Book Divine Sex FREE Online Part 4 of 4
http://inkaboutit4u.com/?p=Book_Divine_Sex_FREE_Online_Part_4_of_4
pages 261-321 (the end)
Any action that offends God is unacceptable for our
participation.
•“Is my conclusion consistent with love for man: will this
action hurt another person?”
Anything that harms another person is off limits. This
guideline, together with the previous one, enables us to
dependably decide what we may or may not do in those
activities of which the Bible says nothing. When we honestly
examine an activity for its possible affects on God and others
and we cannot see how it either offends God or harms man,
then that thing is probably in the realm of choice. One is free
to do that thing or to reject that thing according to personal
preference. If, after considering these aspects of moral
evidence one cannot see how an act would possibly violate
either God or man, yet still feels reluctant to do that thing,
then one has identified an area of bondage to the doctrines
and precepts of man. Judging all things by the law of love
gives us a brand new and reliable touchstone for deciding
what things are holy or unholy. According to Jesus and Paul it
is not the act itself that is either holy or unholy. It is how that
act affects God and others that determines its “holiness.”
•“Do I give God thanks for the good that I enjoy?”
Whatever activity one approves is something for which
one should thank God. This combination of seeking the Word
of God and giving Him thanks for what one “approves” gives
God pleasure. We will be bold enough to say that God is thus
pleased even if our ultimate choice is a wrong choice. Such will
inevitably be the case at times simply because of our
humanity. But God is looking for hearts that love Him enough
to make a sincere effort to know what pleases Him and then to
do that. Such a heart will not often do what God prefers we
not do. When such a loving heart makes a wrong judgment
and chooses activities that are wrong, still God’s grace enters
to apply the blood of Jesus, and so He keeps us in His love.
Defilement comes not from physical acts but from spiritual
attitudes. Physical acts are not inherently “defiling.” “Defilement”
requires involvement of the heart. Physical acts are not inherently
sinful or inherently good. They are inherently innocent. Any physical
act that hurts another person is always wrong because of its hurtful
262
effect. But such an act is sinful – i.e. morally defiling – only if done
intentionally or rebelliously. Even civil laws define a difference
between “negligent homicide” versus “murder,” or a traffic
violation that brings a “warning” rather than a citation/fine.
Actions that civil law defines as “illegal” and “criminal” may be
mitigated as determined by motive. Thus some technically
“criminal” acts may be effectively regarded as “non-criminal.”
Obversely some inherently innocent acts may become sinful because
of an attitude of spite, rebellion, disregard of other’s welfare, etc. In
the civil realm, building a fence has no inherent legal implications.
But if one builds a “spite fence” civil law may require its
destruction. Especially in the spiritual realm, what makes an act
wrong/defiling/sinful is the intention behind it or its effect on others.
Sin, moral defilement, worldliness, etc. are located in people’s
minds, not in material objects or physical actions.
Again, Paul’s incredible statement is, “I know and am persuaded in
the Lord that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything
to be unclean, to him it is unclean,” (Rom. 14:14). Most religious
people cannot take that verse as it stands. We seem to be compelled
to explain away its force with such arguments as “but he is talking
only about meat sacrificed to idols.” And so forth. But Paul is also
talking about observing religious days, (vs.5,6) and wine, (vs.21)
and “anything else” by which a brother is made to stumble, (vs. 21).
Wine, feast days and meat are simply specific examples of Paul’s
general point that nothing is inherently unclean but anything can
become a stumbling block to others if used indiscriminately. And
Paul literally says, “nothing is unclean in itself.” For emphasis he
says “All things indeed are clean, but evil for him who eats and gives
offense,” (vs.20). “All things” and “nothing” are totally inclusive. The
Holy Spirit did not err in these statements. Add to these the
statement that, “To the pure all things are pure; but to those who are
defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure, but both their mind and their
consciences are defiled,” (Titus 1:15). Are “all things” really pure to
those who are pure? Paul says so. His point is that things in
themselves have no inherent moral quality. What makes something
either pure or impure is the attitude and motive of the person
involved. Even what we would consider “pure” things become
impure in the hands of those whose hearts are impure. Consider
also that Paul says, “All things indeed are lawful for me, but not all
things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be
263
mastered by anything,” (1 Cor. 6:12; 10:23). Paul did not say that it is
sin to choose what is not “profitable.” That is an interpretation
made up by humans. What is “profitable” to me may not be
profitable to another. Each person must decide for themselves what
they approve of. They are free to choose because “all things are indeed
lawful.” It is circumstance that makes inherently lawful deeds to be
either profitable or unprofitable. To drink wine in the presence of
one whose conscience may be compromised by my example would
be unprofitable to that person and to myself. But to drink wine in
different circumstances would be profitable at least to me.
Many people hold strong convictions about what they call
“sins” that is all in their mind. Many devout religious people
sincerely believe it is sinful to play cards, or dice, or for women to
wear make-up, etc. It is all in their minds. The lists of actual sins in
Matt. 15:17-20; Mk. 7:21,22 covers the gamut of categories of things
we may do to violate love for God and man. All of them arise from
the heart. The condition and spiritual orientation of the inner man
is crucial to the question of what is sinful behavior and what is
acceptable behavior; what is holy and what is unholy. Outward
deeds, especially those specified not by God but by man, have
nothing inherent to do with spirituality, holiness or Christianity.
There is nothing clean or unclean, holy or unholy, inherent in any
physical activity. So no sex act is inherently unclean. The Bible says
so. All spiritual content of a deed is determined by the condition of
the heart of the person doing the deed.
Therefore, the following sex practices, and probably others we
do not include, are not in the least “unclean,” nor are they
forbidden in either OT or NT.
Multiple marriage, multiple sex relationships.
Prostitution.
Sex by single people.
Sex “play” between singles and engaged couples.
Nudity, public or private.
Nude dancing or posing (as for art classes or photographs).
Viewing nude dancing, nude photos or films of nude people.
Sexual thoughts that produce sexual stimulation.
Masturbation .
Using sex toys such as vibrators.
Oral sex or anal sex.
Viewing/reading erotic films, photos, books.
264
Humans may enjoy sexual freedom in as many variations as
they desire, within the parameters of what God has not forbidden.
What God forbids are those sexual activities that violate the personhood
of other people or dishonor Him. Specifically God forbids:
Homosexual acts that violate other people (rape, child
molestation, pederasty).
Homosexual acts that dishonor God (as acts of worship, used in
witchcraft).
Heterosexual acts that violate other people (incest, rape, child
molestation).
Heterosexual acts that dishonor God (as acts of worship, used in
witchcraft)
Bestiality (evidently a dishonor of some sort to God).
Adulterous sex (sex that leads to breaking marriage bonds).
Sex that associates in any way with idolatry or witchcraft.
Are Sex And Holiness Incompatible?
We wish to begin this segment by considering King David
again.
David was a truly holy man. He taught “the fear of the Lord,” (PS.
19:9 etc.).
David was a “a man after God’s own heart,” (Acts 13:22).
David “did all thing right in God’s sight except the matter with Uriah
the Hittite (Bathsheba’s husband),”(1 Kg. 15:5).
He loved God’s law, Ps. 119.
He prayed “Search me, O God, and know my heart…. and see if there
is any hurtful way in me, and lead me in the everlasting way,” (Ps.
139:23, 24).
He was a repentant man, he truly sorrowed because of his sins,
and he worked hard at honoring God’s law, (cf. Ps. 51, etc.)
He is our supreme example of worship/praise/prayer. David
wrote our prayer/worship manual, the Psalms.
David was Israel’s greatest leader. Christ was “one like David.”
“The Son of David,” (Matt. 21:9, etc.).
Such statements as the above place David in the very highest
category of “holy men.” There was no question in the mind of God
that David was holy in act and pure in heart. And it is with just
such a man that we may most fruitfully explore the relationship
265
between sex and holiness. For David loved sex. One author referred
to David as “Israel’s randy king.” He had many wives and
concubines as did many other men in that era. One unique fact
about David’s multiple wives and concubines is that through the
prophet Nathan, God affirmed that He was the actual source of all
David’s women. God said He would have given more if David
wanted them, (2 Sam. 12:8). God was willing for David and other
men to have sexual relationships with many women. Rather than
viewing polygamy and concubinage as a sin or even relegating it to
“least desirable” status, God’s blessing of David with many wives
and concubines proves that God had no such view of monogamy as
does the church and virtually all of Western culture. God viewed it
as a blessing that He was pleased to bestow upon His holy servant
David. By giving multiple wives and concubines to David, God
enabled, even encouraged David to copulate with many different
women. God’s absolute holiness and his requirement that His
people be “Holy as I am holy,” quite obviously has nothing inherently
to do either with the biological act of sex or with the number of sex
partners one has. God’s personal holiness is in no way
compromised by His giving multiple sexual partners to David.
David’s personal holiness is likewise not compromised by enjoying
sex with those wives and concubines. So there is nothing
inconsistent between sex and holiness. There is no relationship at all
between sex and holiness. David could copulate with one or more
concubines, slaves or wives during the night then arise early to
“awake the dawn,” with prayer and worship, (Ps. 57:8). And our
“Holy God” delighted to receive it.
In the same vein, a man may have sex with his wife in the night
then arise to worship and pray first thing in the morning without
“repenting” of the night’s activity. The same is true if they had oral
sex or if they mutually masturbated each other or used vibrators or
other “sex toys” during their sexual activities. Likewise there is
nothing incompatible with holiness and private masturbation;
holiness and private or social nudity; holiness and wearing a
swimsuit to the public pool; holiness and wearing a skirt that
exposes a woman’s calves (as per the Puritans); holiness and
appreciating the body and sexuality of a beautiful woman or
handsome man, etc. Sex has no inherent relationship to holiness
any more than any other human activity (e.g. eating, sleeping,
exercise, etc.) inherently relates to holiness. Holiness becomes an
266
issue with any activity only on the basis that such activity relates to
obedience or disobedience to God. Sex becomes unholy only when
sex violates God’s law of love; love for God and love for man.
The same is true of such comparisons of holiness and moderate
drinking of wine; holiness and moderate eating; holiness and
playing cards, or dice, or owning a television set, or observing
religious holidays, and on and on we could go. The most holy man
ever to grace this earth was Jesus Christ. Yet Jesus ate good food
and drank wine as is obvious from the accusation made against
him by the religious leaders of the day, that He was a “glutton and a
wine bibber,” because “the Son of Man came eating and drinking,” (Mt.
11:19). The fact that the charges of “wine bibbing” were made is
strong indication that Jesus drank wine. This is also indicated by
the fact that Jesus made wine for the guests at the wedding feast in
Cana, Jn. 2:1ff., even though the guests had already drunk well, (Jn.
2:10). Was Jesus unholy because he loved food and wine? Could
Jesus make wine for a wedding party, no doubt drink some of it
Himself and then go out late that night to meet with His Father in
prayer as was His custom? Can we possibly imagine that His
Father was the least bit offended by His Son’s enjoyment of good
food and wine?
It is not unholy to eat good, rich food. It is unholy to over eat
consistently, thus becoming a glutton. It is not unholy to drink wine.
It is unholy to over indulge and becoming a drunkard. Just so, it is not
unholy to enjoy sex. It is unholy to engage in forbidden sex or to
engage even in legitimate sex to excess. To do so is “concupicence.”
As with food and wine, God does not set the limit. He allows man
to decide when gluttony or drunkenness sets in. How much sex is
too much? There is no standard. Certainly problems seem apparent
when sexual activity begins to consume inordinate amounts of
money and time. But most people will never approach the limits of
sexually permissible activity. We are so repressed and bound by
false guilt that our problem is not too much sex. If anything our
problem is in gaining freedom to enjoy without guilt and shame,
what is legitimately available to us.
Holiness appears to conflict with many human activities but the
conflict is only in men’s minds. Nothing truly conflicts with
holiness except what God has declared sinful. Normal human
activity, including physical things like eating, drinking, bowel
elimination and sex, have nothing to do with holiness unless there are
267
some God-given rules about those activities. The only sexual
activities that breach holiness are the sexual sins God condemns:
rape, incest, child abuse, bestiality and certain homosexual acts. If
God does not condemn it one can practice it and still confidently
walk in holy fellowship with God.
How did humans come to think of sexual activity as being
inherently unholy? Let’s try to think this through. Most of us do not
think it is unholy for a man to insert his penis in his wife’s vagina.
Sexual climax enjoyed by both husband and wife is viewed as
inherently “pure” and acceptable for most people. But many of the
same people begin to feel uneasy about masturbation. Why? God
has no law nor even the slightest intimation in Scripture that
masturbation is, in any sense, unclean or unholy. Where does our
uneasiness originate? It originates in the mind of humans as a
result of false religious teaching. Oral sex suffers the same fate.
Why do we suppose it is OK for a man to kiss and suckle his wife’s
breasts but unholy for him to do the same with her vagina? God
says nothing about it except for the probable positive references to
such activity in the Song of Solomon (cf. chapter 9). Unfounded
religious rules are responsible for all repressive attitudes toward
oral sex. The same holds true for all sexual activity that God has
not made specific laws against. If God did not forbid a sexual
activity, then it cannot possibly be unholy, unspiritual, unclean, etc.
Sexual activity is inherently good. God made it to be good. God did
not make sexual activity to be unclean. No sexual activity is unholy
or unclean unless that act violates God’s prohibitions. If God does
not prohibit an act, it is impossible for man to violate anything by
committing that act. If vaginal intercourse is not inherently unholy,
neither is any other sex act other than those God condemns. If
sexual activity between husband and wife is not inherently unholy
then sexual activity is not inherently unholy when enjoyed by
unmarried people. If it is unholy for unmarried people to enjoy sex
it is unholy only because somewhere in the Bible God defines it that
way. If any form of sexual activity becomes unholy it is only
because that activity violates God’s law of love. Like eating is just
eating, and sleeping is just sleeping, so sex is just sex. It is neither
holy nor unholy.
One of the major problems people have with sexual activity
relates to a man enjoying sex with more than one woman, or a
woman enjoying sex with more than one man. Yet one cannot
268
possibly read the OT through and not be impressed by the fact that
the greatest spiritual leaders in all history were people of great
sexual prowess, who delighted in sexual pleasure with many
different partners. As we have suggested, David is the classic
example. God gave him many women and would have given him
more. And there are many other examples. What this proves
beyond doubt, is that there is nothing unholy about a large amount
of sexual activity with many different partners. These mighty
spiritual giants walked in constant fellowship with God, did His
will, overcame His enemies and led His people for generations, all
while copulating with multiple sex partners. Holiness is not an
inherent issue in sex matters. Holiness, whether relating to sex or
anything else, is a matter of obedience. Where there is no disobedience
there is no unholiness. Consider again the following examples of holy
people who enjoyed sexual diversity.
Abraham was God’s chosen vessel to bring the Israelite race
into existence. He had sex with several women including his wife
Sarah while she lived. But never a hint from God that enjoying sex
with multiple partners was any sort of blot or stain upon
Abraham’s holiness. Abraham fulfilled his destiny and is forever
enshrined in the Bible as “the father of the faithful,” and the
epitome of godly faith. God did not look upon his sexual practice as
abnormal, perverted, unclean or unholy. This anointed, faith filled
man was holy in the most profound sense of that word. And God
allowed him the blessing of sex with many women.
Jacob had two wives, had sex with them both and also with
their maids. He maintained his anointing and place in God’s plans
until his death with no mark against his holiness. God’s chosen
people still bear his name – Israel.
Judah had sex with Tamar believing her to be a prostitute. God
never reprimanded him for this act and there were no holiness
issues ever raised with reference to it.
Samson consorted with prostitutes and had multiple wives and
sex partners. But God never lifted His supernatural anointing from
Samson nor retracted his calling and destiny on the basis of sexual
activity. Indeed, at the end God heard and answered Samson’s
prayer for strength, enabling Samson to fulfill his destiny by
destroying the leaders of the Philistine government and ending
Israel’s bondage to them.
269
Gideon was a mighty leader of Israel’s armies and fulfilled his
role in God’s calling. But Gideon had many wives. God did not
view Gideon’s multiple sex partnerships as in any way detracting
from his holiness.
God considers there to be nothing unclean or unholy in the
practice of sex. Sexual activity does not become unholy merely
because it breaks outside the boundaries of monogamy or even
includes prostitution. God’s servants are not defiled by it; their
loyalty to God and His Word is not rendered questionable by it.
Their qualification to serve God is in no way compromised by
enjoying sex with many different partners. God’s delight in them is
in no measure diminished by sexual activity. God’s favor continues
to remain upon them. His blessings are still available to them.
A great leader of God’s people can enjoy the God-given blessing
of sex in many varieties, yet be regarded by God as holy, anointed,
and worthy as a leader. A modern Pastor is not less holy or unclean
if he enjoys sex in as many ways as God allows. He is not
perverted, dirty, or “lustful” and His Divine calling is not
jeopardized merely by much sexual activity. God’s presence is not
withheld from him if he does so. His place in God’s kingdom is not
endangered by sexual enjoyment. If his wife also enjoys sexual
variety, even enjoying sex with other men, she is not considered
unholy by God any more than her husband is.
If David could have multiple sex partners yet walk continually
in God’s favor and anointing, where did we get the idea that such
is unholy, unclean, perverted, etc.? The male lover in the Song of
Solomon enjoyed the nude dance of his female lover in the presence
of a company of people and delighted in the fact that they wanted
to see more of her. What gave us the idea that to watch a nude
dance today is unholy? Such ideas do not come from God. They
come from false teaching and legalistic rules generated by church
leaders and pseudo-scholars who are more strongly influenced by
unbiblical Victorian concepts of holiness than by the pure, simple
and true revelation of what the Bible actually says. They have spoken
eloquently and boldly where God has not spoken and made laws
where God did not legislate. The result is a church and a churchinfluenced
society whose concept of all things sexual is that sex
itself is essentially unholy and that any true Christian will avoid all
sexual activity except for what is necessary for a married couple to
produce children. This attitude toward sex is not godly, logical,
270
spiritual or holy. Indeed, this very attitude is unholy because it twists
a beautiful, Divinely blessed part of human life into something
sordid and dirty.
This question is important in our day because there is much
current talk about God calling His people to holiness and
repentance. In the minds of most this automatically equates with a
call to separation from all sexual desires except vaginal intercourse
with one’s wife or husband. A few “ministers” believe they have
God’s call to go from church to church warning the people to
abstain from the “pollution of sex,” which they define as singles
“petting,” masturbation, oral sex, looking at sexually explicit
material (all of which they categorically define as “pornography”)
etc. In their minds “unholy sex” is anything except monogamous,
vaginal intercourse. We do not hesitate to say that the “call” upon
such people comes not from God but from their own truncated
human spirit. They are, no doubt, sincere. But tragically their
sincerity is grounded in their mis-begotten, human values oriented,
pharisaic-legalistic based prejudices. Their authority is strictly
human – not Divine. Their warnings do nothing but solidify the
bondage under which the masses lie crushed and broken. Holiness
has become so integrated with the idea of “no sex” that people
cannot get it out of their minds. But if God is calling us to holiness
He is not requiring us to abandon the joy of sex any more than His
call of holiness to David, Abraham, Jacob and all the rest of OT
saints, required them to abandon sexual liberty. Sex and holiness
are not now and have never been incompatible with each other.
One can enjoy the full range of sexual pleasure allowed by God and
have no fear of losing God’s presence, anointing or call.
We must constantly remind ourselves of what exactly makes a
thing sinful. What makes something sinful is the same thing that
makes it unholy. Nothing is inherently unholy, not even bowel
movements. Nothing is unholy unless it violates God’s law.
We must get it through our heads that there is nothing about
sexual activity that has anything to do with spirituality.
Spirituality/holiness/purity/cleanness are all issues of obedience.
Paul’s statement that “nothing is unclean of itself,” (Rom. 14:14), must
be allowed to exercise its full influence in this study. The Holy
Spirit said “nothing” is inherently unclean. The Holy Spirit knows.
This statement absolutely proves that nothing about sexual activity
is either clean or unclean. Uncleanness, unholiness, etc. attaches to
271
anything, only where disobedience is involved. Drunkenness is unholy
because God made a law against it. But drinking alcohol itself is not
a sin. It is not unclean. Eating food is not unclean or unholy.
Gluttony is unholy because God has a law against it. Nothing is
unholy unless it breaches God’s law. Masturbation, oral sex, sex
with more than one partner, looking at the nakedness of others,
reading erotic writings, watching sexually explicit films, watching
other people enjoy sex – none of these practices are in any sense
legislated against. None of them can be holiness issues because none of
them are obedience issues. Some sex practices are holiness issues
because of God’s laws against those practices: e.g. certain homosexual
acts, bestiality, rape, incest. If God had not made us responsible to
His law of love all of those activities would be permissible. Every
sex act that humans can enjoy that has not been legislated against,
is permissible with God and is not unholy or impure. God prohibits
only what displeases Him. He made specific laws to warn us away
from what offends Him. What is not unlawful is permitted by God.
What God permits cannot possibly be a purity, cleanness, or
holiness issue. Nothing about human sexuality offends God. He
made it as a “very good” part of His creation. Humans are free to
enjoy sex in any way that God has not condemned. Rather than
feeling guilt about this wonderful pleasure we should regularly
give thanks to God for creating sex, and for allowing us to enjoy it
in many different forms. Sex is not a curse to avoid. Sex is a
blessing from God to be enjoyed and appreciated.
Unholiness is a matter of disobedience. No act is unclean unless
that act violates a law of God. If there is no law there cannot be
violation of law. Since sin is violation of law then there can be no
sin attached to any sex act if there is no law condemning that act.
Note carefully: It is impossible to violate law if no law exists. Nothing
is sinful or unholy except what violates God’s law. Where there is
no violation of law there is no unholiness. What other people think
about it makes zero difference. A person is not holy because he
abstains from sex or other permissible activities. A person is holy if
he obeys God. Where there is no law to obey or disobey holiness
cannot be an issue.
Nothing about the body or any of its functions has to do with
holiness. Any physical act is unholy only if legislated against. The
human body and all its functions is neutral. Nothing is sinful about
the body and it’s many natural functions. It becomes sinful only
272
when it violates God’s law. If any body function should be classified as
unclean, etc., it would surely be the process of elimination of urine
and feces.
The body is an instrument, subject to both good and evil use of
natural passions. The body is good because God made it that way.
His pronouncement that everything in His creation was “very
good,” (Gen. 1:31), included the human body with all its sexual
potential. God intended that humans enjoy sexual pleasure.
Procreation can take place without the pleasure of sexual orgasm
therefore sexual pleasure is not crucial to the command to “be
fruitful and multiply.” The simple explanation of why God attached
the ecstasy of orgasm to sex is that He desired to bless His children
with this intense pleasure. Sexual orgasm is a tremendous incentive
to engage in sexual activity. Is it conceivable that God would place
that potential in humans then virtually nullify its use by legislating
against all possible enjoyment of it except within the confines of
monogamous coitus and then only for purpose of procreation? In
view of the church’s attitude that sexual pleasure in general is dirty
and sinful, we would surely expect that if such were true God
would certainly not have given us such an unnecessary, powerful
potential for “evil,” knowing that we would surely not be able to
use it correctly. In reality what God did was give us sexual
orgasmic pleasure, specifically define the ways we are not allowed
to use it, then set us free to enjoy the wide variety of sexual
pleasure otherwise not legislated against.
David was the supreme worshipper. His Psalms are still our
worship and prayer manual. But this man was highly sexed and
loved a variety of women. If sexual activity with more than one
woman is a “holiness” issue then it is impossible for David to be
our supreme example of a worshipper. That He was a man “after
God’s own heart” demonstrates beyond argument that God found
nothing offensive in his great sexual appetite and his strong sexual
propensity. He remained anointed, powerful and worshipful in the
midst of his sexual activity. Imagine this: David has sex with a
different wife or concubine every night for six nights, then on the
seventh night he goes to an all night worship and prayer meeting.
Is he acting hypocritically? Is he “out of place” in God’s house of
worship? Does God accept his worship? We trust the answers to
these questions are obvious. He as surely belongs in God’s house,
praying and worshipping with all his heart, as he would if he had
273
no sex the week before. David enjoys the legitimate blessing of sex
as God’s gift and God accepts his worship.
If people today do the same things as David what prohibits
them from freedom in the house of God? Can they do as David did
and enjoy the same freedom in God’s presence as David did? The
answer must be YES!!! Was it holy for David to have many sex
partners yet unholy for us? Impossible! And it is possible for us to
enjoy God’s presence even though we enjoy erotic books,
magazines and films, masturbation, oral sex, etc. None of these can
be “unholy” or “unclean” because none of them violate God’s law
of love. And if an act does not violate God’s law we can do it and
then go directly into His house to worship, pray and praise, and
know that God delights to receive our offering. In other words one
might watch an erotic film on Saturday night, then rejoice in God’s
presence in church the next morning. Any inhibitions about this
exist solely in our imaginations. God has never seen anything
unholy or offensive about our enjoyment of sexual activity in a
wide variety of ways. We would in fact do much better in relation
to God if, rather than entering His house sheepishly and with guilt
because of our sexual desires and activities, we would actually go
into His house and offer praise and thanksgiving for sex as one of
His most exquisite blessings.
We knew a beautiful girl who married a handsome man.
Prospects for their mutual sexual pleasure was tremendous. But
this girl had erroneously been taught by the church and by her
parents that sexual pleasure was dirty, unclean and sinful, and she
called home on her honeymoon crying because, as she said, “I have
always been taught I should not do these things.” They had
problems throughout their marriage, ultimately divorcing because
he, with normal male sexual appetites, lived daily in the presence
of his beautiful wife who could not release herself to him. Such a
sad situation is inexcusable. The church is to blame for its profound
ignorance and hypocrisy that has created an immense heap of
legalistic garbage upon one of God’s most exquisite blessings. For
this young couple to struggle with what virtually all of us accept as
“normal sex” demonstrates that there is an underlying conviction
in most of us that “it may be basically OK, but it is also basically
dirty, a necessary evil.” Such an attitude insults God whose
wisdom and goodness provides us with sexual pleasure. And for
any of us to struggle with sex practices that are not legislated
274
against is no more valid than for this young couple to struggle with
marital coitus. They could have enjoyed each other’s bodies to the
fullest degree and they could also have enjoyed just as innocently,
the pleasure of masturbation, and many other activities that bring
sexual pleasure, all without transgressing the limits God so
carefully and specifically placed on sexual activity. Once more: if a
sex act does not offend God enough for Him to make a law against
it, how can we so stupidly make our own laws against it?
To apply these things specifically again: if God has no law
against the following, none of them can be regarded as unholy,
unclean or impure.,
God has no law forbidding nudity, therefore nudity cannot be
unholy.
God has no law forbidding nude entertainment, therefore nude
entertainment cannot be unholy.
God has no law forbidding polygamy, therefore polygamy
cannot be unholy.
God has no law prohibiting one person from enjoying sex with
many people, therefore sex with many people is not unholy.
God has no law forbidding looking at erotic materials, therefore
looking at erotic materials cannot be unholy.
God has no law forbidding masturbation or oral sex, therefore
masturbation or oral sex cannot be unholy.
God has no law forbidding use of vibrators or other “sex toys,”
therefore using vibrators or other “sex toys” cannot be unholy.
God has no law forbidding production of explicit erotic
writings, photographs and films of nude people, engaged in
sexual activity, so production or use of such explicit erotic
materials cannot be unholy.
Our intention here is to help the reader see that sexual activity
may be enjoyed in many different ways with potentially many
different people without in the least compromising one’s
spirituality or holiness. One may fully enjoy the delights of sex and
still eagerly go to church, serve in ministry, and worship and praise
God with no sense of being out of place and without bearing false
guilt or shame. God created sex. He wants you to enjoy it.
275
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
THE LAW OF LOVE APPLIED TO SEX ISSUES
“There is no biblical sex ethic. The Bible knows only a love ethic,
which is constantly being brought to bear on whatever sexual
mores are dominant in any given country, or culture, or period.”
(Walter Wink, “Biblical Perspectives on Homosexuality,” The
Christian Century, Dec. 7, 1979, 1085).
The NT “Law of Love” codified by Jesus Christ, requires that
we resolve the question of sexual “do’s and don’ts” on the principle
of love for God and love for our neighbor. Applying this ethical
framework to sex issues requires that we work from a positive
foundation of divinely created and recommended sex rather than
from a negative foundation of “sex-as-dirty.” Such a foundation
means we must affirm:
Our sexuality and our whole human body experience was
created as inherently good.
Christian community must include all who own Jesus as their
personal Savior, unlimited by invalid purity codes.
The equality of women and men in all aspects of life.
The incorporation of our sexuality into the reign of God.
Sexual practice characterized by love, justice, equality, fidelity,
mutual respect, compassion and grateful joy.
Avoidance of any sexual act that degrades, demeans or hurts
others.
Refusing to judge others whose conscience before God does not
condemn them in the exercise of that for which they give thanks
to God.
(Adapted from James Nelson, Body Theology, Westminster/John
Knox Press, pg. 62)
The moral teaching and ethical guidelines established by Jesus
takes the decision about the morality of individual acts out of the
realm of inherent evil, and places the decision in the realm of love.
Sexual acts are not to be seen as good or bad in themselves. A
physical sex act has no inherent moral quality. Its goodness or
badness is determined by the effect on the persons involved. Does it
bring mutual pleasure and satisfaction? Is it done in full
consideration for the person-hood, desires, needs, and sensibilities
276
of both parties? Masturbation for example, could not possibly be
defined as a “sinful act” by any Biblical standard, because: [1
Nowhere in OT or NT is that act addressed in any way, and [2 It is
performed willingly as an act of self-loving that brings harm neither
to the practitioner nor to anyone else.
Applied to “adultery” the “law of love” helps refine even more
the answer to the question of “what exactly is adultery?” We have
argued that adultery is not a sex act per se. Nor is it a biological
issue. Only under specific circumstances does a sex act become
adulterous. Adultery is not inherently the act of adding a third
party’s body into the marriage couplet. Adultery is the willful and
harmful violation (adulteration) of the vows of the original pair. It
is the both the desire and/or the attempt to break that original bond.
Thus adultery can be and is often committed in any number of
ways. A jealous or vindictive person who spreads false rumors
against a person in hopes of causing that one’s mate to leave,
commits adultery. Physical, mental or emotional abuse by one mate
against the other is adultery. A husband refusing to provide food,
clothing and other necessities for his wife, is adultery. One mate
who refuses to consider the sexual needs of the other, commits
adultery. We realize that these suggestions do not fit the modern
definition of adultery but refer again to the chapter on Adultery,
and read the actual definitions of the original Greek word.
Adultery is anything that destroys the original covenant or
promises upon which a marriage is established. Many more vows
are made in a wedding than a vow to be sexually exclusive. Vows
to “love, cherish, honor, to protect and provide” for the other mate
are as vital to the covenant as the vow to “keep myself for you
alone.” Breach of the other vows constitutes adultery as surely as
breach of the vow of sexual “faithfulness.” Any act that results in
destroying a marriage union is adultery even when sex has never
been suggested. Original marriage vows that require sexual
exclusivity of each mate have arisen out of human tradition, not
from Scripture. Can you imagine King David saying to Michal, his
first wife, “I promise to keep myself for you alone, until death do
us part?” Such a vow did not exist in that culture. Since the vow of
sexual exclusivity is of purely human origin, it may be abandoned
by mutual consent. A couple who come to clearer understanding of
their true sexual liberty, and who desire to experience it, may
decide to reaffirm their vows to reflect their better knowledge. If
277
they make new vows that do not contain the unbiblical vow of
sexual exclusivity, they may experience sexual relations with other
people, without in any degree violating their marriage covenant, or
threatening the marriage bond. Such could not possibly be defined
as “adultery” except by those who insist on doing so in disregard
for the true import of the word.
Thus introducing a third person’s sexuality into the intimate
circle of a marriage may not be adulterous at all. Granted, there are
risks of jealousy, misunderstanding, etc. involved. But where there
is honesty and mutuality in agreement, meanings and intentions, the
participation of a third party does not constitute adultery. Proof of
this is scattered throughout the OT, which decisively condemns
adultery yet condones polygamy, concubinage and prostitution.
Indeed mutual consent to include a third party may – and often
does – manifest a truly deep union of love and trust between the
married couple.
Our true “sexual problem” is not homosexuality, pornography,
pre-marital sex, etc. Our problem is conformity to unloving mindsets
that set a norm of unjust compulsory heterosexuality,
monogamy and gender inequality. Not monogamous heterosexual
marriage, but true love in sexual relationships is morally normative
for Christians. Love and justice demands equality and mutuality. It
means a moral obligation to recognize and promote each other’s
personal dignity and to honor our own and each other’s needs for
intimacy and affection. Our sexuality is who and how we experience
our remarkable emotional, psychological, physical and spiritual
yearning for communion with others, with the natural world and
with God. Sexual passion and experience gladdens our hearts and
ennobles our lives.
The ethics of Jesus makes it possible for us to celebrate any
sexual relationship that deepens human intimacy, genuine
pleasure, love, responsibility and justice. To editorialize Jesus’
words, “If you had learned what this means, ‘I desire truly loving
relationships more than I desire attempted submission to sexual
law-codes’ you would not have condemned the innocent” (after
Matt.9:13; 12:7). Or perhaps, “What do I require of you O sexual
man, but to promote true intimacy, unselfish pleasure, and mutual
fulfillment with your lover?” (after Mic. 6:8). Or again, “You labor
over such issues as ‘masturbation, oral sex, homosexuality and the
like, while you don’t even notice the deeper and more important
278
matters of sexual justice, mercy, mutuality, compassion and nonjudgmental
acceptance of other’s sexual choices. But while it is
right to be concerned about the others, it is wrong for you to put
these weightier matters in second place.” (after Matt. 23:23).
Rather than such an ethical foundation promoting
licentiousness and “anything goes,” it prohibits from the start all
acts or relationships that in any way wounds, abuses, violates or
exploits other people. It is we believe, the only way to incorporate
sexual ethics into the plainly stated ethical framework of Jesus
Christ who said love for God and love for one’s neighbor is the
summation of “all the law and all the prophets” (Matt. 22:36-40; cf.
also Rom. 13:8ff; Gal. 5:14). It fits exactly within the prescription we
call “the golden rule:” “Whatever you desire that men do to you, do that
very thing to them, for this is the law and the prophets” (Matt. 7:12).
This rule allows for sexual practice that fully considers the other
person while prohibiting sexual acts that are hurtful. Living on the
basis of such an ethic promotes maturity, wisdom and self-respect.
It puts Christians on the plane of spiritual responsibility. It fosters
maturity rather than stagnation. It enables one to live in freedom
instead of repression and bondage. Only such a lofty ethical system
as this can transcend our traditional act-centered sexual ethics,
described by someone as “the right organ in the right orifice with the
right person.” This new ethical system makes it possible for free
moral agents, possessing strong sexual proclivities, to live
responsibly apart from prohibitive guides.
The church’s traditional ethic represented by the preceding
quote and as well by the phrase, “celibacy in singleness, fidelity in
marriage,” is woefully inadequate and not at all Biblical. Though
pretending to be thoroughly Biblical it actually denies the rich
diversity of sexual experiences and relationships that are well
documented in Scripture, particularly in the OT. Furthermore it
establishes illegitimately, the exclusive claim of heterosexual
monogamous sex to moral propriety and sexual maturity. It focuses
on the form rather than on the substance of sexual relations;
focusing on who does what with whom under what circumstances
instead of pursuing honesty, care, love and respect in sexual
relationships. NT ethics identifies “sinful” sexual activity not in the
nature of specific acts; not in terms of whose genitals connect with
whose genitals; but in terms of what demonstrates contempt or
disregard for other people.
279
If the church is ever to become a place where all-encompassing
love manifested in body, soul and spirit, is accepted and made a
cause for praising the Creator of sex, the church must honor the
goodness of sex and diversity of sexual experience. It must
transform its deep fear of sex and body, and repent of its idolatrous
fixation with both. In and of itself sex is the source neither of our
salvation nor of our damnation. As in all other ethical issues it is
what is in the heart that counts most with God.
Jesus’ own example demonstrates that when the good of others
is at stake we are justified in “breaking” the law. The basis upon
which this statement rests is the fact that the law was given not for
the sake of law but for the good of men. The law shows us how to
treat others with love. Where loving action is performed toward
God or toward others the law is fulfilled. This is the reason we
must look at all laws with a view to see if they fit either the
connection of honor given to other men’s persons and property, or
honor given to God. If a law exists that fits neither category then we
treat it as a cultural, temporary law that related to Israel’s particular
place in redemptive history and we refuse to observe that law
because it has served its purpose and it never applied to non-Jews
anyway.
This principle of love as the basis of law explains why there is
no law against such sex acts as masturbation, oral sex, use of
vibrators or other “sex toys,” viewing or reading erotic material,
etc. None of these acts are harmful in the least unless they are forced
upon an unwilling partner. In such case the sin is not in the nature
of the act itself but in the violation of the other person.
With these principles providing a fundamental working base
we can easily see why some sex acts are specifically and eternally
forbidden. It is because those acts harm other people. We can also
see why other sex acts are not forbidden at all. It is because these
acts in no way violate love for God or others. We can also
understand why some sex acts are not inherently sinful but may be
forbidden under specific circumstances. It is because the specific
circumstance involves violation of the principle of love for God and
man. Two sexual activities that are forbidden under specific
conditions but otherwise permitted, are:
Prostitution: prohibited only if done:
In conjunction with worship of idols; – violates love for God.
280
By married woman in rebellion against her husband; –
violates love for husband.
Prostitution chosen as a voluntary activity is not condemned
in any sense in Scripture. The reason appears obvious.
Voluntary prostitution in no way violates either love for God
or for other people.
Homosexuality: prohibited only for males, and only if done:
In conjunction with worship of idols; – violates love for God.
In violation of young boys – “pederasty;” – violates love for
others.
As an act of rape; – violates love for others.
Homosexuality chosen as a voluntary relationship between
informed, consenting adults is not condemned in any sense
in Scripture. The reason now appears obvious. Voluntary
homosexuality in no way violates either love for God or for
other people.
The subject of homosexuality requires more intense study. It is
not apparent that the act itself does evil against either God or other
people. There does not appear to be a breach of “love for your
neighbor” in the act itself. And given God’s viewpoint of sexual
activity as we have traced it through the Bible, there does not
appear to be anything inherent in the sex act between same-sex
partners that violates God’s nature. If these observations are valid
then the prohibitions against homosexuality would be in the same
category as prohibitions against heterosexuality when it violates
love for God because of its connection with idol worship or
witchcraft, or violates love for man when associated with rape and
other forms of violence and exploitation. There is a great possibility
that our horror over homosexuality is derived from our culture and
misguided interpretation of Scripture. The subject bears much
closer investigation. Again, see our book, God Is Not A Homophobe.
One note seems appropriate here however because our subject
is the honoring of God’s law-word. God gave this clear direction:
“You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take
away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God
which I command you” (Deut. 4:2). The same direction and warning
is given in Rev. 22:18, 19, with the warning of God’s judgment
upon one who presumes either to add to or detract from what He
has written. This means that with regard to all things surely, but for
281
present purposes applied specifically to homosexuality and
prostitution:
We have no excuse before God for any attempt to add
regulations upon homosexual conduct and prostitution that
God’s own words do not contain.
What God said about homosexuality and prostitution is
sufficient to demonstrate His will. We must, in honor of God
and of His word, mandate only those forms of homosexuality
and prostitution that God forbids. Whether we like it or not we
must not add our own laws in order to prohibit behavior that
God does not address.
We are able to discern the reasons – consistent with the law
of love – for such special prohibitions. And we are also able to
discern that other forms of those activities do not breach this
law of love. We are able therefore to draw informed, mature
decisions about what appears to be otherwise acceptable
activity in God’s view.
We are obligated before we decide on the legitimacy or
illegitimacy of either homosexuality or prostitution as such, to
do our best at personal, objective study of God’s word. If we are
wrong in our conclusions because we did not study it will not
help us to say to Jesus: “But all the preachers said…” Our
conscience must truly be our conscience. And our convictions
must truly be our personal convictions. God gives us no
permission to live our lives based on other people’s knowledge
and faith.
Human biological acts are inherently amoral. There is nothing
inherently either good or bad about any basic human body
function. Only if those body functions encroach harmfully upon
others does God control them by legislation. No sex act is
inherently unclean, unholy or sinful. Sin attaches to a sex act
only if it harmfully affects other people or dishonors God. Only
on that basis does God legislate against a sex act.
Nothing about a sex act between two men or two women is
inherently dirty. A same-sex couple performs basically identical
physical acts that heterosexual couples perform. A prostitute
does the same acts with her clients as are otherwise done in
“acceptable” relationships. It is not the acts themselves that are
immoral. If the act itself is not “unclean” then what makes
legislation necessary? It is either that the act dishonors God or
282
harms another person. God gave such legislation against the
specific expressions of homosexuality and prostitution that
brought harm to other people, leaving the other expressions of
homosexuality and prostitution untouched. He dealt with
heterosexuality in exactly the same way. This is sufficient for
those who desire only to know what God wills. If other forms of
homosexuality and prostitution were equally repugnant to God
He would have prohibited them also. Since God did not do so
we must refuse to do so. While this will mean nothing in terms
of affecting the lifestyle of most of our readers it will directly
affect the attitude of all of us toward those who choose either of
these lifestyles. If God does not condemn it we dare not. We must
exercise love and acceptance of such people in the same way
Jesus showed compassion and love and acceptance toward such
people in His day. As God grants grace to us so we must grant
grace to others even when they live in ways that go against our
personal grain.
The attitude has been ingrained in us by the church and society
that homosexuality and prostitution are inherently unclean. Paul
says this is not so (Rom. 14:14, 20). If we will, we can escape this
unbiblical, unloving mindset. And we must do so. We cannot truly
honor God’s law otherwise.
Sex and vulnerability
One of the primary reasons for commandments relating to sex is
that the power of sex so easily and quickly uses other people for
strictly selfish passion. Often this passion loses sight of the other
person’s dignity, welfare, needs and especially their vulnerability.
Men too easily victimize women, and children are virtually helpless
against the sexual advance of adults and even by their own peers.
The vulnerability factor is especially strong within family
relationships and is probably the primary reason for laws against
incest. Thus in the OT God prohibited conduct that would sexually
victimize others. In NT ethics those laws are not needed simply
because love as the motivating force in all relationships
automatically ministers sympathetically to the vulnerability of
others rather than taking advantage of that vulnerability.
283
APPENDIX
THE NON-NEGOTIABLES OF BIBLE
STUDY/RESEARCH
One cannot be in the church long, and listen to many
conversations, sermons, or teachings that appeal to the Bible for
authority, without realizing that the Bible is vigorously employed
by opposing parties to any debate, each believing that Scripture
proves the validity of their ideas. Thinking people realize that it is
preposterous to think that the Bible can be fairly interpreted in a
way that sustains opposite viewpoints. Therefore, opposing parties
may both be wrong in their appeal to Scripture, or only one of them
may be right, but both cannot possibly be right. The Bible is
sordidly misused and abused by many people in order to make its
statements fit the ideas they desire to promote. This is not an
accusation that such abuse of Scripture is intentional. It is simply an
observation of reality. Humans are so psychologically disposed and
emotionally compelled to be “right” that they will go to great
lengths to prove their ideas and justify their behavior. Often,
because of human fallibility plus the incredible difficulty of being
truly objective, defenses and arguments are offered that fall far
short of both credibility and integrity. In this milieu the Bible is
often used in ways that are totally inappropriate to any standards
of honest scholarship. If we do, as we should, grant to all Bible
students their integrity and sincere desire to know Biblical truth as
distinguished from theory and human tradition, we must
nevertheless suggest to all students that simply appealing to “what
the Bible says” is never an end-all to argumentation. Simply put, no
human is able to rise perfectly above the host of subjective factors
that color everything we think and do. No human can read the
Bible through purely objective eyes. All attempts to discover “what
the Bible says” and to defend one’s ethical or theological position
on that principle, without at the same time admitting one’s
personal, subjective contingencies, is spiritual elitism. That spirit
drove the Phariseeism of Jesus’ day and it is the driving force of all
modern legalism. No human dare approach a study of or argument
from the Bible, believing themselves to be infallible. Yet as soon as
one admits fallibility, one opens the door to the possibility that
one’s very best efforts may still not have produced unquestionable
truth. Though difficult to do, we must all face every Biblical
284
discussion, on every topic, with the thought in the back of our mind
that the other viewpoint may be right. Augustine said “Whoever,
therefore, thinks that he understands the Divine Scriptures or any
part of them so that it does not build the double love of God and of
our neighbor, does not understand it at all” (Christian Doctrine
1.35.40).
This statement is true. Accordingly, any interpretation of
Scripture that creates hurt, oppression, or destruction of any kind
to people’s well-being, is a wrong interpretation, regardless of how
long standing the interpretation, or how traditional, historical or
exegetically respectable it is. There can be no debate about the
historical fact that the church’s historically established,
authoritative stance on such issues as race, gender, slavery, and
“orthodoxy” has accounted for the persecution and death of many
thousands of people over the last millennium and a half.
Traditional interpretation has prohibited women from enjoying
their rightful privileges and freedom under Christ to equal social
standing, job equality, church ministry – in short the very things
that accompany true, full standing in the human community.
Church dogma defended slavery even in the midst of the Civil war.
Racial bias still exists in the church, though admittedly in a lesser
degree than was true in past generations. And who can ever forget,
or even attempt to mollify the horrific tragedy of the Inquisition?
Of the murder of innocent people during the Salem witch trials? Of
the imprisonment and persecution of great Reformers like Martin
Luther? Of the murders of hundreds of people at different points in
history for their disagreement with prevailing church orthodoxy,
including several whose great “crime” was simply to translate the
Bible into the language of the common man and make it available
to the public?
Should it turn out that the church’s stance on homosexuality
and other sexual issues, has been as wrong as its error on so many
other issues, the church has committed more crimes against
humanity than it can possibly account for in the day of Christ’s
Judgment. Surely the church believes she is right in her blanket
condemnation of homosexuality. But she was just as surely
convinced of her infallibility on the issues mentioned above, all of
which have required repentance by the church. Can the church
prove beyond reasonable doubt that same-sex relationships damage
those involved in them, or any others? Is it even minutely possible
285
that there are some aspects of the same-sex debate that merit
deeper inspection? Is the Biblical material on this issue so
transparently clear that we cannot possibly be mistaken in
absolutely condemning all same-sex relationships? Does the Bible
justify the social and spiritual excommunication of a large
percentage of the world’s population on the sole basis of their
sexual orientation? Is there “love” within our hearts for the
homosexual? If so, how do we express that love to them while
demanding their exile from the mainstream of both society and the
church?
The bottom line of Biblical studies is this: What will “build the
double love of God and of our neighbor?” The final fruit of all
appeals to the Bible for authority must be the fruit of “love, joy,
peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control”
(Gal. 5:22, 23) These all pass the supreme test of love which is the
foundation of all God’s laws. When we ask, “What is the loving
thing to do?” the preceding Scripture answers. On the other hand
we can know that our understanding is wrong, and our behavior
toward others is wrong, if it produces the fruit of “enmities, strife,
jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissentions, factions, envyings,
drunkenness, carousings and such like” (Gal.5:20, 21). We must make
every effort to understand these hurtful behaviors so that we do
not either dishonor God or harm others by our faulty convictions.
There must always be in the Bible student’s mind the possibility that
the prevailing interpretation of the Bible may not have not taken
into account important pieces of data. This is not egotistical. It is an
attitude necessary to fruitful study of the Bible. One who does not
suspect that something new may be found has no reason to study.
Such a person can logically do only one thing; accept the present
results of other Bible scholars and search no more. But of course,
this requires that one’s conscience rest upon the correct
interpretation of Scripture by others. It avoids personal
responsibility to study and determine for oneself what one believes
and chooses to practice. This responsibility, stated Biblically, is “Let
each man be fully convinced in his own mind” and “The faith that you
have, have as your own conviction before God” (Rom. 14:5, 22, NAS).
On this principle then, all legitimate study proceeds on the
presumption that there is more to find than has been found. The
phrase “Bible student” implies a person who explores the Bible
286
with the expectation of finding what has not yet been seen, or at
least, has not yet been made clear.
Something very wrong seems to have developed among leaders
and teachers in the church. Most of the problems in the church
derive from its leaders. And the most glaring problem observable
in church leaders is their unwillingness and/or inability to measure
their concepts and formulate their doctrine by the strict, objective
standard of Holy Scripture. Leaders are pressured to give their
church members the impression that “I am right, you can trust me”
and “our church is right, don’t look elsewhere.” Without intending
to do so, church leaders often search the Scripture for “proof texts”
that will support their already settled conclusions. But the only
honest way to study the Bible is to read it, as much as possible,
with absolute commitment to accept its demonstrable meaning
however much that meaning may cancel previously held
convictions. Following that path is risky and potentially costly. We
understand the pain and the difficulty of such honesty and
objectivity in Bible study. Perhaps the reader will allow us a few
lines of reflection on our personal journey down this path.
Both my wife and I were born into a hard line, right wing,
negatively oriented, legalistic denomination. For generations our
families had been members of this denomination. As we grew up
we were taught, at home and from the pulpit, that all other
churches and all their members were wrong and hell-bound. We
could not leave “our” church and go to another without losing our
salvation. I knew early on that I wanted to preach the Word of God.
I admired preachers. I listened to and learned their ideas and grew
adept at using their style of argumentation. In the process I
absorbed their sectarian, legalistic spirit and became adept also at
“using” the Bible the way they did to sustain the “rightness” of our
denominational peculiarities. I began full time ministry when I was
22 and began then to associate with older preachers in a more
intimate way.
I was amazed to hear some of them joke among
themselves about getting their Sunday sermons by “tearing one
out,” a phrase that referred to simply copying and preaching
another preacher’s sermon outline “as is.” Such sermon copying
was done strictly within the confines of their peers and their own
denominational writers,
and most church member never knew this
was a regular practice of their preachers. Something in me rebelled
at this practice. Two pieces of advice in the infancy of my ministry
287
set the future course of my approach to Bible study and preaching.
In my first year of ministry one preacher whom I admired told me,
“Most of the people in your church have been Christians longer
than you have even been alive.
You will have to study like mad just
to stay ahead of the hounds.” I took that advice seriously. I learned
to use the necessary tools for scholarly Biblical exegesis and
research and for 36 years I have immersed myself in as thorough
Bible study as I know how to perform. In my second year of
ministry a visiting preacher came to preach a week at the church I
was pastoring.
His messages were always responded to with
statements such as: “that was refreshing…different…new…” etc.
Some of the things he taught I had never heard. While visiting
personally and intimately with him during that week, I pumped
him for information about Bible study tools and methodology. He
made one statement that proved to be the salvation of my spiritual
life and of my ministry.
He said, “The best thing you can do for
yourself and for your church, is to learn to preach expositorially. Be
honest with what you find, preach it courageously, and be willing
to accept the consequences.” That statement struck a chord in my
heart, and I began to learn to study and to preach expositorially.
Over the next 18 years I studied and preached through much of
the OT and almost all of the NT, verse by verse. As I began to
become somewhat proficient at the art, I began to hear statements
from my church members, such as “that was
refreshing…different…new…” etc.!
I was being asked every year to
travel to more and more places to preach a week at a time at other
churches. I began writing, and was soon asked to contribute to
brotherhood journals, which I did gladly. But the method of
studying “verse by verse” and in context, so necessary to expository
preaching, produced some unexpected problems.
I was seeing many things in a different light than what was accepted as the
norm within our denomination. Because I began more and more to
preach these ideas that were outside the mainstream of our
denominational mindset, my “popularity ride” began to get bumpy
and the longer it continued the bumpier it got.
Two things proved
to be my ultimate undoing with that denomination, and in my
home church.
Firstly, when I preached at other churches, I was often
questioned, sometimes edgily, by the local preacher about some of
my “new ideas.” Some of my contributions to brotherhood journals
288
brought negative response from brethren in different places across
the country.
I found that I was often in conflict with my peers
because of some of the things I believed and preached. Yet I did
truly believe in what I was preaching and so I continued to preach
my convictions, heedless of the consequences.
Remarkably, though I was becoming more and more a center of controversy among
preachers, the lay members received me readily and my popularity
at home and as a traveling preacher grew.
Secondly, the product of my expositional study was a steadily
growing pile of concepts that did not “fit” with what I had
previously heard and simply accepted as truth on the basis of my confidence in those who taught me.
I awoke to the realization that, in order to “prove” my denominational party line I had been following the example of my peers in twisting the true meaning of some Bible verses,
ignoring the true definition of some Bible words, and ignoring the historical, contextual, cultural setting of many verses.
Without intending to do so, I had used the Scriptures for my
own sectarian purposes, “finding” in them what I needed to find
even when it was not truly there.
I discovered to my absolute dismay and heart-sickness that I had become just like the Pharisees with whom Jesus struggled.
Eventually the pile of inconsistencies became a mountain
and I could no longer simply disregard the
reality that something was dreadfully and fundamentally wrong
with my spiritual and professional posture.
To the best of my ability I had been honest in my study and believed completely in
the truths I had uncovered. But many of those truths were in direct
conflict with the foundation stones of my denomination.
I found
that I could no longer preach the “party line” with integrity. So I
began to preach things that directly challenged the doctrinal
peculiarities of our denominational.
As a consequence I was eventually fired from a church I had pastored for 13 years.
A year later my wife and I left the denomination of our birth to enter the
mainstream of Christianity. This departure put me in a
denominational no-man’s land, having no allegiance to any group,
and for the first time in my life totally free from any pressure to
make my ideas fit with those of someone else.
I made a decision to conduct a hard-nosed re-examination of every doctrine I had ever
held dear.
I was determined to decide for myself what was really –
and provably – true about all spiritual matters.
Both my wife and I have pursued this re-examination together and have learned
289
amazing things about God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, the church, and
ourselves.
We learned truths that would forever have remained
hidden if we had not been able to simply take what the Scriptures
honestly say and embrace those things without fear of the
consequences. But there is a correct methodology for this process
and this methodology is the subject of this study.
How do we remove the blinders of ideological pre-conditioning
that each of us brings to Scripture?
The barest minimum of
necessary components of objective Bible study will include:
1. The text itself: the actual words and phrases as defined by
authoritative scholarship. No text of Scripture can possibly
be “understood” without brutal honesty as to exact meaning
of words and phrases. Every word must be understood, as
nearly as possible, in exactly the way the writer and original
audience understood that word.
2. The historical situation of the text. Serious Bible study
includes study of the times, places, cultural/political
situation and events surrounding the people doing the
writing, and the people receiving the writing.
3. Interpretation of the text in light of its historical situation.
True understanding of the Biblical text sees the words and
phrases as applied specifically to the times, places,
cultural/political situation and events surrounding writer
and recipients. The words of Scripture cannot be treated as if
they arose in a vacuum. All Biblical text is time, history and
culture bound. Ignoring this fact or devaluing its importance
spells doom for serious Bible study.
The Biblical text does not come to us in the form of timeless
axioms. Every text was composed in a specific time/space
framework. Thus Biblical writers do not generally attempt to
explain what for them and their readers were common
assumptions. Use of certain words, phrases and references was
simply taken for granted because the writer knew the original
readers would understand. The only way for us to likewise
understand is to put ourselves in that original situation, if possible,
through diligent historical study.
Our greatest problem if that we tend to read the Biblical text
in light of our own modern historical/cultural situation. Thus
when some read, for example, references to the “naturalness” of
long hair on women and “shamefulness” of long hair on men (1
290
Cor. 10), their conclusions show their confusion, and churches arise
that require women to have a “veil” on their head when they enter
the sanctuary. Likewise some misunderstand the point of the “footwashing”
episode of Jn. 13, with the result that they believe Jesus to
be commanding that we go about literally washing each other’s feet
(as per vs. 12-15). Others will misunderstand Mk. 16:18 as Jesus’
“Great Commission” to build churches that specialize in drinking
poison and handling poisonous snakes.
Giving full consideration to the historical situation in which the
text originates will enable us to understand it as it’s original readers
and authors understood it. This rule is especially important when
studying the New Testament.
The cultural environment of first
century Palestine and surrounding areas was extremely complex.
The New Testament writers were primarily Jewish, but their
audience was primarily Gentile.
The original church was
comprised entirely of Jews with a long history of commitment to
Jehovah and His law-word. But the church very quickly became
dominated by Gentile converts whose long history was one of
pagan idolatry.
Though their mutual language was the Greek of the
common man, their thought processes were entirely different. To
understand what Paul wrote to the Roman Christians, for example,
requires one to understand more than the Hebrew concept of
things, simply because the Gentile Roman Christians did not think
like the Hebrew Christians.
To understand New Testament
writings, one must learn something about who the people were,
and why and how they did things. One must get in touch with the
first-century world, and learn to see things as first-century people
saw them.
Until one does the hard work necessary for such study,
one is not qualified to either form or state an emphatic opinion
about “what the Bible says.”
Jesus said “you shall know the truth and the truth will make you
free” (Jn.8:32). The “truth” that frees us is “My word” which is God’s
word (Jn. 8:3; 17:17). Anything other than the truth of Scripture
makes us slaves.
The difficulty we each face is in arriving at truth.
We struggle against subjectivity, ignorance, predisposition,
prejudice, peer influence, family ties, fear, etc. The path to truth,
though difficult to follow, is nonetheless easily pointed to: Honesty,
Thoroughness and Objectivity in Bible study.
The objective of Bible study is to find the “plain sense” of its
statements. “Just take it for what it says” is an oft-repeated refrain.
291
Interestingly, every competing denominational “camp” uses the
same phrase, each claiming to be the ones who take the Bible
“simply for what is says,” understanding its “plain sense,” while
frequently occupying opposite sides of a doctrinal fence.
Obviously, two opposing viewpoints cannot both be founded on
the “plain sense” of Biblical statements.
At least one, and perhaps
both, viewpoints are wrong. So how does one truly arrive at the
“plain sense” of Scripture? We can confidently “take the Bible for
what it says” but only if we can be sure we are truly reading
exactly what it says! Finding truth is possible. It requires hard
work. It requires honesty and spiritual integrity. We must be
prepared to admit that exegesis without presuppositions is
impossible.
Then we must be willing to lay aside all
presuppositions we find to be in conflict with what the Word
actually says. The great “victory” we wish to win in this arena is
victory over presupposition and traditional, though erroneous,
conclusions.
When we study Biblical statements containing commandments,
condemnation, censure, etc, we must delay making final
conclusions about the meaning and application of what we read,
until we have asked and answered some fundamental questions.
The basic questions one must answer, are these:
What, Exactly, Are The Authors Against;
What Are They For?
When Bible authors condemn and oppose something,
What exactly are the writers opposing?
Quite often the real point of opposition does not lie easily and fully exposed upon the surface of the text. What are they against when, for example, they oppose
“adultery,” “homosexuality,” or “fornication?” Are the authors
always against this thing, or is their opposition related to specific
cultural, social or religious circumstances?
These are the very first
questions that should be asked and answered. One cannot be
honest with self or others, regarding such issues, unless one is
positive (s)he understands what the Biblical author means by using
such words. Simply because an English translation uses any of
those words, does not automatically mean that our English word
exactly represents the original intent of an author who used either a
Greek or Hebrew word. If one wants to know the meaning of a
292
prohibition, one must first determine exactly what it is the author of
the prohibition is against.
Commonly used words frequently suffer from our assumptions
that “everyone knows what that means.” It is too easy to simply
take for granted that the commonly accepted meaning of a word is
the correct meaning.
It is amazing to find that, in sex-related
matters, the original Biblical authors used a large number of words
that meant to them something different than what they mean to us.
Biblical sexual ethics can never be understood if we do not even
understand the words used by the original authors. And we will
never understand those words unless we proceed on the
assumption that every word must be redefined according to the
best modern scholarship. An absolute rule of thumb is this: Never
assume you know what a Bible word means until you have examined it for
yourself.
As an interesting example of mistakes made in this area,
consider the word “leprosy.” All Bible readers know that in the
writings of both OT and NT “leprosy” was a dreaded disease and
especially rendered its victim “unclean.” But is that disease the
same thing we call “leprosy” today?
No it is not. Today the word
“leprosy” refers to Hansen’s disease. That our present day
“leprosy” (Hansen’s disease) cannot be the same as what we read
of in the Bible is demonstrable by the facts that [1. Hansen’s disease
has no cure, while Biblical leprosy could be cured, and specific
rituals were given for cured lepers to be received back into temple
fellowship. [2. Biblical “leprosy,” unlike Hansen’s disease, could
infect physical objects such as furniture, stones, etc.
Thus in Biblical
culture one might find a house infected with “leprosy.” Detailed
procedures are given for “curing” the house of this disease. What
this illustrates is the reality that what we mean by an English word
today is not necessarily what the Bible writers meant when they
wrote the Greek or Hebrew word which is the source for our
English word.
Therefore we must be extremely careful that we do not assume
that when the word “adultery” appears in the Bible, it represents
our modern concept of “adultery.”
The same is true when we read
the words “fornication,” “prostitute,” homosexual,” and a host of
other, non-sexual words. It is the most serious violation of any
scholarly standard to assume without inspection, thus without
evidence, that what an ancient author opposes is the same
293
phenomenon existing in our time. All honest Bible believers are
obligated to treat the Bible’s statements with as much personal
integrity as possible.
We are all obligated to use the Bible in such a
way that we do not violate its integrity. Vast numbers of scholarly
tools exist for such study, as well as guides for correctly using those
tools. Entire college courses exist to teach and train students to use
the available resources for scholarly Bible study. One simply has no
excuse for shoddy Bible study. The scholarly methodology for
effective Bible study is straightforward.
What Is The True Meaning Of The Original Words?
This is the first question to answer. The “plain meaning of the
words” does not come automatically from a cursory reading. The
Bible reader must be sure he/she understands the true definition of
the words encountered, as well as the import of those words. A
good Biblical example of this is found in Jn. 21:21-23. Peter asks
Jesus about John’s future, and Jesus replies, “If I want him to remain
until I come, what is that to you? You follow me.” Those who heard this
statement interpreted it to mean that John would not die, and that
report circulated among believers.
“Yet Jesus did not say to him that
he would not die; but only, ‘If I want him to remain until I come, what is
that to you?’” Without a doubt, the disciples heard the exact words of
Jesus, but they interpreted them wrongly, missing the “plain sense”
of what He said, and so circulated a false report. The church is full
of exactly this kind of mis-interpretation.
When we read the Bible it
must filter through everything we are and all we have been taught
all our lives. It must filter through our cultural baggage and
psychological dispositions. Thus we often have difficulties
understanding the “plain sense” of Scripture.
For example:
“Flesh” in Rom. 13:14, e.g., does not refer to the physical
body, but to man’s sinful nature. So it is not a sign of holiness
that we despise our physical bodies, as many have done, based
on such negative Biblical references to “flesh.”
On the basis of “the literal reading” of 1 Cor. 14:34, 35, many
churches deny ministry for women, yet at the same time reject
modern usage of “tongues” and “prophecy” which the “literal
reading” of the same context accepts! So what did Paul mean
when he wrote “women keep silence” to the Corinthians? What did
the Corinthians understand him to say?
294
Others take “literally” the requirement of Paul that women
in church meetings wear a head covering (1 Cor. 11). The verses
surrounding that requirement make it specifically applicable to
women who “pray and prophesy.” Yet the “literalists” who
require the head covering, refuse to allow women to pray and
prophesy in the church!!!
Mormons “baptize for the dead” as per the “plain sense” of
1 Cor. 15:29. The Christian community correctly rejects the
Mormon interpretation of those verses, and refuses to baptize
“for the dead.” But why is the church right to reject this practice?
What did Paul actually mean when he used those words?
Should we not all, based on the “literal reading” of Mk. 16:18
“handle snakes and drink poison?” Why not?
The “plain sense” of Jn. 13:14,15 is the basis of some
churches having “foot washing” services. All “mainline”
Christian churches reject this understanding of those verses.
Who is right? And why? What did Jesus mean when he said “you
should do as I did to you?”
Can we follow Jesus if we do not “sell all we have and give to
the poor?” Mk. 10:21. Since this is a command directly from the
mouth of Jesus, why is it not mandatory for all of us? Even
though he spoke to an individual, was He not establishing the
principle for a communist society?
Doesn’t the example of the
disciples selling their property and bringing it to the Apostles
for distribution to the poor (Acts 4:32-37), reinforce the mandate
for the church being communistic? Why not? What do Jesus’
words mean to us? How do we interpret the action of those
selfless saints?
Many translations exist giving different translations for the
same words. Which is right? For example, is it “prevent”(KJV)
or “precede” (NASB & others) in 1 Thess. 4:15?
When Paul wrote “malakos,” (1 Cor. 6:9) did he mean
“weaklings” (Tyndale and others), “effeminate” (KJV, ASV)
“sodomite” (NAB) “male prostitute” (NIV, NRSV) or
“perversion” (RSV, TEV, NEB)? Forget what we think! We must
know: what did Paul mean?
When Paul wrote “arsenokoites,” (1 Cor. 6:9) did he mean
“lechery” (Wyclif, 14th century), “abusers of themselves with
mankind” (KJV), “liers with mankind” (many translations prior
to 20th century), “homosexuals” (NASB, NLT), “homosexual
295
offenders” (NIV), “sodomite,” “men who have sexual relations
with other men” (NCV), “sexual perverts,” “male homosexuals”
or “practicing homosexuals” (other modern translations)?
Which is it? Does the word Paul used really mean something
sexual that men do “with other men?” Does it mean
“homosexual?” What did Paul mean, and what did the readers
understand him to say?
All these different translations cannot be correct. Which one,
if any is correct? How can we know what Paul was against, if we
do not know the meaning of the words he used?
Such differing translations compel any serious student to simply lay them all
aside and pursue an independent study of all available scholarly resources to find, as near as possible, Paul’s original meaning.
Jesus’ “literal words” were “it is easier for a camel to go through
a needle’s eye…” (Mk. 10:24,25). Many interpret Jesus as referring
to “a gate in Jerusalem called ‘the needle’s eye’ through which a
camel could crawl if it had been unburdened…”
This “interpretation” makes it possible for a camel to go through a
needle’s eye. Yet Jesus’ intended meaning in these words was that
it is impossible for one who trusts riches to go to Heaven, (vs. 27)!
So why would Jesus begin to make such an emphatic point,
only to destroy its force with His illustration?!?!
The thorough researcher will discover that there never was such a gate in
Jerusalem. The first mention of such is in a commentary by
Theophylact, in the 11th century. He invented this interpretation
to try to “explain” this difficult Scripture. Jesus meant this: It
takes a miracle for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, and it
takes a miracle for a rich man to be saved. But understanding this
requires more than a cursory reading. And it requires the ability
to avoid “gimmicky” explanations of difficult Scriptures.
The answer to such difficulties and differences of interpretation
is not “just read without interpreting,” or “just take it literally.” The
answer is to interpret fairly and correctly, considering all available
evidence. Exegesis is careful, systematic, independent study of
Scripture, in order to find its original, intended meaning. Exegetical
study requires us to read with the thought: “what did this mean
back then, and back there.”
So, the first general principle of finding Bible truth, is this:
Interpret according to the correct, i.e. original meaning of the words.
296
If we do not understand the words used, we cannot understand the
message of the Bible.
Consider also that an isolated word is not always clear: What do
you think of if I say “trunk?” Am I referring to an elephant’s
“trunk,” a large container, the baggage compartment of an
automobile, or the base of a tree?
If I say “light” am I thinking of an electrical bulb, or of an object that is not “heavy?” “If the word is “desert” does it mean “to abandon” or “a sweet treat?” In Rev. 5:5,
“lion” refers to Christ, but in 1 Pet. 5:8 it refers to Satan. Does it
mean the same in both places?
Correct understanding of words depends on two factors:
Words used in translation change meaning over time. Consider
“prevent” (KJV) in 1Thess. 4:15, versus “go before” (NASB, others).
Which is the correct meaning?
Two ways to know: Find the true definition of the original Greek word. The word
Paul wrote actually meant “go before” to both Paul and his original readers.
Examine the context surrounding the word. In our example,
vs. 16 confirms the meaning “go before.” Both the original
meaning of the word and its context agree.
Sometimes translators use only one English word as the
translation for several different Greek words. In the NT there are
several different Greek words, all of which are translated by the
one English word “praise.” (e.g. Jn. 9:24(KJV); Eph. 1:6; Heb. 2:12; 1
Pet. 4:11.)
Each word has a different meaning. If the student is not
aware of this, and does not study to see what each word actually
means, the student will not understand what the NT is
communicating to us about the practice of “praise.”
What Is The Literary Context Of Those Words?
Individual words and individual verses have meaning only within
their context. Ignoring this had led to virtually all the error and
heresy that exists.
The most important question you can ask: “What is the point?”
What is the author’s train of thought? What did he say before and
after the sentence I’m reading? How does this word or sentence
relate to surrounding words and sentences?
297
Look carefully and honestly at the exact definition of words, their
grammatical relationship to surrounding sentences; the meaning of
phrases.
As important as finding the exact meaning of individual words,
is looking carefully at the context in which those words appear. The
context is the writing that surrounds the word or verses we are
studying. The immediate context is what comes just before and just
after the verse. The remote context ranges from the remainder of the
chapter, to the book, to the whole Scripture.
Jn.9:3 says the parents and child in this story had not sinned. So
let’s deal with this statement: “This verse is part of the inspired
Bible and its literal, and plain sense means that these people were
sinless.” Is this really the meaning of Jesus words? It surely appears
to be so. If not, how do we demonstrate it? We can find the answer
by considering:
What does the remote context of Scripture teach about human
sinlessness? (e.g. Rom. 3:9-10, 23; 1 Jn. 1:8-10) We learn that
Scripture emphatically declares that all men, without exception,
are sinners. Therefore, we are forced to look for an
interpretation of Jesus’ words that is consistent with this remote
context.
We examine the immediate context of this phrase, by asking,
“What question was Jesus answering?” (vs. 2) Were they asking if
the people were sinners? Or were they asking if sin was the
cause of this man’s blindness? Jesus’ statement relates directly
to their question. What does He mean? He means that this
affliction was not caused by these people’s sin.
So is there a contradiction between Jesus and Paul, who said,
“all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23)? No,
the meaning of Jesus’ words as per the immediate context, agree
with Paul’s teaching in the remote context. Until one can make
both contexts agree, one must continue to study.
In studying Biblical context.
1. Think of all possible, legitimate meanings for the verse or
words you are studying. Which meanings present problems of
interpretation?
2. Read the verse in its context. Read enough to get the
progress of thoughts or events. Decide what you think is the
basic thought of the whole section.
298
3. Examine the verse more closely. Are there any connecting
words at the beginning of the verse? (e.g. “Therefore,” “But”
etc.)
4. Try to answer the question: “What does this verses mean as
determined by its context?”
What Is The Cultural/Historical Context Of Those Words?
The Bible was written in a specific historical setting. The meaning
of its words relates directly to the people who first received it, as
they understood the words in their cultural setting. We must try to
find what part of its original historical context is also applicable for
us today.
Try this with Deut. 22:5, 8-12.
How many of us today believe it is sinful for a woman to wear pants, or for a Scotsman to wear a skirt (kilt)?
Who among us owns a house with a “parapet on the roof.”
Do any of our Christian gardeners hesitate to sow our gardens with different kinds of seed?
Should a Christian farmer be careful to not hitch his ox and donkey together?
How many “sinners” do we have among us because of mixing “wool and linen
together?”
And how many Christians have obeyed the command to make tassels on the four corners of our garment?
If we do not take these commands seriously for ourselves, why not?
And if we refuse to take these Divine commands personally, on what basis do we
take other commands personally?
What makes the difference? Are we able to figure out which commands are still obligatory and which are not?
How many churches reject the requirements of OT law regarding animal sacrifice?
How many of those same churches observe the OT laws requiring tithing?
How do we know when it is appropriate to reject one command but to obey another?
This human, historical, cultural side of the Bible is the reason we must “interpret” it for self and for others. Even though we may know what is the “plain meaning” of certain Scriptures, that “plain meaning” may not at all be applicable to us.
So if we have successfully answered the beginning question, “what was the actual word written by the author?”
and if we have discovered “what that word actually meant to those original recipients,” then we must decide if and how the meaning of that exact word might have relevance to us?
299
Part of our answer comes as we try to answer, “why did God say
this to them?” Was there a purely local situation addressed that
required only local application?
Does the same situation exist for us?
When removed from its historical and cultural setting, will it retain that same meaning/application?
For example does 1 Cor. 7:26 mean that if we are single, we should remain unmarried?
This is obviously what it meant to the original recipients. But what was
there about their specific historical/cultural circumstance that
made that advice appropriate for them, but inappropriate for us?
Even though we may see clearly a command relating to specific
people in specific circumstances, we must not assume that the same
command is binding on all men for all time, regardless of their
circumstances.
Every Scripture originated in a geographical, historical, cultural
setting. It automatically reflects the language, customs and social
mores of the time. It is crucial, in many instances, to know
something about this background, in order to make sense of what
we read. If we interpret according to our own culture, we will
frequently misunderstand.
Sometimes identical words and statements have different
meanings. In England a man may say a woman is homely by which
he means she is home loving and unpretentious. In America if a
man says a woman is homely he means she is unattractive and
maybe even ugly. In India, saying a man is like an owl is an insult,
because Indian culture interprets this to mean the man is stupid. But
in America saying a man is like an owl is to praise him for his
wisdom. Same word: opposite meanings.
Every philologist knows that word meanings change over time.
In 1611, when the King James translation of the Bible was made, the
word “prevent” meant to “precede, to go before.” Today the same
word means to “prohibit or stop.”
Thus modern translations are right to reject “prevent” in favor of “precede” in 1 Thess. 4:15 (KJV). “Double portion” (2 Kg. 2:9) most probably refers to inheritance
of the firstborn, rather than “twice as much.” The cultural background
of this phrase (e.g. Deut. 21:17) indicates Elisha wanted to inherit
Elijah’s ministry as a “first-born” son. Thus in our culture this
phrase does not mean the same as it did in the culture which
coined it.
The first and primary meaning of any scripture is what it meant to
the people who originally received it. And it may not have the same
300
meaning or application to us as it did to them. Remember this basic
rule about Biblical interpretation:
A text cannot mean now, what it never could have meant to its
author or its original readers.
As example, what is the meaning of “that which is perfect” in 1
Cor. 13:10? Does Paul have in mind “the completed New
Testament” as many modern interpreters say? Even though this is a
widely adopted interpretation of these words, this is one thing this
text cannot possibly mean! Neither Paul nor his readers knew a
“New Testament” was in the works.
When the Corinthians received this epistle and read this verse, they could not have thought, “Oh, when the New Testament is completed, then prophecy and
tongues will cease.” Such an interpretation would make zero sense
to them. For that reason (as well as others), “that which is perfect”
cannot refer to “the completed New Testament.”
What does it mean to “take up our cross daily” and follow Jesus,
Lk. 9:23? What did it mean to the people who first heard it? They
were familiar with the practice of requiring a condemned criminal
to carry his own cross to the place of execution. Those people
understood Jesus was saying that those who follow Him must die
to their personal agendas and preferences every day. In some cases
they would face actual physical death for His sake. We are obligated
to interpret according to this original meaning.
Therefore it is a
misuse of this Scripture for us to refer to enduring difficult
situations and difficult people, as “this is just my cross to bear.”
Such an idea would not, and could not have occurred to the people
who first received this saying. Therefore it cannot mean that.
What Geographical Elements Might Be Important In
Understanding This Text?
Joel 2:23 promises “the former rain and the latter rain.” A modern
religious movement sprang up called the “Latter Rain Movement,”
claiming to be the fulfillment of this prophecy.
In Israel there were
two main rainy seasons: the “early rain” at the time of crop sowing
and the “latter rain” near the end of the growing season as crops
matured. God was promising to bless them by sending real rain to
bless their crops, both at the “early” time of sowing and “later” as
301
the crops matured. God was not promising to send the Holy Spirit
at two different historical periods. And in this Scripture God was
not promising anything to us.
To apply this Scripture to us is a
misuse of Scripture. To apply this Scripture to the sending of the
Holy Spirit is to spiritualize it without warrant. This Scripture has
nothing at all to do with some conjectured “latter day out-pouring
of God’s Spirit.”
What social customs are important in understanding this text?
Jesus washes His disciple’s feet (Jn. 13:3-5) and asks if they
understood what He had done, (vs. 12). Then He tells them to do
the same (vs. 14-15). Does this text apply to us?
If so, how? In that culture people traveled mostly by foot and with shoes that were
more like sandals. Their feet became very dirty when they traveled
from place to place. Their cultural practice was for a household
servant to wash the feet of visiting guests. Jesus would not be
expected to wash their feet because He is “Teacher and Lord” (vs.
13). We have no such practice because we have no such need. But if
we can discover the principle, we can make an application.
Jesus says He did this to give us an “example” (vs. 15). If He is
“Lord…” yet takes the place of a servant to wash their feet, they
should be willing to be servants to each other whatever the need
may be.
The principle is “serve one another with humility.” So we do
not literally “wash one another’s feet” because doing so has no
meaning for us. But if we practice the principle of serving each other
in humility, we follow Jesus’ example, and His teaching.
Does the passage truly speak to our present situation?
A given passage may be very clear and precise in its meaning
and application to its original cultural context, yet its particulars
may have no application at all to our modern culture. One of the
best examples of this is found in the controversy in the first century
church over whether Gentile converts must be circumcised in order
to be fully accepted into Christian fellowship.
Acts 15:19-29
contains the conclusion reached by the church council. It consists
of:
302
1. A statement of the requirements to be made of Gentile saints.
They are to avoid things sacrificed to idols, and from blood and
from things strangled and from fornication (vs.20, 29).
2. A specific reason stated for these requirements. “Moses from
ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is
read in the synagogues every Sabbath” (vs. 21).
It is clear from this text that the specific reason for these
requirements is that Gentile saints were surrounded by Jewish
saints whose dedication to Moses’ writings would not allow them
to conscientiously eat things sacrificed to idols, or things strangled,
or meat with blood in it.
If these Gentile saints had not been thus
surrounded by Jewish saints, no such prohibitions would have
been made. Eating blood, things strangled, and meat offered to
idols are not modern ethical problems because Moses’ law is no
longer determinative for Christians, and both Jew and Gentile
Christians understand that those OT prohibitions have been
nullified.
Since today in our culture, we will not offend a Jewish
saint by eating blood or things strangled or meat offered to idols
we are free to do so.
The situation that required those original prohibitions no longer exists therefore the prohibitions are not valid.
Thus a specific “commandment” to Gentile Christians to not
eat blood is not a commandment we take seriously because its
purely cultural setting is so far removed from our own.
We perhaps should add that the restriction against “fornication”
remains valid in whatever specific form it is applicable to our
culture, simply because God’s condemnation of “fornication” is
cross-cultural and not historically peculiar.
In the Acts 15 passage
the “fornication” involved was doubtless that of Gentiles using
temple prostitutes.
It is the same problem Paul addressed in 1 Cor.
6:15, 16. Neither passage addresses any specific sexual issue because
the word “fornication” does not do so.
The word itself is a generic word describing any forbidden sexual activity. It must be clarified by its context in order to have any specific meaning. While it is true
that all forbidden sexual activity is included in this word,
nevertheless in its Acts 15 context it has specific meaning and
application to idol worship, as is obvious from its connection with
eating meat sacrificed to idols and eating blood. Thus Acts 15
forbids Gentiles from deliberately harming the consciences of
Jewish brethren by eating blood, and from having sexual
303
intercourse with pagan temple prostitutes.
In neither case do we take this passage as specifically applicable to us today.
Finding The Historical Context Think as you read: “What was the situation in the church or in Israel, among those people” that accounts for the precise words of my
subject text?
What was the situation in the city, or in the nation?”
“What was the political situation?” What historical era does the book
deal with?
True interpretation of individual verses in Scripture must
harmonize with the entire Biblical revelation.
If one’s interpretation of a Scripture contradicts other Scriptures, one’s interpretation is wrong.
The Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself.
Reading the Bible through on a regular basis will give a good
foundation for avoiding the mistake of drawing conclusions from a
limited perspective.
As example, Paul writes “I bow my knees before
the Father” (Eph. 3:14). Thus we have “Apostolic authority,”
witnessed to by inspired Scripture, that bowing the knees in prayer
is Biblical.
But this does not mean kneeling is the only acceptable
posture for prayer because other Scriptures authorize prayer while
raising hands, standing, or lying prostrate.
Heresies and false doctrine appear to have Biblical support
because their promoters use only the verses that appear to teach their doctrine while ignoring others.
If a verse seems to give new and great revelation one must resist adopting such new
“revelation” until one has thoroughly compared it with the rest of
what Scripture says.
What was once binding upon God’s people may not necessarily
be binding today. For example, Scripture shows that God
commanded His people to not eat pork.
But other Scriptures show that God Himself lifted that restriction. So it is actually unbiblical for people to attempt to please God by observing this or other Biblical
food laws.
Some Biblical mandates have remained basically in force while
having been altered in their specific form.
For example, Saturday
Sabbath keeping is practiced today by sincere people who get their
“authority” in the OT law for Israel. But the NT revelation of the
New Covenant, the meaning of Christ’s resurrection, and the
practice of the early church shows the seventh day Sabbath was not
304
practiced by first century Christians, who rather began gathering
for worship on the first day of the week.
Some take the NT alone as modern authority for Christians,
thereby eliminating instrumental music from worship. But this
ignores the harmony between OT & NT and the essential oneness
of God’s revelation. The Bible is not two books; it is one unified
revelation of God’s mind.
Using the NT alone, or Gospels alone, or the Epistles alone to
form belief is invalid. Learning the full truth about any Bible
subject requires treating the entire Bible with equal dignity and
respect, and using all of what it says as the mixture from which we
make our final conclusions.
The reader should not conclude from our remarks that we think
cultural or historical contexts will settle all questions about Biblical
meaning and present application. But no one should feel they have
done their Biblical research until they have tried their best to
understand Scripture as its original readers must necessarily have
understood it.
What it meant to them, is its true meaning. We must
acknowledge that anything written by Paul must necessarily have
meant something specific both to him and his readers. He could not
possibly have written words that meant nothing to himself and he
would not have written nonsense to his readers.
Given the tendency of words to change meanings over time,
plus the fact that cultural practices, mores, concepts of good and
bad, etc. also change – sometimes dramatically – we are faced with
the task of uncovering the original setting of all Biblical writings.
If we are unwilling to do the hard work necessary for this we should
withdraw from Biblical study and most definitely we should cease
to pose as teachers of the Bible. Without such hard research we will
be led astray in our own conclusions and we will consequently lead
astray those whom we teach.
Do I Have The Courage To Stand Alone If Necessary?
Independent and honest research will occasionally turn up
those “rare gems” of truth that runs counter to mainstream
thought.
If the new ideas are sufficiently “radical” the discoverer is
faced with the dilemma of fully embracing that truth and risking
ostracism – or worse – or simply keeping it to himself and refusing
to share the truth that would set others free.
The church is eternally
305
indebted to Martin Luther and other like minded “Reformers” who
saw the “new truth” of salvation by grace and with consummate
courage proclaimed it to all who would listen. And where would
we be if Peter, James, John, Paul and the other first century apostles
and saints had not boldly preached the “Gospel” in the very face of
a dangerous and threatening Jewish court that had already
murdered their Master?
Their indomitable courage is the
foundation upon which the whole church rests.
Not every truth deserves equal commitment.
But a person of integrity must be willing to embrace truth even when it flies in the
face of all they have previously known. They must be willing, at
least for the sake of their own personal integrity, to be honest with
what they find in Scripture.
If circumstances exist that makes it advisable for them to withhold some revelation about their findings because they genuinely feel others “are not able to bear it,” then
they have Jesus as their example (Jn. 16:12). We are never right to
simply stick new ideas in other people’s faces when we know they
have no way to deal with those ideas.
But we are also culpable if
we refuse to use our information to help others who may be open
to it, and who may need it.
306
OTHER BOOKS AVAILABLE FROM THE AUTHOR
OF DIVINE SEX:
The Royal Law of Liberty, by Darwin Chandler. (Trafford
Publishing, 488 pg; available at trafford.com and
amazon.com). This book cuts the root of all illegitimate
religious rules, bringing true freedom for humans to
enjoy all things good, without shame or guilt. This
lengthy argument establishes the “Law of Love” as the
only religious/spiritual law required of those who desire
to serve God. It's premise is vital to understanding the
necessary basic approach to all moral issues. It does for all
moral issues, what Divine Sex does for specifically sexual
issues.
God Is Not a Homophobe, by Philo Thelos. (Trafford
Publishing; available at trafford.com and amazon.com).
God is not a gay-hating Ogre, despite vehement claims by
the church. The Bible in no way condemns homosexuality
as a consensual life-style. This book clears the moral air of
cultic anti-homosexual rhetoric. A must read for all who
care about what the Bible really says – and doesn't say –
about homosexuality.
307
A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aaron, Kevin, Journey From Eden.
Bailey, D.S., Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition
(London, Longman, Greens, 1955).
Balch, David, Homosexuality, Science, and the Plain Sense of Scripture.
Batchelor, Edward, ed. Homosexuality and Ethics (The Pilgrim Press).
Blank, Joani, First Person Sexual
Boswell, John, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality
(Univ. of Chicago Press).
Brawley, Robert, Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality.
Brown, Peter , The Body and Society: Men, Women & Sexual
Renunciation in Early Christianity
Brown and Bohn, Christianity, Patriarchy and Abuse.
Cairncross John, After Polygamy Was Made A Sin
Coleman, Peter, Christian Attitudes Toward Homosexuality,
London: SPCK, 1980).
Constantine, Larry L. and Joan M., Group Marriage: A Study of
Contemporary Multilateral Marriage.
Countryman, William, Dirt, Greed and Sex.
DeMartino, Manfred F ed. Human Autoerotic Practices, (NY: Human
Sciences Press, 1979)
Deida, David, Intimate Communion: Awakening Your Sexual Essence
DeLora, Jack and Joan, Intimate Life Styles: Marriage and its
Alternatives
Donnelly ,Dody H, Radical Love: An Approach to Sexual Spirituality.
Dover, Kennet, Greek Homosexuality (Harvard Univ. Press)
Edwards, George, Gay/Lesbian Liberation: A Biblical Perspective.
Eisler, Riane, Sacred Pleasure: Sex, Myth, And The Politics of the Body,
(SF: Harper, 1995)
Ellis, Albert, Sex Without Guilt, (NY: Lyle Stuart, 1958, and
Hollywood: Wilshire Books, 1965)
Firestone, Shulamith, The Dialectic of Sex (William Morrow and Co.)
Fisher, Helen, Anatomy of Love.
Foxrich, David Ph.D. In Touch For Men.
Francoeur, Anna K and Robert T., Hot And Cool Sex: Cultures in
Conflict.
Francoeur, Anna K and Robert T., The Future of Sexual Relations
Friday, Nancy, The Power of Beauty, (NY: Harper 1996)
Furnish, Victor The Moral Teaching of Paul (Abingdon Press).
–––––––– Theology and Ethics in Paul (Abingdon Press)
308
Gould, Terry The Lifestyle: A Look at Erotic Rites.
Hannay, J.B. Sex Symbolism in Religion (2 vols.)
Helminiak, Daniel A., What The Bible Really Says About
Homosexuality.
Human Sexuality: A Preliminary Study (NY: United Church Press,
1977)
Heyn, Dalma, Erotic Silence of the American Wife
Hillel, Rachel, The Redemption of the Feminine Erotic Soul
Hite, Shere, Women in Love: A Cultural Revolution in Progress
Larue, Gerald, Sex and the Bible.
Lawrence, Raymond, Jr.,The Poisoning of Eros
Lee, Philip J., Against the Protestant Gnostics
MacNeill, John, The Church and the Homosexual (Sheed, Andrews
and McMeel, Kansaws City, 1976).
Marotta, Toby, The Politics of Homosexuality (Houghton Mifflin,
Boston)
Masters, Robert Augustus, The Way of the Lover
Mazur, Ronald, The New Intimacy: Open-Ended marriage
Minell Tia, The Ultimate Swinger’s Guide
Muir, Charles and Caroline, I.
Myers, Lonnie and Leggitt, Hunter, “A New View of Adultery”
(Sexual Behavior, Feb. 1972).
Nearing, Ryam , Loving More: The Polyfidelity Primer
Nelson, James B., Body Theology.
–––––––– Embodiment.
–––––––– The Intimate Connection: Male Sexuality, Masculine
Spirituality.
Nelson and Longfellow, Sexuality and The Sacred.
O’Neil, Nena and George, Open Marriage.
Oberholtzer, Dwight, Is Gay Good?
Pagels, Elaine, Adam, Eve and the Serpent
Pittenger, Norman, Making Sexuality Human,
–––––––– Goodness Distorted
–––––––– Unbounded Love
Ramsey, Paul, A Christian Approach to the Question of Sexual Relations
Outside Marriage, (Journal of Religion, vol.XLV, #2 April 1965).
Ranke-Henemann, Uta, Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven: Women,
Sexuality …
Reiss Dr. Ira L., An End to Shame: Shaping Our Next Sexual
Revolution, , (Prometheus Books)
309
Reuben, David Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Sex.
Rhodes, Richard, Making Love-An Erotic Odyssey.
Rimmer, Robert, The Harrad Experiment.
Rogers, C.R., Becoming Partners: Marriage and its Alternatives
(New York: Delacorts, 1972)
Roy, Rustum & Della, Honest Sex.
Russell, Bertrand, Marriage and Morals (NY Bantam, 1959)
Scanzoni, Letha and MollenKott, Virginia, Is The Homosexual My
Neighbor? (Harper & Row)
Scroggs, Robin, The New Testament and Homosexuality.
Small, Dwight, Christian, Celebrate Your Sexuality.
Snaith, Norman ed., Leviticus and Numbers. The Century Bible
(Thomas Nelson)
Soards, Marion, Scripture and Homosexuality: Biblical Authority & the
Church Today (Westminster John Knox)
Stubbs, Kenneth Ray, Women of the Light: The New Sacred Prostitute
(Secret Garden, 1994)
Thomas, Patti, Recreational Sex: An Insiders’ Guide.
Trible, Phyllis, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality
Walsh, Donald Neale, Conversations With God (Hampton Roads,
1997, Books, 1, 2, 3)
Williamson, Marianne, A Woman’s Worth.
Walter Wink, “Biblical Perspectives on Homosexuality,”
The Christian Century, Dec. 7, 1979, 1085
Zilbergeld, Dr. Male Sexuality.
http://inkaboutit4u.com/?p=Book_Divine_Sex_FREE_Online_Part_4_of_4
pages 261-321 (the end)
Any action that offends God is unacceptable for our
participation.
•“Is my conclusion consistent with love for man: will this
action hurt another person?”
Anything that harms another person is off limits. This
guideline, together with the previous one, enables us to
dependably decide what we may or may not do in those
activities of which the Bible says nothing. When we honestly
examine an activity for its possible affects on God and others
and we cannot see how it either offends God or harms man,
then that thing is probably in the realm of choice. One is free
to do that thing or to reject that thing according to personal
preference. If, after considering these aspects of moral
evidence one cannot see how an act would possibly violate
either God or man, yet still feels reluctant to do that thing,
then one has identified an area of bondage to the doctrines
and precepts of man. Judging all things by the law of love
gives us a brand new and reliable touchstone for deciding
what things are holy or unholy. According to Jesus and Paul it
is not the act itself that is either holy or unholy. It is how that
act affects God and others that determines its “holiness.”
•“Do I give God thanks for the good that I enjoy?”
Whatever activity one approves is something for which
one should thank God. This combination of seeking the Word
of God and giving Him thanks for what one “approves” gives
God pleasure. We will be bold enough to say that God is thus
pleased even if our ultimate choice is a wrong choice. Such will
inevitably be the case at times simply because of our
humanity. But God is looking for hearts that love Him enough
to make a sincere effort to know what pleases Him and then to
do that. Such a heart will not often do what God prefers we
not do. When such a loving heart makes a wrong judgment
and chooses activities that are wrong, still God’s grace enters
to apply the blood of Jesus, and so He keeps us in His love.
Defilement comes not from physical acts but from spiritual
attitudes. Physical acts are not inherently “defiling.” “Defilement”
requires involvement of the heart. Physical acts are not inherently
sinful or inherently good. They are inherently innocent. Any physical
act that hurts another person is always wrong because of its hurtful
262
effect. But such an act is sinful – i.e. morally defiling – only if done
intentionally or rebelliously. Even civil laws define a difference
between “negligent homicide” versus “murder,” or a traffic
violation that brings a “warning” rather than a citation/fine.
Actions that civil law defines as “illegal” and “criminal” may be
mitigated as determined by motive. Thus some technically
“criminal” acts may be effectively regarded as “non-criminal.”
Obversely some inherently innocent acts may become sinful because
of an attitude of spite, rebellion, disregard of other’s welfare, etc. In
the civil realm, building a fence has no inherent legal implications.
But if one builds a “spite fence” civil law may require its
destruction. Especially in the spiritual realm, what makes an act
wrong/defiling/sinful is the intention behind it or its effect on others.
Sin, moral defilement, worldliness, etc. are located in people’s
minds, not in material objects or physical actions.
Again, Paul’s incredible statement is, “I know and am persuaded in
the Lord that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything
to be unclean, to him it is unclean,” (Rom. 14:14). Most religious
people cannot take that verse as it stands. We seem to be compelled
to explain away its force with such arguments as “but he is talking
only about meat sacrificed to idols.” And so forth. But Paul is also
talking about observing religious days, (vs.5,6) and wine, (vs.21)
and “anything else” by which a brother is made to stumble, (vs. 21).
Wine, feast days and meat are simply specific examples of Paul’s
general point that nothing is inherently unclean but anything can
become a stumbling block to others if used indiscriminately. And
Paul literally says, “nothing is unclean in itself.” For emphasis he
says “All things indeed are clean, but evil for him who eats and gives
offense,” (vs.20). “All things” and “nothing” are totally inclusive. The
Holy Spirit did not err in these statements. Add to these the
statement that, “To the pure all things are pure; but to those who are
defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure, but both their mind and their
consciences are defiled,” (Titus 1:15). Are “all things” really pure to
those who are pure? Paul says so. His point is that things in
themselves have no inherent moral quality. What makes something
either pure or impure is the attitude and motive of the person
involved. Even what we would consider “pure” things become
impure in the hands of those whose hearts are impure. Consider
also that Paul says, “All things indeed are lawful for me, but not all
things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be
263
mastered by anything,” (1 Cor. 6:12; 10:23). Paul did not say that it is
sin to choose what is not “profitable.” That is an interpretation
made up by humans. What is “profitable” to me may not be
profitable to another. Each person must decide for themselves what
they approve of. They are free to choose because “all things are indeed
lawful.” It is circumstance that makes inherently lawful deeds to be
either profitable or unprofitable. To drink wine in the presence of
one whose conscience may be compromised by my example would
be unprofitable to that person and to myself. But to drink wine in
different circumstances would be profitable at least to me.
Many people hold strong convictions about what they call
“sins” that is all in their mind. Many devout religious people
sincerely believe it is sinful to play cards, or dice, or for women to
wear make-up, etc. It is all in their minds. The lists of actual sins in
Matt. 15:17-20; Mk. 7:21,22 covers the gamut of categories of things
we may do to violate love for God and man. All of them arise from
the heart. The condition and spiritual orientation of the inner man
is crucial to the question of what is sinful behavior and what is
acceptable behavior; what is holy and what is unholy. Outward
deeds, especially those specified not by God but by man, have
nothing inherent to do with spirituality, holiness or Christianity.
There is nothing clean or unclean, holy or unholy, inherent in any
physical activity. So no sex act is inherently unclean. The Bible says
so. All spiritual content of a deed is determined by the condition of
the heart of the person doing the deed.
Therefore, the following sex practices, and probably others we
do not include, are not in the least “unclean,” nor are they
forbidden in either OT or NT.
Multiple marriage, multiple sex relationships.
Prostitution.
Sex by single people.
Sex “play” between singles and engaged couples.
Nudity, public or private.
Nude dancing or posing (as for art classes or photographs).
Viewing nude dancing, nude photos or films of nude people.
Sexual thoughts that produce sexual stimulation.
Masturbation .
Using sex toys such as vibrators.
Oral sex or anal sex.
Viewing/reading erotic films, photos, books.
264
Humans may enjoy sexual freedom in as many variations as
they desire, within the parameters of what God has not forbidden.
What God forbids are those sexual activities that violate the personhood
of other people or dishonor Him. Specifically God forbids:
Homosexual acts that violate other people (rape, child
molestation, pederasty).
Homosexual acts that dishonor God (as acts of worship, used in
witchcraft).
Heterosexual acts that violate other people (incest, rape, child
molestation).
Heterosexual acts that dishonor God (as acts of worship, used in
witchcraft)
Bestiality (evidently a dishonor of some sort to God).
Adulterous sex (sex that leads to breaking marriage bonds).
Sex that associates in any way with idolatry or witchcraft.
Are Sex And Holiness Incompatible?
We wish to begin this segment by considering King David
again.
David was a truly holy man. He taught “the fear of the Lord,” (PS.
19:9 etc.).
David was a “a man after God’s own heart,” (Acts 13:22).
David “did all thing right in God’s sight except the matter with Uriah
the Hittite (Bathsheba’s husband),”(1 Kg. 15:5).
He loved God’s law, Ps. 119.
He prayed “Search me, O God, and know my heart…. and see if there
is any hurtful way in me, and lead me in the everlasting way,” (Ps.
139:23, 24).
He was a repentant man, he truly sorrowed because of his sins,
and he worked hard at honoring God’s law, (cf. Ps. 51, etc.)
He is our supreme example of worship/praise/prayer. David
wrote our prayer/worship manual, the Psalms.
David was Israel’s greatest leader. Christ was “one like David.”
“The Son of David,” (Matt. 21:9, etc.).
Such statements as the above place David in the very highest
category of “holy men.” There was no question in the mind of God
that David was holy in act and pure in heart. And it is with just
such a man that we may most fruitfully explore the relationship
265
between sex and holiness. For David loved sex. One author referred
to David as “Israel’s randy king.” He had many wives and
concubines as did many other men in that era. One unique fact
about David’s multiple wives and concubines is that through the
prophet Nathan, God affirmed that He was the actual source of all
David’s women. God said He would have given more if David
wanted them, (2 Sam. 12:8). God was willing for David and other
men to have sexual relationships with many women. Rather than
viewing polygamy and concubinage as a sin or even relegating it to
“least desirable” status, God’s blessing of David with many wives
and concubines proves that God had no such view of monogamy as
does the church and virtually all of Western culture. God viewed it
as a blessing that He was pleased to bestow upon His holy servant
David. By giving multiple wives and concubines to David, God
enabled, even encouraged David to copulate with many different
women. God’s absolute holiness and his requirement that His
people be “Holy as I am holy,” quite obviously has nothing inherently
to do either with the biological act of sex or with the number of sex
partners one has. God’s personal holiness is in no way
compromised by His giving multiple sexual partners to David.
David’s personal holiness is likewise not compromised by enjoying
sex with those wives and concubines. So there is nothing
inconsistent between sex and holiness. There is no relationship at all
between sex and holiness. David could copulate with one or more
concubines, slaves or wives during the night then arise early to
“awake the dawn,” with prayer and worship, (Ps. 57:8). And our
“Holy God” delighted to receive it.
In the same vein, a man may have sex with his wife in the night
then arise to worship and pray first thing in the morning without
“repenting” of the night’s activity. The same is true if they had oral
sex or if they mutually masturbated each other or used vibrators or
other “sex toys” during their sexual activities. Likewise there is
nothing incompatible with holiness and private masturbation;
holiness and private or social nudity; holiness and wearing a
swimsuit to the public pool; holiness and wearing a skirt that
exposes a woman’s calves (as per the Puritans); holiness and
appreciating the body and sexuality of a beautiful woman or
handsome man, etc. Sex has no inherent relationship to holiness
any more than any other human activity (e.g. eating, sleeping,
exercise, etc.) inherently relates to holiness. Holiness becomes an
266
issue with any activity only on the basis that such activity relates to
obedience or disobedience to God. Sex becomes unholy only when
sex violates God’s law of love; love for God and love for man.
The same is true of such comparisons of holiness and moderate
drinking of wine; holiness and moderate eating; holiness and
playing cards, or dice, or owning a television set, or observing
religious holidays, and on and on we could go. The most holy man
ever to grace this earth was Jesus Christ. Yet Jesus ate good food
and drank wine as is obvious from the accusation made against
him by the religious leaders of the day, that He was a “glutton and a
wine bibber,” because “the Son of Man came eating and drinking,” (Mt.
11:19). The fact that the charges of “wine bibbing” were made is
strong indication that Jesus drank wine. This is also indicated by
the fact that Jesus made wine for the guests at the wedding feast in
Cana, Jn. 2:1ff., even though the guests had already drunk well, (Jn.
2:10). Was Jesus unholy because he loved food and wine? Could
Jesus make wine for a wedding party, no doubt drink some of it
Himself and then go out late that night to meet with His Father in
prayer as was His custom? Can we possibly imagine that His
Father was the least bit offended by His Son’s enjoyment of good
food and wine?
It is not unholy to eat good, rich food. It is unholy to over eat
consistently, thus becoming a glutton. It is not unholy to drink wine.
It is unholy to over indulge and becoming a drunkard. Just so, it is not
unholy to enjoy sex. It is unholy to engage in forbidden sex or to
engage even in legitimate sex to excess. To do so is “concupicence.”
As with food and wine, God does not set the limit. He allows man
to decide when gluttony or drunkenness sets in. How much sex is
too much? There is no standard. Certainly problems seem apparent
when sexual activity begins to consume inordinate amounts of
money and time. But most people will never approach the limits of
sexually permissible activity. We are so repressed and bound by
false guilt that our problem is not too much sex. If anything our
problem is in gaining freedom to enjoy without guilt and shame,
what is legitimately available to us.
Holiness appears to conflict with many human activities but the
conflict is only in men’s minds. Nothing truly conflicts with
holiness except what God has declared sinful. Normal human
activity, including physical things like eating, drinking, bowel
elimination and sex, have nothing to do with holiness unless there are
267
some God-given rules about those activities. The only sexual
activities that breach holiness are the sexual sins God condemns:
rape, incest, child abuse, bestiality and certain homosexual acts. If
God does not condemn it one can practice it and still confidently
walk in holy fellowship with God.
How did humans come to think of sexual activity as being
inherently unholy? Let’s try to think this through. Most of us do not
think it is unholy for a man to insert his penis in his wife’s vagina.
Sexual climax enjoyed by both husband and wife is viewed as
inherently “pure” and acceptable for most people. But many of the
same people begin to feel uneasy about masturbation. Why? God
has no law nor even the slightest intimation in Scripture that
masturbation is, in any sense, unclean or unholy. Where does our
uneasiness originate? It originates in the mind of humans as a
result of false religious teaching. Oral sex suffers the same fate.
Why do we suppose it is OK for a man to kiss and suckle his wife’s
breasts but unholy for him to do the same with her vagina? God
says nothing about it except for the probable positive references to
such activity in the Song of Solomon (cf. chapter 9). Unfounded
religious rules are responsible for all repressive attitudes toward
oral sex. The same holds true for all sexual activity that God has
not made specific laws against. If God did not forbid a sexual
activity, then it cannot possibly be unholy, unspiritual, unclean, etc.
Sexual activity is inherently good. God made it to be good. God did
not make sexual activity to be unclean. No sexual activity is unholy
or unclean unless that act violates God’s prohibitions. If God does
not prohibit an act, it is impossible for man to violate anything by
committing that act. If vaginal intercourse is not inherently unholy,
neither is any other sex act other than those God condemns. If
sexual activity between husband and wife is not inherently unholy
then sexual activity is not inherently unholy when enjoyed by
unmarried people. If it is unholy for unmarried people to enjoy sex
it is unholy only because somewhere in the Bible God defines it that
way. If any form of sexual activity becomes unholy it is only
because that activity violates God’s law of love. Like eating is just
eating, and sleeping is just sleeping, so sex is just sex. It is neither
holy nor unholy.
One of the major problems people have with sexual activity
relates to a man enjoying sex with more than one woman, or a
woman enjoying sex with more than one man. Yet one cannot
268
possibly read the OT through and not be impressed by the fact that
the greatest spiritual leaders in all history were people of great
sexual prowess, who delighted in sexual pleasure with many
different partners. As we have suggested, David is the classic
example. God gave him many women and would have given him
more. And there are many other examples. What this proves
beyond doubt, is that there is nothing unholy about a large amount
of sexual activity with many different partners. These mighty
spiritual giants walked in constant fellowship with God, did His
will, overcame His enemies and led His people for generations, all
while copulating with multiple sex partners. Holiness is not an
inherent issue in sex matters. Holiness, whether relating to sex or
anything else, is a matter of obedience. Where there is no disobedience
there is no unholiness. Consider again the following examples of holy
people who enjoyed sexual diversity.
Abraham was God’s chosen vessel to bring the Israelite race
into existence. He had sex with several women including his wife
Sarah while she lived. But never a hint from God that enjoying sex
with multiple partners was any sort of blot or stain upon
Abraham’s holiness. Abraham fulfilled his destiny and is forever
enshrined in the Bible as “the father of the faithful,” and the
epitome of godly faith. God did not look upon his sexual practice as
abnormal, perverted, unclean or unholy. This anointed, faith filled
man was holy in the most profound sense of that word. And God
allowed him the blessing of sex with many women.
Jacob had two wives, had sex with them both and also with
their maids. He maintained his anointing and place in God’s plans
until his death with no mark against his holiness. God’s chosen
people still bear his name – Israel.
Judah had sex with Tamar believing her to be a prostitute. God
never reprimanded him for this act and there were no holiness
issues ever raised with reference to it.
Samson consorted with prostitutes and had multiple wives and
sex partners. But God never lifted His supernatural anointing from
Samson nor retracted his calling and destiny on the basis of sexual
activity. Indeed, at the end God heard and answered Samson’s
prayer for strength, enabling Samson to fulfill his destiny by
destroying the leaders of the Philistine government and ending
Israel’s bondage to them.
269
Gideon was a mighty leader of Israel’s armies and fulfilled his
role in God’s calling. But Gideon had many wives. God did not
view Gideon’s multiple sex partnerships as in any way detracting
from his holiness.
God considers there to be nothing unclean or unholy in the
practice of sex. Sexual activity does not become unholy merely
because it breaks outside the boundaries of monogamy or even
includes prostitution. God’s servants are not defiled by it; their
loyalty to God and His Word is not rendered questionable by it.
Their qualification to serve God is in no way compromised by
enjoying sex with many different partners. God’s delight in them is
in no measure diminished by sexual activity. God’s favor continues
to remain upon them. His blessings are still available to them.
A great leader of God’s people can enjoy the God-given blessing
of sex in many varieties, yet be regarded by God as holy, anointed,
and worthy as a leader. A modern Pastor is not less holy or unclean
if he enjoys sex in as many ways as God allows. He is not
perverted, dirty, or “lustful” and His Divine calling is not
jeopardized merely by much sexual activity. God’s presence is not
withheld from him if he does so. His place in God’s kingdom is not
endangered by sexual enjoyment. If his wife also enjoys sexual
variety, even enjoying sex with other men, she is not considered
unholy by God any more than her husband is.
If David could have multiple sex partners yet walk continually
in God’s favor and anointing, where did we get the idea that such
is unholy, unclean, perverted, etc.? The male lover in the Song of
Solomon enjoyed the nude dance of his female lover in the presence
of a company of people and delighted in the fact that they wanted
to see more of her. What gave us the idea that to watch a nude
dance today is unholy? Such ideas do not come from God. They
come from false teaching and legalistic rules generated by church
leaders and pseudo-scholars who are more strongly influenced by
unbiblical Victorian concepts of holiness than by the pure, simple
and true revelation of what the Bible actually says. They have spoken
eloquently and boldly where God has not spoken and made laws
where God did not legislate. The result is a church and a churchinfluenced
society whose concept of all things sexual is that sex
itself is essentially unholy and that any true Christian will avoid all
sexual activity except for what is necessary for a married couple to
produce children. This attitude toward sex is not godly, logical,
270
spiritual or holy. Indeed, this very attitude is unholy because it twists
a beautiful, Divinely blessed part of human life into something
sordid and dirty.
This question is important in our day because there is much
current talk about God calling His people to holiness and
repentance. In the minds of most this automatically equates with a
call to separation from all sexual desires except vaginal intercourse
with one’s wife or husband. A few “ministers” believe they have
God’s call to go from church to church warning the people to
abstain from the “pollution of sex,” which they define as singles
“petting,” masturbation, oral sex, looking at sexually explicit
material (all of which they categorically define as “pornography”)
etc. In their minds “unholy sex” is anything except monogamous,
vaginal intercourse. We do not hesitate to say that the “call” upon
such people comes not from God but from their own truncated
human spirit. They are, no doubt, sincere. But tragically their
sincerity is grounded in their mis-begotten, human values oriented,
pharisaic-legalistic based prejudices. Their authority is strictly
human – not Divine. Their warnings do nothing but solidify the
bondage under which the masses lie crushed and broken. Holiness
has become so integrated with the idea of “no sex” that people
cannot get it out of their minds. But if God is calling us to holiness
He is not requiring us to abandon the joy of sex any more than His
call of holiness to David, Abraham, Jacob and all the rest of OT
saints, required them to abandon sexual liberty. Sex and holiness
are not now and have never been incompatible with each other.
One can enjoy the full range of sexual pleasure allowed by God and
have no fear of losing God’s presence, anointing or call.
We must constantly remind ourselves of what exactly makes a
thing sinful. What makes something sinful is the same thing that
makes it unholy. Nothing is inherently unholy, not even bowel
movements. Nothing is unholy unless it violates God’s law.
We must get it through our heads that there is nothing about
sexual activity that has anything to do with spirituality.
Spirituality/holiness/purity/cleanness are all issues of obedience.
Paul’s statement that “nothing is unclean of itself,” (Rom. 14:14), must
be allowed to exercise its full influence in this study. The Holy
Spirit said “nothing” is inherently unclean. The Holy Spirit knows.
This statement absolutely proves that nothing about sexual activity
is either clean or unclean. Uncleanness, unholiness, etc. attaches to
271
anything, only where disobedience is involved. Drunkenness is unholy
because God made a law against it. But drinking alcohol itself is not
a sin. It is not unclean. Eating food is not unclean or unholy.
Gluttony is unholy because God has a law against it. Nothing is
unholy unless it breaches God’s law. Masturbation, oral sex, sex
with more than one partner, looking at the nakedness of others,
reading erotic writings, watching sexually explicit films, watching
other people enjoy sex – none of these practices are in any sense
legislated against. None of them can be holiness issues because none of
them are obedience issues. Some sex practices are holiness issues
because of God’s laws against those practices: e.g. certain homosexual
acts, bestiality, rape, incest. If God had not made us responsible to
His law of love all of those activities would be permissible. Every
sex act that humans can enjoy that has not been legislated against,
is permissible with God and is not unholy or impure. God prohibits
only what displeases Him. He made specific laws to warn us away
from what offends Him. What is not unlawful is permitted by God.
What God permits cannot possibly be a purity, cleanness, or
holiness issue. Nothing about human sexuality offends God. He
made it as a “very good” part of His creation. Humans are free to
enjoy sex in any way that God has not condemned. Rather than
feeling guilt about this wonderful pleasure we should regularly
give thanks to God for creating sex, and for allowing us to enjoy it
in many different forms. Sex is not a curse to avoid. Sex is a
blessing from God to be enjoyed and appreciated.
Unholiness is a matter of disobedience. No act is unclean unless
that act violates a law of God. If there is no law there cannot be
violation of law. Since sin is violation of law then there can be no
sin attached to any sex act if there is no law condemning that act.
Note carefully: It is impossible to violate law if no law exists. Nothing
is sinful or unholy except what violates God’s law. Where there is
no violation of law there is no unholiness. What other people think
about it makes zero difference. A person is not holy because he
abstains from sex or other permissible activities. A person is holy if
he obeys God. Where there is no law to obey or disobey holiness
cannot be an issue.
Nothing about the body or any of its functions has to do with
holiness. Any physical act is unholy only if legislated against. The
human body and all its functions is neutral. Nothing is sinful about
the body and it’s many natural functions. It becomes sinful only
272
when it violates God’s law. If any body function should be classified as
unclean, etc., it would surely be the process of elimination of urine
and feces.
The body is an instrument, subject to both good and evil use of
natural passions. The body is good because God made it that way.
His pronouncement that everything in His creation was “very
good,” (Gen. 1:31), included the human body with all its sexual
potential. God intended that humans enjoy sexual pleasure.
Procreation can take place without the pleasure of sexual orgasm
therefore sexual pleasure is not crucial to the command to “be
fruitful and multiply.” The simple explanation of why God attached
the ecstasy of orgasm to sex is that He desired to bless His children
with this intense pleasure. Sexual orgasm is a tremendous incentive
to engage in sexual activity. Is it conceivable that God would place
that potential in humans then virtually nullify its use by legislating
against all possible enjoyment of it except within the confines of
monogamous coitus and then only for purpose of procreation? In
view of the church’s attitude that sexual pleasure in general is dirty
and sinful, we would surely expect that if such were true God
would certainly not have given us such an unnecessary, powerful
potential for “evil,” knowing that we would surely not be able to
use it correctly. In reality what God did was give us sexual
orgasmic pleasure, specifically define the ways we are not allowed
to use it, then set us free to enjoy the wide variety of sexual
pleasure otherwise not legislated against.
David was the supreme worshipper. His Psalms are still our
worship and prayer manual. But this man was highly sexed and
loved a variety of women. If sexual activity with more than one
woman is a “holiness” issue then it is impossible for David to be
our supreme example of a worshipper. That He was a man “after
God’s own heart” demonstrates beyond argument that God found
nothing offensive in his great sexual appetite and his strong sexual
propensity. He remained anointed, powerful and worshipful in the
midst of his sexual activity. Imagine this: David has sex with a
different wife or concubine every night for six nights, then on the
seventh night he goes to an all night worship and prayer meeting.
Is he acting hypocritically? Is he “out of place” in God’s house of
worship? Does God accept his worship? We trust the answers to
these questions are obvious. He as surely belongs in God’s house,
praying and worshipping with all his heart, as he would if he had
273
no sex the week before. David enjoys the legitimate blessing of sex
as God’s gift and God accepts his worship.
If people today do the same things as David what prohibits
them from freedom in the house of God? Can they do as David did
and enjoy the same freedom in God’s presence as David did? The
answer must be YES!!! Was it holy for David to have many sex
partners yet unholy for us? Impossible! And it is possible for us to
enjoy God’s presence even though we enjoy erotic books,
magazines and films, masturbation, oral sex, etc. None of these can
be “unholy” or “unclean” because none of them violate God’s law
of love. And if an act does not violate God’s law we can do it and
then go directly into His house to worship, pray and praise, and
know that God delights to receive our offering. In other words one
might watch an erotic film on Saturday night, then rejoice in God’s
presence in church the next morning. Any inhibitions about this
exist solely in our imaginations. God has never seen anything
unholy or offensive about our enjoyment of sexual activity in a
wide variety of ways. We would in fact do much better in relation
to God if, rather than entering His house sheepishly and with guilt
because of our sexual desires and activities, we would actually go
into His house and offer praise and thanksgiving for sex as one of
His most exquisite blessings.
We knew a beautiful girl who married a handsome man.
Prospects for their mutual sexual pleasure was tremendous. But
this girl had erroneously been taught by the church and by her
parents that sexual pleasure was dirty, unclean and sinful, and she
called home on her honeymoon crying because, as she said, “I have
always been taught I should not do these things.” They had
problems throughout their marriage, ultimately divorcing because
he, with normal male sexual appetites, lived daily in the presence
of his beautiful wife who could not release herself to him. Such a
sad situation is inexcusable. The church is to blame for its profound
ignorance and hypocrisy that has created an immense heap of
legalistic garbage upon one of God’s most exquisite blessings. For
this young couple to struggle with what virtually all of us accept as
“normal sex” demonstrates that there is an underlying conviction
in most of us that “it may be basically OK, but it is also basically
dirty, a necessary evil.” Such an attitude insults God whose
wisdom and goodness provides us with sexual pleasure. And for
any of us to struggle with sex practices that are not legislated
274
against is no more valid than for this young couple to struggle with
marital coitus. They could have enjoyed each other’s bodies to the
fullest degree and they could also have enjoyed just as innocently,
the pleasure of masturbation, and many other activities that bring
sexual pleasure, all without transgressing the limits God so
carefully and specifically placed on sexual activity. Once more: if a
sex act does not offend God enough for Him to make a law against
it, how can we so stupidly make our own laws against it?
To apply these things specifically again: if God has no law
against the following, none of them can be regarded as unholy,
unclean or impure.,
God has no law forbidding nudity, therefore nudity cannot be
unholy.
God has no law forbidding nude entertainment, therefore nude
entertainment cannot be unholy.
God has no law forbidding polygamy, therefore polygamy
cannot be unholy.
God has no law prohibiting one person from enjoying sex with
many people, therefore sex with many people is not unholy.
God has no law forbidding looking at erotic materials, therefore
looking at erotic materials cannot be unholy.
God has no law forbidding masturbation or oral sex, therefore
masturbation or oral sex cannot be unholy.
God has no law forbidding use of vibrators or other “sex toys,”
therefore using vibrators or other “sex toys” cannot be unholy.
God has no law forbidding production of explicit erotic
writings, photographs and films of nude people, engaged in
sexual activity, so production or use of such explicit erotic
materials cannot be unholy.
Our intention here is to help the reader see that sexual activity
may be enjoyed in many different ways with potentially many
different people without in the least compromising one’s
spirituality or holiness. One may fully enjoy the delights of sex and
still eagerly go to church, serve in ministry, and worship and praise
God with no sense of being out of place and without bearing false
guilt or shame. God created sex. He wants you to enjoy it.
275
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
THE LAW OF LOVE APPLIED TO SEX ISSUES
“There is no biblical sex ethic. The Bible knows only a love ethic,
which is constantly being brought to bear on whatever sexual
mores are dominant in any given country, or culture, or period.”
(Walter Wink, “Biblical Perspectives on Homosexuality,” The
Christian Century, Dec. 7, 1979, 1085).
The NT “Law of Love” codified by Jesus Christ, requires that
we resolve the question of sexual “do’s and don’ts” on the principle
of love for God and love for our neighbor. Applying this ethical
framework to sex issues requires that we work from a positive
foundation of divinely created and recommended sex rather than
from a negative foundation of “sex-as-dirty.” Such a foundation
means we must affirm:
Our sexuality and our whole human body experience was
created as inherently good.
Christian community must include all who own Jesus as their
personal Savior, unlimited by invalid purity codes.
The equality of women and men in all aspects of life.
The incorporation of our sexuality into the reign of God.
Sexual practice characterized by love, justice, equality, fidelity,
mutual respect, compassion and grateful joy.
Avoidance of any sexual act that degrades, demeans or hurts
others.
Refusing to judge others whose conscience before God does not
condemn them in the exercise of that for which they give thanks
to God.
(Adapted from James Nelson, Body Theology, Westminster/John
Knox Press, pg. 62)
The moral teaching and ethical guidelines established by Jesus
takes the decision about the morality of individual acts out of the
realm of inherent evil, and places the decision in the realm of love.
Sexual acts are not to be seen as good or bad in themselves. A
physical sex act has no inherent moral quality. Its goodness or
badness is determined by the effect on the persons involved. Does it
bring mutual pleasure and satisfaction? Is it done in full
consideration for the person-hood, desires, needs, and sensibilities
276
of both parties? Masturbation for example, could not possibly be
defined as a “sinful act” by any Biblical standard, because: [1
Nowhere in OT or NT is that act addressed in any way, and [2 It is
performed willingly as an act of self-loving that brings harm neither
to the practitioner nor to anyone else.
Applied to “adultery” the “law of love” helps refine even more
the answer to the question of “what exactly is adultery?” We have
argued that adultery is not a sex act per se. Nor is it a biological
issue. Only under specific circumstances does a sex act become
adulterous. Adultery is not inherently the act of adding a third
party’s body into the marriage couplet. Adultery is the willful and
harmful violation (adulteration) of the vows of the original pair. It
is the both the desire and/or the attempt to break that original bond.
Thus adultery can be and is often committed in any number of
ways. A jealous or vindictive person who spreads false rumors
against a person in hopes of causing that one’s mate to leave,
commits adultery. Physical, mental or emotional abuse by one mate
against the other is adultery. A husband refusing to provide food,
clothing and other necessities for his wife, is adultery. One mate
who refuses to consider the sexual needs of the other, commits
adultery. We realize that these suggestions do not fit the modern
definition of adultery but refer again to the chapter on Adultery,
and read the actual definitions of the original Greek word.
Adultery is anything that destroys the original covenant or
promises upon which a marriage is established. Many more vows
are made in a wedding than a vow to be sexually exclusive. Vows
to “love, cherish, honor, to protect and provide” for the other mate
are as vital to the covenant as the vow to “keep myself for you
alone.” Breach of the other vows constitutes adultery as surely as
breach of the vow of sexual “faithfulness.” Any act that results in
destroying a marriage union is adultery even when sex has never
been suggested. Original marriage vows that require sexual
exclusivity of each mate have arisen out of human tradition, not
from Scripture. Can you imagine King David saying to Michal, his
first wife, “I promise to keep myself for you alone, until death do
us part?” Such a vow did not exist in that culture. Since the vow of
sexual exclusivity is of purely human origin, it may be abandoned
by mutual consent. A couple who come to clearer understanding of
their true sexual liberty, and who desire to experience it, may
decide to reaffirm their vows to reflect their better knowledge. If
277
they make new vows that do not contain the unbiblical vow of
sexual exclusivity, they may experience sexual relations with other
people, without in any degree violating their marriage covenant, or
threatening the marriage bond. Such could not possibly be defined
as “adultery” except by those who insist on doing so in disregard
for the true import of the word.
Thus introducing a third person’s sexuality into the intimate
circle of a marriage may not be adulterous at all. Granted, there are
risks of jealousy, misunderstanding, etc. involved. But where there
is honesty and mutuality in agreement, meanings and intentions, the
participation of a third party does not constitute adultery. Proof of
this is scattered throughout the OT, which decisively condemns
adultery yet condones polygamy, concubinage and prostitution.
Indeed mutual consent to include a third party may – and often
does – manifest a truly deep union of love and trust between the
married couple.
Our true “sexual problem” is not homosexuality, pornography,
pre-marital sex, etc. Our problem is conformity to unloving mindsets
that set a norm of unjust compulsory heterosexuality,
monogamy and gender inequality. Not monogamous heterosexual
marriage, but true love in sexual relationships is morally normative
for Christians. Love and justice demands equality and mutuality. It
means a moral obligation to recognize and promote each other’s
personal dignity and to honor our own and each other’s needs for
intimacy and affection. Our sexuality is who and how we experience
our remarkable emotional, psychological, physical and spiritual
yearning for communion with others, with the natural world and
with God. Sexual passion and experience gladdens our hearts and
ennobles our lives.
The ethics of Jesus makes it possible for us to celebrate any
sexual relationship that deepens human intimacy, genuine
pleasure, love, responsibility and justice. To editorialize Jesus’
words, “If you had learned what this means, ‘I desire truly loving
relationships more than I desire attempted submission to sexual
law-codes’ you would not have condemned the innocent” (after
Matt.9:13; 12:7). Or perhaps, “What do I require of you O sexual
man, but to promote true intimacy, unselfish pleasure, and mutual
fulfillment with your lover?” (after Mic. 6:8). Or again, “You labor
over such issues as ‘masturbation, oral sex, homosexuality and the
like, while you don’t even notice the deeper and more important
278
matters of sexual justice, mercy, mutuality, compassion and nonjudgmental
acceptance of other’s sexual choices. But while it is
right to be concerned about the others, it is wrong for you to put
these weightier matters in second place.” (after Matt. 23:23).
Rather than such an ethical foundation promoting
licentiousness and “anything goes,” it prohibits from the start all
acts or relationships that in any way wounds, abuses, violates or
exploits other people. It is we believe, the only way to incorporate
sexual ethics into the plainly stated ethical framework of Jesus
Christ who said love for God and love for one’s neighbor is the
summation of “all the law and all the prophets” (Matt. 22:36-40; cf.
also Rom. 13:8ff; Gal. 5:14). It fits exactly within the prescription we
call “the golden rule:” “Whatever you desire that men do to you, do that
very thing to them, for this is the law and the prophets” (Matt. 7:12).
This rule allows for sexual practice that fully considers the other
person while prohibiting sexual acts that are hurtful. Living on the
basis of such an ethic promotes maturity, wisdom and self-respect.
It puts Christians on the plane of spiritual responsibility. It fosters
maturity rather than stagnation. It enables one to live in freedom
instead of repression and bondage. Only such a lofty ethical system
as this can transcend our traditional act-centered sexual ethics,
described by someone as “the right organ in the right orifice with the
right person.” This new ethical system makes it possible for free
moral agents, possessing strong sexual proclivities, to live
responsibly apart from prohibitive guides.
The church’s traditional ethic represented by the preceding
quote and as well by the phrase, “celibacy in singleness, fidelity in
marriage,” is woefully inadequate and not at all Biblical. Though
pretending to be thoroughly Biblical it actually denies the rich
diversity of sexual experiences and relationships that are well
documented in Scripture, particularly in the OT. Furthermore it
establishes illegitimately, the exclusive claim of heterosexual
monogamous sex to moral propriety and sexual maturity. It focuses
on the form rather than on the substance of sexual relations;
focusing on who does what with whom under what circumstances
instead of pursuing honesty, care, love and respect in sexual
relationships. NT ethics identifies “sinful” sexual activity not in the
nature of specific acts; not in terms of whose genitals connect with
whose genitals; but in terms of what demonstrates contempt or
disregard for other people.
279
If the church is ever to become a place where all-encompassing
love manifested in body, soul and spirit, is accepted and made a
cause for praising the Creator of sex, the church must honor the
goodness of sex and diversity of sexual experience. It must
transform its deep fear of sex and body, and repent of its idolatrous
fixation with both. In and of itself sex is the source neither of our
salvation nor of our damnation. As in all other ethical issues it is
what is in the heart that counts most with God.
Jesus’ own example demonstrates that when the good of others
is at stake we are justified in “breaking” the law. The basis upon
which this statement rests is the fact that the law was given not for
the sake of law but for the good of men. The law shows us how to
treat others with love. Where loving action is performed toward
God or toward others the law is fulfilled. This is the reason we
must look at all laws with a view to see if they fit either the
connection of honor given to other men’s persons and property, or
honor given to God. If a law exists that fits neither category then we
treat it as a cultural, temporary law that related to Israel’s particular
place in redemptive history and we refuse to observe that law
because it has served its purpose and it never applied to non-Jews
anyway.
This principle of love as the basis of law explains why there is
no law against such sex acts as masturbation, oral sex, use of
vibrators or other “sex toys,” viewing or reading erotic material,
etc. None of these acts are harmful in the least unless they are forced
upon an unwilling partner. In such case the sin is not in the nature
of the act itself but in the violation of the other person.
With these principles providing a fundamental working base
we can easily see why some sex acts are specifically and eternally
forbidden. It is because those acts harm other people. We can also
see why other sex acts are not forbidden at all. It is because these
acts in no way violate love for God or others. We can also
understand why some sex acts are not inherently sinful but may be
forbidden under specific circumstances. It is because the specific
circumstance involves violation of the principle of love for God and
man. Two sexual activities that are forbidden under specific
conditions but otherwise permitted, are:
Prostitution: prohibited only if done:
In conjunction with worship of idols; – violates love for God.
280
By married woman in rebellion against her husband; –
violates love for husband.
Prostitution chosen as a voluntary activity is not condemned
in any sense in Scripture. The reason appears obvious.
Voluntary prostitution in no way violates either love for God
or for other people.
Homosexuality: prohibited only for males, and only if done:
In conjunction with worship of idols; – violates love for God.
In violation of young boys – “pederasty;” – violates love for
others.
As an act of rape; – violates love for others.
Homosexuality chosen as a voluntary relationship between
informed, consenting adults is not condemned in any sense
in Scripture. The reason now appears obvious. Voluntary
homosexuality in no way violates either love for God or for
other people.
The subject of homosexuality requires more intense study. It is
not apparent that the act itself does evil against either God or other
people. There does not appear to be a breach of “love for your
neighbor” in the act itself. And given God’s viewpoint of sexual
activity as we have traced it through the Bible, there does not
appear to be anything inherent in the sex act between same-sex
partners that violates God’s nature. If these observations are valid
then the prohibitions against homosexuality would be in the same
category as prohibitions against heterosexuality when it violates
love for God because of its connection with idol worship or
witchcraft, or violates love for man when associated with rape and
other forms of violence and exploitation. There is a great possibility
that our horror over homosexuality is derived from our culture and
misguided interpretation of Scripture. The subject bears much
closer investigation. Again, see our book, God Is Not A Homophobe.
One note seems appropriate here however because our subject
is the honoring of God’s law-word. God gave this clear direction:
“You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take
away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God
which I command you” (Deut. 4:2). The same direction and warning
is given in Rev. 22:18, 19, with the warning of God’s judgment
upon one who presumes either to add to or detract from what He
has written. This means that with regard to all things surely, but for
281
present purposes applied specifically to homosexuality and
prostitution:
We have no excuse before God for any attempt to add
regulations upon homosexual conduct and prostitution that
God’s own words do not contain.
What God said about homosexuality and prostitution is
sufficient to demonstrate His will. We must, in honor of God
and of His word, mandate only those forms of homosexuality
and prostitution that God forbids. Whether we like it or not we
must not add our own laws in order to prohibit behavior that
God does not address.
We are able to discern the reasons – consistent with the law
of love – for such special prohibitions. And we are also able to
discern that other forms of those activities do not breach this
law of love. We are able therefore to draw informed, mature
decisions about what appears to be otherwise acceptable
activity in God’s view.
We are obligated before we decide on the legitimacy or
illegitimacy of either homosexuality or prostitution as such, to
do our best at personal, objective study of God’s word. If we are
wrong in our conclusions because we did not study it will not
help us to say to Jesus: “But all the preachers said…” Our
conscience must truly be our conscience. And our convictions
must truly be our personal convictions. God gives us no
permission to live our lives based on other people’s knowledge
and faith.
Human biological acts are inherently amoral. There is nothing
inherently either good or bad about any basic human body
function. Only if those body functions encroach harmfully upon
others does God control them by legislation. No sex act is
inherently unclean, unholy or sinful. Sin attaches to a sex act
only if it harmfully affects other people or dishonors God. Only
on that basis does God legislate against a sex act.
Nothing about a sex act between two men or two women is
inherently dirty. A same-sex couple performs basically identical
physical acts that heterosexual couples perform. A prostitute
does the same acts with her clients as are otherwise done in
“acceptable” relationships. It is not the acts themselves that are
immoral. If the act itself is not “unclean” then what makes
legislation necessary? It is either that the act dishonors God or
282
harms another person. God gave such legislation against the
specific expressions of homosexuality and prostitution that
brought harm to other people, leaving the other expressions of
homosexuality and prostitution untouched. He dealt with
heterosexuality in exactly the same way. This is sufficient for
those who desire only to know what God wills. If other forms of
homosexuality and prostitution were equally repugnant to God
He would have prohibited them also. Since God did not do so
we must refuse to do so. While this will mean nothing in terms
of affecting the lifestyle of most of our readers it will directly
affect the attitude of all of us toward those who choose either of
these lifestyles. If God does not condemn it we dare not. We must
exercise love and acceptance of such people in the same way
Jesus showed compassion and love and acceptance toward such
people in His day. As God grants grace to us so we must grant
grace to others even when they live in ways that go against our
personal grain.
The attitude has been ingrained in us by the church and society
that homosexuality and prostitution are inherently unclean. Paul
says this is not so (Rom. 14:14, 20). If we will, we can escape this
unbiblical, unloving mindset. And we must do so. We cannot truly
honor God’s law otherwise.
Sex and vulnerability
One of the primary reasons for commandments relating to sex is
that the power of sex so easily and quickly uses other people for
strictly selfish passion. Often this passion loses sight of the other
person’s dignity, welfare, needs and especially their vulnerability.
Men too easily victimize women, and children are virtually helpless
against the sexual advance of adults and even by their own peers.
The vulnerability factor is especially strong within family
relationships and is probably the primary reason for laws against
incest. Thus in the OT God prohibited conduct that would sexually
victimize others. In NT ethics those laws are not needed simply
because love as the motivating force in all relationships
automatically ministers sympathetically to the vulnerability of
others rather than taking advantage of that vulnerability.
283
APPENDIX
THE NON-NEGOTIABLES OF BIBLE
STUDY/RESEARCH
One cannot be in the church long, and listen to many
conversations, sermons, or teachings that appeal to the Bible for
authority, without realizing that the Bible is vigorously employed
by opposing parties to any debate, each believing that Scripture
proves the validity of their ideas. Thinking people realize that it is
preposterous to think that the Bible can be fairly interpreted in a
way that sustains opposite viewpoints. Therefore, opposing parties
may both be wrong in their appeal to Scripture, or only one of them
may be right, but both cannot possibly be right. The Bible is
sordidly misused and abused by many people in order to make its
statements fit the ideas they desire to promote. This is not an
accusation that such abuse of Scripture is intentional. It is simply an
observation of reality. Humans are so psychologically disposed and
emotionally compelled to be “right” that they will go to great
lengths to prove their ideas and justify their behavior. Often,
because of human fallibility plus the incredible difficulty of being
truly objective, defenses and arguments are offered that fall far
short of both credibility and integrity. In this milieu the Bible is
often used in ways that are totally inappropriate to any standards
of honest scholarship. If we do, as we should, grant to all Bible
students their integrity and sincere desire to know Biblical truth as
distinguished from theory and human tradition, we must
nevertheless suggest to all students that simply appealing to “what
the Bible says” is never an end-all to argumentation. Simply put, no
human is able to rise perfectly above the host of subjective factors
that color everything we think and do. No human can read the
Bible through purely objective eyes. All attempts to discover “what
the Bible says” and to defend one’s ethical or theological position
on that principle, without at the same time admitting one’s
personal, subjective contingencies, is spiritual elitism. That spirit
drove the Phariseeism of Jesus’ day and it is the driving force of all
modern legalism. No human dare approach a study of or argument
from the Bible, believing themselves to be infallible. Yet as soon as
one admits fallibility, one opens the door to the possibility that
one’s very best efforts may still not have produced unquestionable
truth. Though difficult to do, we must all face every Biblical
284
discussion, on every topic, with the thought in the back of our mind
that the other viewpoint may be right. Augustine said “Whoever,
therefore, thinks that he understands the Divine Scriptures or any
part of them so that it does not build the double love of God and of
our neighbor, does not understand it at all” (Christian Doctrine
1.35.40).
This statement is true. Accordingly, any interpretation of
Scripture that creates hurt, oppression, or destruction of any kind
to people’s well-being, is a wrong interpretation, regardless of how
long standing the interpretation, or how traditional, historical or
exegetically respectable it is. There can be no debate about the
historical fact that the church’s historically established,
authoritative stance on such issues as race, gender, slavery, and
“orthodoxy” has accounted for the persecution and death of many
thousands of people over the last millennium and a half.
Traditional interpretation has prohibited women from enjoying
their rightful privileges and freedom under Christ to equal social
standing, job equality, church ministry – in short the very things
that accompany true, full standing in the human community.
Church dogma defended slavery even in the midst of the Civil war.
Racial bias still exists in the church, though admittedly in a lesser
degree than was true in past generations. And who can ever forget,
or even attempt to mollify the horrific tragedy of the Inquisition?
Of the murder of innocent people during the Salem witch trials? Of
the imprisonment and persecution of great Reformers like Martin
Luther? Of the murders of hundreds of people at different points in
history for their disagreement with prevailing church orthodoxy,
including several whose great “crime” was simply to translate the
Bible into the language of the common man and make it available
to the public?
Should it turn out that the church’s stance on homosexuality
and other sexual issues, has been as wrong as its error on so many
other issues, the church has committed more crimes against
humanity than it can possibly account for in the day of Christ’s
Judgment. Surely the church believes she is right in her blanket
condemnation of homosexuality. But she was just as surely
convinced of her infallibility on the issues mentioned above, all of
which have required repentance by the church. Can the church
prove beyond reasonable doubt that same-sex relationships damage
those involved in them, or any others? Is it even minutely possible
285
that there are some aspects of the same-sex debate that merit
deeper inspection? Is the Biblical material on this issue so
transparently clear that we cannot possibly be mistaken in
absolutely condemning all same-sex relationships? Does the Bible
justify the social and spiritual excommunication of a large
percentage of the world’s population on the sole basis of their
sexual orientation? Is there “love” within our hearts for the
homosexual? If so, how do we express that love to them while
demanding their exile from the mainstream of both society and the
church?
The bottom line of Biblical studies is this: What will “build the
double love of God and of our neighbor?” The final fruit of all
appeals to the Bible for authority must be the fruit of “love, joy,
peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control”
(Gal. 5:22, 23) These all pass the supreme test of love which is the
foundation of all God’s laws. When we ask, “What is the loving
thing to do?” the preceding Scripture answers. On the other hand
we can know that our understanding is wrong, and our behavior
toward others is wrong, if it produces the fruit of “enmities, strife,
jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissentions, factions, envyings,
drunkenness, carousings and such like” (Gal.5:20, 21). We must make
every effort to understand these hurtful behaviors so that we do
not either dishonor God or harm others by our faulty convictions.
There must always be in the Bible student’s mind the possibility that
the prevailing interpretation of the Bible may not have not taken
into account important pieces of data. This is not egotistical. It is an
attitude necessary to fruitful study of the Bible. One who does not
suspect that something new may be found has no reason to study.
Such a person can logically do only one thing; accept the present
results of other Bible scholars and search no more. But of course,
this requires that one’s conscience rest upon the correct
interpretation of Scripture by others. It avoids personal
responsibility to study and determine for oneself what one believes
and chooses to practice. This responsibility, stated Biblically, is “Let
each man be fully convinced in his own mind” and “The faith that you
have, have as your own conviction before God” (Rom. 14:5, 22, NAS).
On this principle then, all legitimate study proceeds on the
presumption that there is more to find than has been found. The
phrase “Bible student” implies a person who explores the Bible
286
with the expectation of finding what has not yet been seen, or at
least, has not yet been made clear.
Something very wrong seems to have developed among leaders
and teachers in the church. Most of the problems in the church
derive from its leaders. And the most glaring problem observable
in church leaders is their unwillingness and/or inability to measure
their concepts and formulate their doctrine by the strict, objective
standard of Holy Scripture. Leaders are pressured to give their
church members the impression that “I am right, you can trust me”
and “our church is right, don’t look elsewhere.” Without intending
to do so, church leaders often search the Scripture for “proof texts”
that will support their already settled conclusions. But the only
honest way to study the Bible is to read it, as much as possible,
with absolute commitment to accept its demonstrable meaning
however much that meaning may cancel previously held
convictions. Following that path is risky and potentially costly. We
understand the pain and the difficulty of such honesty and
objectivity in Bible study. Perhaps the reader will allow us a few
lines of reflection on our personal journey down this path.
Both my wife and I were born into a hard line, right wing,
negatively oriented, legalistic denomination. For generations our
families had been members of this denomination. As we grew up
we were taught, at home and from the pulpit, that all other
churches and all their members were wrong and hell-bound. We
could not leave “our” church and go to another without losing our
salvation. I knew early on that I wanted to preach the Word of God.
I admired preachers. I listened to and learned their ideas and grew
adept at using their style of argumentation. In the process I
absorbed their sectarian, legalistic spirit and became adept also at
“using” the Bible the way they did to sustain the “rightness” of our
denominational peculiarities. I began full time ministry when I was
22 and began then to associate with older preachers in a more
intimate way.
I was amazed to hear some of them joke among
themselves about getting their Sunday sermons by “tearing one
out,” a phrase that referred to simply copying and preaching
another preacher’s sermon outline “as is.” Such sermon copying
was done strictly within the confines of their peers and their own
denominational writers,
and most church member never knew this
was a regular practice of their preachers. Something in me rebelled
at this practice. Two pieces of advice in the infancy of my ministry
287
set the future course of my approach to Bible study and preaching.
In my first year of ministry one preacher whom I admired told me,
“Most of the people in your church have been Christians longer
than you have even been alive.
You will have to study like mad just
to stay ahead of the hounds.” I took that advice seriously. I learned
to use the necessary tools for scholarly Biblical exegesis and
research and for 36 years I have immersed myself in as thorough
Bible study as I know how to perform. In my second year of
ministry a visiting preacher came to preach a week at the church I
was pastoring.
His messages were always responded to with
statements such as: “that was refreshing…different…new…” etc.
Some of the things he taught I had never heard. While visiting
personally and intimately with him during that week, I pumped
him for information about Bible study tools and methodology. He
made one statement that proved to be the salvation of my spiritual
life and of my ministry.
He said, “The best thing you can do for
yourself and for your church, is to learn to preach expositorially. Be
honest with what you find, preach it courageously, and be willing
to accept the consequences.” That statement struck a chord in my
heart, and I began to learn to study and to preach expositorially.
Over the next 18 years I studied and preached through much of
the OT and almost all of the NT, verse by verse. As I began to
become somewhat proficient at the art, I began to hear statements
from my church members, such as “that was
refreshing…different…new…” etc.!
I was being asked every year to
travel to more and more places to preach a week at a time at other
churches. I began writing, and was soon asked to contribute to
brotherhood journals, which I did gladly. But the method of
studying “verse by verse” and in context, so necessary to expository
preaching, produced some unexpected problems.
I was seeing many things in a different light than what was accepted as the
norm within our denomination. Because I began more and more to
preach these ideas that were outside the mainstream of our
denominational mindset, my “popularity ride” began to get bumpy
and the longer it continued the bumpier it got.
Two things proved
to be my ultimate undoing with that denomination, and in my
home church.
Firstly, when I preached at other churches, I was often
questioned, sometimes edgily, by the local preacher about some of
my “new ideas.” Some of my contributions to brotherhood journals
288
brought negative response from brethren in different places across
the country.
I found that I was often in conflict with my peers
because of some of the things I believed and preached. Yet I did
truly believe in what I was preaching and so I continued to preach
my convictions, heedless of the consequences.
Remarkably, though I was becoming more and more a center of controversy among
preachers, the lay members received me readily and my popularity
at home and as a traveling preacher grew.
Secondly, the product of my expositional study was a steadily
growing pile of concepts that did not “fit” with what I had
previously heard and simply accepted as truth on the basis of my confidence in those who taught me.
I awoke to the realization that, in order to “prove” my denominational party line I had been following the example of my peers in twisting the true meaning of some Bible verses,
ignoring the true definition of some Bible words, and ignoring the historical, contextual, cultural setting of many verses.
Without intending to do so, I had used the Scriptures for my
own sectarian purposes, “finding” in them what I needed to find
even when it was not truly there.
I discovered to my absolute dismay and heart-sickness that I had become just like the Pharisees with whom Jesus struggled.
Eventually the pile of inconsistencies became a mountain
and I could no longer simply disregard the
reality that something was dreadfully and fundamentally wrong
with my spiritual and professional posture.
To the best of my ability I had been honest in my study and believed completely in
the truths I had uncovered. But many of those truths were in direct
conflict with the foundation stones of my denomination.
I found
that I could no longer preach the “party line” with integrity. So I
began to preach things that directly challenged the doctrinal
peculiarities of our denominational.
As a consequence I was eventually fired from a church I had pastored for 13 years.
A year later my wife and I left the denomination of our birth to enter the
mainstream of Christianity. This departure put me in a
denominational no-man’s land, having no allegiance to any group,
and for the first time in my life totally free from any pressure to
make my ideas fit with those of someone else.
I made a decision to conduct a hard-nosed re-examination of every doctrine I had ever
held dear.
I was determined to decide for myself what was really –
and provably – true about all spiritual matters.
Both my wife and I have pursued this re-examination together and have learned
289
amazing things about God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, the church, and
ourselves.
We learned truths that would forever have remained
hidden if we had not been able to simply take what the Scriptures
honestly say and embrace those things without fear of the
consequences. But there is a correct methodology for this process
and this methodology is the subject of this study.
How do we remove the blinders of ideological pre-conditioning
that each of us brings to Scripture?
The barest minimum of
necessary components of objective Bible study will include:
1. The text itself: the actual words and phrases as defined by
authoritative scholarship. No text of Scripture can possibly
be “understood” without brutal honesty as to exact meaning
of words and phrases. Every word must be understood, as
nearly as possible, in exactly the way the writer and original
audience understood that word.
2. The historical situation of the text. Serious Bible study
includes study of the times, places, cultural/political
situation and events surrounding the people doing the
writing, and the people receiving the writing.
3. Interpretation of the text in light of its historical situation.
True understanding of the Biblical text sees the words and
phrases as applied specifically to the times, places,
cultural/political situation and events surrounding writer
and recipients. The words of Scripture cannot be treated as if
they arose in a vacuum. All Biblical text is time, history and
culture bound. Ignoring this fact or devaluing its importance
spells doom for serious Bible study.
The Biblical text does not come to us in the form of timeless
axioms. Every text was composed in a specific time/space
framework. Thus Biblical writers do not generally attempt to
explain what for them and their readers were common
assumptions. Use of certain words, phrases and references was
simply taken for granted because the writer knew the original
readers would understand. The only way for us to likewise
understand is to put ourselves in that original situation, if possible,
through diligent historical study.
Our greatest problem if that we tend to read the Biblical text
in light of our own modern historical/cultural situation. Thus
when some read, for example, references to the “naturalness” of
long hair on women and “shamefulness” of long hair on men (1
290
Cor. 10), their conclusions show their confusion, and churches arise
that require women to have a “veil” on their head when they enter
the sanctuary. Likewise some misunderstand the point of the “footwashing”
episode of Jn. 13, with the result that they believe Jesus to
be commanding that we go about literally washing each other’s feet
(as per vs. 12-15). Others will misunderstand Mk. 16:18 as Jesus’
“Great Commission” to build churches that specialize in drinking
poison and handling poisonous snakes.
Giving full consideration to the historical situation in which the
text originates will enable us to understand it as it’s original readers
and authors understood it. This rule is especially important when
studying the New Testament.
The cultural environment of first
century Palestine and surrounding areas was extremely complex.
The New Testament writers were primarily Jewish, but their
audience was primarily Gentile.
The original church was
comprised entirely of Jews with a long history of commitment to
Jehovah and His law-word. But the church very quickly became
dominated by Gentile converts whose long history was one of
pagan idolatry.
Though their mutual language was the Greek of the
common man, their thought processes were entirely different. To
understand what Paul wrote to the Roman Christians, for example,
requires one to understand more than the Hebrew concept of
things, simply because the Gentile Roman Christians did not think
like the Hebrew Christians.
To understand New Testament
writings, one must learn something about who the people were,
and why and how they did things. One must get in touch with the
first-century world, and learn to see things as first-century people
saw them.
Until one does the hard work necessary for such study,
one is not qualified to either form or state an emphatic opinion
about “what the Bible says.”
Jesus said “you shall know the truth and the truth will make you
free” (Jn.8:32). The “truth” that frees us is “My word” which is God’s
word (Jn. 8:3; 17:17). Anything other than the truth of Scripture
makes us slaves.
The difficulty we each face is in arriving at truth.
We struggle against subjectivity, ignorance, predisposition,
prejudice, peer influence, family ties, fear, etc. The path to truth,
though difficult to follow, is nonetheless easily pointed to: Honesty,
Thoroughness and Objectivity in Bible study.
The objective of Bible study is to find the “plain sense” of its
statements. “Just take it for what it says” is an oft-repeated refrain.
291
Interestingly, every competing denominational “camp” uses the
same phrase, each claiming to be the ones who take the Bible
“simply for what is says,” understanding its “plain sense,” while
frequently occupying opposite sides of a doctrinal fence.
Obviously, two opposing viewpoints cannot both be founded on
the “plain sense” of Biblical statements.
At least one, and perhaps
both, viewpoints are wrong. So how does one truly arrive at the
“plain sense” of Scripture? We can confidently “take the Bible for
what it says” but only if we can be sure we are truly reading
exactly what it says! Finding truth is possible. It requires hard
work. It requires honesty and spiritual integrity. We must be
prepared to admit that exegesis without presuppositions is
impossible.
Then we must be willing to lay aside all
presuppositions we find to be in conflict with what the Word
actually says. The great “victory” we wish to win in this arena is
victory over presupposition and traditional, though erroneous,
conclusions.
When we study Biblical statements containing commandments,
condemnation, censure, etc, we must delay making final
conclusions about the meaning and application of what we read,
until we have asked and answered some fundamental questions.
The basic questions one must answer, are these:
What, Exactly, Are The Authors Against;
What Are They For?
When Bible authors condemn and oppose something,
What exactly are the writers opposing?
Quite often the real point of opposition does not lie easily and fully exposed upon the surface of the text. What are they against when, for example, they oppose
“adultery,” “homosexuality,” or “fornication?” Are the authors
always against this thing, or is their opposition related to specific
cultural, social or religious circumstances?
These are the very first
questions that should be asked and answered. One cannot be
honest with self or others, regarding such issues, unless one is
positive (s)he understands what the Biblical author means by using
such words. Simply because an English translation uses any of
those words, does not automatically mean that our English word
exactly represents the original intent of an author who used either a
Greek or Hebrew word. If one wants to know the meaning of a
292
prohibition, one must first determine exactly what it is the author of
the prohibition is against.
Commonly used words frequently suffer from our assumptions
that “everyone knows what that means.” It is too easy to simply
take for granted that the commonly accepted meaning of a word is
the correct meaning.
It is amazing to find that, in sex-related
matters, the original Biblical authors used a large number of words
that meant to them something different than what they mean to us.
Biblical sexual ethics can never be understood if we do not even
understand the words used by the original authors. And we will
never understand those words unless we proceed on the
assumption that every word must be redefined according to the
best modern scholarship. An absolute rule of thumb is this: Never
assume you know what a Bible word means until you have examined it for
yourself.
As an interesting example of mistakes made in this area,
consider the word “leprosy.” All Bible readers know that in the
writings of both OT and NT “leprosy” was a dreaded disease and
especially rendered its victim “unclean.” But is that disease the
same thing we call “leprosy” today?
No it is not. Today the word
“leprosy” refers to Hansen’s disease. That our present day
“leprosy” (Hansen’s disease) cannot be the same as what we read
of in the Bible is demonstrable by the facts that [1. Hansen’s disease
has no cure, while Biblical leprosy could be cured, and specific
rituals were given for cured lepers to be received back into temple
fellowship. [2. Biblical “leprosy,” unlike Hansen’s disease, could
infect physical objects such as furniture, stones, etc.
Thus in Biblical
culture one might find a house infected with “leprosy.” Detailed
procedures are given for “curing” the house of this disease. What
this illustrates is the reality that what we mean by an English word
today is not necessarily what the Bible writers meant when they
wrote the Greek or Hebrew word which is the source for our
English word.
Therefore we must be extremely careful that we do not assume
that when the word “adultery” appears in the Bible, it represents
our modern concept of “adultery.”
The same is true when we read
the words “fornication,” “prostitute,” homosexual,” and a host of
other, non-sexual words. It is the most serious violation of any
scholarly standard to assume without inspection, thus without
evidence, that what an ancient author opposes is the same
293
phenomenon existing in our time. All honest Bible believers are
obligated to treat the Bible’s statements with as much personal
integrity as possible.
We are all obligated to use the Bible in such a
way that we do not violate its integrity. Vast numbers of scholarly
tools exist for such study, as well as guides for correctly using those
tools. Entire college courses exist to teach and train students to use
the available resources for scholarly Bible study. One simply has no
excuse for shoddy Bible study. The scholarly methodology for
effective Bible study is straightforward.
What Is The True Meaning Of The Original Words?
This is the first question to answer. The “plain meaning of the
words” does not come automatically from a cursory reading. The
Bible reader must be sure he/she understands the true definition of
the words encountered, as well as the import of those words. A
good Biblical example of this is found in Jn. 21:21-23. Peter asks
Jesus about John’s future, and Jesus replies, “If I want him to remain
until I come, what is that to you? You follow me.” Those who heard this
statement interpreted it to mean that John would not die, and that
report circulated among believers.
“Yet Jesus did not say to him that
he would not die; but only, ‘If I want him to remain until I come, what is
that to you?’” Without a doubt, the disciples heard the exact words of
Jesus, but they interpreted them wrongly, missing the “plain sense”
of what He said, and so circulated a false report. The church is full
of exactly this kind of mis-interpretation.
When we read the Bible it
must filter through everything we are and all we have been taught
all our lives. It must filter through our cultural baggage and
psychological dispositions. Thus we often have difficulties
understanding the “plain sense” of Scripture.
For example:
“Flesh” in Rom. 13:14, e.g., does not refer to the physical
body, but to man’s sinful nature. So it is not a sign of holiness
that we despise our physical bodies, as many have done, based
on such negative Biblical references to “flesh.”
On the basis of “the literal reading” of 1 Cor. 14:34, 35, many
churches deny ministry for women, yet at the same time reject
modern usage of “tongues” and “prophecy” which the “literal
reading” of the same context accepts! So what did Paul mean
when he wrote “women keep silence” to the Corinthians? What did
the Corinthians understand him to say?
294
Others take “literally” the requirement of Paul that women
in church meetings wear a head covering (1 Cor. 11). The verses
surrounding that requirement make it specifically applicable to
women who “pray and prophesy.” Yet the “literalists” who
require the head covering, refuse to allow women to pray and
prophesy in the church!!!
Mormons “baptize for the dead” as per the “plain sense” of
1 Cor. 15:29. The Christian community correctly rejects the
Mormon interpretation of those verses, and refuses to baptize
“for the dead.” But why is the church right to reject this practice?
What did Paul actually mean when he used those words?
Should we not all, based on the “literal reading” of Mk. 16:18
“handle snakes and drink poison?” Why not?
The “plain sense” of Jn. 13:14,15 is the basis of some
churches having “foot washing” services. All “mainline”
Christian churches reject this understanding of those verses.
Who is right? And why? What did Jesus mean when he said “you
should do as I did to you?”
Can we follow Jesus if we do not “sell all we have and give to
the poor?” Mk. 10:21. Since this is a command directly from the
mouth of Jesus, why is it not mandatory for all of us? Even
though he spoke to an individual, was He not establishing the
principle for a communist society?
Doesn’t the example of the
disciples selling their property and bringing it to the Apostles
for distribution to the poor (Acts 4:32-37), reinforce the mandate
for the church being communistic? Why not? What do Jesus’
words mean to us? How do we interpret the action of those
selfless saints?
Many translations exist giving different translations for the
same words. Which is right? For example, is it “prevent”(KJV)
or “precede” (NASB & others) in 1 Thess. 4:15?
When Paul wrote “malakos,” (1 Cor. 6:9) did he mean
“weaklings” (Tyndale and others), “effeminate” (KJV, ASV)
“sodomite” (NAB) “male prostitute” (NIV, NRSV) or
“perversion” (RSV, TEV, NEB)? Forget what we think! We must
know: what did Paul mean?
When Paul wrote “arsenokoites,” (1 Cor. 6:9) did he mean
“lechery” (Wyclif, 14th century), “abusers of themselves with
mankind” (KJV), “liers with mankind” (many translations prior
to 20th century), “homosexuals” (NASB, NLT), “homosexual
295
offenders” (NIV), “sodomite,” “men who have sexual relations
with other men” (NCV), “sexual perverts,” “male homosexuals”
or “practicing homosexuals” (other modern translations)?
Which is it? Does the word Paul used really mean something
sexual that men do “with other men?” Does it mean
“homosexual?” What did Paul mean, and what did the readers
understand him to say?
All these different translations cannot be correct. Which one,
if any is correct? How can we know what Paul was against, if we
do not know the meaning of the words he used?
Such differing translations compel any serious student to simply lay them all
aside and pursue an independent study of all available scholarly resources to find, as near as possible, Paul’s original meaning.
Jesus’ “literal words” were “it is easier for a camel to go through
a needle’s eye…” (Mk. 10:24,25). Many interpret Jesus as referring
to “a gate in Jerusalem called ‘the needle’s eye’ through which a
camel could crawl if it had been unburdened…”
This “interpretation” makes it possible for a camel to go through a
needle’s eye. Yet Jesus’ intended meaning in these words was that
it is impossible for one who trusts riches to go to Heaven, (vs. 27)!
So why would Jesus begin to make such an emphatic point,
only to destroy its force with His illustration?!?!
The thorough researcher will discover that there never was such a gate in
Jerusalem. The first mention of such is in a commentary by
Theophylact, in the 11th century. He invented this interpretation
to try to “explain” this difficult Scripture. Jesus meant this: It
takes a miracle for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, and it
takes a miracle for a rich man to be saved. But understanding this
requires more than a cursory reading. And it requires the ability
to avoid “gimmicky” explanations of difficult Scriptures.
The answer to such difficulties and differences of interpretation
is not “just read without interpreting,” or “just take it literally.” The
answer is to interpret fairly and correctly, considering all available
evidence. Exegesis is careful, systematic, independent study of
Scripture, in order to find its original, intended meaning. Exegetical
study requires us to read with the thought: “what did this mean
back then, and back there.”
So, the first general principle of finding Bible truth, is this:
Interpret according to the correct, i.e. original meaning of the words.
296
If we do not understand the words used, we cannot understand the
message of the Bible.
Consider also that an isolated word is not always clear: What do
you think of if I say “trunk?” Am I referring to an elephant’s
“trunk,” a large container, the baggage compartment of an
automobile, or the base of a tree?
If I say “light” am I thinking of an electrical bulb, or of an object that is not “heavy?” “If the word is “desert” does it mean “to abandon” or “a sweet treat?” In Rev. 5:5,
“lion” refers to Christ, but in 1 Pet. 5:8 it refers to Satan. Does it
mean the same in both places?
Correct understanding of words depends on two factors:
Words used in translation change meaning over time. Consider
“prevent” (KJV) in 1Thess. 4:15, versus “go before” (NASB, others).
Which is the correct meaning?
Two ways to know: Find the true definition of the original Greek word. The word
Paul wrote actually meant “go before” to both Paul and his original readers.
Examine the context surrounding the word. In our example,
vs. 16 confirms the meaning “go before.” Both the original
meaning of the word and its context agree.
Sometimes translators use only one English word as the
translation for several different Greek words. In the NT there are
several different Greek words, all of which are translated by the
one English word “praise.” (e.g. Jn. 9:24(KJV); Eph. 1:6; Heb. 2:12; 1
Pet. 4:11.)
Each word has a different meaning. If the student is not
aware of this, and does not study to see what each word actually
means, the student will not understand what the NT is
communicating to us about the practice of “praise.”
What Is The Literary Context Of Those Words?
Individual words and individual verses have meaning only within
their context. Ignoring this had led to virtually all the error and
heresy that exists.
The most important question you can ask: “What is the point?”
What is the author’s train of thought? What did he say before and
after the sentence I’m reading? How does this word or sentence
relate to surrounding words and sentences?
297
Look carefully and honestly at the exact definition of words, their
grammatical relationship to surrounding sentences; the meaning of
phrases.
As important as finding the exact meaning of individual words,
is looking carefully at the context in which those words appear. The
context is the writing that surrounds the word or verses we are
studying. The immediate context is what comes just before and just
after the verse. The remote context ranges from the remainder of the
chapter, to the book, to the whole Scripture.
Jn.9:3 says the parents and child in this story had not sinned. So
let’s deal with this statement: “This verse is part of the inspired
Bible and its literal, and plain sense means that these people were
sinless.” Is this really the meaning of Jesus words? It surely appears
to be so. If not, how do we demonstrate it? We can find the answer
by considering:
What does the remote context of Scripture teach about human
sinlessness? (e.g. Rom. 3:9-10, 23; 1 Jn. 1:8-10) We learn that
Scripture emphatically declares that all men, without exception,
are sinners. Therefore, we are forced to look for an
interpretation of Jesus’ words that is consistent with this remote
context.
We examine the immediate context of this phrase, by asking,
“What question was Jesus answering?” (vs. 2) Were they asking if
the people were sinners? Or were they asking if sin was the
cause of this man’s blindness? Jesus’ statement relates directly
to their question. What does He mean? He means that this
affliction was not caused by these people’s sin.
So is there a contradiction between Jesus and Paul, who said,
“all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23)? No,
the meaning of Jesus’ words as per the immediate context, agree
with Paul’s teaching in the remote context. Until one can make
both contexts agree, one must continue to study.
In studying Biblical context.
1. Think of all possible, legitimate meanings for the verse or
words you are studying. Which meanings present problems of
interpretation?
2. Read the verse in its context. Read enough to get the
progress of thoughts or events. Decide what you think is the
basic thought of the whole section.
298
3. Examine the verse more closely. Are there any connecting
words at the beginning of the verse? (e.g. “Therefore,” “But”
etc.)
4. Try to answer the question: “What does this verses mean as
determined by its context?”
What Is The Cultural/Historical Context Of Those Words?
The Bible was written in a specific historical setting. The meaning
of its words relates directly to the people who first received it, as
they understood the words in their cultural setting. We must try to
find what part of its original historical context is also applicable for
us today.
Try this with Deut. 22:5, 8-12.
How many of us today believe it is sinful for a woman to wear pants, or for a Scotsman to wear a skirt (kilt)?
Who among us owns a house with a “parapet on the roof.”
Do any of our Christian gardeners hesitate to sow our gardens with different kinds of seed?
Should a Christian farmer be careful to not hitch his ox and donkey together?
How many “sinners” do we have among us because of mixing “wool and linen
together?”
And how many Christians have obeyed the command to make tassels on the four corners of our garment?
If we do not take these commands seriously for ourselves, why not?
And if we refuse to take these Divine commands personally, on what basis do we
take other commands personally?
What makes the difference? Are we able to figure out which commands are still obligatory and which are not?
How many churches reject the requirements of OT law regarding animal sacrifice?
How many of those same churches observe the OT laws requiring tithing?
How do we know when it is appropriate to reject one command but to obey another?
This human, historical, cultural side of the Bible is the reason we must “interpret” it for self and for others. Even though we may know what is the “plain meaning” of certain Scriptures, that “plain meaning” may not at all be applicable to us.
So if we have successfully answered the beginning question, “what was the actual word written by the author?”
and if we have discovered “what that word actually meant to those original recipients,” then we must decide if and how the meaning of that exact word might have relevance to us?
299
Part of our answer comes as we try to answer, “why did God say
this to them?” Was there a purely local situation addressed that
required only local application?
Does the same situation exist for us?
When removed from its historical and cultural setting, will it retain that same meaning/application?
For example does 1 Cor. 7:26 mean that if we are single, we should remain unmarried?
This is obviously what it meant to the original recipients. But what was
there about their specific historical/cultural circumstance that
made that advice appropriate for them, but inappropriate for us?
Even though we may see clearly a command relating to specific
people in specific circumstances, we must not assume that the same
command is binding on all men for all time, regardless of their
circumstances.
Every Scripture originated in a geographical, historical, cultural
setting. It automatically reflects the language, customs and social
mores of the time. It is crucial, in many instances, to know
something about this background, in order to make sense of what
we read. If we interpret according to our own culture, we will
frequently misunderstand.
Sometimes identical words and statements have different
meanings. In England a man may say a woman is homely by which
he means she is home loving and unpretentious. In America if a
man says a woman is homely he means she is unattractive and
maybe even ugly. In India, saying a man is like an owl is an insult,
because Indian culture interprets this to mean the man is stupid. But
in America saying a man is like an owl is to praise him for his
wisdom. Same word: opposite meanings.
Every philologist knows that word meanings change over time.
In 1611, when the King James translation of the Bible was made, the
word “prevent” meant to “precede, to go before.” Today the same
word means to “prohibit or stop.”
Thus modern translations are right to reject “prevent” in favor of “precede” in 1 Thess. 4:15 (KJV). “Double portion” (2 Kg. 2:9) most probably refers to inheritance
of the firstborn, rather than “twice as much.” The cultural background
of this phrase (e.g. Deut. 21:17) indicates Elisha wanted to inherit
Elijah’s ministry as a “first-born” son. Thus in our culture this
phrase does not mean the same as it did in the culture which
coined it.
The first and primary meaning of any scripture is what it meant to
the people who originally received it. And it may not have the same
300
meaning or application to us as it did to them. Remember this basic
rule about Biblical interpretation:
A text cannot mean now, what it never could have meant to its
author or its original readers.
As example, what is the meaning of “that which is perfect” in 1
Cor. 13:10? Does Paul have in mind “the completed New
Testament” as many modern interpreters say? Even though this is a
widely adopted interpretation of these words, this is one thing this
text cannot possibly mean! Neither Paul nor his readers knew a
“New Testament” was in the works.
When the Corinthians received this epistle and read this verse, they could not have thought, “Oh, when the New Testament is completed, then prophecy and
tongues will cease.” Such an interpretation would make zero sense
to them. For that reason (as well as others), “that which is perfect”
cannot refer to “the completed New Testament.”
What does it mean to “take up our cross daily” and follow Jesus,
Lk. 9:23? What did it mean to the people who first heard it? They
were familiar with the practice of requiring a condemned criminal
to carry his own cross to the place of execution. Those people
understood Jesus was saying that those who follow Him must die
to their personal agendas and preferences every day. In some cases
they would face actual physical death for His sake. We are obligated
to interpret according to this original meaning.
Therefore it is a
misuse of this Scripture for us to refer to enduring difficult
situations and difficult people, as “this is just my cross to bear.”
Such an idea would not, and could not have occurred to the people
who first received this saying. Therefore it cannot mean that.
What Geographical Elements Might Be Important In
Understanding This Text?
Joel 2:23 promises “the former rain and the latter rain.” A modern
religious movement sprang up called the “Latter Rain Movement,”
claiming to be the fulfillment of this prophecy.
In Israel there were
two main rainy seasons: the “early rain” at the time of crop sowing
and the “latter rain” near the end of the growing season as crops
matured. God was promising to bless them by sending real rain to
bless their crops, both at the “early” time of sowing and “later” as
301
the crops matured. God was not promising to send the Holy Spirit
at two different historical periods. And in this Scripture God was
not promising anything to us.
To apply this Scripture to us is a
misuse of Scripture. To apply this Scripture to the sending of the
Holy Spirit is to spiritualize it without warrant. This Scripture has
nothing at all to do with some conjectured “latter day out-pouring
of God’s Spirit.”
What social customs are important in understanding this text?
Jesus washes His disciple’s feet (Jn. 13:3-5) and asks if they
understood what He had done, (vs. 12). Then He tells them to do
the same (vs. 14-15). Does this text apply to us?
If so, how? In that culture people traveled mostly by foot and with shoes that were
more like sandals. Their feet became very dirty when they traveled
from place to place. Their cultural practice was for a household
servant to wash the feet of visiting guests. Jesus would not be
expected to wash their feet because He is “Teacher and Lord” (vs.
13). We have no such practice because we have no such need. But if
we can discover the principle, we can make an application.
Jesus says He did this to give us an “example” (vs. 15). If He is
“Lord…” yet takes the place of a servant to wash their feet, they
should be willing to be servants to each other whatever the need
may be.
The principle is “serve one another with humility.” So we do
not literally “wash one another’s feet” because doing so has no
meaning for us. But if we practice the principle of serving each other
in humility, we follow Jesus’ example, and His teaching.
Does the passage truly speak to our present situation?
A given passage may be very clear and precise in its meaning
and application to its original cultural context, yet its particulars
may have no application at all to our modern culture. One of the
best examples of this is found in the controversy in the first century
church over whether Gentile converts must be circumcised in order
to be fully accepted into Christian fellowship.
Acts 15:19-29
contains the conclusion reached by the church council. It consists
of:
302
1. A statement of the requirements to be made of Gentile saints.
They are to avoid things sacrificed to idols, and from blood and
from things strangled and from fornication (vs.20, 29).
2. A specific reason stated for these requirements. “Moses from
ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is
read in the synagogues every Sabbath” (vs. 21).
It is clear from this text that the specific reason for these
requirements is that Gentile saints were surrounded by Jewish
saints whose dedication to Moses’ writings would not allow them
to conscientiously eat things sacrificed to idols, or things strangled,
or meat with blood in it.
If these Gentile saints had not been thus
surrounded by Jewish saints, no such prohibitions would have
been made. Eating blood, things strangled, and meat offered to
idols are not modern ethical problems because Moses’ law is no
longer determinative for Christians, and both Jew and Gentile
Christians understand that those OT prohibitions have been
nullified.
Since today in our culture, we will not offend a Jewish
saint by eating blood or things strangled or meat offered to idols
we are free to do so.
The situation that required those original prohibitions no longer exists therefore the prohibitions are not valid.
Thus a specific “commandment” to Gentile Christians to not
eat blood is not a commandment we take seriously because its
purely cultural setting is so far removed from our own.
We perhaps should add that the restriction against “fornication”
remains valid in whatever specific form it is applicable to our
culture, simply because God’s condemnation of “fornication” is
cross-cultural and not historically peculiar.
In the Acts 15 passage
the “fornication” involved was doubtless that of Gentiles using
temple prostitutes.
It is the same problem Paul addressed in 1 Cor.
6:15, 16. Neither passage addresses any specific sexual issue because
the word “fornication” does not do so.
The word itself is a generic word describing any forbidden sexual activity. It must be clarified by its context in order to have any specific meaning. While it is true
that all forbidden sexual activity is included in this word,
nevertheless in its Acts 15 context it has specific meaning and
application to idol worship, as is obvious from its connection with
eating meat sacrificed to idols and eating blood. Thus Acts 15
forbids Gentiles from deliberately harming the consciences of
Jewish brethren by eating blood, and from having sexual
303
intercourse with pagan temple prostitutes.
In neither case do we take this passage as specifically applicable to us today.
Finding The Historical Context Think as you read: “What was the situation in the church or in Israel, among those people” that accounts for the precise words of my
subject text?
What was the situation in the city, or in the nation?”
“What was the political situation?” What historical era does the book
deal with?
True interpretation of individual verses in Scripture must
harmonize with the entire Biblical revelation.
If one’s interpretation of a Scripture contradicts other Scriptures, one’s interpretation is wrong.
The Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself.
Reading the Bible through on a regular basis will give a good
foundation for avoiding the mistake of drawing conclusions from a
limited perspective.
As example, Paul writes “I bow my knees before
the Father” (Eph. 3:14). Thus we have “Apostolic authority,”
witnessed to by inspired Scripture, that bowing the knees in prayer
is Biblical.
But this does not mean kneeling is the only acceptable
posture for prayer because other Scriptures authorize prayer while
raising hands, standing, or lying prostrate.
Heresies and false doctrine appear to have Biblical support
because their promoters use only the verses that appear to teach their doctrine while ignoring others.
If a verse seems to give new and great revelation one must resist adopting such new
“revelation” until one has thoroughly compared it with the rest of
what Scripture says.
What was once binding upon God’s people may not necessarily
be binding today. For example, Scripture shows that God
commanded His people to not eat pork.
But other Scriptures show that God Himself lifted that restriction. So it is actually unbiblical for people to attempt to please God by observing this or other Biblical
food laws.
Some Biblical mandates have remained basically in force while
having been altered in their specific form.
For example, Saturday
Sabbath keeping is practiced today by sincere people who get their
“authority” in the OT law for Israel. But the NT revelation of the
New Covenant, the meaning of Christ’s resurrection, and the
practice of the early church shows the seventh day Sabbath was not
304
practiced by first century Christians, who rather began gathering
for worship on the first day of the week.
Some take the NT alone as modern authority for Christians,
thereby eliminating instrumental music from worship. But this
ignores the harmony between OT & NT and the essential oneness
of God’s revelation. The Bible is not two books; it is one unified
revelation of God’s mind.
Using the NT alone, or Gospels alone, or the Epistles alone to
form belief is invalid. Learning the full truth about any Bible
subject requires treating the entire Bible with equal dignity and
respect, and using all of what it says as the mixture from which we
make our final conclusions.
The reader should not conclude from our remarks that we think
cultural or historical contexts will settle all questions about Biblical
meaning and present application. But no one should feel they have
done their Biblical research until they have tried their best to
understand Scripture as its original readers must necessarily have
understood it.
What it meant to them, is its true meaning. We must
acknowledge that anything written by Paul must necessarily have
meant something specific both to him and his readers. He could not
possibly have written words that meant nothing to himself and he
would not have written nonsense to his readers.
Given the tendency of words to change meanings over time,
plus the fact that cultural practices, mores, concepts of good and
bad, etc. also change – sometimes dramatically – we are faced with
the task of uncovering the original setting of all Biblical writings.
If we are unwilling to do the hard work necessary for this we should
withdraw from Biblical study and most definitely we should cease
to pose as teachers of the Bible. Without such hard research we will
be led astray in our own conclusions and we will consequently lead
astray those whom we teach.
Do I Have The Courage To Stand Alone If Necessary?
Independent and honest research will occasionally turn up
those “rare gems” of truth that runs counter to mainstream
thought.
If the new ideas are sufficiently “radical” the discoverer is
faced with the dilemma of fully embracing that truth and risking
ostracism – or worse – or simply keeping it to himself and refusing
to share the truth that would set others free.
The church is eternally
305
indebted to Martin Luther and other like minded “Reformers” who
saw the “new truth” of salvation by grace and with consummate
courage proclaimed it to all who would listen. And where would
we be if Peter, James, John, Paul and the other first century apostles
and saints had not boldly preached the “Gospel” in the very face of
a dangerous and threatening Jewish court that had already
murdered their Master?
Their indomitable courage is the
foundation upon which the whole church rests.
Not every truth deserves equal commitment.
But a person of integrity must be willing to embrace truth even when it flies in the
face of all they have previously known. They must be willing, at
least for the sake of their own personal integrity, to be honest with
what they find in Scripture.
If circumstances exist that makes it advisable for them to withhold some revelation about their findings because they genuinely feel others “are not able to bear it,” then
they have Jesus as their example (Jn. 16:12). We are never right to
simply stick new ideas in other people’s faces when we know they
have no way to deal with those ideas.
But we are also culpable if
we refuse to use our information to help others who may be open
to it, and who may need it.
306
OTHER BOOKS AVAILABLE FROM THE AUTHOR
OF DIVINE SEX:
The Royal Law of Liberty, by Darwin Chandler. (Trafford
Publishing, 488 pg; available at trafford.com and
amazon.com). This book cuts the root of all illegitimate
religious rules, bringing true freedom for humans to
enjoy all things good, without shame or guilt. This
lengthy argument establishes the “Law of Love” as the
only religious/spiritual law required of those who desire
to serve God. It's premise is vital to understanding the
necessary basic approach to all moral issues. It does for all
moral issues, what Divine Sex does for specifically sexual
issues.
God Is Not a Homophobe, by Philo Thelos. (Trafford
Publishing; available at trafford.com and amazon.com).
God is not a gay-hating Ogre, despite vehement claims by
the church. The Bible in no way condemns homosexuality
as a consensual life-style. This book clears the moral air of
cultic anti-homosexual rhetoric. A must read for all who
care about what the Bible really says – and doesn't say –
about homosexuality.
307
A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aaron, Kevin, Journey From Eden.
Bailey, D.S., Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition
(London, Longman, Greens, 1955).
Balch, David, Homosexuality, Science, and the Plain Sense of Scripture.
Batchelor, Edward, ed. Homosexuality and Ethics (The Pilgrim Press).
Blank, Joani, First Person Sexual
Boswell, John, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality
(Univ. of Chicago Press).
Brawley, Robert, Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality.
Brown, Peter , The Body and Society: Men, Women & Sexual
Renunciation in Early Christianity
Brown and Bohn, Christianity, Patriarchy and Abuse.
Cairncross John, After Polygamy Was Made A Sin
Coleman, Peter, Christian Attitudes Toward Homosexuality,
London: SPCK, 1980).
Constantine, Larry L. and Joan M., Group Marriage: A Study of
Contemporary Multilateral Marriage.
Countryman, William, Dirt, Greed and Sex.
DeMartino, Manfred F ed. Human Autoerotic Practices, (NY: Human
Sciences Press, 1979)
Deida, David, Intimate Communion: Awakening Your Sexual Essence
DeLora, Jack and Joan, Intimate Life Styles: Marriage and its
Alternatives
Donnelly ,Dody H, Radical Love: An Approach to Sexual Spirituality.
Dover, Kennet, Greek Homosexuality (Harvard Univ. Press)
Edwards, George, Gay/Lesbian Liberation: A Biblical Perspective.
Eisler, Riane, Sacred Pleasure: Sex, Myth, And The Politics of the Body,
(SF: Harper, 1995)
Ellis, Albert, Sex Without Guilt, (NY: Lyle Stuart, 1958, and
Hollywood: Wilshire Books, 1965)
Firestone, Shulamith, The Dialectic of Sex (William Morrow and Co.)
Fisher, Helen, Anatomy of Love.
Foxrich, David Ph.D. In Touch For Men.
Francoeur, Anna K and Robert T., Hot And Cool Sex: Cultures in
Conflict.
Francoeur, Anna K and Robert T., The Future of Sexual Relations
Friday, Nancy, The Power of Beauty, (NY: Harper 1996)
Furnish, Victor The Moral Teaching of Paul (Abingdon Press).
–––––––– Theology and Ethics in Paul (Abingdon Press)
308
Gould, Terry The Lifestyle: A Look at Erotic Rites.
Hannay, J.B. Sex Symbolism in Religion (2 vols.)
Helminiak, Daniel A., What The Bible Really Says About
Homosexuality.
Human Sexuality: A Preliminary Study (NY: United Church Press,
1977)
Heyn, Dalma, Erotic Silence of the American Wife
Hillel, Rachel, The Redemption of the Feminine Erotic Soul
Hite, Shere, Women in Love: A Cultural Revolution in Progress
Larue, Gerald, Sex and the Bible.
Lawrence, Raymond, Jr.,The Poisoning of Eros
Lee, Philip J., Against the Protestant Gnostics
MacNeill, John, The Church and the Homosexual (Sheed, Andrews
and McMeel, Kansaws City, 1976).
Marotta, Toby, The Politics of Homosexuality (Houghton Mifflin,
Boston)
Masters, Robert Augustus, The Way of the Lover
Mazur, Ronald, The New Intimacy: Open-Ended marriage
Minell Tia, The Ultimate Swinger’s Guide
Muir, Charles and Caroline, I.
Myers, Lonnie and Leggitt, Hunter, “A New View of Adultery”
(Sexual Behavior, Feb. 1972).
Nearing, Ryam , Loving More: The Polyfidelity Primer
Nelson, James B., Body Theology.
–––––––– Embodiment.
–––––––– The Intimate Connection: Male Sexuality, Masculine
Spirituality.
Nelson and Longfellow, Sexuality and The Sacred.
O’Neil, Nena and George, Open Marriage.
Oberholtzer, Dwight, Is Gay Good?
Pagels, Elaine, Adam, Eve and the Serpent
Pittenger, Norman, Making Sexuality Human,
–––––––– Goodness Distorted
–––––––– Unbounded Love
Ramsey, Paul, A Christian Approach to the Question of Sexual Relations
Outside Marriage, (Journal of Religion, vol.XLV, #2 April 1965).
Ranke-Henemann, Uta, Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven: Women,
Sexuality …
Reiss Dr. Ira L., An End to Shame: Shaping Our Next Sexual
Revolution, , (Prometheus Books)
309
Reuben, David Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Sex.
Rhodes, Richard, Making Love-An Erotic Odyssey.
Rimmer, Robert, The Harrad Experiment.
Rogers, C.R., Becoming Partners: Marriage and its Alternatives
(New York: Delacorts, 1972)
Roy, Rustum & Della, Honest Sex.
Russell, Bertrand, Marriage and Morals (NY Bantam, 1959)
Scanzoni, Letha and MollenKott, Virginia, Is The Homosexual My
Neighbor? (Harper & Row)
Scroggs, Robin, The New Testament and Homosexuality.
Small, Dwight, Christian, Celebrate Your Sexuality.
Snaith, Norman ed., Leviticus and Numbers. The Century Bible
(Thomas Nelson)
Soards, Marion, Scripture and Homosexuality: Biblical Authority & the
Church Today (Westminster John Knox)
Stubbs, Kenneth Ray, Women of the Light: The New Sacred Prostitute
(Secret Garden, 1994)
Thomas, Patti, Recreational Sex: An Insiders’ Guide.
Trible, Phyllis, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality
Walsh, Donald Neale, Conversations With God (Hampton Roads,
1997, Books, 1, 2, 3)
Williamson, Marianne, A Woman’s Worth.
Walter Wink, “Biblical Perspectives on Homosexuality,”
The Christian Century, Dec. 7, 1979, 1085
Zilbergeld, Dr. Male Sexuality.