced naked, or it flapped open exposing his genitals.
If one is repulsed at the suggestion that David might have intentionally
danced naked, we remark that nude dancing was well established
in virtually all cultures of that day. Women and young girls
especially, danced naked in public parades and celebrations.
Israelites stripped and danced naked around the golden calf (Ex.
32:6, 25).
God’s displeasure with them on this occasion related not
to their nakedness per se, nor even to sexual activity, but to their
worship of an idol, Aaron’s golden calf.
Isaiah was commanded by
God to walk naked and barefoot through Jerusalem for three years,
(Isa. 20:1-4). Nakedness in general was not as evil to Israel and
surrounding nations as it is to us. And it is apparent that God by no
means thinks of nakedness as vile and shameful. Man put the
stigma of shame and sin on nakedness.
God did not.
David was sufficiently exposed to invoke his wife’s anger and
contempt. The words “uncovered” and “shamelessly” are translated
from a Hebrew word meaning to “denude” (Strong’s # 1540). It is
28
used of Noah when he was uncovered in his tent, (Gen. 9:21).
In
Lev. 18:6-19 it is used repeatedly in reference to uncovering one’s
sexual organs. Consider these translations:
“… exposed himself to the girls along the street like a common
pervert!”
(The Living Bible)
“…exposing himself before women…as any loose fellow would
expose himself indecently.” (Moffatt)
“...as he stripped himself in the sight of the maid servants…as a
common rake exposes himself! (Goodspeed)
“…uncovering himself this day to be ogled by the female
servants…as some worthless fellow would strip himself.” (Modern
Language Version)
So David was not just dancing “shirtless.” His sexuality was
exposed, and this “strip tease” was reprehensible to Michal. She
did not object to his exuberant dancing.
She objected in jealousy to
the fact that the women in the street had seen his genitals!
Rather than being shamed by her jealous anger, David replied, “It was an
act of celebration and worship to God and I am willing to go even further than this. When I do I may humble myself, but the maidens of whom you are so jealous, will hold me in high esteem.” (2 Sam. 6:21, 22)
The only explanation for Michal’s anger, seems to be jealousy. The fact is that
men, women and children in Israel did not “look at” sexual organs
the same way we do. It was not all that unusual for men to see
women’s genitalia, and vice versa.
If God was repelled by this public, uninhibited display of
David’s genitals, and that women along the road had seen them,
why do we have no word that even hints at such Divine
displeasure?
Why did God not correct David for his “vulgarity and
excess?” Now that we know “the rest of the story” about David’s
actual nakedness in this dance, it astounds us that God accepted his
abandoned, uninhibited worship!
The fact that God blessed David
and cursed Michal because of her reproach of David’s “exposed”
dancing, proves God did not find David’s exposure either sinful or
distasteful. Human nakedness does not bother God any more than
does the nakedness of animals.
Nakedness bothers humans who
have been brow-beaten by decades of false teaching and who do
not know how to deal with their internal guilt and shame. Clothes
are nothing more than an artificial cover-up for what is wrong
inside us. The invention of clothing didn’t work for Adam and Eve,
as we shall show, and it will not work for us.
29
“Uncover the nakedness” in Lev. 18 and 20 refers to incest. It
also refers to the results of incest, i.e. bringing shame upon the
aggrieved party. “Uncover the nakedness” is a euphemism for
sexual intercourse.
Public nakedness was a characteristic of the adulterous
prostitute and considered an occasion for shame, (1 Sam. 20:30;
Rev. 17:16). The prophets often spoke of the lascivious, naked
prostitute as a visual symbol of Israel’s adultery, (Ezek. 16:15-43;
ch. 23; Hos. 2:1-13). These verses do not make nakedness, as such,
shameful. It is the relationship of nakedness to sexual sin that is
shameful. It is nakedness used for enticement to adultery, that is
shameful.
Saul lay naked all night and prophesied, (1 Sam. 19:24). Was this
a shameful act? No hint of such is found here.
Isaiah walked naked and barefoot 3 years as a prophecy of
doom against Egypt, (Is. 20:2-4). Did God command Isaiah to
commit what is “normally”(?) a sin, in order to make His point
with Israel? While public nudity may not have been normal in
Israelite society, there is no proof from Scripture that they
considered nudity a sin. There certainly is no Divine law that
makes it so.
Babylon’s “nakedness” will be exposed & her shame
“uncovered” as God’s judgment, (Isa. 47:1-3).
Nineveh is cursed because of “wanton lust of a harlot…who
enslaves nations by prostitution and witchcraft,” so God will “expose her
nakedness,” (Nahum 3:4-8). In all such cases, “exposing nakedness”
is to force sexual exposure upon one.
This has nothing to do with
any supposed inherent shamefulness of physical nakedness. As
indicated by the Word Biblical Commentary on Isa. 47:3, stripping
one of clothing was an act of humiliation, involuntarily exposing
one to public taunting, ridicule and vulgar treatment that was used
against slaves especially.
To “expose one’s nakedness” is to leave
one without any covering or defense.
“Woe to him who makes his neighbors drunk so he can gaze at their
naked bodies,” (Hab. 2:15). It “is your turn to be so exposed,” (vs. 16).
This is taking from someone what they are unwilling to give. To
30
expose anyone against their will for sexual exploitation, is sinful.
There is no word here to indicates that voluntary nakedness is
wrong.
The Christians in Laodicea must get white garments “that the
shame of their nakedness may not be revealed,” (Rev. 3:18). This is a
reproach of their thinking they are independent of a need for God.
King Ahasuerus, during a large feast with many guests, sent
servants to call his queen, Vashti, to appear before the guests in
order that they might admire her great beauty. (Esther 1:11)
She was an uncommonly beautiful woman, and this verse suggests that
the king wanted her to appear naked so as to display her total glory
to all admirers.
The Jewish Targum says she was commanded to
appear naked, as do Josephus and a Midrashic passage (Megillah
12b), (Kevin Aaron, Journey From Eden, p.47) There is good reason
to accept this as the real situation.
The circumstance that she
refused to appear before the king’s guests has been used as an
indication of her great virtue, and her “example” has been used in
many sermons designed to instill in women a sense of shame at
being unclothed in the presence of other people. This incident is
also touted as an example of the crudity and sinfulness of a man
desiring to display his wife’s beauty to others.
However, neither
conclusion can be legitimately drawn from the Biblical text. Both
are examples of imposing present concepts upon the text, based
upon our cultural setting and paradigms, rather than deriving the
meaning from the text in a way that is consistent with what we
know about the culture in which it was written.
Is it necessary or even possible to conjecture that Vashti was a
“morally virtuous” woman who was “repelled” at the idea of
appearing naked before the king’s guests?
Not one word in the text
gives any basis for such a conjecture. Any conclusion about Vashti’s
motives can never be more than opinion. So since we are
considering opinions, let us offer one of our own, based on what
we can learn about that culture.
In that pagan society, known for
sexual liberty of every kind by both sexes, it is more likely that
Vashti would have been naturally eager to show off her physical
beauty, especially knowing it would bring special favor from the
king. That the moral standards of such a pagan woman would have
been too high to allow her to appear naked in such a situation, is
disproved by well documented practices of all human history,
31
including our own day. History demonstrates the willingness and
even eagerness of women to strip before men specifically to display
their body, and especially for payment of money or for other
favors. Where would Vashti have gotten such a boldly different
moral view of this since it was then, and still is, common practice
among “unbelievers?”
Interestingly, no one comments on the contrast between “pagan
Vashti’s” supposed moral virtue and “Israelite Esther’s”
participation in a sexual relay with this same king. Vashti is
heralded as pure and righteous for refusing to appear naked for the
king’s guests, then Esther is also heralded as the righteous, faithful
servant of God whose faith and courage save the nation of Israel.
Yet Esther, with her uncle Mordecai’s knowledge and consent,
willingly participated in the nightly “sex-capades” by which the
king chose his new bride.
Now, on the one hand, we applaud
Vashti for refusing to appear naked before the king’s guests. On the
other hand, we say nothing about the fact that Esther did not refuse
to participate in the king’s sexual merry-go-round. Do we think it
was worse for Vashti to appear naked, than for Esther to simply join
the line-up of sexual playthings for the king? Why is Esther not
castigated for not refusing to participate in such a “degenerate”
act?
As long as we must conjecture, it is more probable that Vashti’s
refusal had selfish reasons, calculated to gain some special favor,
perhaps thinking that the king might offer extra favors for her
appearance before his guests. Or she may have been angry with the
king, or ill, in her menstrual period, or perhaps a number of
reasons could explain her refusal of the king’s command, none of
which have anything to do with a sense of moral impropriety.
Esther knew what she was getting into and acted voluntarily at
the advice of her uncle. However the king did not merely “ask”
Vashti to appear naked before his guests. He demanded it. Had he
asked, allowing her to make the decision for herself, might the
situation have been different? Who knows? There is no Biblical
reason for such a request to be looked upon as vulgar, filthy,
perverted, or any such thing..
This story illustrates a common trait of men that people are
reluctant to consider nowadays: A man is more proud of his wife’s
beauty than he is of anything else he “possesses.” As eager as a
man is to invite other men and women to look at, examine, caress,
32
etc. and thoroughly enjoy his beautiful car, his guns, his boat, etc.
so are most men eager to show off their wives. A common fantasy
of most men, is their desire to show off their wife’s body, especially
to other men. It has to do with male self-esteem. In our society, that
desire is not overtly demonstrated except in very limited occasions,
such as beauty contests which boyfriends and husbands support
strongly, encouraging and helping their girlfriends or wives
prepare, and watching with delight as they walk the runway in
bikinis and revealing gowns, for all to see their glory. Years ago a
friend, commenting on a mutual acquaintance's penchant for
wanting his very beautiful wife to dress in short skirts, and without
bras, said “he likes the guys to see what he has at home.”
Some will
respond by saying, “It is different with one’s wife, than with one’s
car, boat. etc.” Perhaps. But exactly how is it different? And who
says so? If it is no more than a human opinion, then it is worthless
for this discussion.
The question is, does such a desire mean a man is wicked,
debased, vulgar, etc.? Nowhere in Scripture is such a suggestion
made. If it is sinful for men to have such thoughts about displaying
their wife before others, the Bible makes no mention of it and we
can learn it only by human reasoning. As we have already said, we
refuse to accept moral standards that cannot be supported by
Scripture.
Morality based on human reasoning can never be God’s
morality. No human should feel the slightest compulsion to accept
human doctrines and man made rules for moral behavior. If God
didn’t say it, we can safely discard it.
Why would any husband desire others to look at his wife’s
beauty? The obvious reason has already been suggested: his male
ego is fed by the admiration of others for what he alone possesses,
just as with the display of his car, etc. There is also the desire of a
self-assured man to allow his wife the satisfaction of being admired,
with the ego boosting and self-assurance and self-confidence that
such brings to her. Women have been held in the background and
treated as if they should never expect to be encouraged to enjoy
being who they are, or to enjoy their beauty, or to seek and receive
praise from others because they are beautiful. Such a desire on
woman’s part is not vanity or pride. It is normal. If men would
more overtly work at encouraging their wives to be independent,
self-confident, etc. what a wonderful change it would make in our
women. Women want and need to feel that they are beautiful and
33
that their husbands are proud of their beauty. For a man to
encourage and enable his wife to so display herself that she might
receive praise for her beauty would be a wonderfully liberating
thing for her. What motivates a man to allow his wife to enter a
beauty contest, to wear revealing gowns, and to strut her stuff in
the “swimsuit competition?” No one really thinks much about a
man actually encouraging or “supporting” his wife to do such a
thing. The motive for the man is both his own self esteem in having
such a beautiful wife, and in ministering to his wife’s desire and
need for recognition and admiration, and congratulations for her
physical charms. If men were confident in their own identity, if
they were assured of their wives’ love for them, and if they were
not filled with fear and jealousy at the thought that other men
would look at their wives with admiration for their beauty, how
much would it do for women everywhere, to be free to receive, and
bask in such affirmation of their beauty? Tell me, what is
fundamentally different about a man’s wife posing, strutting in a
beauty contest in a swimsuit, and this king’s request of Vashti? Do
we say, “well, the beauty contestants have some clothes on?” Still
the purpose is exactly the same – to display the beauty of woman’s
body. The human body is gloriously beautiful and was made by
God to be that way. Nothing about nudity is inherently sinful. And
there is nothing inherently sinful about people admiring the beauty
of other people’s bodies. For a man to look at a woman’s nakedness
and relish the sight, or for a woman to look at a man’s nakedness
with admiration, for example at a “Mr. Universe” contest, is of the
same nature as God’s looking at his naked man and woman and
saying, “that’s very good.” If God looked and pronounced it good,
how can we look and pronounce it evil?
The Song of Solomon is the most straightforwardly sexual book
in the Bible. It’s theme is that of two lovers who take pure delight in
each other’s bodies and sexual love. In 4:1-5, the man describes the
woman’s body in detail, using Hebrew words that have strong
sexual meaning. In 5:11-15, the woman describes the man’s naked
body, from head to toe, including euphemistic references to his
penis (“belly,” cf. Strong’s #4578) or as one translator put it, “His
rod is arrogant ivory.” In 7:1-6, the girl is wearing nothing but shoes,
for the boy’s description of her body moves from feet to head.
Admiring her “navel” refers to her vulva, according to The
34
Interpreter’s Bible. In the context, the girl is dancing, (thus the shoes)
and the people call to her to turn around so they can look at her.
Her back was turned and they could not see her full naked beauty.
The man is pleased with their admiration of “his girl,” and asks
teasingly, why they love to look at the girl who dances (6:13). Of
course, he knows why they look: they look because she is beautiful
from head to feet, and he delights in their admiration of her body.
The Interpreter’s Bible commentary says this was some special
dance apparently performed in the nude. The Pulpit Commentary
says the dancing girl may have worn clothing of a light texture
through which the outlines of her body and breasts were seen,
“according to the mode of dancing in the East.” (Journey From Eden, p.
49). Such nude dances as these were common in that culture. Adam
Clark thinks she wore “transparent garments,” which allowed her
body to be viewed. The girl was dancing in such fashion that her
breasts were visible and described as a perfectly matching pair,
“two young roes that are twins.” As she danced her breasts bounced
like young roes jumping on the hill. This girl had breasts like
“towers” – large, firm breasts – and this was a major factor that
caused the man to delight in her, (8:10).
Given the jaundice with which especially religious people have
learned to look at sex and nudity, it is impossible for most
Christians to handle such imagery as used in the Song of Solomon.
But it is nevertheless there for all the world to read and to profit
from. Churches have tried their best to help God out, since
apparently, in many minds, He did not do an adequate job of
defining decency. Modern religious people are offended at the
suggestion that God would actually inspire such a book as Song of
Solomon. Most commentators refuse to deal straightforwardly with
its explicitly sexual language. Adam Clarke suggested that the
sexual references in this book were so explicit that even a medical
Doctor would be embarrassed to use them. Yet the fact remains that
this book is part of inspired Scripture. Any suggestion that it’s
language and sexual references are crude, unacceptable for decent
society, vulgar, etc, is an accusation against God’s personal
holiness, purity and righteousness. On the other hand, if we can
accept that this book is inspired by God Himself and that its sexual
content is not shameful, unholy or in any other way foreign to
God’s character, then we are in a position to be able to understand
God’s true attitude toward sex. God made sex. God made sex
35
enjoyable. God made human bodies. God made them beautiful to look
at. God also created men’s and women’s sexual reaction to the
naked bodies of others. God sees this as good. And it all
harmonizes with His essentially Holy nature. In God’s mind there
is no dirt connected with sex or human nakedness. All the dirt
exists in human minds. We have taken our human standards so
seriously that we believe we are able to define (since God did not)
what is “decent” and what is not. Humans (religious ones) have
through the years, shown just how expertly they can define
morality. They have at different times prescribed exactly how short
is too short for skirts, that a woman’s knees should not be seen, that
she should wear long sleeves so no one will be excited by her naked
arms, that she must not allow her legs to be seen at all, that she
cannot be seen in public wearing a “swimsuit,” or if she does, it
must be a one-piece suit, etc. If holiness is defined by how much
clothing one wears, then surely those religions that require women
to cover everything, including their faces, are the most holy of all.
Against this modern backdrop, imagine if you can, the fact that
as the church developed, in many churches nude baptism was
conducted. Will Durant said: “Total nude immersion was required
lest a devil should hide in some clothing…”(The Age of Faith, pg.
75). References to nude baptism are contained in writings by
Chrysostom, Ambrose, Cyril of Jerusalem and others (Rousas
Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, pg. 758).
It is well known that in Greece, athletic contests and training
were conducted in the nude. The word “gymnasium” means “a
place for naked exercise.” Our modern Olympics is the offspring of
these Greek games. Today, both men and women in these games
wear such brief attire that nothing about their physique is left to the
imagination. They could as well imitate the Greeks and simply
“run naked.” Outlandish as it sounds to most people in our society
this is not inconsistent with anything in the Bible. The Bible does
not advocate nudity, but neither does it condemn it. In fact, as the
Song of Solomon and David’s dancing indicate, God even accepts it.
We will then make this bold, radical statement: No Scripture
exists that calls forth God’s judgment upon humans appearing naked
before other humans. No law exists in God’s book that makes public
nudity sinful. While this may sound outlandishly radical, the test is
easy for anyone to take: simply read through the Bible trying to
find such a law. It does not exist. There are some occasions where
36
nakedness is forbidden (e.g. Priests must wear undergarments
when ministering above the crowd below; exposure for purpose of
enticing to adultery). There is a law against exposing other’s
nakedness against their will, for purposes of selfish sexual
enjoyment (getting someone drunk, then undressing them for
sexual exploitation). God condemns those who display their
nakedness for purposes of enticing others to adultery (e.g. married
prostitutes who appeared naked in public). But there is no law
against being naked, even in public. Make of this what we will, it is a
fact. Indeed we have seen Biblical examples of public nakedness of
which God approved. In view of the principles established in
chapter one, What Makes a Thing Sinful, we must re-think
carefully the conclusions we have made about human nudity and
establish, if necessary, new rules based on the Bible rather than on
our own opinions.
Additional Observations and Conclusions:
Nakedness is neither moral nor immoral. Because God created
nakedness as the original and “very good” condition of humanity it
cannot possibly be thought to be immoral, nor questionable. What
God saw as “very good” was human and animal nakedness. This
was God’s ideal. Clothing is a hiding of God’s perfect creation. In
God’s perfect scheme, nakedness is perfection. Clothing is not
desirable. Nakedness remains the norm today for all creatures
except man. The awakening of human conscience, the awareness of
sin, the shame of guilt, etc. cannot transform an inherently moral
condition into an immoral condition. If nakedness itself is not
immoral or sinful then acts of sin cannot make it so. Just as eating
too much may cause one to sin through gluttony, the act of eating is
not thereby made sinful. Drinking wine is acceptable and even
recommended by God to be a blessing. But drinking too much and
becoming habitually drunk, is sinful. The sin of drunkenness does
not make it a sin to merely drink wine. The Bible does not teach
that nakedness became sinful on the basis that Adam and Eve
sinned. It is not nakedness that is shameful; it is the guilt of
disobedience that creates shame. Clothing was not invented by
Adam and Eve as an attempt to hide the shame of physical
nakedness; it was their attempt to hide the spiritual shame of sin. It
is possible for humans to be naked in front of each other without
guilt.
37
Nakedness was the normal state of everything God created. His
original intention was stated in the form and character in which He
created man and animals. Animals cannot sin thus no shame can
attach to anything they do and their nakedness has no moral
implications. When God looked at the state of His totally naked
creation, He announced that it was “very good.” God never intended
people to wear clothes. Their physical beauty, like that of animals,
should have borne perpetual testimony to the awesome handiwork
of the Creator. That human bodies are covered detracts from the
glorious tribute to God’s creative genius that should come from all
God’s creation. Certainly, nothing God made is so beautiful as the
human body, which is proven by the fact that history’s greatest
artists have painted, sculpted and photographed the naked human
body for the collective (even if in most cases, furtive) admiration of
all who see their images. This should be normal.
The entrance of sin brought shame and a compulsion to hide. It
is most unlikely that Adam and Eve were ashamed of the mere fact
that their bodies were naked. It is more likely that their shame was
at the realization of their disobedience and their total exposure to
the holy gaze of God. They were now aware that they were
violators of that holiness and that they could not hide that fact from
each other or from God. This is demonstrated by the fact that they
did not stop at clothing their bodies. They were compelled to try to
hide among the trees of the garden. Their clothing, like their
cowering behind trees, was a factor of their transparent
disobedience – not of the shamefulness of their physical nakedness.
God’s act of clothing them with animal skins was not His testimony
that man must now be clothed, but was God’s dramatic
demonstration of the spiritual fact that man cannot hide the
consequences of sin. Only God can cover sin and only blood
sacrifice can do that, thus the animal skins. If mere clothing was the
issue God could have shown Adam and Eve how to make sufficient
clothing without killing an animal. And if clothing becomes
mandatory for us because Adam and Eve were ashamed, why does
it not also become mandatory that we hide behind trees from each
other?
If nakedness was the inherently innocent, “very good” aspect of
creation that God said it was before the fall, then the fall of Adam
and Eve did not change nakedness itself into something inherently
shameful. Man’s sin does not transform the nature of any of God’s
38
creation. But sin does place all of God’s creation in a less than ideal
condition. Sin changes man’s ability to relate to God’s creation in
total innocence. Sin becomes a matter, in most instances, of using
God’s “very good” creation in wrong ways and for wrong
purposes. Such is the case with the whole realm of sexual activity
with which this study deals and with nakedness. Apart from sinful
use of nakedness, nakedness itself is no more sin now than when
man was originally created. Nakedness becomes shameful and sinful
only when it is misused. Nakedness is misused when it is used for
enticement, to disgrace another, to expose one against their will, to
flaunt public morals, to hurt another’s conscience, etc.
Since, at the fall, there were only Adam and Eve to see each
other’s nakedness, and they hid from each other via clothes, do we
conclude that to be naked in the presence of our mates is sinful or
shameful? The shame in this instance had nothing to do with their
mate or any other human (had there been others) seeing their
naked bodies, nor is there any verse that indicates that their shame
consisted of being seen by each other. If this situation is the
platform upon which to build an attack upon human nudity under
any circumstances, then it is certainly a platform upon which to
build a case against nudity between husband and wife. In which
case, those who advocate marital sex only under circumstances
wherein a husband and wife do not see each other’s naked bodies,
are right. Who can believe it?
The factual case is that “nakedness” “shame” “clothing” appear
in a context where the only parties involved are a husband and wife. Do
we conclude that husbands should always be clothed when in the
presence of their wives and vice versa? Any case against nudity
built on these verses, makes this position mandatory, for these
verses cannot legitimately be forced to serve in debate against
nakedness on a general scale, if they have nothing to do with
nakedness on the particular scale. If we eliminate certain
conclusions on the particular scale, and that scale being the only
one under consideration in the passage, then we thereby eliminate
those conclusions on the general scale. If the clothing of Adam and
Eve proves anything as to the “sin of nudity,” it proves it is wrong
for a husband and wife to be nude together. It would thus be
wrong for a man and wife to bathe together. A husband must not
enter the bathroom while his wife is naked in the shower, etc. Most
of us can see that such application to the particular situation
39
involving Adam and Eve/husband and wife, are absurd. We
should be able then to see the absurdity of trying to make generally
applicable, what will not serve the particular situation. The very
absurdity of such ideas should help us realize that some of our
other conclusions about nudity may also be wrong.
Why did Adam and Eve hide themselves from God “among the
trees of the garden,” (Gen. 3:8)? What does this have to do with “and
they knew that they were naked,” (vs. 7)? Why did they clothe their
bodies? What did their sin of eating the fruit have to do with their
realization that they were naked and why did this specific
realization motivate them to clothe themselves? Is it a shame to be
naked in God’s presence? Were Adam and Eve hiding their bodies
from each other? from God? from the animals? Who else was there?
And is fallen man to be ashamed of his physical nakedness in
God’s presence and his wife’s presence? Since they were naked and
unashamed from the start, but sinless, was their “shame” the result
of seeing each other’s nakedness? Do we suppose they were
somehow blinded to each other’s bodies before the fall? Is the
passage dealing with nakedness itself, or is there more to this than
meets the eye?
Adam and Eve had seen each other’s naked bodies before the
fall without shame. God had seen their naked bodies before the fall
and they were not ashamed. It is not possible that Adam had never
noticed that Eve was “different” from himself; that her anatomy
and his were not only different but that the difference was
compelling. Who can believe that Eve had never noticed that Adam
had a penis and she did not? As they looked at each other’s bodies,
and as God looked at their bodies, there was nothing unusual about
the sight. They knew the difference in their anatomies and Adam
and Eve had doubtless investigated each other’s specific differences
relative to penis, testicles, vulva, breasts. God’s mandate to them
and animals was to “multiply and replenish the earth.” Do we
suppose that they and animals were ignorant of the means of doing
this until the fall? If so we must conclude that man had no way to
fulfill God’s mandate until he sinned! What an absurd idea! Sexual
activity, copulation by both humans and animals, must have been a
part of life in Eden before the fall. Adam and Eve could not have
been ignorant of their sexuality and had surely enjoyed the
pleasures of sexual love. Whatever was the source of their “shame”
40
at being naked, it could not have attached to physical nakedness as
such. And the fall did not involve sexual sin, so there was nothing
attached to the use of their sex organs or to the sight of them, to
which the fall applied. Therefore no sexual connotation could be
made of their nakedness. Adam saw Eve’s breasts and vulva before
the fall and neither of them were ashamed. Eve looked at Adam’s
penis and testicles before the fall and neither she nor he were
ashamed. God saw all these sexual parts and neither He nor they
were ashamed. Since Adam and Eve’s sexual organs were made for
sexual activity just as was the sexual apparatus of animals, may we
not conclude that Adam and Eve had “done what comes naturally”
and animals had done so as well, before the fall?
Did they begin to
actually relate to each other as husband and wife before the fall?
Did sexual activity not begin for animals or man until the fall?
Common sense tells us that Adam and Eve were not oblivious to
each other’s sex organs before the fall. So what happened at the fall
that caused them be ashamed of their bodies? They were not seeing
each other’s naked sex organs for the first time! They were not just
at that moment, for the very first time, aware that they had no
physical clothes on. They had never seen a living creature of any
variety wearing clothes, so they had no context for thinking
something was amiss because they had no clothes. It was not their
bodies that fell, but their souls. Their realization was that they had
absolutely no way to hide their guilt from each other or from God.
It was the natural reaction of a moral creature to personal
recognition of wrongdoing. Guilt in their soul produced the effort
to hide themselves as persons. What they are inside is now fully
exposed and the shame is too great to bear. They are not ashamed
that their flesh is naked. Nothing about their sin had to do with
naked flesh. Nothing about their sin had to do with sex organs.
They are ashamed that their soul is naked before each other and God
and they are compelled to hide – in the only way they could think
of at the time – by putting something artificial around them and by
hiding among the trees. People still do the same today: hiding from
cameras, hiding behind other people, hiding faces from view, etc.
The clothing provided by God required the sacrifice of an
animal, (Gen. 3:9). The Bible nowhere says or even implies that fig
leaf aprons were “insufficient clothing.” This is man’s guesswork
theology, and has zero authority. There are at least two more logical
and theologically consistent reasons:
41
[1] Adam and Eve are to be expelled from the garden into an
environment unlike the mild and healthful state of the garden.
Outside the garden, in a world cursed by sin’s effects such as
harsh fluctuations between cold and heat, adequate clothing
becomes a practical issue, but not a moral issue. Even then, where
climate does not recommend clothing there is nothing moral,
Biblical or spiritual that mandates it.
[2] Adam and Eve must understand that man’s effort to
cover the consequences of his sin are never enough. Man cannot
hide his sin or his guilt. Only God can do so. God’s way of
dealing with sin, guilt, shame, is always the same - sacrifice of
an innocent victim as substitute. God Himself gave Adam and
Eve proper covering for their guilt by providing a sacrifice for
them. As they left the garden they wore on their back the
constant reminder of the consequences of their sin. No clothing
of their own making could possibly have taught them this
lesson. Nor could anything but substitute sacrifice provide the
cancellation of that penalty of death “in the day thou eatest.” By
slaying animals in their behalf God provided “salvation” for
them from His announced penalty of death, and by making
clothes for them of the hides He taught them that the only
covering for sin is blood sacrifice, and only God can provide it.
Consider these comments from various Biblical Scholars:
“Now for the first time, blood was shed, and it was shed by
God Himself. To use the skins of animals, it was necessary to
slay them. This God did, and it would be difficult to find a
simpler object lesson to show us that it would take the death of
the Savior, the Son of God, to clothe us with a righteousness
which is not our own, but which comes from Him by virtue of
His atoning death.” (Donald Grey Barnhouse, Genesis, a
Devotional Commentary, p. 27)
“Man is ever seeking fig leaves to hide his shame and cover
his sins, but they are ever visible to the all-seeing eye of God.”
(Lange’s Commentary on Genesis)
“This verse (3:21), gives us a typical picture of a sinner’s
salvation. It was the first gospel sermon, preached by God
Himself, not in words, but in symbol and action…It was the
initial declaration of the fundamental fact that “without
42
shedding of blood, there is no remission.” It was a blessed
illustration of substitution – the innocent dying in the stead of
the guilty.” (Arthur Pink, Gleaning in Genesis, p. 44)
“Here is the beginning of animal sacrifices: God sheds blood
in order to make clothing for Adam and Eve. He made them
from skins of animals therefore those animal’s lives were
sacrificed to clothe Adam and Eve. (Ray Stedman, Expository
Studies in Genesis 2 & 3, p. 104)
“The text tells us that they saw that they were naked, that is,
[1] That they were stripped, deprived of all the honors and joys
of their paradise state. They were disarmed; their defense had
departed from them. [2] That they were ashamed. They saw
themselves laid open to the contempt and reproach of heaven,
and earth, and their own consciences….Adam and eve made for
themselves aprons of fig-leaves, a covering too narrow for them
to wrap themselves in. Such are the all the rags of our own
righteousness. But God made them coats of skins, large, strong
and durable, and fit for them; such is the righteousness of
Christ. Therefore ‘Put on the Lord Jesus Christ’.” (Matthew
Henry’ Commentary, on Gen. 2, 3.)
“Having become conscious of their shame Adam and Eve at
once endeavored to hide it by making unto themselves aprons
of fig leaves. This action was highly significant. Instead of
seeking God and openly confessing their guilt, they attempted
to conceal it both from Him and from themselves…Church
going, religious exercise, attention to ordinances, philanthropy
and altruism are the fig leaves which many today are weaving
into aprons to cover their spiritual shame.” (Pink, p.38).
“It was not skin nakedness that they discovered, but the
nakedness of their dead souls…They became aware of their
condition and they sought to cover themselves as quickly as
possible…Fig leaves were a substitute for righteousness.”
(Donald Grey Barnhouse, Genesis, a Devotional Commentary, p.19,
20)
“They sew together for themselves girdles of leaves. For
what end? That they may keep God at a distance, as by an
invincible barrier…with a covering so light they attempted to
43
hide themselves from the presence of God.” (Calvin’s
Commentaries, Vol. 1, Genesis, p.158, 159)
“What is involved here? It is not a matter of physical sight.
Adam and Eve were not blind before the fall. Adam’s eyes were
not opened physically for the first time so that he saw Eve’s
nakedness now, though not before, and became aware of his
own nakedness also. What is involved, is spiritual nakedness, that
is, nakedness before the eyes of that Holy God against whom
they had sinned. It was their sinful state they were aware of,
which their nakedness symbolized.” (James M. Boice, Genesis, An
Expositional Commentary, p.118)
“The reason why we do not like staring is that we associate
staring with prying, and are ashamed to have anyone pry into
what we actually are like. So we hide ourselves. We wear
masks, pretending to be what we think other people will respect
and admire. In a psychologically related manner, we project
these false images but reveal our true psychological and
spiritual nakedness through the choice and use of clothes. So
did Adam and Eve. They made fig-leaf clothes. And when they
heard God coming toward them in the garden, they hid,
knowing that their clothes were inadequate to disguise their true
selves.” (James M. Boice, Genesis, An Expositional Commentary,
p.119)
The compulsion to clothe themselves is not necessarily anything
more deeply significant than the normal(?) human reaction of
humans, even today, who are embarrassed when attention is
drawn to them. They may giggle, hide their face, blush, etc. The fall
brought self-consciousness, and with that came awareness of things
about self that had not previously been significant. Specifically,
their self-awareness was infused with the knowledge that they had
violated their Creators’ law and were condemned. As they looked
at each other and themselves in this new light, mutual sinconsciousness
produced compulsion to hide from each other and
from God. Their nakedness was the physical symbol of their
spiritual vulnerability and their attempt at clothing was an attempt
to insulate themselves from the knowing of, and being known by
others, especially by God. The need to clothe ourselves is not
spiritual, but psychological. Clothing helps us feel more comfortable,
44
more secure, more adequate, less vulnerable around others.
Clothing, even today, has more to do with the mind than with the
body. Clothing is largely a means of hiding our real self from
others. It projects an image that is not true to reality. Amazingly,
people’s self image changes dramatically simply by changing
clothes! In Adam’s and Eve’s case their intense guilt and fear
produced their compulsion to hide from each other and from God.
Their clothes could not suffice, and when God came calling they
tried to hide behind the trees. Their “clothing themselves with fig
leaves” no more sets a precedent for humans to wear clothes than
does their hiding amongst the trees.
Hiding is the instinctive reaction to guilt, whether it takes the
form of putting on clothes or covering one’s face, or a host of other
devices. Adam and Eve clothing their physical nakedness is no
more to be received by all humanity as the “norm for fallen
creatures,” than if they had made masks for their faces. After the
fall, their physical nakedness was no more shameful and sinful
than it was before the fall. They were ashamed because they knew
they were defenseless and exposed to each other and to God, and
any device to cover themselves in a crisis was brought into being.
Nothing about the fall made physical nakedness inherently
shameful or sinful. Nothing in man’s mind today can make nudity
inherently sinful or shameful. If nakedness between Adam and Eve
was God’s original plan, their rebellion did not change God’s
goodness into sinfulness. Their choice of physical clothes to hide
spiritual guilt cannot be made a moral norm for all society for all
time. Doubtless, people will always choose to wear clothes in order
to insulate themselves from the gaze of others. But the choice to do
so is not a moral choice, but is rather a psychological choice. There is
nothing inherently sinful in looking at another person’s naked body.
(The case of a man “looking upon a woman to lust after her…” in Matt.
5:28, is discussed in detail later.) Public nudity is not inherently
sinful now any more than it was in Eden. The question of whether
it is socially acceptable is a different issue. As in many other specific
cases public nudity becomes questionable or sinful only to the
degree that it violates personal conscience, causes another person to
violate their conscience, or is done in a way that violates civil
statutes. Nudity can be practiced without sin if one takes steps to
not offend others.
45
As with everything else, the redemption purchased by Jesus
Christ, affects all creation. It affects the issue and practice of human
nakedness just as it does all other aspects of man’s nature. Fully
redeemed men and women are no longer under bondage to the
curse put upon their lives because of sin. Just as redeemed people
may expect to be rid of the curse of sickness, demonization,
poverty, etc, and from misinformed legalism, so may they expect to
be redeemed from the “curse of clothing.” Men and women who
are redeemed of sin and guilt no longer have any reason to hide
from others. The whole Biblical logic for wearing clothes is
eliminated for those whose sin and guilt have been removed by the
blood of Jesus. We straightforwardly declare that nakedness and
sexuality are not incompatible with holiness. Men’s and women’s
spiritual character is not defined by their physical appearance,
clothed or unclothed. Godliness is not a factor of how much
clothing one wears. People are neither holy nor unholy on the basis
that they either do or do not wear clothes.
In his book “The Great Divorce,” C. S. Lewis paints an
intriguing, imaginary picture of Heaven, in which he describes all
Heaven’s inhabitants as naked. This must surely be a correct
concept, for if the original state of man was unclothed, and this was
God’s best effort, then full redemption must bring us back to that
original “very good” state.
The question we must now ask is, “What are the demands upon
redeemed ones, relative to nakedness?” Part of the answer comes
from those Scriptures that require us to do nothing that will harm
the conscience of another person. Like eating meat sacrificed to
idols, the thing itself is innocent and can be indulged in by an
informed saint. But to do so in a way that hinders the faith of an
uninformed saint is forbidden. To think of a “saint” walking naked
in the outdoors seems incongruous to many. Yet we have no
problem thinking of Adam and Eve doing so. There is nothing
inherently sinful about a redeemed sinner being naked, indoors or
outdoors. What makes it sinful is the purpose of the nakedness, and
it’s effect upon others. Thus:
If the purpose of nakedness is to entice into sexual sin (like
the adulterous harlots in above referenced Scriptures), then
nakedness is sin.
46
If the purpose is to “rub people’s nose in it” by flaunting
nakedness in the face of society where it is unacceptable, then it
is sin.
If the effect upon others is to hinder their conscience and
cause them to sin, nakedness is sin.
But: if the purpose is to enjoy the normal state of God’s
original creation, and to enjoy the exhilaration and freedom of
being in the open air, under the brilliant sun, unhindered and
unhidden by clothing, it is not sin.
And if the effect has no negative bearing on the lives of
others, then it is not sin.
The question then arises about how may a Christian enjoy his
original state of nakedness, as part of the blessing of his redeemed
status?
Nakedness in one’s home is unquestionably safe. Even though
some saints, because of personal hang-ups due to ill-informed
consciences, would never walk around the house naked in view of
other members of the family, nothing in Scripture makes such
scruples valid. If one’s conscience will simply not allow one to do
so, one must avoid nakedness even in one’s own home. (Rom.
14:23) But how sad this is!
Family nudity is innocent as parents and children simply enjoy
the freedom of nudity in their own homes and even outdoors
wherever they can practice it without social repercussions. For a
whole family to be naked in their home, or in their back yard, or in
the woods, or in the desert, carries no sinful implications. For
married children to return to visit in their parent’s home with
grandchildren in tow and for them all to be nude together, is
innocent. Nothing Scripture says makes such a thing either sinful
or ill-advised. Family nudity provides a setting where parents can
teach their children by both precept and example that there is
nothing shameful about their naked body. Family nudity is one of
the many ways redeemed, holy people may take advantage of the
freedoms bought back for them by Jesus Christ. Family nudity
could only be practiced if all concerned have been taught and know
that it is right and there is no sin. All would have to learn a
different mind set than we presently have. Existing children would
need to be taught as thoroughly as possible, before beginning the
practice. But if children had the advantage of living in an
47
environment in which all family members are naked and
unashamed they would not only be able to accept their bodies as
something for which they should thank God but they would also be
more likely to discuss sex issues openly and without shame.
Many Christian people with high moral standards, and a
devout desire to please God and serve Him faithfully, are
“backyard nudists.” They shed their clothes whenever and
wherever they can do so without offending neighbors. They may
walk the desert naked and lie in a secluded place to soak up the
sun. Women can love Jesus Christ and still enjoy being nude at
home, doing their work or simply relaxing in the nude. And when
they desire to go outside they may enjoy the freedom to experience
the sun, air, rain and pool, without the encumbrance of clothes and
without apology to themselves or God. Again we remind the
reader: This is how God intended it. This is normal as God created
normality. No Christian should bear any guilt at the desire to be
“naked and unashamed.” Anywhere and at anytime they can
legitimately do so they should feel absolutely free to do so.
One of the opportunities for people, including Christians, to
experience the joy of wholesome nudity, is at a nudist resort. The
stigma that attaches to nudist resorts is unfortunate and without
either moral or logical foundation. Nudist resorts could be safely
visited by saved people because those who visit such camps have
like attitudes toward human nakedness. Their conscience would
not be offended by the participation of a Christian.
We quote the following from the preceding chapter on “What
Makes A Thing Sinful?”
“When in the company of believers or unbelievers, a saint is
not obligated to try to figure out in advance what they might
think of their behavior. If what they do is inherently innocent,
then saints may do it without concern about the potential
reaction of unbelievers. Note especially “Eat anything sold in the
market place without asking questions, for conscience sake, for the
earth is the Lord’s and everything in it” (1 Cor. 10: 25, 26).
We might paraphrase this to say “therefore be free to go naked
before unbelievers who are like-minded without asking how they
react to it, for conscience sake, for nakedness is a blessing from the
Lord.”
48
And note: “If an unbeliever invites you and you wish to go, eat
anything that is set before you without asking questions for conscience
sake. But if anyone should say to you, ‘This is meat sacrificed to idols,’
then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you and for
conscience’ sake.” (1 Cor. 10:27,28.
Again we might paraphrase this: “If you have opportunity to
practice nudity among unbelievers, feel free to do so, without
asking what their reaction may be. But if one of them says, ‘I don’t
think a Christian should practice nudity,’ then do not do it, for the
sake of the one who questioned you, and for conscience sake.”
To quote again:
“We simply cannot possibly try to figure out in advance
what others will think about every action we want to take. God
sets us free to come to our personal conclusions about our
desires and conduct, then freely act on those convictions unless
we know that doing so will bring spiritual harm to another. We
are not required to investigate in advance, what our actions will
do to others. We are simply required to operate with due
respect to those around us, and not intentionally offend them.”
In a nudist resort, for example, the question becomes irrelative.
Being nude among nudists will not offend them. And we do not
have to go around to each one in advance, and ask them if our
nakedness will cause them any offense.
Quoting again:
“Society’s standards, or the church’s traditions cannot make
a thing sinful, to any degree. If God’s law does not forbid an act,
and one does it without guilt, he is free, regardless of what
others think. If society and the church frowns on an act, a
Christian who knows better may still enjoy that act as long as it
is done in enough privacy that others will not be led to offend
their weak consciences. If this is not so, how do we apply these
Scriptures that teach it is okay to eat meat, if we do not harm
another’s conscience by doing so. Paul could and probably did
meat sacrificed to idols, in privacy, even though some of the
Corinthians would have thought him a sinner if they knew he
did it. His liberty is not eliminated by the weak consciences of
others. He must simply control his liberty.”
49
What does this say about the aforementioned practice of both
family and social nudity? Some believe it is sinful, unclean, etc. to
go around one’s own house without clothes; to undress in front of
even one’s own mate and especially in front of one’s children; for
married people to bathe together; to lay nude under the sun in
one’s private yard, etc. Even more people believe it is utterly
reprehensible for nudist resorts to even exist. For them it is
unthinkable that a Christian might visit such a resort. But what sets
the moral standard for this? Certainly Scripture does not make
these things sin. Therefore no other standard can make it sin. A
Christian can enjoy nudity as long as he/she does not knowingly
hinder another’s conscience.
Many people, including some Christians, believe it is innocent
to practice nudity even in social settings, for example, in nudist
resorts, where everyone shares the same moral values about that
specific act. The teaching of Scripture for bids us to classify this as
outright sinful simply because God has no law against it. To the
contrary, Scripture allows social nudism for those whose personal
conscience allows it. We know Scripture does not prohibit it. We also
know Scripture proves nudity to be God’s preference. That means
nudity can be enjoyed with a clear conscience by those who have no
intention of enticing another person to sin by committing adultery,
and who take care to not offend others by their practice.
Only God’s law can establish anything as sinful. So if God’s law
does not forbid nudity, what do we do with this knowledge?
Obviously, truly public nudity cannot be practiced without public
knowledge and society and church traditions would disallow
public practice. But what of the private or highly restricted practice of
such? Since nudity in the private, protected environment of a
nudist resort is not a public issue and attending such a resort
would not be a matter of “public nudity,” what is to prevent those
who desire to exercise their freedom to live without clothes, from
either occasionally visiting such resorts, or even from living in one?
To this author’s mind, there is no valid moral restriction against this
practice.
Is it a mark of “civility,” that humanity is clothed? Is public
nakedness “uncivilized?” In the Western world, we condemn as
“uncivilized savages,” cultures (African tribes, etc.) that practice
partial or full nudity. We believe it is our “Christian duty” to
50
educate and “civilize” such people and teach them to wear clothes.
In doing so we are not actually placing God’s requirement upon
them but are simply imposing our own human standards upon
them. A “televangelist” recently said something like this: “When
little Johnny was 18 months old, and running naked through the
house, it was cute and innocent. But when 18 year old Johnny runs
naked down the beach, it is lust.” In spite of the many “amens”
from the crowd, we ask the question: “Is this true because the Bible
says so?” This author does not believe the Bible teaches such a
thing.
When Adam and Eve were created, naked and unashamed,
were they “civilized?” To be perfectly “civilized” in God’s original
estimation was to be human and naked and unashamed. To simply
brand as uncivilized and savage those who wear no clothes, is to
impugn God’s original creation and is to correct God. It is no more
uncivilized to practice nudity now than when God made nakedness
to be the normal condition of human existence.
On the issue of human nakedness, as with most sexual practices,
we are free to draw conclusions and form opinions for ourselves
and establish our own rules for our personal conduct. But we must
not establish rules for the behavior of others. Only God’s law can
do this. Again the final word is, “where there is no law, there is no
sin.” If God did not legislate against human nudity as such then no
amount of human engineering can produce a valid law against it.
And if God did not make a law against nudity what insanity makes
man think he has a better concept of it than God does?
Is clothing universally attested? Some think that everybody,
everywhere, wears clothes, and that this fact establishes the
“collective human conscience” that nudity is sinful. But what of the
many tribes still practicing communal nudity, and of past
civilizations that did so until “enlightened” by cultural, religious
interference from outside? If not for our meddling and imposition
upon other cultures of our own standards, many tribes that
presently wear clothes, would not be doing so. Many tribes still do
not wear clothes (Read National Geographic, watch Public TV and
learn). Public nudity, nude beaches, nude bath houses, etc. are
common in many parts of the world. It is misinformation that
causes us to think that, “clothing is the norm all over the world.”
Even in America, many Native American tribes practiced either
51
partial or total communal nudity before the “white man” came to
“civilize” them.
The existence in so many places of the tendency toward nudity,
is not a testimony to the fallenness of man. It is rather a testimony
of the original condition of man. What was normal and “very good”
for man in his original state, still exists as a desire in his soul. The
inner desire to be naked and unashamed is a longing to get back to
our original perfection. There is nothing dirty, unclean, impure, or
sinful about either the desire or the practice.
Women and “Modest Apparel
What is the meaning of “women adorn themselves in modest
apparel,” (1 Tim. 2:9; 1 Pet. 3:3)? These verses have nothing at all to
do with how much or little clothing a woman wears. It has to do
specifically with “orderly” clothing. The Greek word is kosmois,
meaning “orderly, in regard to how women appear in public
worship (cf. R.C.H. Lenski’s commentary for example). That Paul is
not discussing amount of clothing, but the nature of clothing is
demonstrated by his prohibition of “braided hair, gold, pearls, costly
garments;” and then stating that her clothing is to be “good works,” (1
Tim. 2:10). As Lenski says, the purpose is to avoid “vanity, pride
and other improprieties. Extravagant dress is generally worn for
mere display with the secret desire to produce envy.” Spirituality
and good taste as conducive to worship, is Paul’s point. To press
these verses into service to forbid women to wear tight clothing,
shorts, sleeveless dresses, pants, swimsuits, etc. is to abuse
Scripture. The argument that a woman must be careful to dress so
that a man will not look at her with sexual desire, gives women an
impossible task. It makes woman responsible for whether a man
sins or not. By his nature, men will look at the most completely
covered woman and will have sexual thoughts. The argument that
these verses forbid a woman to go to a swimming pool wearing a
swimming suit, is invalid. Interestingly, no such arguments are
made from these or any other Scriptures, that forbids a man from
wearing swimming trunks in public. Do we conclude that God
commands women to be fully clothed in public, but that He does
not so command men? Of course not. The verses do not address
this issue, but rather the issue of women’s penchant for overdoing
dress for the sake of impressing others.
52
If we take the words of Scripture as literally as some want us to
do, pretending thereby to find a rule by which they can measure
the modesty of women’s clothing, then let us take Peter’s statement
literally. He said “Let not your adornment be external – braiding the
hair, and wearing gold jewelry, and putting on dresses; but the hidden
person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet
spirit, which is precious in the sight of God,” (1 Pet. 3:3,4). Based on this
Holy Spirit inspired statement, and taking it literally, we have
“authority” for total nudity because Peter writes very clearly that
women are not to wear either jewelry or dresses! Such a conclusion
is, of course, absurd. But it illustrates the absurdity of trying to take
words out of context in order to prove a case. Peter, as did Paul,
wants women to “adorn” themselves in the “clothing” of holy
character. He does not prescribe dress length, nor define a
“tightness factor,” nor forbid wearing pants or shorts, or halter
tops, or bikinis, or.…
On the subject of public swimming pools, One of the ways
people demonstrate their innate desire to be unclothed, is to strip to
the bare minimum in such public places as swimming pools. Both
men and women wear so little at these places that nothing is left to
the imagination. Men’s swimming trunks often are so skimpy and
tight that the outline of their penis is obvious. Women’s suits are
also so skimpy that often their pubic hair is visible, as is the outline
of their vulva and the nipples of their breasts. The material is
usually so thin that a man or woman’s full sexual splendor is not
truly concealed. The popularity of the bikini and its extreme form,
the string bikini or thong, carries this trend to the limit. One can see
on public beaches and swimming pools, as much nudity as one can
see in many striptease shows. Is it a sin for a woman to wear a
bikini to a public pool? We no longer believe so. If our society
accepted nudity at our public pools, would it be sinful? We no
longer believe so. Nudity is not condemned in Scripture, and what
condemnation is spoken as related to nudity, is related to its
connection with sexual sin (adultery, fornication) or with idol
worship. It appears to us that, this being true, whatever degree of
public nudity is acceptable in a given society, is allowable. People,
including Christians, may feel free to enjoy the freedom of
whatever degree of nudity is allowed in their culture. If this
suggestion still sounds outrageous, remember that nudity is God’s
first choice for humans. From God’s perspective clothing is not ideal,
53
nakedness is ideal. God does not mind seeing people naked. God is
not offended by human nudity any more than He is offended by
animal nakedness. Why would God be more offended by a man’s
unclothed penis than by an ape’s penis? Why would God be more
offended by a woman’s bare breasts than by a cow’s exposed
udder? God intended for earth to be populated with naked men,
women and animals. From God’s perspective, going naked in
public is what He originally intended. The invention of clothing did
not come from God, it came from man. And man’s invention of
clothing did not make clothing more preferable than God’s original
pattern of nudity. To be partially unclothed, as with swimming
apparel, or to be totally unclothed is not an issue with God. Man
must deal with his own personal attempt to hide himself from God
and others. When he is delivered from this compulsion and wishes
to practice nudity the way it was meant to be, he is free to do so as
long as he considers the effect of his freedom on others who are still
bound by various bondages of false guilt and shame. Nudity is a
human issue, not a God issue.
Why would one desire to attend a nudist resort? A related
question is: Why would one desire to go virtually naked at a public
swimming pool? We are talking about a difference of only a few
square inches of cloth. It seems that living without clothes is the
normal desire for mankind and the desire to return to this original
and normal condition exists, at least latently, in the hearts of us all;
in some more than others. It is this original condition to which
many desire to return. Since we cannot do so in most cases without
incurring the wrath of others, we must pursue such liberty
carefully. But in situations where there are none to offend, and
where nudity may be practiced without repercussions from others,
there is no reason to forego the lawful pleasure of nudity.
Since God did not condemn nakedness as such, even in fallen
man, but condemned only its misuses, then God does not forbid the
practice of nudity in those situations where it can be enjoyed
without harming the conscience of another person.
54
CHAPTER THREE
POLYGAMY, MONOGAMY AND CONCUBINAGE
The prevailing opinion throughout the Christian world is that
the Bible restricts all sexual partnerships to “one man with one
woman for all time.” The only exception to this hard and fast rule is
on the occasion of either divorce or death of one mate. No
possibility is allowed for one person to have more than one mate.
The single argument made for this position is that, though the Old
Testament allowed polygamy, concubinage and sex relations with
one’s slaves, the New Testament changed that, to totally disallow
multiple partnerships. Let us see what the Bible actually says. We
begin by listing all the texts that refer to polygamous relationships,
with brief notations.
Polygamy In Scripture
Lamech takes two wives and God neither corrects nor
condemns Lamech, (Gen.4:19). On this first mention of polygamy in
the Bible, it is strange that God did not move immediately to stamp
out this “moral vulgarism,” if indeed that is how He saw it. Many
scholars refer to the “principle of first mention” as one tool by
which to assess God’s attitudes on different issues. For example,
this principle is said to establish the sinfulness of homosexuality,
via the fact that the first time human sexuality is referred to, it is
cast in a heterosexual light. This “first mention” then is the basis for
such anti-homosexual arguments as “God made Adam and Eve,
not Adam and Steve.” But don’t you think it is strange, reader, that
the same scholars refuse to accept the implications of this “first
mention” of polygamy? Since God utters not a single negative
word about it, we can legitimately argue that “God’s prima facie
acceptance of polygamy from its first mention, is evidence that God
was not disturbed by multiple relationships.”
Arguments are also made to the effect that God simply tolerated
polygamy, though He never accepted it. For now, we simply reply
that if God was as distressed about polygamy as modern Western
Scholars say He was, how did God let Lamech’s breach of “Divine
marital law” pass without nipping this “sin” in the bud? Doesn’t
make sense does it?
55
Esau marries two wives and again there is no word of
correction, (Gen. 26:34, 35). Later Esau marries a third wife, still
with no correction and no indication that God is getting edgy about
this multiple marriage, (Gen. 28:8,9).
Jacob marries both Leah and Rachel, (Gen. 29:31ff). Jacob
became the father of Israel. He obtained God’s blessing after
wrestling all night with an angel. He is one of the great heroes of
faith, to be admired by all God’s people, for all time. But there is no
hint of God’s disapproval of his polygamous marriage. One might
argue in both Lamech’s and Esau’s cases, that neither of them were
particularly noteworthy in terms of relationship with God. But
Jacob is a different case. He is in the lineage of Messiah. He is God’s
man, with God’s blessing. If God merely tolerated polygamy among
the spiritually weak of humanity, how is it that He missed another
golden opportunity to set the record straight right here, with this
man of faith?
Laban – not God – asks Jacob to take no other wives, (Gen.
31:49, 50). Laban was not opposed to polygamy because it was his
deception that led to Jacob marrying both his daughters. Laban’s
concern is only for the security, provision, etc. for his two
daughters. Anyway, Jacob now has 4 sex partners because he has
children by the “handmaids” of his two wives. In none of this do
we find even a hint of God’s disapproval. What gives modern
Christians the spiritual hives did not concern God at all. Indeed, it
appears that God simply looked upon polygamy as a normal result
of man’s social development.
Joseph had one wife, (Gen. 41:45).
God decrees that if a man marries a woman and her mother
both are to be burned with fire, (Lev. 20:14). Whatever may be the
reason for this harsh sentence, it does not mitigate against
polygamy. In fact, it does the opposite. God says nothing at all
about polygamy, except to reference its existence among His
people. Yet He is violently opposed to a man marrying mother and
daughter at the same time. His bold condemnation of the one
multiple relationship, contrasted with His silent acceptance of
“normal” polygamy is strong evidence that He approved of it. His
legislation against this form of polygamy indicates that He would
56
have legislated against other forms of polygamy if He was indeed
opposed to them.
God warns a king to not multiply wives unto himself, “lest his
heart turn away…” (Deut. 17:17). This prohibition is not against
polygamy as such, or the sexual connection, but against the danger of
apostasy in Israel’s leaders. Note the same prohibition against
amassing silver and gold. We will see later that Israel’s greatest
kings married many wives and amassed great hordes of silver and
gold. Both the wives and the riches were said to be God’s blessings.
Thus this text is a warning of the dangers inherent in having many
wives and much riches. It is not a prohibition of either, but a
warning to realize the dangers in each case.
When Israel warred against hostile neighbors, they received
God’s specific permission to keep as plunder, all women and
children, just as they kept the animals, etc., (Deut. 20:14). These
captive women became wives, concubines and slaves.
The law of “Levirate marriage” requires that if one’s brother
dies with no son, his widow is to marry the living brother, to give
an heir to his brother, (Deut. 25:5-6). This is true even if the living
brother is already married. This is God’s law! If he refuses to marry
her, he is cursed publicly by her, (vs. 7-10). Thus we have God’s
mandate for polygamy in this situation. It is useless to argue
“special circumstances” here. If polygamy is truly a moral offense, no
special circumstance can make it morally right. If God is offended
by a person having sex with more than one other person how can
we make any sense out of this law? Sin is sin! Immoral acts cannot
be permissible simply because of circumstances. On the one hand,
God decrees the death penalty for “adultery.” On the other hand,
God decrees multiple marriage in this text. So – aren’t we missing
something?
Gideon had “many wives” who bore him 70 sons, (Jdg. 8:30;
12:9, 14). He was a valiant warrior and faithful servant, and he died
without God ever rebuking him or correcting his polygamy. He is
honored as a hero of faith, (Heb. 11:32,33). Strange that such a man
is held up as an example for Christians, if having “many wives”
was truly a spiritual disqualifier as most Christians believe. If God
57
disapproved of his many wives, it surely would have been helpful
to us for God to have said something in Heb. 11, like “…yet it was
not good that he married many wives…” The absence of God’s
correction implies His acceptance.
When Boaz marries Ruth, the elders of Israel blessed him with
these words: “May the Lord make the woman who is coming into your
home like Rachel and Leah, both of whom built the house of
Israel…Moreover, may your house be like the house of Perez whom Tamar
bore to Judah…” (Ruth 4:11, 12). This labels Jacob’s polygamy as a
blessing. It recognizes that Israel was “built” by both wives equally.
Certainly these spiritual leaders were not embarrassed by Jacob’s
polygamy, nor had they any hint that God was displeased. If
polygamy was indeed a sin then Boaz would actually have been
cursed by these words.
Boaz is also blessed as Judah was blessed by Tamar, who bore
Perez, Boaz’s forefather. This is stranger still, given our modern
mind-set, because Tamar was Judah’s daughter in law, with whom
he had sex thinking she was a prostitute! So now prostitution and
sexing a daughter in law are both used as a basis of blessing! Really,
now, do we believe that sinful relationships can be legitimately
used as grounds for blessing? Perhaps our concept of things needs
to be adjusted. Oh yes, and Perez, the offspring of that act
produced Boaz, Obed, Jesse and David. In all this not a word from
God of displeasure or correction. Not even a mild one! Strange
behavior indeed from a God whom we think must have been
inwardly seething at these “sins!”
Elkanah has 2 wives, Hannah and Peninnah, (1 Sam. 1:1-2). He
is faithful to worship God, (vs. 3), thus his worship is accepted and
commended. Still God does not even hint that his polygamy is
unacceptable. This man has a strong spiritual relationship with God
that is in no way hindered by his polygamy. This could not be true
if polygamy was a spiritual malady that offended God.
David marries wife #1, Michal, (1 Sam. 18:20ff.) then later takes
Abigail, & Ahinoam as wives, (1 Sam.25:39, 43), and lives with
them apart from Michal, (27:3). David then takes Maacah, Haggith,
Abital and Eglah for total of 7 wives, (2 Sam. 3:3-5). By this time
Michal is married to Peltiel and David demands her return, (2Sam.
58
3:13-15). David takes still more wives plus concubines, (2 Sam.
5:13). Next David watches Bathsheba bathe on her housetop and
desires her sexually. He sends for her, has sex with her and she
conceives. To cover his tracks David ensures that her husband
Uriah is killed in battle, then he takes Bathsheba for his wife, (2
Sam. 11:2-27).
In all David’s marriages & concubinages, not once is it said that,
“David has done evil in the sight of the Lord,” as it does in reference to
his dalliance with Bathsheba (2 Sam. 11:27). What was evil here is
not in marrying yet another wife. Rather, Nathan’s rebuke proves
that God’s displeasure arises from David’s adultery and murder, (2
Sam.12:9, 10). Adultery is not having more than one wife, but it is
stealing another man’s wife. Since God does not hesitate to
announce that David had done evil in this matter, what accounts
for the fact that God never breathed a word of displeasure about
the supposed “evil” of David’s multitude of wives and concubines?
After amassing countless wives and concubines, adding one more
is unworthy of mention, regardless of who she is. But the thing God
will not allow is taking another man’s mate. This is the “evil”
involved here. If Bathsheba had been single nothing more would
have been said about David taking her, than was said about all his
other women.
Now for a real “kicker!” God says He gave David’s many wives
to him, and if those were not enough, He would have given him
“many more!” (2 Sam. 12:7,8). This statement is certain to give
spiritual apoplexy to most of those who read it because it gives
overt proof that God not only blessed David’s polygamy and
concubinage; God Himself was the author of David’s plural
marriages and multiple sex partners! Look! David had so many
wives and concubines because God gave them to him! Far from
being something God merely tolerated, polygamy was a blessing
from God. And God said He would have blessed David with even
more women if what he had was not enough. In other words God
said “David, why did you have to steal another man’s wife? If you
wanted more wives why didn’t you just ask Me? I would have
given you more.” Well, this is sure to “put a hitch in some people’s
get-along.” Still believe in the inspiration of Scripture? Still believe
the word of God’s prophets (in this case Nathan) is true? Then
accept these words of God’s blessing on David’s multiple sexual
relationships. And be brave enough to draw the next and inevitable
59
conclusion: If God originated and blessed it for David, He will not
send us to Hell for doing it.
As part of God’s punishment upon David for his adultery and
murder, God will give David’s wives to his companion who will
sex them in broad daylight, (2 Sam.12:11). This companion turns
out to be his son. Who can believe that God, in order to punish
David, will select an innocent man and force him to commit a
horrible sin by having sex with David’s wives? If God will “take
your wives from before your eyes, and give them to your companion, and
he shall lie with them in broad daylight” then it is useless to argue that
God is utterly opposed to a man having sex with more than one
woman; or that it is sin for a man to have sex with another man’s
wife under any circumstance (“Adultery” is a separate issue which
we will prove later.). If such is sin, then woe be to the hapless
victim upon whom God lays this sin. If this be the case, Absalom
commits sin by God’s design! Who can believe it?
David keeps Bathsheba as wife and she bears Solomon, (2
Sam.12:24). God testifies that David did what was right in God’s
sight in everything God commanded except in the matter of Uriah
(& Bathsheba), (1 Kg. 15:5). So the many wives that God said He
gave to him, and would have given more if that had not been enough,
plus all his concubines, were “right in God’s sight!?!?” It is beyond
argument here, that in all David’s marrying and concubinage, he
never breached God’s commandment. If David was right in God’s
sight in everything God commanded, then obviously marrying
many women and having sex with many concubines does not violate
God’s commandment against adultery or fornication! Think about it!
David walks in “integrity…truth…hates wickedness,” (Ps. 26:1-12).
This is one of many passages where David makes these claims for
himself, and other Scriptures affirm this is true of him. What do we
make of this in light of his polygamy and concubinage? It is
obvious that nothing about polygamy or concubinage is
inconsistent with “integrity…truth…hating wickedness.” It is man
who demonizes polygamy, not God. David had countless sex
partners. Yet he was a righteous man, greatly anointed and highly
favored by God.
A man can “Cleanse his way by heeding God’s word,” (Ps. 119:9). If
polygamy & concubinage were in any sense “unclean” then how
do we make sense of the following verses? David hid God’s word
in his heart that he might not sin against God, (Ps. 119:11). Did
60
God’s word not enlighten him of the sin of polygamy &
concubinage? Obviously these things were not “sin” and God’s
word gave David no hint that God was in any way displeased with
his having many women.
“I restrain my feet from every evil way, that I might keep Your word,”
(Ps. 119:101). Was David “keeping God’s word,” when he had sex
with his many wives & concubines? Was there no “evil way” in this
practice?
“Through Your precept I get understanding, there fore I hate every
false way,” (Ps. 119:104). God’s “precepts” did not give David any
“understanding” that polygamy & concubinage were, in any sense,
a “false way.”
“I esteem right all Thy precepts concerning everything. I hate every
false way.” (Ps. 119:128) David did not hate polygamy &
concubinage, therefore God’s precepts did not provide him any
idea that polygamy & concubinage were wrong. David followed
what was right in “everything.” How come he did not have a clue
that God did not like polygamy?
David had sons by seven wives, “besides the sons of the
concubines,” (1 Chron. 3:1-9). David took “more wives,” (1 Chron.
14:3). Wives were not the same as concubines. Some women David
married. Others he just brought into his house basically for sexual
purposes. God had no problem with either.
Solomon marries Pharaoh’s daughter, (1 Kg. 9:24). He loved
many foreign women, (11:1). He had 700 wives, 300 concubines,
(11:3; enough women to sex 3 different women every night for one
year!). God had promised to bless Solomon if he walks in all God’s
laws, (9:4ff,) threatening to curse him and his sons if they turn from
God’s laws. But not a syllable of censure about this extreme
polygamy and extreme concubinage. The only censure is his marrying
pagan women against God’s commands, (11:2, 4, 5) and that they
turned his heart away from the Lord, (11:4, 9, 10, 11, 33; 9:4, 6). But
many of his wives were Israelites. Since there is no word of such
being a breach of law, it must not have been a breach of law! And
what sense does it make to think that God was incensed about
Solomon’s marriages to pagan wives and thus rebukes him for it,
yet never rebukes him for marrying many Israelite wives, though
He was equally incensed about that? Obviously, God was not
concerned about how many wives Solomon had. His wrath was
61
aroused by Solomon’s apostasy. Ultimately Solomon acquires a
“harem,” (Ecc. 1:8, supposing that Solomon authored this book.).
Ahab has many wives besides Jezebel, (1 Kg. 20:3, 7). Yet amid
the many censures for his great evil, polygamy was not once
condemned.
Jehoiachin had “wives,” (2 Kg. 24:14).
Caleb (son of Perez) had 2 wives, Azubah & Jerioth, and a third
Ephrath, whom he married when Azubah died, (1 Chron. 2:18, 19).
Hezron had 2 wives, (1 Chron. 2:21).
Jerahmeel had “another wife,” (1 Chron. 2:26).
Asher, father of Tekoa, had 2 wives, (1 Chron. 4:5).
Izrahiah had five sons, who, with their father’s houses, had
36,000 troops, “for they had many wives and sons,” (1 Chron. 7:3, 4).
Machir has an unnamed wife, plus Maachah, (1 Chron. 7:15).
Shaharim had children after he sent away 2 wives, Hushim and
Baara. He had sons by Hadish, his 3rd wife, (1 Chron. 8:8, 9).
Rehoboam weds Mahalath, Maachah, whom he loved “more
than all his other wives and concubines, for he took 18 wives and 60
concubines,” (2 Chron. 11:18-21).
Abijah had 14 wives, (2 Chron. 13:21).
Israel sinned by marrying pagan wives and Nehemiah curses
them for it, (Ezra 10:2, 10; Neh. 13:23-25). “Solomon sinned by these
things…pagan women caused him to sin,” (vs. 26). His sin was not in
having 700 wives. It was in having any pagan wives. Even one
pagan wife would have been sin. Israel transgressed against God
by marrying pagan women, (vs. 27). Because of this rebuke, they
covenanted with God to put these wives away, (vs. 3, 11, 14, 17, 44).
This has nothing to do with polygamy. They put away only the
pagan wives which God’s law forbade them to wed. If polygamy
itself was a sin why did God never legislate against it and why do
we not have a single example in all Scripture, of a godly man or
group of men, such as here, learning that God was displeased with
multiple wives, then repenting and “putting away all their wives
except the first one?” And if polygamy is wrong, why require that
these Israelites put away only the pagan wives? Why not require
them to divorce all their extra wives? This Ezra passage proves they
would have done so if God had desired it. But none ever did such a
thing, even though polygamy was openly practiced, even to extreme
62
degrees, God never intimated in any way, that He was displeased
with such a practice.
These same people “confessed their sins,” Neh. 9:2. We have
several examples of this national repentance in Scriptures, but not
once do we find them repenting of the “sin” of polygamy or
turning away from it.
Beautiful young virgins ar
e sought for King Ahasuerus to
choose one to replace Vashti, (Esther 2:2, 4). So Ahasuerus will have
at least 2 wives. Esther is “lovely and beautiful,” (2:7), i.e. sexually
attractive. Each virgin is to take a turn with the king; a different one
each night having sex with the king so he can choose the one he
likes best, (2:12ff). So he “promiscuously?” “fornicates?” with these
beautiful virgins until he decides upon Esther. Esther takes her turn
having sex with the king, (2:15-17). He likes her more than the
others. Is this a game of “which one turns me on the most?” If this
disgusts God, why not a syllable about it? Esther was a godly
woman, and her cousin Mordecai was godly and God-fearing. If
this “try them all, and choose the most beautiful and best sex
partner,” process would defile her, why didn’t she or Mordecai or
someone know? If no one knew, why not send a prophet to her so
she would not sin through “fornication?” Could she have
responded by saying something like, “My God has a law, and by
that law, I cannot sex you or be your wife…?” Fornication and
adultery had been against God’s law for generations by this time.
No one in Israel was ignorant of this law. Whatever else we may
say about the “pagan virgins” involved in this “sex-capade” we
must deal with both Esther and Mordecai, Israelites living under
God’s moral law.
Mordecai suggests that Esther was “come unto the kingdom for
such a time as this…” (3:14), thereby encouraging her to willingly
participate in the sexual experimentation of Ahasuerus. So how do
we fit God’s holiness into a scheme that involves what we moderns
would define as multiple sins of fornication, adultery and polygamy?
Does God resort to making Esther an adulteress, or promiscuous,
or a fornicator, in order to accomplish His holy Kingdom purposes?
Can any sane person believe it?
Evidently the king enjoyed this “selection process” so much that
even after he chose Esther as his queen, a second round of virgins is
selected for him to enjoy, (3:19). In all this, it is incredible that, if it is
63
sinful, God never says so, and even blessed Esther and Mordecai for
their parts in it, (10:1-3)! Our modern definition of fornication and
adultery fits this scenario of sexual experimentation exactly! But
how does a Holy and Just God legislate the death penalty for
adultery, then use that very sin to save His people, and then honor
not only the adulteress, but the cousin who advised her in it? What
are we missing in our definitions? Either our definitions are wrong,
or God used sin to accomplish His holy will?! Which is more likely
to be the case?
If we decide that what Esther did was neither adultery nor
fornication, then what does that do with our fundamental
definitions of those sins? If we truly believe that God is Omnipotent,
Omniscient and Sovereign over all, then we must conclude that he
could and would have found a way to bring Esther into power in the
Persian kingdom without allowing her to participate in this “sordid
sex carnival.” The fact that our Holy God used just such a scheme
to accomplish His purposes proves beyond doubt that we must reevaluate
our concepts of sexual morality. God is not the author of
sin, and God does not instigate sin to further His purposes. What
king Ahasuerus did here, what Esther and all the other virgins did,
and what Mordecai consented to, was not immoral, not fornication,
and not adultery. Allow this fact to shake you up! Then get to work
with some really hard study and some serious meditation on the
actual words of Scripture. We have taken too much for granted for
too long. It is time for us to come into the light.
God judges that Jerusalem has become a “harlot” and is
condemned. But Jerusalem is wed to God, so her harlotry is the sin
of blatant adultery. She is behaving as if she is unmarried and free
to be “married” to whomever she will, (Isa. 1:21). This is the
meaning of (Isa. 3:16), “Zion’s women are flirting with their eyes.”
In the day of destruction, 7 women will beg to be wed to one
man, (Isa. 4:1). No condemnation is suggested here. Why does God
hold Israel accountable for obvious sin in the former verses, with
condemnation, but does not do so here if indeed God deplores
polygamy as much as he does adultery?
Belshazzar has wives and concubines, besides the “queen,”
(Dan. 5:1, 3, 10).
64
Let us state some obvious conclusions based on this material.
• God allowed polygamy to enter human experience without a
word of correction.
• The Bible refers directly to at least 23 men who had more than
one wife.
• This list of polygamous husbands contains the names of the
most illustrious examples of faith and holiness in all the Bible.
• God makes polygamy mandatory in the case of the “Levirate
marriage law.”
• Israel’s elders use examples of polygamy, to bless the
marriage of Boaz and Ruth.
• God gives Israelite men permission to keep women and
children for themselves after a successful battle. Even married
men had this privilege.
• God commends the worship of a polygamous man.
• God’s prophet says David’s multiple marriages are blessings
from God, and assures David that God would have given him
more if he desired them.
• God uses the polygamous inclinations of a pagan king to
bring Esther to power, and thus to save Israel from a holocaust.
Not one time, with even one word, in all the OT record, did God
even so much as hint to His people, that he preferred that they not
practice polygamy. Not once did God refer to Adam and Eve as His
ideal for marriage. If God was displeased with polygamy, no one in
the entire scope of OT history knew it! God never told even His
most trusted servants. God simply gave us no record of His
disapproval of polygamy! It is not possible to believe that God
granted polygamy as a blessing to His people until Jesus came, but
now sees it as a sin worthy of eternal Hell. It is not possible that
God blessed David with many wives and would have given him
more, but that He will send us to Hell forever for the same thing.
God did not, and still does not disapprove of polygamy. We will look
at the sparse NT texts below. Be patient!
MONOGAMY
Now we must consider the NT texts that relate to this issue.
There are not many, and none of them address the issue of
65
polygamy directly. The consensus of church scholars is that the NT
reverses the OT view of polygamy, and makes monogamy the only
acceptable sexual relationship possible to us. It goes even beyond
that to effectively demonize polygamy and make it a sin worthy of
eternal Hell. In view of the emphatic stance of modern church
leaders, we will expect to find very clear expression in the NT of
this change in God’s attitude. Let us see what we actually find. First
let’s look again at the opinion of modern scholarship.
Comments from other authors:
“Although Polygamy is recognized and not condemned, the OT
assumes that monogamy is the basic form of marriage, or at least
that a man should be faithful above all to “the wife of his youth,”
(Prov. 5:18-19; Mal. 2:14-15). It may be that the two wives of
Lamech are emphasized (Gen. 4:19) to associate the origin of
polygamy with the evil line of Cain. Concubines and secondary
wives are associated mostly with, though by no means restricted to,
the patriarchal period and royalty.
The tendency toward monogamy or the preference of a primary
wife was reinforced most of all by love which was acknowledged
as a significant, though certainly not the only force in the initiation
and nature of marriage relationships (e.g. Gen. 24:67; 1 Sam. 18:20).
Recognizing the dangers into which sexual attraction could lead
(Prov. 7:6-27) did not draw the people into a harsh puritanism, but
rather into a celebration of the pleasure of faithful marriage (Eccl.
9:9; Song of Sol. 8:12).
A father could sell his daughter as a concubine, but the law did
seek to protect the status of such women (Ex. 21:7-11). If a man
raped or seduced an unmarried woman, he was required to pay the
marriage gift to her father and take her as his wife(Ex. 22:16-17; Dt.
22:28-29). Yet because the husband was regarded as master over his
wife, adultery was a crime only against the man whose wife or
fiance had been unfaithful; there was no sense in which it could be
a crime against the woman (Lev. 20:10; Gt. 22:22-24). But that
marriage was not as simple as an owner-property relationship is
shown by the contrast in penalties for intercourse with a betrothed
female slave (Lev. 19:20-22) and for adultery.
Monogamy continued as the norm in NT times; it was only the
few who could afford to be polygamous.