"No Fences: Pharisees, Philosophers, Legalists, and Jesus" Chapter 6

Chapter 6: He Stopped Preachin’ and Commenced to Meddlin’

Follow God’s example, therefore, as dearly loved children and walk in the way of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people. Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a person is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient.  Therefore do not be partners with them. (Ephesians 5:1-7)

Ephesians 5:1 reminds us who we are. Ephesians 5:2 tells us to act like it. Ephesians 5:3-4 describe life "among us" or how we treat each other rather than whether we are allowed to enjoy stand-up comedy. Ephesians 5:5-7 describe the nature of unbelievers; 1 Corinthians 6:11 clarifies that those behaviors are not our identity anymore: "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." We are not what we do; we are new creations in Christ. We all stumble in many ways (James 3:2), but we have a new trend toward godliness. We don't practice sin to get better and better at it, but we do practice righteousness now (Romans 6:18; 1 John 3:6, 9). We may not seem to be very good at it yet, but we have very long lives ahead of us in glory. 

Paul defended himself and his ministry in 2 Corinthians. There are those that may say that I am being spoken of in Ephesians 5:6 and that I am trying to excuse the sins described above, or that I am one of the false teachers from 2 Peter 2 or Jude. The lust and greed that is condemned in the passage above is likely returning to pagan worship with its associated sex rituals for better jobs in the guilds with patron deities rather than accepting menial jobs as Christians, but other greed is still condemned such as cheating people with false weights as in Exodus and Proverbs, stealing, scheming to take land like Naboth’s vineyard, etc., rather than mere desire to prosper like Abraham, David, or any of the other many examples of people God has financially blessed. 

We’re different now (Ephesians 4:17, Ephesians 5:8). 

Think of the types of sexual and criminal activities Paul meant when he said “immoral” (aselgeia), “impure” (akatharsia), and “greedy” (pleonexia) to recent former pagans in Ephesus. Artemis of the Ephesians is a combination of the Greek Artemis (whom the Romans called Diana and combined with Luna the moon and Hecate of the underworld) and the Turkish Cybele. She was described as a perpetually virgin mother goddess with a dying/rising castrated grandson/consort named Attis. The priests in Cybele’s religion castrated themselves, and religious observances included getting the resulting blood from the ritual on the congregation’s garments (perhaps alluded to in Revelation 3:4). Buggery with the castrated priests was also part of the religious services. That was probably the method of blood transmission, now that I think about it. The word aselgeia connotes being utterly amoral, feeling no shame while sinning, participating in pagan orgies, disregarding the boundaries established in Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20, etc. Some translators see aselgeia as a specific reference to buggery. The word akatharsia means dirty, demonic, depraved, foul like a festering wound, etc. It’s in the Mark 7 list of vices, too. It describes adulterers (explicitly in some translations like the NLT – you may have a hint about taking advantage of a brother in this regard in your preferred translation) in 1 Thessalonians 4. The word for greed in our Ephesians 5 example is pleonexia, which is coveting more and more without regard to the rights of others. People that were more into Mammon (Matthew 6:24) than God would have gladly engaged in fraud, extortion, sold widows for profit, etc. As to obscenity, in light of what else is in the Bible, there are hundreds of tales for story time at the pagan temples that violated Leviticus 18:23 and would have been told and/or re-enacted in detail in that different cultural/historical context, like the one about King Minos’ wife, a bull, things I won’t describe, and a baby Minotaur. I’m not describing such things to titillate, but to point out how the Accuser has gotten us to move the goalposts and focus on our own not-recently-former-pagan-but-mostly-cleaned-up behavior to make us ineffective. A big motivation for living rightly was to make the Gospel attractive (Titus 2:10), and the Accuser works overtime to make us look like hypocrites.

I think I have made every effort to apply the whole of Scripture (as Jesus is fond of saying, "It is written...") and honestly appraise the real behavior of the faithful as Jesus did (Luke 14:5 "Which of you, having a donkey or an ox that has fallen into a pit, will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?"). The false teachers in 2 Peter 2 deny Christ (2 Peter 2:2), make up stories instead of using Scripture (2 Peter 2:3), and want your wife and your money (2 Peter 2:14). Many modern cults promote “free love” and take all possessions from converts. The “freedom” (2 Peter 2:19) from all vestiges of New Testament behavior instructions that even the pre-Sinai patriarchs kept isn’t freedom at all; a new-hearted believer will feel lousy having known what a clean life feels like if they stumble into such behavior (2 Peter 2:20-22). You point out that teachers will be judged more strictly (James 3:1)? How about generations of teaching Stoicism, Aristotelianism, Platonism, Phariseeism, etc., instead of the plain expectations in Acts 15:20, causing brothers and sisters to attempt the Law of Moses and to act against conscience sinfully? Many pastors frequently use unbiblical stories (personal anecdotes, movie clips, etc.) to illustrate points, which is fine to do if it helps to connect with the congregation better, but not in support of notions that don’t pass the “all Scripture” test. To paraphrase one message board user: “Y'all out here trading tactics to outwit Larry the Masturbation Goblin. Get in a Bible, stop fighting Larry and start looking to Jesus, spread the Good News, and help the food bank.” Jesus was quick to point out "it is written" (insisting on scriptural precision vs. Rabbinic oral traditions and Greek philosophy) and to point out what the "pious" were actually doing. Based on the statistics, nowadays the pious like naked people on the Internet. 

Since (inordinate) lust and (willingness to take what rightfully belongs to others) greed came up, how about the rest of the so-called Seven Deadly Sins, which would be gluttony, sloth, anger, envy, and pride? There’s not an enumerated list in the Bible; they were derived by later religious philosophers. Regarding gluttony, when God said He would judge between the fat sheep and the thin sheep (Ezekiel 34), the context is God judging the corrupt leaders that exploited His flock. The donut enjoyer who regularly donates to the food bank is doing well, and the pastor that uses fear (treating Jesus’ promises of our security as false, calling Him a liar) to sell expensive diet plans is acting exactly like the “fat sheep” that the passage was written about. When God said He would destroy those who destroy His Temple (1 Corinthians 3:16-17), read the rest of 1 Corinthians 3 to see that promise is in reference to those who ruin church unity by preaching a gospel other than Jesus’. Sloth is related to gluttony; Sodom was also condemned for callous disregard for the poor (Ezekiel 16:49-50). There is a difference between relaxing and refusing to help anyone. Remember that God also spent more than two thirds of your Bible trying to get people to take a day off. When Jesus pronounced woe on the rich, well-fed, laughing, and those with good reputations in Luke 6, He was condemning the religious and political leadership of that time and place. Being “rich” (2 Corinthians 8:9), “well fed” (John 6:35), joyful (Galatians 5:22, 1 Thessalonians 5:16), and of good repute (1 Timothy 3:7, Titus 2:2, Proverbs 22:1) aren’t bad; they’re for us instead of for the people that ended up crucifying Him. The anger addressed in Matthew 5:22 must include the “without cause” exception in many manuscripts or sinless Jesus’ table flipping and calling people snakes seem problematic. Remember that God loves the person who irritates you, too, and let Him handle it for you. Envy is the same covetousness at the root of “greed”-y behavior. Since respect for God is humility, pride is actual or practical godlessness (Proverbs 22:4). Having surveyed the meaning of these sins, sincerely believing in Jesus and what He did for us, appreciating who God is in relation to us and others, and loving others as He asked us to do flies right over all those traps. Also, elevating them above any other sins is a mistake; all sins deserve death (Romans 6:23; not all sins succeed in that per 1 John 5:16-17, and that’s a whole other discussion). However, believers have already died to sin (Romans 6:1-11), and we’re done dying (Luke 20:36, Hebrews 9:27).

Am I as 2 Timothy 2:14 puts it "arguing about words"? In context, the words Paul preaches and charges Timothy to defend are the Gospel of Christ crucified and raised in 2 Timothy 2:8. The argument in 2 Timothy 2:14-18 concerns false teachers that claim the general resurrection of believers had already taken place. This is the same sort of Jesus-only-lives-in-our-hearts stuff promulgated by certain pseudo-intellectual elements today. Defending the words about the Word is not a problem, nor is insisting upon their unchanged meaning.  Not to judge the speck in a brother's eye that I cannot see for the beam in mine, but it seems to me that if there is someone in our time we can suspect of false teaching, it is definitely these Christ-deniers, and it also might be those trying to affirm behaviors among God’s children for which even I cannot provide a loophole (Jude 4). For example, some people have inferred from Paul saying that since joining themselves to Aphrodite through her temple prostitute employees was wrong because we are one with Christ meant that we can logically share all the Christian womenfolk. Paul makes it clear we are one in Spirit with Jesus but we are all still different “fleshes” and we don’t share wives (1 Thessalonians 4:6).   

The denomination I was born in is undergoing a split over a number of issues, including sexual morality. This can get tricky: in Revelation 2, Jesus praises the church at Ephesus for its intolerance of wicked people (but in context, those are false apostles) and criticizes the same group for its lack of love. The central issues causing the split are the ordination of practicing homosexuals as church leaders and performing marriage ceremonies for gay couples. Both James 4:11 and James 5:9 oppose slandering believers with different lifestyles, and condemning anyone is above our pay grade. When Jesus said “whoever” in John 3:16 and John 6:37, he meant it. There are also plenty of teachers out there conforming to the zeitgeist regarding buggery collecting money from the itchy-eared. See 2 Timothy 4:3-4. I wrote before of “considering natural impulses as attacks by the Enemy” but now it’s time to consider attacks by the Enemy thought to be natural impulses. “God loves these people, and so do we” is a great starting place. To anyone inclined to feel attacked by what I’m writing, there are many books available today that take the stance that homosexuality of any kind is not sinful, and your enemies will not read those books. A work that takes the ancient tome seriously about one specific activity between men that also takes the ancient tome seriously about the necessity of kindness for everyone might get through to those who claim to take the ancient tome seriously. 

The pattern of the Epistles was to remind the audience of who they are in Christ and then to encourage a walk consistent with their new identity as totally forgiven people with new heavenly attitudes. The church discipline outlined in Matthew 18 and 1 Corinthians 5 and the rebuking of sinning elders in 1 Timothy 5:20 and of wrong teachers in Titus 1:13 suggest that there is a difference between judging slights against me on my own behalf and using the precedent of what God has already judged within the church. My initial instinct is to leave all the management-level decisions to God (Romans 14:4). But, we have more scriptural examples to draw from on this issue than we did with the discussion of blood sausages a few chapters ago. Jesus said John the Baptist was the greatest pre-Pentecost human. He did not criticize him for being judgmental about Herod Antipas taking his brother's wife or say that John should have officiated a wedding ceremony for them and had a reception by the Jordan afterwards. Paul did not write the Corinthians to say, "Shame on you for judging that man that's sleeping with his father's wife. Can't you see they love each other? No, don't shun him; let him be your pastor." We have allowed the meaning of "faithfulness" to creep toward "fidelity to one partner" instead of "being dependable in all of your relationships, whether it be to support lawful wives/concubines or to honor God who invented exit-only butts." Much like Jesus did after saving a woman caught in adultery (John 8), after salvation the Church teaches people to avoid every variety of inappropriate penis or receptacle thereof.   

How do we handle this internal issue within the Church without becoming the modern equivalents of Pharisees and instead walk as Jesus would have us do? In 1 John 3:10, we find the “Shammai”/”Hillel” third option again: “This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister." 1 John 5:1 tells us “everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves his child as well.” There is no sin that the Cross did not take care of. Although there is material in 1 John that suggests that a disorderly walk may be evidence of lack of conversion, we are not to speculate about who does or doesn't go to Heaven (Romans 10:6). Salvation is between you and Jesus. Leslie Jordan released more Gospel songs and had more Instagram views on Sunday hymn sing-alongs than I likely ever will. The only thing Paul preached to pagan Corinthians at first was Christ crucified, not a bunch of behavior improvement modules. However, within the church that formed there, Paul addressed behavior inconsistent with God's prior judgments. We are not to elevate Leviticus 18:22 above any other sin. I’m only providing extended coverage of this material because of the denominational split happening over it at the time of this writing. Be nice to everyone. Our attempts to keep no company with professed Christians who are (1 Corinthians 5:11) sexually immoral, greedy, idolatrous, abusive, drunkards, or swindlers (for example, the preachers that only want your money per Titus 1:10-11) provide ample opportunities for our Enemy, the Accuser, to tempt us into breaking the greater law of love. Anyone tempted to kick their child out of the house for a sinful lifestyle based on 1 Corinthians 5:11 is missing its context of taking an outsider into your home and endorsing their ministry. Your family is your family. 1 Timothy 5:8 is clear: "Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."  

The early church would have understood the Acts 15:20 apostolic prohibition of sexual immorality to include Leviticus 20:13 because even Canaanites without the Law of Moses were forbidden that. Some people use the different words for “man” and “male” to limit it to child abuse, but since the Law killed both participants here but did not stone unwilling victims in Deuteronomy 22:25-27, this seems to be about consenting adults in active and passive participation. The man who was sleeping with his (step)mother in defiance of even Roman law in 1 Corinthians 5 was briefly excluded from the meetings, but his salvation was not in question (1 Corinthians 5:5), and Paul told them to fully welcome him back in 2 Corinthians 2:1-11. Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:11 implies no problem with full participation for non-practicing homosexual converts. Leadership roles have a bigger list of boxes to check (1 Timothy 3). For example, we are not supposed to ordain blackout drunks. We may welcome the drunk's fun-loving personality, their warmth, etc. We speak only of acts, not people. Drinking or not drinking liquid isn't a condition of salvation, but self-control is an aspect of the fruit of the Spirit developing over time after salvation, and it happens to be on the elder checklist. The Church encourages a walk consistent with the new life, and certain behaviors aren't for the office of an elder who is to encourage their congregation similarly. All of that can be applied to those dealing with males engaged in buggery. (I phrase it like that because “male same-sex attraction” is not what the Bible lists as sinful; as with food sacrificed to idols, sins are specific scenarios.) Nevertheless, a movie about an accordion player has a line to ponder: “I know it's hard to hear this, but your dad and I had a long talk, and we agreed it would be best for all of us if you would just stop being who you are and doing the things you love.” This whole issue is tricky because people don’t tend to build their whole identity around the other sins that share lists with it. To go back to Romans 1:30, when you tell someone to obey their parents you usually don’t get “Why do you hate me?” as a first response. Paul saying to refrain implies he was speaking to those capable of choosing, likely in the context of nominal heterosexuals deciding not to attend a pagan temple for ritual sex with male prostitutes. The prohibition is on doing things with a man as you would with a woman; granted, some men have never desired women in that way. In that historical and cultural context, buggery would have usually involved things like pagan rituals, pederasty, displays of dominance akin to prison rape, etc. When in doubt, be kind. Always welcome the unbeliever, but the New Testament falls short of affirming all behavior by believers as non-sinful.  

There are people who misread David and Jonathan's story as homosexual. They were friends that stuck closer than brothers (Proverbs 18:24). It's the same bond of loyalty men in combat have forged throughout history. David and Jonathan both had impressive stories of valor as action heroes separately, and they remind me of an example in a film. This is the loyalty displayed by Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday in the 1993 film Tombstone (although people try to find subtext in that, too) depicting a friendship that began historically through saving each other’s lives in gunfights. Jonathan giving David clothing was symbolic of the recognition that God was not continuing Saul's dynasty, and that Jonathan's best remaining chance in life was getting into agreement with God about David to serve in his new administration. Ruth's speech to Naomi was not a declaration of lesbian attraction, but a whole-hearted turn toward God by a Gentile in the family tree of Jesus. Although, I have nothing bad to say about that; I can see where they’re coming from on a few things – to human eyes, on the whole, women are pretty, men are unsightly, and my wife probably mostly likes my ability to provide material things. No verse forbids lesbianism as we will discuss below, and the hundreds of wives and concubines probably kept busy somehow; there’s no way Solomon, etc., maintained the same frequency of relations with all of them as more wives were added. Scholars who (probably) know better play dumb at Paul's construction "arsenokoites" and literally translate it "male bed", but the Septuagint uses arseno and koites in Leviticus 20:13 to translate the prohibition of a man lying with another man as he would with a woman. It would be like if the Old Testament ever said "don't put cheese on a burger", a New Testament writer cautioned against cheeseburgers, and learned men acted like they didn’t know what was being referenced.

FIGURE 2  

That being said, remember that sexual relations in the Bible refers to penile penetration. Remember, kissing was a greeting and Song of Songs/Solomon lets us know that activities involving hands or mouths that might be considered sex-adjacent (or warm-ups we’ve invented that are sometimes used before or along with sex) are still different. Leviticus 18:22 forbids male-male homosexuality, but Leviticus 18:23 specifically prohibits bestiality by males and by females. Therefore, Leviticus 18:22 is silent on lesbianism altogether. Paul is consistent with this in Romans 1:26-27, in which he says that women turned from the natural way to have sex and then men by the same unnatural method were attracted to each other. If the things Solomon wrote in praise of are natural, what unnatural method remains that women and men would have in common? Some modern translations say the similarity is same-sex attraction, but it seems more like a reference to anal penetration. Think of the ancient world; the vagina can expand and self-lubricate in ways that the anus cannot. It's like they were designed for different purposes. Most people still find the possibility of their own buggery to be unnatural or at least uncomfortable; enthusiasts use special devices to get ready for it, etc. See these prohibitions in light of Judges 19:22. The threat of buggery is a large part of why most men answer as to why imprisonment is a deterrent to crime. As Katt Williams’ character said in Friday After Next, “I am a boy! You are not in prison anymore Damon! That's not how we do it!” (I somehow think I’m still being too subtle about how many film clips pastors use for sermons lately.) For those that say gay marriage did not exist in ancient times, a few Roman emperors married boys, and there was public disapprobation to the extent that criticizing them was safe. 

Leviticus 18:22 prohibits penetrating a male in the way that the original hearers “would with a woman”; since males lack vaginas, the assumption that straight couples were engaged in what is termed anal sex is baked in. Romans 1:26 alludes to that being unnatural, but the Law of Moses includes some of the idiosyncrasies of fallen humanity as Jesus alluded to in his discussion of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 divorces against the ideal one-flesh pairing of Genesis 2:24 from before the Fall. The sin of Adam is not called the sin of Eve because Adam was in charge (Genesis 3:16), and “ruling over” another who is equally designed to plant seed and sweat from effort so to speak blurs a designation (penetrator/penetratee) like that between man and animal (Leviticus 18:22-23). (As for lesbianism and Genesis 3:16’s assertion that the desires of women will be for their husbands, the prevalence of what is termed “lesbian bed death” and often rape-like impregnation dreams featuring decidedly unfeminine men invites further discussion.) Paul mentioned what I see as the unnatural-but-not-illegal male-on-female anal stimulation context to arrive at the behavior among males that is prohibited to all humanity in the Leviticus lists (as the Canaanites were punished for it apart from the Law), but let us not lose sight of the fact that only the act of male-male buggery is prohibited in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and Leviticus. God loves people. That vice list is in reference to Christians having church business decided by outsiders that were unqualified for that task. That vice list as a whole may also describe pagan worship by nominal Christians pretending to remain pagan to keep better jobs and participating in worship services for Cybele that involved anally penetrating castrated Galli priests or slaves. 

A modern version of a “Shammai” view of the topic might be: “Humans are deuterostomes. Think of the symbolism of man attempting to put the organs of creation in where the Creator began to work the bowl. Also, consider your natural (likely) revulsion to depictions of scat play. Realize that in a pre-political-correctness culture that didn't need baby wipes and lubricants to copulate, that revulsion is one and the same. If God doesn't want to see it uncovered on the ground in a soldier's camp (Deuteronomy 23:12-14), he doesn't want to see it on you. A thought experiment: have you ever been taking an enormous dump and been aroused by the aroma? Probably not, and your excrement smells better to you than others' does by default. Ever walked into a public restroom and found the eye-stinging smells enticing? If people that played in other peoples’ bottoms were a new phenomenon, it would likely be a psychiatric diagnosis like it used to be.” Usually, the position comes with more hateful vitriol that is easier to dismiss scripturally. 

Even so, the rule from the Iron Age text is at the level of the act of buggery; it is not about finding someone to be attractive, whom to spend time with, pronouncing the letter “s” a certain way, or other cultural considerations. Jesus affirmed the humanity of the woman caught in adultery. Only the act was in focus; her personality, etc., were not seen as execrable. He saved her from death by pointing out that we all need grace. Then, He told her to stop sinning (perhaps because He wouldn’t be around physically to stop the guys with rocks the next time, but still). Jonathan’s “friend closer than a brother” David moved in, and Jonathan’s parents treated him like family (right down to the vicious dinner fights). If a “brother” needs a place to stay, or if you and twelve dudes want to hit the road for three years like Jesus, then you have text to support that. The prohibition is at the level of penile activity, and Pharisees are the ones who care about hedges against any niceties that seem to be on the way toward that. Lesbians aren’t in Leviticus 18:22 or anywhere else in the Bible; many modern "Pharisees" out there could benefit from a friendship founded on the commonly-held notion that women are pretty and that dudes are gross. It seems hypocritical to oppose gay marriage (especially for unbelievers) when the Church’s identity (including the men) is the Bride of Christ. However, it is also true that He has never done butt stuff with us, if I recall correctly. Let me emphasize that 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 doesn't tell us whom we can safely be unloving to, who can love whom, whom God doesn't love and grieve for, which people can be discriminated against, who cannot adopt society's unwanted extra babies, etc. Are certain people on certain parade floats scandalizing fellow believers and failing to show concern for the scrupulous? (Even if the affirmers were somehow right in their interpretations of loopholes, concern for the weaker brother would generally mean being discreet.) Letters of exhortation are one thing, but ultimately Romans 14:4 reminds me that I am not the final authority on that. It's like we live in a video game and the rules only apply to ourselves, the players. There's a beam in our eye to go with the speck in our brother's eye. There are more exhortations to care for foreigners, orphans, and widows in Deuteronomy alone than there are mentions of the subject of this chapter in the entire Bible. I am not here to make anyone’s life harder, the Book says what it says, and somehow that has to mesh.   

For those coming to the aid of those being attacked by people only using parts of the Scripture, remember Jude 23 and don't get fooled into being unloving toward the unloving. We are to restore each other with gentleness, and if we can't do that, then God has promised to teach us and fix us to His liking as described several times throughout this book. Additionally, 1 Corinthians 5:12 reminds us that we are not in the business of cleaning up the behavior of unbelievers. God has no interest in better-behaved dead people. We are to spread Christ's life: salvation by grace through faith. A man that has a heart attack in a mall doesn't need a bunch of behavior instructions yelled at him about how he should have eaten less bacon; he needs a defibrillator.   

Suggesting that sin is sinful is called an unloving stance, but if you caught your middle-school-age son putting peanut butter on himself to entice the family dog to lick him (The application of Leviticus 18:23 might be questionable; some people would say he’s closer to the oral stimulation seen in Song of Songs/Solomon than straightforward penetration), would your first instinct be to tell him to knock it off and maybe seek help? I'm guessing most of my readers in the century in which this was written wouldn't make laudatory social media posts about it (#zoophile #loveislove) just yet. Since "the use of marriage" would be cruel for me to inflict upon my disabled wife, I am not advocating a path for anyone that I don't walk. You may not want to take care of a Biblically-approved spouse until one of you dies, come what may, for any number of reasons such as orientation, financial limitations, devotion to spreading the Gospel, etc. Touching and handling the thing that goes away with use (Colossians 2:20-23) is a great way to prevent being tempted into activities that would actually be outside what God intends for you.   

There are more “Hillel”-like voices on this issue, and they have many positions, so I will attempt to summarize some of them. I agree that “God loves these people, and so do we” is a great starting place. Paul was likely writing against buggery as part of pagan worship. Then, things take a turn. Some try to confuse the issue by questioning the translation of Lev 18:22 and make it into something like "the same sorts of incest that would happen with a woman are bad with a man too"; however, it's separated from the incest rules by periods, adultery, and child sacrifice. Paul may have been writing in the context of pagan rituals, but there was no idol check for other forms of sexual immorality such as adultery elsewhere in the Bible. Do affirming churches and their rationalist unbeliever allies think that secular bestiality and secular child sacrifice would be okay? Don't answer that. Frequently, you can find attacks on the authority of Scripture (far beyond using 1 Corinthians 1:14 and its revision in 1 Corinthians 1:16 to suggest that inspired text can still contain errors beyond simple issues with English translation teams). Sometimes, there are attacks on Paul’s character. Remaining single and traveling with younger males like Timothy was normal for rabbis. When Paul wished that his opponents that wanted to circumcise the Gentiles would castrate themselves (Galatians 5:12), it was at least born of love for the Gentiles, and Paul still left his case in God’s hands; it’s not like he harmed anyone or told anyone to do so. There may be allegations that the early church “changed” the Law to allow the Gentiles in, skipping over the Acts 21:20,25 distinctions we explored earlier in this book. (If you’ve forgotten, the summary is that Jewish Christians maintained their fervor for the Law of Moses at that time, but the Gentiles who had been promised as fellow worshipers of God in the prophets were only expected to adhere to a few principles considered applicable to all mankind that I assert are behind the post-Cross New Testament behavior instructions.) There are frequent arguments of changing interpretations over time: Christians abolished slavery (a form of slavery with illegal aspects per several Old Testament verses, but many modern working arrangements would still be construed as slavery by an ancient observer), the roles of women have changed (but good luck getting all of the denominations to agree on that one), etc. Accusations of picking and choosing verses are made: I heard two pastors denounce gays while wearing hats in the pulpit, which violates 1 Corinthians 11; if we are to be picky about Scripture, we must be picky about all of it. Some Christian married couple got a book deal for having sex every day for a year, but period sex has plenty of verses against it, too, and there are no caveats about whether it is done next to an idol. Leviticus 18:19 is on equal footing with Leviticus 18:22. “Judge not” will also probably be said by the Hillel-esque crowd and Matthew 25’s Sheep and Goats will also probably be offered as the end-all-be-all concerning the Last Judgment, with only kindness as the criteria and no Law-keeping mentioned. 

[An aside: Be that as it may, Matthew 25 is part of a larger rant against the religious and political leadership of Jesus’ day. For anyone worried about whether failing to give money to a specific homeless person has damned you, in the parable there are three categories present: sheep, goats (as seen in Zechariah 10:2-3 in the King James Version and are “leaders” in other translations), and Jesus’ brethren (Hebrews 2:11, Matthew 25:40). We are with Him. The bad shepherds are out, and the Good Shepherd is in. The nations are judged worthy to remain under our rule for a thousand years or are destroyed based on how they have treated us. For more about this, please read Revelation 19:11-20:6 carefully. Isaiah 60:12 is behind Matthew 25:45. While pastors are supposed to motivate us toward love and good works (Hebrews 10:24), misinterpreting Jesus’ three categories of sheep, goats, and brethren as if we’re not already united with Christ and destined to rule with Him is not the way. Scaring Christians is not ministry. You’re as safe as Jesus on Judgment Day (1 John 4:17).] 

I must admit I’m still looking for an interpretation that would let nice people who love Jesus do as they please, but the available options aren’t convincing. Progressive Christian denominations interpret passages like 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 in light of their historical context, considering the cultural norms and attitudes of the time when these texts were written. They say Paul wrote the Corinthians about things like pederasty, abuse of power, temple prostitution, idolatry, etc. They argue that the Apostle Paul's references to certain sexual practices were specific to the Greco-Roman world and its issues, and should not be rigidly applied to modern contexts. They could also point out that the incest in 1 Corinthians 5 was illegal among the pagans, and that the issue at stake was giving a black eye to the church (1 Corinthians 3:17). Pointing out that Jesus said that love was a weightier commandment than others, they emphasize the principles of love, compassion, and inclusion, maintaining that committed and loving relationships, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, should be affirmed. Nevertheless, Jesus did not ask the woman caught in adultery in John 8 whether there were real feelings at stake. Rather, He just said to stop having sex with that guy. Some say that having a marriage ceremony is a way to thank God for the relationship and purify it like the Gentile Christians’ ribs in Romans 14:6. That line of inclusive thinking for church unity is tempting, but Paul didn’t say that the man in 1 Corinthians 5 was inadequately grateful to be sweating out his mommy issues, and Jesus didn’t tell the woman in John 8 to get down on her knees and thank God that she had found a man that was better at pleasing her sexually than her own husband. I mentioned earlier being patient with and respectful of older brothers and sisters in Christ; if Father’s notions about a topic seem to be stuck in the Iron Age, so be it. On the other hand, I mentioned Revelation 21:8 earlier. It says that liars, the sexually immoral, etc., go in the fire. God does not lie (Titus 1:2), but also God told Hezekiah he would surely die in Isaiah 38:1. Remember that God showed mercy to Hezekiah. We can see from Isaiah 38:1-6, Amos 7:1-6, etc., that even with God, mercy is even more important than keeping your word even though Revelation 21:8 doesn’t mention the liars’ motives. We’re God’s little grace dispensers in the world; we’re the hands and feet of Jesus, so we are to play nice out there, even if we have rules about how to act among ourselves when we gather.

As to whom you can worship God next to, there is not a believer without some sort of struggle (James 3:2), whoever means whoever (John 3:16), and yet 1 Corinthians 5:11 exists. I’m going to let y’all figure out how to apply all of those at once. Matthew 18:15 specifies sins “against you” in some manuscripts, which makes sense; without it, no one could go to church on this side of Heaven. The man excommunicated temporarily in 1 Corinthians 5 was engaged in behavior that was unlawful in that society and was giving the church a black eye; being quick to exclude certain people now is a barrier to some people coming to belief in Christ. We have beams in our eyes (Matthew 7:1-5) that we forget about. Other passages about excommunication involve saints being exploitative bums (2 Thessalonians 3:14-15), people that were contentious about applying the Law of Moses to believers (Titus 3:10-11), and teachers of Gnosticism instead of Christianity (2 John 1:10-11). Be careful who you tell not to come to your church while you’re being careful not to agree with society rather than God about sin. Romans 10 says we are not to make judgments about who's going to Heaven or not. God wants to save everyone, He can do as He pleases, and He has made provision through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. What we can say with certainty is that believers are going to Heaven because God is trustworthy. God loves you, sin is sinful, and sin will never be fulfilling ultimately for God’s born-again children, so live the life that He saved you for because it just makes sense to. 

I wrote earlier about the importance of maintaining church unity. However, I am told that in 2002, a “bishop” in the denomination I was born into wrote a book that is still published by the denomination’s publisher, and it is still available on Amazon as of the time of this writing. In it, this “bishop” called the Gospel of John a late invention, said the Virgin Birth is a myth, endorsed the adoptionist heresy, denied the physical resurrection of Jesus, said holding Jesus up as the only way to salvation is Christocentric exclusionism and idolatry, and denied Christ’s substitutionary atonement. The Apostle John in 1 John 4:1-13 defines this “bishop” as an antichrist, and 2 John 8-11 says that by publishing him, the denomination is a partner in his evil work. Based on poll responses, the progressive members of the denomination prefer a social justice focus and transforming this world to other pursuits like saving souls. Also, 39% hold Reason as supremely authoritative over things like Christian tradition and (the smallest number of respondents’ choice for authority: 6%) the Bible. These people remind me of the Jacobins of the French Revolution and their Church of Reason. I was worried about keeping an oath I made to loyally support these people with my prayers, presence, gifts, and service when I started trying to find a way to reconcile the factions warring over gay marriage and the ordination of practicing homosexuals, but that’s moot now; we can disagree about many things as believers, but thou shalt not deny Christ. The history of how and why communists infiltrated the large denominations in the USA is an interesting one, and it has been covered at length by other authors. This is in part how we’ve come from Wesley’s gruel and service and the Holiness Movement that spawned Evangelical and Pentecostal churches to the state of United Methodism today. I left the denomination twenty years ago, I just didn’t know it yet. [While this book was being edited, at least three people in Africa died because of fighting between the Global Methodists and the United Methodists.]

In closing, “Be filled with the Spirit” (Ephesians 5:18); this is not a touch-transmitted “second blessing” superpower. It comes from belief in Christ (Galatians 3:2,5), and Ephesians 3:19 describes this state as being inspired by the love of God. Only Jesus is sinless, and He still is. We don't earn salvation by giving to all that ask (Matthew 5:42); He gives salvation to all that ask Him (Romans 10:13). To do otherwise would be hypocritical. Only He has anything worth giving; we are the poor in spirit (Eph 2:12, Rom 3:19). Forgive (Matthew 6:14-15) to be forgiven? That’s more impossible pre-Cross Old Covenant stuff; He completed that part of the Law (Matthew 5:17), forgiving even His killers (Luke 23:34) aka us (Isaiah 53:5). He already forgave us (Colossians 3:13, 2 Corinthians 5:19). Any apparent obstacle is just another reminder that we need Grace, and that is a Person, Jesus Christ. It's not about how good we are or become, it's about how good He is. You cannot out-sin the grace of God (Romans 5:20) but a born-again believer does not want to try. It takes no faith at all to follow a bunch of rules. Jesus' life is seen in us by others in our attitudes and actions motivated by the Holy Spirit. We are the only Bible some people will ever read, and His love in us is the evidence that He is risen and reigns today. 

Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity. Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful. Let the message of Christ dwell among you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in your hearts. And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him. (Colossians 3:12-17)  

Believe in Jesus Christ, love one another, and just because the Old Covenant believers’ mission to introduce the world to God has been completed doesn’t mean that God’s children can live like Canaanites. You don’t really even want to. 

Previous Post

Next Post