CHRISTIANITY & SEX -- Part 1
by The Christian Digest
--Are Sex & Spirituality Compatible in Christianity?
by Paul Williams
With special thanks to Ivan Himmelhoch for his help in researching this topic. A historical & contemporary overview of diverse opinions expressed by various theologians & writers concerning Christian sexual conduct & attitudes. (Bible references, unless otherwise indicated, are from the KJV.)
Table of Contents:
Preface 2
God & Sex 3
The Bible Is Not Bashful 3
The X-Rated Bible 4
Is Sex of God or of the Devil? 4
The Great Cover-Up Begins 5
Monastic Mindset: Sex Equals Sin! 6
Hermits & Heresies 7
Marriage, Misogamy & Saint Augustine 8
Desexualizing & Censoring the Bible 9
The Repression of Eros 10
Celibates Seize Control of Christendom 12
Tightening the Chastity Belt 12
Non-Marital Sex 13
Smoldering Sexual Suppression 15
Getting Christian Sexuality Back on Track 16
Martin Luther--the Reformer! 16
Are We Now Entering the Dawning of a Christian Sexual
Reformation? 17
PREFACE:
"They recognize each other by secret signs & marks; they fall in love almost before they are acquainted; everywhere they introduce a kind of religious lust, a promiscuous ‘brotherhood’ & ‘sisterhood.’”[1] This is not some modern-day tabloid description of a sect, but a 2nd-century description of Early Christians, who the Roman establishment considered to be a promiscuous sex cult which indulged in orgies at secret meetings.
Perhaps as an attempt by some conservative watchdogs of the faith & in reaction to a decadent Roman society, followers of the "golden rule" were increasingly taking a more "moral" stance. By the 2nd century, Gnostic teachings [2] & strange apocryphal books & stories began to circulate among Christians.
These fictitious imitations of Scripture often highlighted sexual "purity" & virginity. One such fanciful story was The Acts of Paul & Thekla, which if nothing else reveals that anti-cult propaganda, mind-control fantasies & violent deprogramming attempts are at least as old as the 2nd century.[3] The story's virtuous heroine, Thekla, was a young betrothed girl in Iconium, who upon hearing St. Paul preach became enthralled by his teachings on virginity. Her parents were outraged & "sexualized" her behavior. Paul is accused of casting a love spell on her & Thekla is accused of being controlled by him, because she is "so strangely troubled . . . like a spider at the window bound by his words she is dominated by a new desire & a fearful passion. . . ." As for St. Paul, they conclude, "Away with the sorcerer, for he has corrupted all our women."[4]
So eager were some zealous young Christians to prove the "purity" of their religious intent that at least one young man in Alexandria during the time of Justin Martyr (c. A.D. 100-165) petitioned the Augustal Prefect to allow himself to be castrated in order to prove to the pagans that indiscriminate sex with his "Sisters" was not what Christianity was all about.[5]--However, the sex-cult impression must have been hard to eradicate, for as late as A.D. 320, Emperor Licinius was promulgating laws that forbade Christian men & women (in the Eastern empire) from appearing in company together in their houses of prayer.[6]
By the 4th century, this persecuted love movement called Christianity was drastically transforming. Under Emperor Constantine, Christianity became firstly tolerated & later installed as the imperial religion of Rome (Edict of Milan, A.D. 313). Heavily influenced by sex-negative Gnostic teachings, fractured into rival Christian groups that hurled accusations of bizarre sex practices at each other [7], & becoming all too eager to distance themselves from any sign of impropriety, the great separation of human sexuality & spirituality began in earnest in Christianity.
Part I of Christianity & Sex explores some of the historical, howbeit, not always Scriptural, development of Orthodox Christian views on sex. Part II is a survey of current radical changes in thinking towards sex that are rocking Christianity.
GOD & SEX
And God created . . . every living creature that moveth . . . & God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful & multiply. . . . God said, Let us make man in Our image, after Our likeness. . . . And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. . . . [So] in the image of God created He him; male & female created He them. And God blessed them, & God said unto them, Be fruitful & multiply, & replenish the earth, & subdue it. . . . And God saw everything that He had made, and, behold, it was very good (Gen.1:21-26; 2:18; 1:27-31).
"Be fruitful & multiply!" "Reproduce!" was the first thing God commanded the creatures of His glorious Creation. And then again, after the great Deluge, God reminded Noah & all that survived with him that they had an important job to do--reproduce!
Bring forth with thee every living thing that is with thee, of all flesh, both of fowl, & of cattle, & of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; that they may breed abundantly in the earth, & be fruitful, & multiply upon the earth. And God blessed Noah & his sons, & said unto them, Be fruitful, & multiply, & replenish the earth (Gen.8:17; 9:1).
Throughout history, God put His stamp of approval on human sexuality & reproduction. To Abraham & later to Jacob He basically said, "I am God & I want you to reproduce!"
I am God Almighty: be fruitful & multiply; a nation & a company of nations shall be of thee, & kings shall come out of thy loins (Gen.35:11; see also Gen.12:1,2,7).
God has a point to make, He is above what currently is considered politically correct in many matters, even using the human sexual act to illustrate what He wants to say if need be. The prophet Hosea, for example, was commanded by God to go & marry a whore & have children by her. God certainly knew this would raise the eyebrows of some of the self-righteous, letter-of-the-law religious leaders in Israel, but having His prophet move in with a local prostitute provided God with an excellent opportunity to use the predictable reaction of the community to illustrate His own displeasure over their far worse acts of spiritual fornication & unfaithfulness to Him.
And the Lord said to Hosea [God's prophet], Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms & children of whoredoms. . . . So he [Hosea] went & took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim; which conceived, & bare him a son (Hos.1:2,3).
THE BIBLE IS NOT BASHFUL
Many passages of the Bible are unabashedly erotic, including the Song of Solomon, & various descriptions of the relationship between God & His "unfaithful" Church. Even the promised world of spiritual bliss to come for His saved children begins with rapturous ecstasies as our present bodies are transformed by God into Heavenly bodies. Then begins the marriage feast of the Lamb (Jesus) for all who believe in Him, His "Bride," who then enjoy ardent pleasures forever more at the right hand of God. (See Rev.19; Ps.16:11.)
The Scriptures are rich in sexual stories, allusions & sexual terms, demonstrating that God is far from being a prude when it comes to sex, & that He doesn't mince His words. As a result, some sections of the Bible, such as the Song of Solomon, were virtually banned by 4th-century celibates who feared they were just too hot.
THE X-RATED BIBLE
Some people are trying to have the Bible banned as too sexual & sexist. The truth is that although the Bible is a sexy Book, it also contains much thorny commentary on the hypocrisy of humanity, which may be the real source of its unpopularity in certain circles. What modern writer, for example, would dare to describe the 600 B.C. city of Jerusalem the way God inspired the great prophet Ezekiel to describe it in chapter 16 of the Book of Ezekiel?
The chapter begins with a graphic description of God's involvement with Jerusalem, as a man involved with a woman, using explicitly sexual terms. At first she was just a filthy little abandoned baby that He took pity on, washed & beautified. Then, when she grows old enough & it "was the time of love" (verse 8), God makes love to her & showers her with presents. This ungrateful woman, however, runs away from God to become a whore, & a foolish one at that, who God says doesn't even have common sense enough to charge for her sexual services, but rather pays her lovers. To discipline her, God allows her enemies to strip her naked & abuse her. In the end God takes her back a more humble & submitted woman. This is not a piece of bizarre sex-cult literature, but an allegorical part of sacred Scripture revered by millions of Jews & Christians alike as the very Word of God.
IS SEX OF GOD OR OF THE DEVIL?
As already pointed out, God Himself created human sexuality & said it was "very good" & His first commandment to man & woman was to "be fruitful & multiply." Yet, it only took one sly serpent in the Garden of Eden to foist upon humanity one of the cruelest lies imaginable--that contrary to Scripture, which quotes God as saying, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him" & "Be fruitful, & multiply & replenish the earth" (Gen.2:18; 1:28).--God had lied about sex, that sex was "very bad" & not "very good," that God's physical creation, the human body, was evil & shameful, & that it was not good for man & woman to dwell together, "to be fruitful & multiply."
Sexual pleasures, so the lie went, sprang like an evil forbidden fruit planted by the Devil himself in the garden of human goodness, & it had to be crushed, uprooted & cast out if the human soul hoped to escape the flames of Hell. Once the Devil, the "father of lies & of all that is false" (Jn.8:44, Amplified), had successfully planted his evil seeds of doubt about God, Creation, & human sexuality in the hearts & minds of humanity, the tragic wedge between spirituality & sexuality was in place.
Those who believed the lie & chose the anti-sexual body-rejecting path to perfection soon found the Biblical account of Adam & Eve frolicking naked & unashamed through the Garden (Gen.2:25) a rather embarrassing quirk in the religious record that needed to be explained away. Hence, Adam's expulsion from the Garden was taken to mean that he had been booted out for having had sex with Eve [8], who was portrayed as an evil sexual seductress who caused the curse to fall upon an otherwise perfect man. Sex, therefore, was to be viewed as part of the curse, the evil deed that got man into trouble; & woman was responsible.
THE GREAT COVER-UP BEGINS
The real sin in the Garden was Adam & Eve's succumbing to the Devil's temptation to disobey God & partake of the forbidden fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good & Evil.
After Adam & Eve sinned they became aware that they were naked & hid themselves even from God (see Gen.3:8). Finding them hiding from Him & covering themselves, God asked them who told them they were naked & that it was wrong, & asked if they had eaten of the tree. (See Gen.3:7,11). Therefore, logically, clothing & cover-ups should be viewed by Christians as the shameful & disgusting result of human sin, rebellion, deceit & disobedience to God. However, it has instead been embraced by many as the badge of honor, decency & wonderful "natural" modesty.
Sexually-bound denominations within Christianity still defend their obsession with excessive prudery & their extreme, sex-negative attitudes by pointing out that God Himself endorsed this great human cover-up when He made humans their first set of clothes from animal skins. Men like St. Gregory of Nyssa & St. Maximos the Confessor championed the case for covering up, teaching that these "garments of skin" (chitones) represented the animal-like nature that humanity took on as a result of the Fall, which included an acquired animal-like sexuality. What cure did they recommend for this awful animal affliction that could have been so easily avoided had God only created humans sexless? Virginity, of course! They argued that virginity was the original immortal incorruptible state of humankind & that we should all strive to stay virgins (see Sherrard, 1976: 5-7).
It is a fact that "unto Adam also & to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, & clothed them" (Gen.3:21), when they were about to leave the Garden. But let us not confuse God's love, patience, & temporary tolerance of certain behavior to be a sign of His own personal approval of sex-negative teachings.
God certainly did not make them "coats of skins" because He thought that they needed to cover up because their bodies were vile, evil, dirty, sensual, sinful devices. It was not true that He, God, had unfortunately & unwisely equipped their bodies with those terrible, secret, vile, sinful, sensual sexual parts, that coincidentally worked so wonderfully together & felt so good, but were too wicked to even be seen without suffering some great spiritual damage. More likely, God wrapped them up in warm animal skins for protection out of love & mercy, knowing how they were pathetically unprepared for the harsh new living conditions outside the Garden.
Dealing with the dissonance that erupts when human sexuality & spirituality are set at odds has plagued all religions, but Christianity in particular. Church history reveals that a very long & stormy battle has been fought over the question of body & spirit, sexuality & spirituality, pleasure & piety. When human sexuality became the enemy of spirituality, humankind was caught in a dualistic dilemma. They were forced to choose between pleasure now & pain forever, between passion & paradise. Wherever this dualistic dilemma has seized control of religious belief, people have been thrown out of sync with their own God-created sexuality & have as a result suffered great mental agonies tormented by guilt & have become hateful of their own bodies & sexuality.
MONASTIC MINDSET: SEX EQUALS SIN!
It is certainly legitimate to ask why sex was associated with sin for such a long time (Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality, 1978).
The entrenchment of anti-sexual teachings in Christianity is actually not as traceable to the misinterpretations of the Bible as it is to the intentional anti-sexual teachings & writings of certain individuals. In the centuries following Jesus, a group of ascetics rose to positions of power & influence in the Church.
In the post-apostolic period Christian writers began expressing much more restrictive views of the role of sex in human life. . . . Church leaders needed to deal with the problems that sexual relations raised within the Christian community. There was a broad agreement that marital sex was acceptable, although a number of important writers sought to discourage sex among the devout. A few [so-called?] aberrant Christian groups taught that Christians were not subject to sexual restrictions & might have relations with anyone whom they pleased. Other doctrinal deviants wished to ban all sexual relations, even in marriage (Brundage, 1987: 74, 75).
Sad to say, the anti-sex lobby of "doctrinal deviants" gained the upper hand in the sex struggle, quickly labeling their sexually liberated brethren as heretics & "aberrants," much as they do to this very day. Some "deviants," as we will see, became so sexually uncomfortable with parts of the Bible that they virtually banned reading of them, fearing that the people would fall into sin from all those sinful sexual thoughts that might arise while reading suggestive selections of Scripture.
Reay Tannahill in her more recent revision of Sex in History, points out:
What the modern world still understands by "sin" stems not from the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, or from the tablets handed down from Sinai, but from the early sexual vicissitudes of a handful of men who lived in the twilight days of imperial Rome (Tannahill, 1992: 138).
Certain members of the church are quick to point out that the great "eunuch" for the Gospel's sake, St. Paul's own personal preference was to remain unmarried, thinking it was good not to even touch a woman. However, he states in 1Cor.7:12 & 25 that this was entirely his own opinion & not the Lord's. Jesus Himself showed no such qualms about touching women or being touched by even the most socially & sexually questionable of women, even in public (Lk.7:37-39,44). Even this same sexually reserved Saint Paul warned of an approaching evil sexual downturn in Christianity:
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, & doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, & commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe & know the truth (1Tim.4:1-3).
HERMITS & HERESIES
Marriage is honourable, & the bed undefiled (St. Paul, Heb.13:4).
In the first 300 years of its existence, the Church placed few restrictions upon its clergy in regard to marriage. Celibacy was, as Paul indicated, a matter of choice (Thomas, 1986: 8).
Far from receiving the joys of human coitus with thanksgiving, certain "Founding Fathers," heavily influenced by Greek, Roman & Persian teachings & traditions, & pushing St. Paul's personal preference for sexual abstinence to the limit, lashed out against all sex. Men like Tertullian [9] (c. 150-230), St. Jerome [10] (331?-420) & St. Augustine (354-430) set their seal of approval to the doctrine that human sexuality was fundamentally detestable.
The ascetic monks of the 4th century made celibacy & suffering for the sake of greater spirituality very fashionable [11] &, as Philip Sherrard described in Christianity & Eros, they began teaching that "only through monastic celibacy can man recover that natural--& sexless--state for which man was originally created ‘in the image’” of God (Sherrard, 1976: 8).
Heaven became thought of as a sexless place, though by all New Testament eye-witness accounts, Jesus Himself seemed to have survived the transition to His new body with His manliness still plainly evident, & appropriately so for a bridegroom in waiting. The monastic mindset took the Scripture where Jesus said that men & women would not marry or be given in marriage in Heaven as a proof of celestial celibacy. However, far from proving that a sexless eternity awaits believers, it could just as well mean that Heaven will be more sexually liberal than most people presently imagine.
David Rice, a former priest, in his book, Shattered Vows, tells us that the early anti-sexual teachings & practices embraced by this rising celibate class of clerics were "steeped in gnosticism, one of the oldest & most persistent of all heresies, which sees the body as evil & only the spirit as good" (Rice, 1990: 139).
Robert T. Francoeur, a Catholic priest & a fellow of the Society for the Scientific Study of Sex, is Professor of Human Embryology & Sexuality at Fairleigh Dickenson University & has written no less than 20 books on human sexuality. This very respected author & academic, in his essay The Religious Suppression of Eros, gives us the following summary of the sexual derailment of Christianity:
"To understand the evolution from the early sex-affirming Hebraic culture to Christianity's persistent discomfort with sex & pleasure, we have to look at 3 interwoven threads: the dualistic cosmology of Plato [i.e. the soul & mind are at war with the body], the Stoic philosophy of early Greco-Roman culture [i.e., nothing should be done for the sake of pleasure], & the Persian Gnostic tradition [i.e., that demons created the world, sex & your body--in which your soul is trapped, & the key to salvation is to free the spirit from the bondage of the body by denying the flesh]. Within 3 centuries after Jesus, these influences combined to seduce Christian thinkers into a rampant rejection of human sexuality & sexual pleasure."
Many people forget that the pleasure-loving Greek society contained anti-sexual ascetic extremes as well. Even Epicurus, who loved good food, condemned sex, saying, "Sexual intercourse never benefited any man" (Davies, 1984: 176). Diogenes, a famous Greek cynic, lived in a washtub to shun the temptations of the flesh, & the Greek Stoics only permitted sex for procreation purposes. It was these & other ascetic forces, not the sensual expressions of Greek culture, that came to most affect Christianity.
Plato, though personally favorably inclined toward prostitutes, homosexuals & pedophilia, none-the-less taught in The Laws that the world would be a better place if all sex were "starved." Socrates & Plato both taught that all sexual activity was harmful to the health of the soul. Plato's teachings were revised in the third century, & Plotinus, the chief protagonist of this neo-Platonism, went far beyond Plato in denigrating sex, teaching that mystical ecstasies could be had through denying the body.
MARRIAGE, MISOGAMY & SAINT AUGUSTINE
St. Augustine, the leading theologian of the 4th century, embraced the faith on April 25, 387 along with his "illegitimate" son, leaving behind his wife & his second mistress. He had already split up from his first concubine, the mother of his son, after 17 years of living together. He turned his home in Hippo into a monastery, & as Bishop of Hippo, proceeded to make many literary contributions to Christianity. Unfortunately, his sexual views were sadly affected by the monastic temperament of the times, perhaps an over-compensation for the sexuality of his liberal youth.
It was St. Augustine who, according to Nigel Davies in The Rampant God, "set the final seal on the anti-sexual bias of the Church" (Davies, 1984: 180). Before becoming a Christian, St. Augustine had studied the works of Plotinus, & for 11 years was a member of the Manichaean sect, whose founder taught that Adam & Eve resulted from the Devil's children having sex, & procreation was just another evil part of the Prince of Darkness' creation.
St. Augustine did, however, consider sex a necessary evil, though certainly not something to be enjoyed. He even thought it was permissible to take a second wife if the first was barren, & grudgingly admitted that Adam & Eve may have had sex in the Garden before their Fall, but theorized that it was a very cold dutiful mechanical act without passion. After daring to suggest that even if they did have sex in the Garden, he assures his readers that they certainly would not have enjoyed it.
Perish the thought, that there should have been any unregulated excitement, or any [excitement so great that they would ever] need to resist desire! (Augustine c. duas epist, Pelag. I 34, 17).
The somewhat moderating stance of an earlier theologian, St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 - c. 200), may have helped temper Augustine's attack on sex, or simply reflected the change in attitude towards sex that had taken place in the Church. Clement, himself a celibate monk, taught that those who condemn sex within marriage set themselves against the teachings of the Gospels, & that marriage was conducive to the spiritual well-being of faithful Christians. Though, having sex for pleasure rather than procreation, "voluptuous joy" as he called it, he discouraged [12] (Brundage, 1987: 66,67).
Many contemporaries of St. Augustine were equally cool towards human coitus, & therefore cold towards women in general. Some early monastics became so anti-sex that they all but declared God an unfit Creator, Who obviously should have invented a better way of dealing with the problem of procreation. Arnobius (d. c. A.D. 317) called intercourse filthy & degrading, & stated that it would be blasphemous even to imagine that Jesus was "born of vile coitus & came into the light as a result of the spewing forth of senseless semen, a product of obscene gropings"[13] (Brundage, 1987: 64).
Methodius thought sex was "unseemly," & Ambrose, a "defilement." St. John Chrysostom, the "golden-mouthed" orator of the 4th century, had little golden to say about the fair sex in general: "Among all savage beasts, none is found as harmful as woman."
Tertullian was so repulsed by sex he publicly renounced his own sexual relationship with his wife & taught that sexual intercourse drives out the Holy Spirit. Women, he declared, are "the Devil's door: through them Satan creeps into men's hearts & minds & works his wiles for their spiritual destruction."[14] St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century showed little improvement in attitude, saying that "Woman is defective & accidental . . . a male gone awry . . . the result of some weakness in the father's generative power" (cited in Rice, 1990: 138). A teaching common during that time taught that women & the lower half of men were created by the Devil.[15]
DESEXUALIZING & CENSORING THE BIBLE
The antidote to this anti-sexual assault on Christianity would have been to return to the liberating light of God's Word, but that was not to be for some centuries. As the dark clouds of Gnostic heresy & body-hatred gathered within Christianity, human sexuality was no longer viewed as a beautiful blessing, a Song of Songs, a gift from God, but rather a cruel seducing curse which was dragging all humankind into the very flames of Hell.
Certain Scriptures became very troublesome because they plainly did not support this anti-sexual attitude. Hence the new anti-sex medieval world order found it expedient to limit Bible reading, in practice, removing the Bible from circulation, replacing it with long lists of rules & regulations, punishments & penance & anti-sexual explanations & new interpretations of God's Word.
A few early religious scholars became so ill-at-ease with the real Scriptural record that they decided to write their own Scriptures. Some of these remain to this day & contain numerous anti-sex passages that degrade marriage as "a foul polluted way of life" or call it "an experiment of the serpent" or say that Jesus came "to destroy the [sexual] works of the female." Fortunately such writings as The Acts of Andrew, The Acts of John [16], etc., have ended up on the scrap heap & not in the NT.
Origen (c. 185-254), an early monastic but Greek philosopher at heart, became so unsettled by his own sexuality that it is said he castrated himself, to become a literal eunuch. However, by so doing he spoiled his chances for canonization, due to concerns over certain rules in the Old Testament regarding emasculated men. Origen took particular sexual exception to the Song of Solomon, warning Christians, "Everyone who is not yet rid of the vexation of the flesh & blood & not ceased to feel passion of his bodily nature should refrain completely from reading this book" (cited by Francoeur).
Origen wanted to make sure that this highly erotic Biblical account of tempestuous lovemaking centering around Solomon, the king with 700 wives & 300 concubines (1Ki.11:3), would be viewed by subsequent generations as purely allegorical. Rabbinic interpretations gave the Song symbolic meanings, but did not ignore the Song's literal message of human love & passion.
St. Jerome was also bothered by this "tawdry tale" & taught that it was not really about sex with a lover, but about virgins who mortify the flesh. Other monastic minds taught that the woman in the Song represented Christ, & the 2 breasts mentioned were the Old & New Testaments.
Francoeur makes the following interesting observation about the Song of Solomon:
The history of Jewish & Christian responses to the Song of Songs is a microcosm of the evolution of Western culture from a sex-affirming Hebraic perspective to a sex-negative Christian one, ill-at-ease with eroticism, sensuality, passion, & pleasure.
THE REPRESSION OF EROS
Some of the most sexually repressive times & regimes in history are also marked by much Scripture illiteracy, either through repression, rejection or misrepresentation of the Word of God. Repressive & sex-negative Church teachings soon made the Bible virtually a banned book to be locked away from the laity who might "misinterpret" certain Scriptures--in other words, who may realize while reading the Bible that something was wrong with Christendom. Davies explains:
A Dark Age followed, after which in the Middle Ages, Church control over mind & body was so absolute as to make the totalitarian tyrannies of our century seem almost tolerant. To question a mere syllable of Church dogma was to court death (Davies, 1984: 182).
Cut off from Scriptures by a ruling celibate clerical class, the laity soon fell prey to their doctrines. All manner of sexual myths were foisted upon the faithful, complete with terrifying tales of eternal torment to all who dared to deviate from the virgin ideal. The war between sexuality & spirituality had begun in earnest. Men & women found themselves forced to go contrary to creation & natural order, & fight their own "flesh" to save their souls.
Fourth-century celibacy & ascetic madness, patterned more after pagan teachings than Jesus or the Bible, soon threatened to overthrow all Christendom. Brundage tells us:
As the Church became part of the mainstream of Roman life, it borrowed increasingly from the pagan world, from which it had formerly been almost totally estranged. In the process, both Christian institutions & thought were irrevocably altered. These developments also signaled the beginning of radical changes in the ways the authorities of both Church & government dealt with sexual matters (Brundage, 1987: 76).
By the 8th century an enormously strict system of sexual rules & penalties was firmly in place, covering every imaginable thought & action related to sex. Jesus, as the Merciful Intercessor, the joyful Messenger of God's love & forgiveness of all sins, as well as His free gift of Salvation through faith, were trodden underfoot by an emerging supposed sex-hating ascetic God who demanded complete sacrifice & much suffering from humanity. The message of damnation soon replaced the Good News that even the vilest of sinners could be forgiven & saved through Jesus. In fact, "it came to be held that only one person in a million could hope to reach Heaven" (Taylor, 1970: 69).
Sexual accounts in the Bible were twisted to fit the new non-sexual image of holiness. The mechanics of how Mary was impregnated by God & yet remained a virgin was most challenging for anti-sexualists to resolve. One popular explanation was that God or the Archangel Gabriel impregnated the Blessed Mary through her ear or windpipe using a special vapor (Taylor, 1970: 62). Some early paintings show the Holy Spirit, in the form of a dove, descending with great speed carrying God's sperm in its bill. In one early carving, the semen came from God's mouth & entered a tube which led under Mary's skirts.
Of course, once she was pregnant they faced the task of figuring out how Jesus could be born without having to touch or pass through Mary's "parts of shame," explaining why some taught that Jesus emerged through Mary's breast or navel. Certain Gnostics insisted that Jesus had not been born of Mary at all but descended from Heaven fully formed, thus avoiding the whole question (Davies, 1984: 179).
New Testament references to the other children born to Mary after Jesus, were brushed off as being "relatives" & not literal brothers & sisters. (See Mat.12:46; 13:55; Mk.3:31; Lk.8:19; Jn.2:12; Ac.1:14.) Mother Mary could not be allowed to be seen as having been too "motherly," since she would have had to indulge in sex after Jesus was born in order to have other children, which if admitted, would have put marriage, sex & baby-making spiritually on par with celibacy. That simply could not be allowed.
The warm, colorful, people-loving Christ of Scripture, comfortable with His Own body & the little pleasures of life, was replaced by a solitary suffering celibate Who fought off sex as well as Satan. The soul-freeing, sin-forgiving significance of His death & resurrection was blurred by long lists of do's & don'ts, indulgences & sacred relics. The liberating Message of Jesus, Who came that we might have life, & have it more abundantly (Jn.10:10), was greatly toned down. This joyful wine maker & wine drinker, this friend of sinners & harlots, this divine Man, Who healed on the Sabbath & constantly confounded & challenged the religious rules & the showy deeds of the religious of His day, while being cared for by an entourage of worshipful & often wealthy women (Lk.8:2,3), was not the exemplary ascetic figure envisioned by a celibate ecclesia.
CELIBATES SEIZE CONTROL OF CHRISTENDOM
As celibacy & anti-sexual teachings spread throughout Christianity, they quickly took on political dimensions as well as spiritual. A collector's copy of Buck's Dictionary (1838) under the topic "celibacy" comments appropriately:
Superstitious zeal for a sanctimonious appearance in the clergy seemed to have prompted celibacy at first; & crafty policy, armed with power, no doubt rivetted this clog [celibacy being referred to here as a piece of dirt] on the sacerdotal order in later periods of the Church (Buck, p. 81).
The Spanish provincial Synod of Eliberis (the Council of Elvira), in 305, enjoined bishops, priests, & deacons to separate from their wives. This ruling was disallowed by the Council of Nicaea, in 325. The counsel did not agree with the total banning of priests from marrying, deeming that honorable marriage was as truly chaste as the life of a celibate. However, in 385, Pope Siricius again commanded complete celibacy for bishops, priests, & deacons, & called for the separation of those who were married.
In A Handbook of Church History by Samuel G. Greene, we learn that:
False notions of Christian purity led in many instances to the voluntary separation of husband & wife. . . . Justinian was the first in the Eastern Empire to forbid married persons to be elected bishops. [Subdeacons could still have wives.] In the West, endeavours to enforce celibacy on all the clergy were made with indifferent success, until the days of Hildebrand (Gregory VII), in the 11th Century, by whom the law was made absolute. The East, on the contrary, while eventually (after the Synod of Trulla, A.D. 692) requiring celibacy in the bishop, not only permits, but encourages the marriage of the rest of the clergy (Greene, 1907: 229).
TIGHTENING THE CHASTITY BELT
Since little distinction was made between the policy of celibacy for the clergy & the sex lives of the laity, & since the celibate class controlled "the keys to the Kingdom," all sex was deemed as bad & only virginity was good.
During the 4th & 5th centuries Mary's popular appeal greatly increased, & her lifelong virginity became widely accepted, providing a still more secure basis, in the teaching of the Church, for its priests & later its nuns to accept compulsory celibacy. But there were married clergy, who in theory remained continent (Thomas, 1986: 9).
Building upon the Roman tradition of vestal virgins, female virginity under the celibates took on a new twist & nunneries spread. All virgins became viewed as being the "brides of Christ," therefore for anyone to take away a girl's virginity was a crime against Christ Himself. Virginity became viewed as so much superior to marriage that even for husband & wife to avoid sex & try to remain "just about virgins" was greatly encouraged. St. Jerome said, "I praise marriage & wedlock, but I do so because they produce virgins for me" (Davies, 1984: 180). Presumably he meant virgins for the Church or for Christ & not literally just for himself!
The real "sin" of sex, however, was not so much the procreative act, loathsome as it was perceived to be. It was the experience of sexual pleasure that was the prime source of sin. Many took steps to make sure that even marital sex was limited to procreation purposes & was made as unenjoyable as possible; some even rigged up animal skin barriers with a hole cut in the rough hide that caused the maximum discomfort & allowed the minimum of body contact between a copulating couple. This device & others presumably reduced the amount of sin involved by reducing the amount of pleasure (Taylor, 1970: 51). St. Paul was never so unkind. He insisted that men & women should not "defraud" each other of their sexual rights, seeing their bodies were needed by & belonged to each other (1Cor.7:4,5).
A few Christian churches today still teach that sex is solely for the purpose of procreation & not for pleasure. Would they be so zealous, we wonder, if they realized that it's not the Bible they have to thank for this harsh approach to sexual joys, but heathen teachers & non-Christian philosophers like Seneca the Younger & Musonius Rufus, Stoic contemporaries of Jesus, & others? And it was the Greek Stoic Artemidorous, not "missionary" Christians, who first taught that the only morally acceptable position for intercourse was male-superior face-to-face (Francoeur: The Religious Suppression of Eros).
NON-MARITAL SEX
In modern times, several passages in the Bible are used as justification for condemning "fornication." However, "porneia," the word used in the Greek Bible, actually had many meanings such as whoremongering & excessive, illicit sex, & not simply casual sex between couples, as is pointed out by Brundage:
Several passages in the Gospels condemn porneia. This word carried a number of different meanings. At times porneia means prostitution, at other times it refers to non-marital sex in general.[17] It is difficult to be certain, for example, whether the term applied to premarital intercourse between persons betrothed to one another or, indeed, to any type of non-commercial, heterosexual relations of the kind conventionally labeled fornication. Since neither the Torah nor rabbinical teachers contemporary with Jesus prohibited intercourse between unmarried partners as a moral offense, perhaps porneia referred primarily to sex with prostitutes, adultery, & other promiscuous relationships [18] (Brundage 1987: 58).
Regarding sexual liberties which were taken by the early Church, we know that they did have some trouble with "wild fire" in certain quarters, as indicated by St. Paul's rebuke to the Corinthians, where reports of fornication & incest were quite common:
It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, & such fornication as is not so much named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife (1Cor.5:1).
St. Paul subscribed marriage as a solution to such excesses:
Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, & let every woman have her own husband (1Cor.7:2).
Much of Paul's conservatism may be attributed not only to his strict Pharisaic background, but also to the fact that most of his Greek & Asian converts had come out of cultures in which male & female temple prostitution were noble professions. And, sexual excesses & orgies were a way of life amongst the pagans of the Near East. This is why many scholars interpret a number of New Testament references to "fornicators" to be specifically talking about "male temple prostitutes," not inclusive of all those who engage in sex with a partner to whom they are not married.
Paul's pronouncements regarding sex, as applied by sexually conservative Christians, come in direct conflict with the central theme of the Epistles. We believe that Jesus has utterly delivered us from the old Mosaic laws & purity requirements, against sex between consenting men & women. For "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the [Mosaic] Law" (Gal.3:13), "blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us [the old Law], which was contrary to us, & took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross" (Col.2:14).
Surprisingly, sex between singles was not viewed as being as sinful as masturbation in the Middle Ages, at least by some. However, David Schulz & Dominic Raphael in their article, Christ & Tiresias: A Wider Focus on Masturbation, make the following historic observation:
In other cultures less restrictive [than Western cultures] by tradition, parents even encourage self-stimulation by playing with the genitals of infants. The medieval printmaker Hans Baldung Grien, shocks many Christians today because he incorporated this custom into his portrait of the Holy Family. In his picture, Saint Anne stimulates the genitals of her grandson, Jesus, while His mother & father look on [19] (Feuerstein, 1989: 222).
Still, according to Aquinas, masturbation was a greater sin than fornication. The death of Judah's son, Onan, who "spilled his seed" (i.e., performed coitus interruptus) rather than willingly impregnate his widowed sister-in-law as custom required, is often mistakenly pointed out as the example of how displeasing to God masturbation must be.
And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, & marry her, & raise up seed to thy [deceased] brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; & it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the Lord: wherefore He slew him (Gen.38:8-10).
Read in context, however, one quickly sees that what provoked God to slay Onan was his selfishness, greed & sexual withholding & refusing to sexually accommodate Tamar, his brother's widow, not wanting her to have any children to inherit part of the family property. In slaying Onan, God was intent that Tamar receive justice, but He also had another reason to be particularly concerned about her success in love-making; she was chosen to be an ancestor of Jesus. As a spicy epilogue, Tamar assisted God's purpose by posing as a prostitute, thereby luring Judah to fulfill his Godly duty (Gen.38:13-26).
SMOLDERING SEXUAL SUPPRESSION
The "Agapae," or "love feasts" of Early Christians, had for the first 3 centuries been a time when liberal contributions were made by the rich to the poor at a special gathering held for fun, feasting & fellowship. The Council of Carthage, in the year 397, repressed & solemnly condemned these "love feasts." Rev. Charles Buck described the demise of this quaint Christian custom:
The kind of charity, with which the ceremony used to end, was no longer given between different sexes; & it was expressly forbidden to have any beds or couches for the conveniency of those who should be disposed to eat more at ease. Notwithstanding these precautions, the abuses committed in them became so notorious, that the holding of them (at least in churches) was solemnly condemned at the Council of Carthage, in the year 397 (Buck, 1838: 16).
In spite of every new rule, restriction & "religious" precaution, human sexuality did not for one moment depart, it only smoldered, mutated or transformed, often into more "acceptable" forms of religious expression. As Taylor points out in Sex in History, "Sexual energy cannot be reduced or annihilated; if denied outlet in one form, it soon finds it in another" (Taylor, 1970: 300).
In a Washington Post interview, Rev. Richard D. Dobbins, an Ohio psychologist & pastoral counselor points out that the unhealthy suppression of sexual drive easily leads to deviant sexual behavior, & adds:
While the Bible takes a healthy view toward the body & sexuality, institutional religion tends to see those things as wicked & evil. Children are not taught how to think of their body. It is a dark, secret side of themselves (cited by Session Steps, 1988: 3, Section A).
All this suppressed sexuality soon manifested itself in the most appalling of practices. Shamefully, many of these practices were then elevated to the level of Christian piety & virtue: the weekly flagellation of penitents & priests stripped naked, self-mutilations, castrations, sexual fixations & obsessions--frequently involving Jesus or Mary, sadomasochistic behavior, witch-hunts, religious massacres, to touch on only a few.
Noted anthropologist Nigel Davies, in his book The Rampant God, comments on the sexual anguish endured by centuries of Christians robbed of normal sexual enjoyment:
No one can ever quantify the mental anguish inflicted upon Christian believers through the centuries, an anguish beyond comprehension of other people; accepting in their minds as divine truths that every fiber of their body impelled them to ignore, they were forever haunted by fear of the fires of Hell & thereby even suffered the torments of the damned during their life on earth (Davies, 1984: 184).
GETTING CHRISTIAN SEXUALITY BACK ON TRACK
The glaring inconsistencies between the anti-sexual version of Christianity, & the Godly origins of sex & salvation as revealed in Scripture, fortunately were never successfully obliterated, even under the most unbridled of Gnostic attacks to overthrow the natural order of God-ordained human sexuality. Men & women of God throughout Church history have, under inspiration of Scripture, struggled to lift the cruel, unscriptural yoke of sexual repression off the shoulders of their fellow Christians.
Peter Abelard (1079-1142), one of the leading medieval theologians & the famous lover of Heloise, openly opposed this anti-sexual value system. Abelard wrote:
No natural pleasure of the flesh may be declared as sin, nor may one impute guilt when someone is delighted by pleasure where he must necessarily feel it. . . . From the first day of our Creation when Man lived without sin in Paradise, sexual intercourse & good-tasting foods were naturally bound up with pleasure. God Himself had established nature in this way (cited by Robert T. Francoeur in his essay, The Religious Suppression of Eros).
Abelard's liberal views were not well received by at least one powerful priest. When Abelard's secret love affair was discovered with Heloise (a student he was tutoring, who was the niece of the Canon of the Cathedral of Notre Dame), Heloise's outraged clerical uncle, Fulbert, had him castrated.
Francoeur comments:
The tragic fate of Abelard reflected the choice Christians were forced to make between a life of the body or a life of the soul.
And he adds:
Because we live in a society that prefers a puritive work ethic over an ethic of love & compassion, it is risky indeed to assert pleasure, especially sexual pleasure, as a legitimate social goal.
The sexual outrage unleashed against Abelard by the furious priest Fulbert is not perceivably different from the sexual hostility that lashes out even today against men & women of God who sincerely question the unscriptural anti-sexual bias & burden placed on Christianity by an ascetic movement some 16 centuries ago. What "fallen" priest or pastor being pilloried in the public media today for "sexual misconduct" with a woman does not long for this weight to be lifted at last.
MARTIN LUTHER, THE REFORMER!
Men like Martin Luther (1483-1546) were alerted by Scripture to the fact that the Good Ship Christianity, carrying its precious message of Salvation by Grace, had been seriously blown off course. Heartened by a renewed access to the Word of God, many men & women placed their lives in peril to repulse the tide of untruths that had swept not only human sexuality off course, but covered & confused the entire message of Salvation by Grace through Jesus Christ.
Luther, the one-time monk liberated by the Light of the true Gospel, burst out of his celibate cage, shook off his sexual shackles, married a nun & joyfully proceeded to be fruitful & multiply & fill his house with children. He rocked the Christian world when he proved by Scripture that human works, such as sexual abstinence, fasting, good works, body deprivations, self-effort, donating to the Church, etc, could contribute nothing towards a man's salvation. "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, & renewing of the Holy Ghost" (Tit.3:5).
Men could only be saved by having faith in Jesus. Salvation can only be received as a free gift from God. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; & that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast" (Eph.2:8,9). When threatened & asked to recant his "heretical" teachings, Luther stood firmly on Scripture, proclaiming, "My conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot & will not retract anything, since it is neither right nor safe to go against conscience. I cannot do otherwise."
ARE WE NOW ENTERING THE DAWNING OF A CHRISTIAN SEXUAL REFORMATION?
Downstream from the Reformation & the great awakening of Luther's time, teachings that saintliness can be had through personal piety, generosity, self-inflicted suffering & suppressed sexuality still persist in various forms throughout much of Christianity & secular society today. Happily, however, more & more Christians of all denominations are awakening to the terrible sexual "captivity" they have endured for too long. Even the most sexually-bound denominations have published "Christian" sex manuals which advocate the "open enjoyment of sex in the bedrooms of the born-again" (Davies, 1984: 183). And passages like the following from the Book of Proverbs, compiled & written by that wisest of Israel's king, Solomon, is helping more than a few find out that foreplay is fun:
Let her be as the loving hind & pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; & be thou ravished always with her love (Pro.5:19).
As Christendom finds itself buffeted & battered by increasingly violent storms portending the long-awaited Endtime & the promised return of Jesus, a great awakening is taking place. One of the fruits of this new awareness is that the sad results that anti-sexual extremes have had both on the Church & on humanity must now be undone. Even in the Roman Catholic Church, the anti-sexual teachings of sainted celibates are slowly being set aside. Many Christians are accepting the liberating love & salvation of Jesus & coming to accept their own human sexuality as a truly natural & God-ordained part of life, meant to be received with thanksgiving.--"For every creature [creation] of God is good, & nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving" (1Tim.4:4).
God's Yes to Sexuality, the report of a working group appointed by the British Council of Churches, edited by Rachel Moss in 1981, reports:
Thankfully, the view that sees celibacy as somehow a more Christian or a more perfect way of living than marriage, or other partnerships, is less prevalent now (Moss, 1981: 147).
Given & received in mutual surrender & trust, sexual intercourse can heal hurt, mediate forgiveness, restore hope, & provoke laughter & a resilient attitude to life (ibid., p. 157).
Sex was created & instituted by God in the very beginning! God is the Author of genuine pleasure, genuine happiness, genuine fleshly satisfaction, even sex! "All things were made by Him, & without Him was not anything made that was made" (Jn.1:3).--Including your sexual organs, your body, & every part of you. If sex is a sin, then God is a sinner, because He made it & He created us to have it & enjoy it!
Sex was not the Devil's idea!--It was God's.--And the Devil is its arch-enemy because it encourages the growth of the Kingdom of God! The Devil tries to take the credit for it, & then turns around & condemns you for enjoying it. God created sex, not Satan! God is the One Who made those sexual organs & every single nerve that feels so good! He's the One Who dreamed up sexual pleasures & bodily contact & God Himself created that marvelous final explosion called the orgasm! ‘God created man in His Own image, in the image of God created He him; male & female created He them'(Gen.1:27). Praise God for sex! He created it!--by David Brandt Berg (compiled quotes, DM 2:67).
REFERENCES & CONTRIBUTORS
Brown, Peter
The Body & Society: Men, Women, & Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity. Columbia University Press, NY, 1988.
Peter Brown, formerly Professor of Classics & History at the University of California, Berkeley, is now Rollins Professor in the Department of History at Princeton University. His books include Augustine of Hippo, a definitive biography of St. Augustine; The World of Late Antiquity, The Making of Late Antiquity, The Cult of the Saints, Religion & Society in the Age of Saint Augustine, & Society & the Holy in Late Antiquity.
Brundage, James A.
Law, Sex, & Christian Society in Medieval Society. University of Chicago Press, Chicago & London, 1987.
James A. Brundage is the Ahmanson-Murphy Distinguished Professor of History at the University of Kansas. He is the author of numerous books on medieval history, including The Crusades, The Chronicle of Henry of Livonia, & Medieval Canon Law & the Crusader.
Buck, Rev. Charles
A Theological Dictionary. Published from the last London edition by J.J. Woodward, 1838.
Davies, Nigel
The Rampant God: Eros Throughout the World. William Morrow & Company, Inc., NY, 1984.
Nigel Davis, of English origin & education, is a scholar of archaeology & anthropology who some years ago gave up the writing of scholarly works in favor of the popular audience. Since 1962 he has lived in Mexico City, which he has used as a base from which to study the history & culture of the ancient peoples of Central America. He holds a doctorate from London University & a master's degree from the National University of Mexico. He has written widely--as scientist, anthropologist, & historian--& his earlier works such as The Aztecs & Voyagers to the New World have become international best sellers. In 1980 the president of Mexico awarded Nigel Davis the prestigious & rarely conferred order of the Aguilla Azteca for his outstanding contributions to Mexican culture.
Feuerstein, George (ed.)
Enlightened Sexuality: Essays on Body-Positive Spirituality. The Crossing Press, Freedom, California, 1989.
George Feuerstein has published a dozen books including Structures of Consciousness, Integral Publishing, 1987. He did postgraduate research in Indian philosophy at old University of Durham, England. He is a recipient of awards from the British Academy, editor of Spectrum Review, & general editor of the Paragon Living Traditions series of dictionaries.
Foucault, Michel
The History of Sexuality Volume I: An Introduction. Translated from the French by Robert Hurley, Penguin Books, 1978.
Francoeur, Robert T.
The Religious Suppression of Eros (published source unknown).
Father Robert Francoeur is a Catholic priest & Professor of Human Embryology & Sexuality at Fairleigh Dickenson University & a fellow of the Society for the Scientific Study of Sex.
Greene, Samuel G.
A Handbook of Church History. The Religious Tract Society, London, 1907.
Rev. Samuel Greene is now deceased.
Moss, Rachel (ed.)
God's Yes to Sexuality--Towards a Christian understanding of sex, sexism & sexuality. The report of a working group appointed by the British Council of Churches, Collins Fount Paperback, London, 1981.
Rachel Moss is a magistrate & a member of The Assembly of the British Council of Churches.
Pagels, Elaine
Adam, Eve & the Serpent. Random House, NY, 1988.
Elaine Pagels received her doctorate from Harvard University in 1970. She taught at Barnard College, where she chaired the Department of Religion, & Columbia University. Professor Pagels is the Harrington Spear Paine Professor of Religion at Princeton University. She is the author of The Gnostic Gospels, which won the National Book Award & the National Book Critics Circle Award, & The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis & The Gnostic Paul. Elaine Pagels notes that in the century following Christianity's rise under Constantine to become a respected institution, Christian teachings underwent a revolutionary change from a doctrine that celebrated human freedom to one that emphasized the universal bondage of original sin. Elaine Pagels is a mother & lives in NYC with her husband, Heinz Pagels, scientist & author.
Raphael, Dominic S.
Christ & Tiresias: A Wider Focus on Masturbation.
Dominic S. Raphael is widely published & pastorally active Roman Catholic author writing here under a pseudonym. Both Church & society need healing ideas in the area of sexual ethics. A pseudonym may help toward healing, by avoiding personal controversy & promoting objective discussion. At any rate, D.S.R. is in good company--Benjamin Franklin used no fewer than 57 different pseudonyms in the course of his life.
Rice, David
Shattered Vows: Priests Who Leave. William Morrow & Company, Inc., NY, 1990.
David Rice, born in Northern Ireland & educated by the Jesuits of Clongowes, the school made famous by James Joyce, was ordained a Dominican in 1958. He has worked as a journalist all his life, & was an editor & award-winning syndicated columnist in the US during the 1970s. He returned to Ireland in 1980 to head the School of Journalism at Rathmines. He left the priesthood in 1977 to marry. He lives in Dublin.
Schulz, David A. & Raphael, Dominic S.
"Christ & Tiresias: A Wider Focus on Masturbation," published in Feuerstein's Enlightened Sexuality, 1989: 214-241.
David A. Schulz is a part-time professor, Episcopal priest, & wood sculptor residing in California. He is the author of Human Sexuality, The Changing Family, & other books on human relationships. He has taught seminars on sexuality & sexual harassment. His manuscript "Sacred Shrines & Thirsty Fishes: Celebrating Ordinary Lives" is nearing completion.
Session Steps, Laura
"Evangelicals: Ecstasy & Temptation--Bakker, Swaggart Falls Spur Discussion of Sex", The Washington Post, 4Nov88: 3, Section A.
Laura Session Steps is a Washington Post staff writer.
Sherrard, Philip
Christianity & Eros: Essays on the Theme of Sex & Love. SPCK Holy Trinity Church, London, 1976.
Philip Sherrard, formerly Assistant Director of the British School at Athens, is Lecturer in the History of the Orthodox Church at London University. He is the author of many books & articles on Orthodox, Byzantine, & Greek themes.
Tannahill, Reay
Sex in History. Scarborough House/Publishers, revised & updated, 1992.
Reay Tannahill, as quoted by the London Times, has written a serious book that is a delight to read by placing her impeccable research within the context of the history of the relationship between the sexes & by abstaining from taking a moral stand.
Taylor, G. Rattray
Sex in History. The Vanguard Press, Inc., NY, 1970.
Gordon Rattray Taylor brings his broad training in both the biological & social sciences to bear on the subject of sex as it has historically effected people as people, rather than as statistics.
Thomas, Gordon
Desire & Denial: Celibacy & the Church. Little, Brown & Company, Boston, 1986.
Gordon Thomas is the author & co-author of 24 books. Total sales exceed 34 million copies in 36 countries. Four have been made into successful motion pictures. He has reported on the papacy since the closing months of Pope John XXIII's pontificate in 1963. He covered the election of Pope Paul VI & had several private audiences with the pontiff during his 15-year reign, which ended with his death in 1978. He commented on the 33-day pontificate & funeral of Pope Paul's successor, the first Pope John Paul, & the end to the 455 years of Italian domination of the papacy with the emergence of Poland's Karol Wojtyla as Pope John Paul II. He has continued to monitor the workings of the Vatican & the Church without interruption, co-authoring 2 best-sellers, Pontiff & The Year of Armageddon. Desire & Denial has been sold as a major film production.
Ward, Benedicta
The Desert Christian: The Sayings of the Desert Fathers. Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., NY, 1975.
Benedicta Ward is a Catholic nun in the order of the Sisters of the Love of God (S.L.G.), Oxford.
NOTES:
[1] Minucius Felix, Octavius 9, G. H. Rendall, trans., p. 337.
[2] Gnosticism refers to the belief system of a variety of heretical Judeo-Christian sects in the early centuries after Jesus, which stressed salvation through a secret gnosis, or "knowledge." The central theme of Gnosticism was that the physical world was entirely evil & therefore had to be rejected. They had great contempt for the human body, discouraged marriage, & rejected the teaching that Jesus had a physical body that was resurrected. Some Gnostics were very immoral since everything was evil anyway, only themselves being above it all. Others adopted very austere patterns of living & bodily mortification. Some taught that woman was created by the Devil, & to have children was to multiply the souls bound by the powers of darkness. St. Augustine had been a member of a Manichaean Gnostic sect that traced back to a Jewish-Christian baptist movement, the Elchasaites. In 1946 a cache of 13 Gnostic Coptic Codices was discovered near Nag Hammadi in Upper Egypt. These contained 53 treatises that had been deposited about A.D. 400. Basically these are fictitious & apocryphal writings supposedly by Adam, Abraham, Zoroaster, Jesus, Philip, Thomas, John, & others.
[3] G. Poupon, "L'accusation de magie dans les Actes Aporyphes," In F. Bovon et al., eds., Les Actes Apocryphes, pp.71-93; see Brown, The Making of Later Antiquities, p.24.
[4] Acts of Paul & Thecla, NT Apocrypha, vol. 2, 10, p.356; 5, p.357.
[5] Justin, Apologia I, 29.2.
[6] Eusebuis, Life of Constantine, I.53, E.C. Richardson, trans., Library of the Nicene Fathers, I: 497.
[7] W. Speyer, Zu Den Vorwrfen der Heiden gegen die Christen, (cited in Brown, 1988: 140).
[8] Hildegard of Bingen in Germany was a great mystic Benedictine Abbess of the 12th century (1098-1179), who interpreted the account of Adam's sin as a "failure of eros," proposing that Adam was banished from Eden for refusing to enjoy deeply enough the delights of the earth. In other words, that Adam lost his place because of sexual prudery. She wrote many books, but her principle work, Scivias, is an account of 26 visions with apocalyptic emphasis dealing with Creation, Redemption, & the Church. She was investigated by the archbishop of Mainz & Pope Eugenius III & both gave her a favorable report.
[9] Tertullian was a Latin theologian who was in time won over by an ascetic "charismatic fundamentalist" sect started by Marcion Montanus. Tertullian, though married himself, considered sex shameful conduct & marveled at how a priest's blessing could transform this sinful act into semi-sanctified behavior. He was particularly revolted by widows & others who would remarry, equating the sin of such "filthy sensualists" to fornication, adultery & murder (Tertullian, De exhortatione castitatis 9.1 & De monogamia 4.3, 10.7, 15.1, in CCL 2:1027, 1229, 1233, 1243, 1250, see also Brundage, 1987: 68). St. Augustine spoke of marriage as "a medicine for immorality," since marriage took sex into the more "respectable" realm of procreation.
[10] St. Jerome is the Biblical scholar who translated the Bible into the Latin Vulgate. He is often remembered for the years he spent among the hermits of Syria battling in his desert cell with visions of troupes of dancing nymphs come to seduce him. St. Jerome's writings thereafter reflected that he considered sex most unclean, even adding that, "Anyone who has too passionate a love for his wife is an adulterer!"
Medieval theologian Peter Lombard (c. 1095-1169) reconfirmed this attitude in his apologetic De excusatione coitus: "Omnis ardentior amator propiae uxoris adulter est." (For a man to love his wife too ardently is a sin worse than adultery.) (Cited in Taylor, 1970: 52.)
[11] "In the 4th century, Egypt, Syria, Palestine, & Arabia were the forcing ground for monasticism in its Christian expression; every form of monastic life was tried, every kind of experiment, every kind of extreme. Monasticism is of course older than Christianity, but this was the flowering of its Christian expression & in many ways it has never been suppressed. . . . The Syrian monks were great individualists & they deliberately imposed on themselves what is hardest for human beings to bear: they went naked & in chains, they lived unsettled lives, eating whatever they found in the woods. They chose to live at the limits of human nature, close to the animals, the angels, & the demons" (Ward, 1975: xv, xvii).
In the 5th & 6th century, St. Benedict of Nursia (c. 480-547), became the master of monastic "rule" makers--though his first efforts at hermit "reform" were met with an attempt to poison him. Typical of his deeds, this progenitor of the Benedictine Order, when tempted with thoughts about women, would throw himself into briars & nettles until his skin was badly torn & was bleeding profusely.
[12] Clement of Alexandria, Stomata 2.23, ed, 3.6.45; 3.12.80-81; 3.17.102-3.18.110, ed. Stahlin 2:188-94, 2:216-17, 232-33, 243-47, 3.57.1-3.60.4, 3.71.1-3.78.5, 3.96.1-3.99.4, 3.105.1-3.110.2; Paedagogus 2.83.1-2.115.5, ed. Stahlin 1:208-26. (Cited in Brundage, 1987: 66.)
"The majority of Christians . . . rejected the claim made by radical Christians that the sin of Adam & Eve was sexual--that the forbidden "fruit of the tree of knowledge" conveyed, above all, carnal knowledge. On the contrary, said Clement of Alexandria (c. 180), conscious participation in procreation is "cooperation with God in the work of creation." Adam's sin was not sexual indulgence, but disobedience, thus Clement agreed with most of his Jewish & Christian contemporaries that the real theme of the story of Adam & Eve is moral freedom & moral responsibility" (cf. Pagels, 1988. xxiii).
[13] Arnobius, Adv. gentes 4.19, in PL 5:1039: "Quod ex turpi concubitu creditis, atque ex seminis jactu ignorantem sidi ad lucem beneficiis obscoenitatis exisse." On Arnobius, see also Liebeschuetz, Continuity & Change, pp. 252-260 (cited by Brundage, 1987: 64).
[14] Tertullian, De exhortatione castitatis 11.1, in CCL 2:1030-31, (cited by Brundage, 1987: 64).
[15] In the reign of Emperor Anastasius I (A.D. 491-518), about the year 494 a sect called Angelites had spread from the city of Alexandria. They were also called Severites, from Severus who was the head of the sect.
[16] Refer to Acts of Andrew, Vatican mss frag. v. (J 352); Acts of John, fragment (J 266); Eusebius Ecclesiastical History iv 29, etc. There have been several Acts of the Apostles, such as the Acts of Abdias, of Peter, of Paul, St. John the Evangelist, St. Andrew, St. Thomas, St. Philip, & St. Matthias; but they have been all proved to be spurious. The reference to Jesus coming to destroy the works of the female, i.e., sexual desire & procreation, are to be found in The Gospel of the Egyptians (9:63) & is cited by Rosemary Radford Ruther, p. 128, in Sexism & God-talk: Toward a Feminist Theology.
[17] Especially Mt.15:19 & Mk.7:21. In Mt.21:31-32, Lk.15:30, & probably in Jn.8:41, that reference is to intercourse with prostitutes. Bruce Malina, "Does ‘Porneia’ Mean Fornication?", Novum Testamentum 14 (1972) 10-17, lists & analyses all occurrences of porneia in the NT. (Footnote from Brundage, 1987: 58.)
[18] Bruce Malina, "Does ‘Porneia’ Mean Fornication?" p. 17; but cf. the very different conclusions of J. Jensen in an article entitled "Does ‘Porneia’ Mean Fornication?" Novum Testamentum 20 (1978:161-84). (Footnotes from Brundage, 1987: 58.)
[19] Found in Alan Shestack et. al., Hans Baldung Grien: Prints & Drawings (WDC: National Gallery of Art, 1981), p. 131.
CHRISTIANITY & SEX -- Part 2
SEX IS HOLY!
by Paul Williams
A historical & contemporary overview of diverse opinions expressed by various Roman Catholic & Protestant theologians & other writers concerning Christian sexual conduct & attitudes. With special thanks to Ivan Himmelhoch for his help in researching this topic.
Table of Contents:
A Sexual Reformation or a Decadent New Dark Age? 2
The Voices of Dissent 3
Bringing Body & Spirit Back Together 4
Holy Sex! 5
Sex Education Begins at Home--& by Example! 6
Sex Education Must Begin with the Very Young 7
"Touch Me! Feel Me! I'm a Christian." 8
Self-stimulation: Sin or Sacrament? 9
Sex Is a Holy Sacrament 12
Divine Orgasms 12
Eros & Agape--How Different Are They? 13
Can Sexual Passion Be Used to Revive Christian Churches? 14
Adultery 15
Traditional "Morality"--A Myth? 16
Tough Questions for Christians--Just Where Do We Draw the Line? 18
Sodomy 18
The Law of Love 19
The Bible--Relic, Anti-sex Handbook, or X-rated Reading? 20
Conclusion 21
A SEXUAL REFORMATION OR A DECADENT NEW DARK AGE?
Serious cracks are forming in the moral retaining walls that have for so long stood for what was assumed right & wrong in sexual matters. Social & sexual storms of the 90s have left much of Christendom in a quandary. Faced with a growing disparity between official policy & actual practices, Church policymakers are increasingly forced to rule on issues unthinkable only a few decades back [1], having to accept or reject sexual teachings & practices that at best will divide & at worst will alter or destroy their church as they know it. Few denominations remain aloof from this battle, as evidenced by the volume of sex-related articles, public debate & open dissension & disagreement that can readily be found in many mainstream Christian publications & public forums. Even the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, a prestigious religious publishing house presided over by the Archbishop of Canterbury, has many senior clerics upset over its publishing of Dr. Adrian Thatcher's book, Liberating Sex, which calls for a wider acceptance of sex outside marriage, the right to remarry, & the recognition of homosexual unions by Christians. Dr. Thatcher feels it is time for the Church to "rethink" its sexual teaching & recognize that the Bible was written in a different culture, one where most marriages took place at a very young age.
Some Christians react to the sexual changes taking place by lapsing into an inflexible anti-sex siege mentality, wishing they could somehow turn back the clock to former times & sexual customs they were more comfortable with. Some keep hoping that divine intervention will perhaps suddenly pull them off the planet before "things get any worse." Other Christians unite, organize, take action, picket, protest, lobby to change laws, & fight to win back Christian political control of local & national government. Some face the sexual storms of change boldly, searching for realistic & positive solutions. Others simply run with the winds of "anything goes" sexual theology.
The Voices of Dissent
Until the 20th century, much of Christianity & much of the Western world in general have demonstrated for nearly 2,000 years an other-worldly, ascetic spirituality in which materiality, & especially sexuality, were suspicious, if not actually sinful. Present inroads on the tradition insist that:
1) Bodily experiences can reveal the divine.
2) Affectivity is as essential as rationality to true Christian love.
3) Christian love exists not to bind autonomous selves, but as the proper form of connection between beings who become human persons in relation.
4) The experience of body pleasure is important in creating the ability to trust & love others, including God (Gudorf, 1994: 217-218).
Sex-negative teachings have been blamed for driving many sincere & searching individuals away from Christian churches, wearying the faithful as well as the clergy with needless sexual concerns, shame, guilt, confusion, loneliness & frustration. Many church-originated sex-negative teachings are now being ignored, challenged, re-evaluated & even blamed for the growing apostasy & antipathy to Christianity in society. Christianity as an institution is now suffering in part for having accepted the Gnostic teachings that human sexuality is basically bad.
The churches have tried to tame our bodies & put us in pews (Rev. Matthew Fox cited by Wright, 1993: 209).
Matthew Fox is a Dominican priest of international renown, founder of the Institute in Culture & Creation Spirituality at Holy Names College in Oakland, California, & author of several books. For making such pronouncements, as quoted above, he was "officially silenced" in late 1988 by his church for a period of one year. Back on the offensive & alluding to Martin Luther & others who spoke out for reform, Fox wryly comments: "The Roman Catholic Church's track record on silencing its most prophetic voices is not impressive!" (op. cit., 205).
Fox teaches that instead of trying to maintain control, Christians should practice letting go, allowing themselves to participate in the natural ecstasies of the universe--including sexual pleasures. In Fox's theology, eros & even lust are celebrated.
Lust is a great, awesome, & wonderful beast, a stallion that can run away with people, driving them mad, jealous, or cynical, or deaden their souls if ignored. Yet once bridled, it ushers in to lover & progeny alike all the promise of the universe, all the beauty of the cosmic history, earthly, sexual adventure. . . . Two people riding the great horse of lust can indeed ride more deeply & swiftly into one another's souls (op. cit., 214.)
Although Fox's wording is provocative in imagery, the essence of what he is saying is being voiced by many other theologians within his church. The Catholic Theological Society of America (CTSA) declares that "sexuality is the Creator's ingenious way of calling people constantly out of themselves into relationship with others." [2]
Fox derides his church's obsession with sex, sin & celibacy, preferring to speak of God as a pleasure-seeker & Jesus as an earthly sensualist. When reading authors like Fox, it is important to understand the doctrines of the traditional church teachings that they are lashing out at. By directly linking "original sin" with sexual intercourse initiated by Eve under the influence of Satan, second to fourth century theologians opened the door to a dreadful attitude toward sex & women. These 2 agents, sex & women, became the chief culprits that cost humanity its immortality & to be cut off from God & brought the curse of disease, toil & death into the world. Logically then, if sex & woman were such evil devices of Satan, then presumably by renouncing them both, men (& women following the same example) might earn some measure of favor with God, & begin to undo the curse upon them (Brown, 1988: 86).
In his book, The Coming of the Cosmic Christ, Fox writes:
If I were asked to name in one word the message I have received from my religion regarding sexuality I would answer regret. I believe that the Western church, following in the spirit of St. Augustine, basically regrets the fact that we are sexual, sensual creatures. "If only sexuality would go away," the message goes, "we could get on with important issues of faith."
The sooner the churches put distance between themselves & Augustine's . . . put-down of women & sexuality, the sooner original sin will find its proper & very minor role in theology (Fox, 1988: 163).
To the question, "Did Jesus have sex?" Fox responds:
The sexual revolution of the sixties did not stop at the monastery door. Some of the greatest monks & priests also had relationships. Remember that, except perhaps for John, all of the disciples of Jesus were married. And of course, Jesus Himself was certainly a fully sexual human being. . . . He was biologically developed as any other human being. He had energy, He had vitality, He had passion--that's all sexual energy. As to whom He made love with, or if He did, we don't know, but I feel this: because He was Jewish, I don't know how He could be celibate. Celibacy is not a part of Jewish tradition. . . . Obviously He knew a lot about women, & they were attracted to Him, not just sexually but politically. He broke all the taboos toward women in His culture, & I think it had a lot to do with His crucifixion (Fox cited by Wright, 1993: 214).
And what does this outspoken Dominican priest say about the celibate life?
I don't recommend to healthy young men that they go into the priesthood as it is currently constituted. You realize that celibacy was invented by the Council of Trent in the 16th century because priests were illiterate & the church wanted to teach them to read [aided by the discipline of abstinence] (op. cit., 211).
BRINGING BODY & SPIRIT BACK TOGETHER
It is generally acknowledged that there is a sexual awakening taking place in Judeo-Christianity, so much so that even those of other faiths are beginning to notice & applaud, saying, "What took you so long?" In an article for East West called, "Massaging the Spirit," writer Mirka Knaster, commenting from an Eastern religious perspective, enthusiastically observes that religious leaders from Catholic priests to Jewish rabbis are attempting to bring body & spirit back together again:
Our attitude toward the mind-body connection has come a long way in the last two decades, but resolving the body-spirit split has lagged. Acceptance is now growing, with the help of people like Fox & Sister Rosalind Gefre [a massage-promoting nun in the Order of St. Joseph of Carondelet], in mainstream religion. Catholic priests, sisters & brothers, Protestant ministers, Jewish rabbis, & lay persons with a theological background now openly support bodywork [massage] or are directly involved in it (Knaster, 1990: 50).
Father Theodore Tracey, a Jesuit involved in retreat work & spiritual guidance, is another Christian exponent of a "body-positive" perspective of theology. In his 1987 essay in Weavings, a journal of the Christian spiritual life, Father Tracey refers to St. Paul's words that our bodies are in truth living temples of the Holy Spirit (1Cor.6:19-20), & notes that our bodies as well as spirits are the foundation for salvation. The physical body being important enough that God chose to manifest Himself in human flesh through Jesus (ibid).
Fathers Tracey & Fox point out that accepting the teachings of the Greeks & others led to a distortion of the original Judeo-Christian attitude toward the body. Fox says:
Jewish thinking takes for granted that the sensual is a blessing & that there is no spiritual life without it (ibid).
HOLY SEX!
Georg Feuerstein, from an eastern religious perspective, notes in his book Enlightened Sexuality: Essays on Body-Positive Spirituality:
Fox envisions a renaissance of sexual mysticism, & in his book ‘The Coming of the Cosmic Christ’, he offers one of the finest commentaries on Solomon's Song of Songs, with a wholehearted endorsement of an erotic spirituality. . . . Fox is not alone in protesting an antiquated theology & moral teaching. There are a growing number of Christian notables who do not hide behind dogma but are considering, questioning, & voicing their opposition against current Church attitudes. Sexuality is now generally viewed as an area where genuine love & mutual delight can be expressed (Feuerstein, 1989: 8).
An increasing number of respected religious writers are turning out in force to challenge the notion that Christianity & erotic sexuality are incompatible. They also challenge the assumption that all Christians regard sex as something evil & alien to the Christian way of life.
... the kiss of peace is sexual. Any worship that is true worship is sexual. It's all the same energy. . . . I use sexual energy as a resource. (Woman pastor cited by Lebracqz & Barton in Sex in The Parish, 1991: 25).
Sexual intimacy can be a means of grace, a resource for healing & transformation in our lives (Rebecca Parker, "Making Love as a Means of Grace: Women's Reflections," Open Hands, vol. 3, #3, Winter 1988: 9-12).
James B. Nelson, author of Between Two Gardens & Embodiment: An Approach to Sexuality & Christian Theology, takes the perspective that sexuality is the base on which our capacity to enter into life-enhancing & life-enriching relationships is built. Through one's sexuality, one has the possibility to become what God wants them to be: fulfilled, integrated, sharing, & free recipients of divine love.
I was feeling unmistakably sexually aroused during prayer. My entire body was longing for the Divine (Nelson, Between 2 Gardens: Reflections on Sexuality & Religious Experience, 1983: 4).
Sex Is Holy is the title of a thought-provoking book co-authored by respected Catholic writers Mary Rousseau & Father Charles Gallagher. The original impetus for the book came from a task force initiated by the American Catholic Bishops to study the questions of human intimacy, love & sexuality. Sex Is Holy is only one of many similar serious publications done in the last decade by respectable theologians, writers & publishers. It has been well received by church membership & given excellent reviews by mainstream critics.
Dr. Mary Rousseau is a professor & mother as well as chairperson of a special committee established by the Catholic Philosophical Society. Father Charles Gallagher is the founder of Marriage Encounter, an ecumenical Christian program engaged in meeting concerns of Catholic couples. These 2 authors not only leap courageously into the Christian sexual fray, but even laud as uniquely Catholic the view that having sex is not only a way to closer human intimacy, but a way to greater intimacy with God:
The view of sex as a way to intimacy with other human beings, & into intimacy with the Father, Son & Spirit is a distinctively Catholic view (Rousseau & Gallagher, 1986: 112). (Emphasis added.)
SEX EDUCATION BEGINS AT HOME--& BY EXAMPLE!
Prior to WWII, procreation was the sole purpose & only justification for sexual intercourse in Catholic teaching. Vatican II fostered a kinder & gentler view of humanity & the God-given sexual side of marriage. Tossing off the last vestiges of any lingering concerns that marital sex may be hazardous to one's spiritual health, Rousseau & Gallagher write:
We can absolutely guarantee that growing up in an atmosphere of sexual intimacy is, next to life itself, the most precious gift that parents can give to their children.
Likewise, one who is confused, inhibited & unhappy in his or her sexuality will be confused, inhibited & unhappy as a person. Sexual identity & personal identity go together. The passion of parents automatically gives children the most important message about sex that they need to hear: that sex is not just intercourse, but intimacy . . . that sex also has a strong positive redemptive power (op. cit., 100, 113).
These learned Catholic authors even boldly tackle the question of conduct & moments of intimate affection between parents while in the presence of children:
The sexual intimacy of parents is the power base of their children's identities, including their sexual identities. It grounds their emotional health & maturity, their overall enjoyment of life, & their faith in God, Who is Love.
When a child sees his father give his mother an affectionate pat on the behind & she pushes him away with a look of disgust, the child draws an immediate conclusion. The conclusion is not what we might think--"Mommy doesn't like sex,"--but, rather, "I am not lovable." And the reverse is also true: a child who sees his parent give & exchange eager little signs of passionate affection gets the message "I am loved, because Mommy & Daddy love each other."
Sexual intercourse should have its due privacy, then, but the sexual intimacy which is the couple's way of life is very much their children's business. It is the source of their children's identity, & children have an absolute right to have that intimacy displayed before them in a forthright & exciting fashion (op. cit., 101, 110, 115).
Why do the youth of today have problems forming wholesome & positive sexual attitudes? Rousseau & Gallagher lay some of the blame on parental inhibitions about sex which cause children to turn to more vulgar & perverse sources of information that distort the image of a loving sexuality. The reader is well aware of the type of unwholesome "sex" message found in the lyrics of many youth-oriented songs, particularly hard rock & gangster rap.
Rousseau & Gallagher offer the following explanation:
Parents hesitate to speak to their children about sex, just as much as their children hesitate to speak to them. As a result, most teenagers get their sexual values from their popular culture. But the picture of sex that our culture presents is an especially tawdry one. Sex is vulgarized in rock music, commercialized on television, trivialized in the movies. As a result, the adolescents of our day have very few sources from which they might learn that sex is awesomely beautiful, powerfully joyous, deeply redemptive, sacramentally holy. In fact, if we were to tell a group of teenagers that sex is holy, we would be met by guffaws of laughter &/or met by stiffened expectations of a moralistic lecture (op. cit., 112). (Emphasis added.)
SEX EDUCATION MUST BEGIN WITH THE VERY YOUNG
Rousseau & Gallagher also realize that sex education, while being a process that is especially crucial when young adolescents first experience the powerful surges of sexual feelings, to be effective must begin long before that.
If we do not put restraints on their curiosity, & do not put them down for asking questions, 3-year-olds will ask about love & death, about God, & yes, about sex. And it is a basic law of educational psychology that human beings learn best when their natural curiosity makes them ready to listen. The deepest kind of sex education, the kind that communicates values & meaning, not just information, begins almost the moment a baby is born. Like the deepest kind of religious education, this kind of sex education is caught, not taught. It is communicated by the way parents look at each other, speak to each other, touch each other--& the ways in which they look at, speak to & touch their children. Passionate parents communicate passion, love & intimacy in ways that cannot be captured in textbooks & dictionaries (Rousseau & Gallagher, 1986: 111-112). (Emphasis added.)
Sexual intimacy is meant to function as a sacrament, to be the medium in which the message of the gospel is preached. This message is, basically, that love & joy are real, that we must trust each other & enjoy life together for, in St. John's words, God is love, & he who lives in love, lives in God, & God lives in him. Sexual intimacy, when it gets that Message across, does much more than promote the mental health & maturity of children (op. cit., 116).
For if children cannot trust a human love that they do see, how will they ever trust the divine love that they do not see? But passionate parents reveal to their children in a vivid & credible way the love & joy that circulate among Father, Son & Spirit, in the inner life of God. They proclaim the Gospel Message loud & clear: the Message that all of us are loved passionately & enthusiastically, just for being who we are. Sexual intimacy is one of the clearest places we know of where the medium is, indeed, the message (op. cit., 118).
"TOUCH ME! FEEL ME! I'M A CHRISTIAN."
History does not reveal the precise date that touch-phobia crept into Christianity, since it was more a process than a policy to begin with. However, in 397, when the "Agapae" love feasts seemed to be getting a little too "tactile" for the celibate rulers, the Council of Carthage made a decree severely limiting all show of physical intimacies in church--other than to kiss the priest (Taylor, 1970: 262). In earlier times, Christians had been known for their love, warm embracing & affectionate greetings. In recent years, Catholic & Protestant congregations alike have from time to time timidly tried to restore some sort of touch exchange during religious services.
Dallas Landrum, a Presbyterian interim pastor & massage therapist in Baltimore, Maryland, explains why some Christians are so slow to accept & enjoy one of the universal & fundamental pleasures of life, human touching:
Many conservative Christians are afraid of their bodies & touch of any kind, because they have never come to terms with their own sexuality! (Knaster, 1990: 50).[3]
Rousseau & Gallagher make this comment about negative attitudes towards touching:
Our sense of touch is extremely important. It is, in fact, our chief way of knowing that we love & are loved. . . . Even a small but direct contact has an effect on people. For example, students checking books out of the library were questioned by psychologists about how they perceived the library--as a warm & accepting place, where they felt comfortable, or as cold & forbidding. Those who found it warm & comfortable had been touched ever so slightly by the librarians when they checked their books out. The others had not been so touched. Psychologists have also proven, beyond any doubt, that babies who are cuddled & fondled a lot actually develop a greater number of brain cells than those who are left alone in their cribs for long periods of time. But adults need cuddling & hugging too. The sense of touch gives us a powerful, primitive reassurance about our own goodness & worth & about the goodness of the world (Rousseau & Gallagher, 1986: 51).
Christine E. Gudorf, author of Body, Sex, & Pleasure: Reconstructing Christian Sexual Ethics, adds:
Sex is pleasurable in many different ways. Mere body touch is pleasurable. Another person's touch on our skin normally releases chemical compounds called endorphins, which function as pain-killing anesthetics. . . . We actually seem to need the pleasure of touch. Infants denied physical touch do not thrive. They do not grow, do not eat or sleep well. They do not develop normally intellectually & emotionally. . . .[4] Elderly persons who are touched affectionately often retain their health & their alertness much longer, & complain of pain less than those deprived of touch.[5] The therapeutic aspect of touch is one reason for the popularity of massage (Gudorf, 1994: 103).
There have been a lot of wrong views & misconceptions about the value of touching, & not just among Christians.
Throughout Western society, parents, teachers, doctors, child-care attendants, workmates, & even close friends often find themselves in "touch retreat." And new barriers to physical intimacy are being put up daily: frightening updates on the AIDS epidemic, the sexual polarization of society as male & female "take sides" in the "sex wars" of the nineties. Sadly, everyone loses--& children lose the most--as home life disintegrates & loving, warm reassuring teachers, pastors & parents are driven out of business.
SELF-STIMULATION: SIN OR SACRAMENT?
In 1969, Dr. William Masters told me about a survey of 200 celibates Catholic priests, the results of which revealed that 198 of them reported having masturbated at least once during the previous year. Of the other 2, Dr. Masters said, "I don't think they understood the question!" (Sipe, 1990: 139).
Christianity has come to many sexual crossroads, & the morality of masturbation is one frequently encountered. A quiet revolution has raged for centuries, a war for common sense & sexual autonomy in this intimately private area of life to gain free access rights to experience the pleasures of one's own body without reproach. Throughout Christendom one finds a complete range of opinions. Historically, while medieval painter Hans Baldrung Grien was creating his--now considered shocking--portrait of the Holy Family showing Jesus' grandmother, St. Anne, "stimulating" the genitals of the infant Jesus while Mary & Joseph look on approvingly,[6] others in the church were busy making up long lists of punishments & penance for those who "touch themselves in unclean ways." St. Thomas Aquinas, who included a talk on masturbation in his Summa Theologica, considered it even worse than outright fornication, since it is blatantly non-reproductive & non-unitive.
This official church position is gradually giving way. In Body, Sex, & Pleasure (1994), Gudorf presents the exact opposite position:
Traditional condemnations of masturbation as serious sin [should have] been abandoned upon recognition that infants begin self-stimulation of the genitals soon after birth. . . . many infants of one or 2 years successfully stimulate themselves to orgasm. . . . This self-stimulation of the genitals does not end in infancy, but accelerates at puberty. By the age of 20 at least 92% of males report masturbating, & about two-thirds of females [7]. . . . research shows that the practice of masturbation does not prevent men & women from seeking sexual partners. In fact, it has become clear that women who have masturbated are more likely to experience general sexual pleasure &, in particular, orgasm in partnered sex than are women who have not masturbated [8] (Gudorf, 1994: 91-92).
While Christianity long taught masturbation as sinful, today many Christians are rethinking the grounds for that prohibition. . . . Nor do we understand the story of Onan in Gen.38 to support an understanding of wasting seed. Onan died not because he wasted seed on the ground, but because, out of greed, he failed to fulfill Yahweh's will that he raise up a son to carry on his brother's name & lineage. [The argument that] masturbation encourages ipsation, an inward turning that cuts individuals off from others . . . is not valid. Research shows that virtually all males masturbate as youths, yet virtually all drift to partnered sex by adulthood.[9] Very low levels of adolescent masturbation are more linked to low levels of sexual interest, & thus to low incidence of partnered sex, than to higher levels of partnered sex [10] (op. cit., 104-105).
Well-known sexological writer David A. Schulz & Catholic Dominic S. Raphael (writing under a pseudonym since masturbation for self-pleasure is still officially forbidden by his church) in their article, "Christ & Tiresias: A Wider Focus on Masturbation," make several interesting observations & outline the value & spiritual virtues of "self-pleasuring" (masturbating):
Western society as a whole suffers from a blind spot in the area of sexuality for which the issue of masturbation is symptomatic (Raphael cited in Feuerstein, 1989: 215).
Christian adolescents have traditionally been traumatized by threats of impending woe ranging from pimples, to short life & insanity if their "self-abuse" persisted. Schulz warns that a negative conflict between church & self results when religion assumes a sex-negative repressive role:
To be told as an adolescent that one form of sexual pleasure over which one has some degree of control was inherently sinful was to place the immediate positive experience of pleasure in direct conflict with the Church's teaching. The individual loses, whatever conclusion is drawn. Either the Church is wrong because the experience feels so right, or the experience must be wrong in spite of the pleasure it provides (op. cit., 222).
Schulz & Raphael prefer to use the term "self-pleasuring" over the centuries-old pejorative "masturbation" which literally means "to defile by hand." Dominic Raphael not only very much approves of masturbation, but even contends that erotic delight can transmute genital orgasm into whole-body bliss resulting in better communion with God .
The more we accept the original blessing that we humans are alive with God's Own lifebreath (Gen.2:7), the more we will be ready for both the mystical experience & primal self- sexuality--indeed for the possibility of mystical rapture through primal sexuality (op. cit., 233).
Schulz contends that:
Self-pleasuring is a genuine form of sexual liberation--a freeing of the human spirit for more creative, caring involvement in the world. As such, it is genuinely Christian--though not yet recognized as such (op. cit., 238).
Dominic Raphael adds:
The need for training of this kind is especially urgent during adolescence & in celibate life. This calls for developing methods, which in Western society are still almost completely lacking. Not only have we failed to raise sexuality methodically to higher spiritual levels; we have instead multiplied prohibitions that inhibit this development. . . . Because autosexuality remains a pivot of psychological oppression, it must be the concern of Christians whom Christ has set free & whom St. Paul alerts: "Stand fast therefore, & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery." (Gal.5:1b). And because autosexuality is the starting point, if we want "to connect the genitals to the heart, to bring sex & love together," it must be a concern of every religious person (op. cit., 238). (Emphasis added.)
Schulz & Raphael both agree that official church sex dogma limps far behind actual sex practice. Simple observation tells us that this gap is widening in some churches & disappearing in others. The Janus Report on Sexual Behavior (1993) shows that 63% of Protestants, 67% of Catholics, 75% of the Jewish faith agreed or strongly agreed with the statement: "Masturbation is a natural part of life & continues on in marriage." One-quarter of American men & one-tenth of American woman involved in the study either masturbated daily or several times weekly, 53% of the men compared to 25% of the women began during ages 11-13 (Janus, 1993: 243, 77).
SEX IS A HOLY SACRAMENT
If there is any doubt that joyful sex should be an inherent part of Christian marital life, writers Rousseau & Gallagher certainly try to remove that doubt.
Love-making & falling in love--these are 2 especially clear moments of sacramental sex.
Sex should be to a couple what prayer is to a contemplative religious [person] or the Eucharist is to a priest (Rousseau & Gallagher, 1986: 46, 54).
These same authors also provide us with a very refreshing portrayal of how sex play is a reflection of God & the Holy Trinity. (In The Family, the Holy Spirit is thought of as female, which, in my thinking makes more sense than trying to reconcile the image of 3 traditionally male aspects of God having "love play" together.)
And so in love play we can get some glimpse of what God does all day. The 3 divine persons, Father, Son & Spirit, play--play in love. Our moments of play are the high points of our days, are they not? We play when our work is done, when there are no more needs to be met, no services to be performed, no tasks or duties to be done at least for a while. And so we simply relax & enjoy each other, enjoy the good that we see in each other, enjoy the life that we share with each other. And sexual ecstasy is a high point of play--more intense & vivid than any other kind. In our best sexual moments, all cares fall away, we gasp in realization of the person before us, we shriek in ecstasy at the realization that we 2, wonderful as we are, belong to each other. That sexual moment, that moment of love play, deserves to be counted as one of our 7 Sacraments. It is most fitting, truly, right & just that sexual intimacy should be, a symbol--a causal symbol--of our intimacy with the 3 divine persons. Human love play is one clear & powerful way for human beings to take part in the love play of the Trinity (op. cit., 23).
DIVINE ORGASMS
Many Christians, Catholic & Protestant, are now saying that loving sexual involvement with another person has the potential to transcend the physical act & become a spiritual union, even a holy sacrament. Rousseau & Gallagher are assuming a very sex-positive stance, hoping to help redirect their church's attitude towards sex & reassure their congregations that human sexuality & pleasure are all right after all. Almost daily, more Christian leaders & writers join the movement to shift the sexual emphasis in Christianity from "sex is sin" to "sex is celebration."
Rousseau & Gallagher, citing well-known psychologist Eric Berne's book Sex & Human Loving add:
As Catholics we can see a special value, a special reason for the Church to "put so much emphasis on sex." For the "Wow!" of orgasm is a "Wow!" to divine life. [11] Sex is a sacramental power, not just a human action. It is the power to cause God's own life in us, to draw us into the love play of the Trinity. An orgasm as the high point of sexual love is also one of love's most powerful divine moments (op. cit., 43-44).
They assure us that this sexual force has always been at work & appreciated in the Church.
In fact, it was common among Renaissance painters to emphasize the genitals of the Infant Jesus, & of the Risen Christ as well. It was their way of saying, "Yes, look! He really did have what it takes to give life to human beings. Let's celebrate that fact" (op. cit., 44).
EROS & AGAPE--HOW DIFFERENT ARE THEY?
Philip Sherrard, formerly Assistant Director of the British School of Athens, Lecturer in the History of the Orthodox Church at London University, in his book, Christianity & Eros, touches on the fact that no great distinction needs to be made between Christian love involving sex & non-sexual Christian love:
We tend to distinguish between the love of God & the love of one person for another--to distinguish between agape & eros--& to regard the second as a rather debasing form of the first & only indulged at the expense of the first. In a sexualized sacramental love there is no such distinction (Sherrard, 1976: 2).
Welsh-born writer & Anglican priest David Thomas, presents a spiritual view of sex not unlike that found in certain of David B. Berg's writings. In his book, Partners with God: A Celebration of Human Sexuality, which serves as a manual used in sexual appreciation sessions, Thomas writes:
If sex is an expression of love, then Christians, above all people, should take a special delight in it. Unfortunately this is not the case. We need, rather, to develop attitudes that can make our sexuality the enriching thing of great beauty that it was intended to be. Used properly [our body] is a miracle of creation, an instrument of love. Its display can be a glorious psalm of praise to a wise & feeling Creator. The person who keeps a sexually alert body in tune with positive, loving thoughts & a soul open to the touch of God is in symphonic accord with creation & Creator alike. Only those who have understood the principle of sharing in the ways of love have discovered the quality of growth that has lifted their relationships to the very gates of heaven. Indeed, our lovemaking is intended to be a celebration of life, of joy, of compassion & of God. Our sexuality is a sharing in creation, designed for us from the beginning of measurable time. Because it is of God, it is best fulfilled when it reflects the nature of God--in giving, in caring, in nurturing. In that spirit, we can use our sexuality to fulfill our own existence & to enrich the being of those whose lives we touch. And in the same spirit, we can make our special love relationship a Christian joyful & erotic glimpse of God's creative presence. To love with generosity & understanding is to proclaim with our bodies the essence of Christ. Whether or not Jesus had any explicitly sexual experiences--& the mere suggestion is enough to rend many pious Christians apoplectic--there is no doubt in my mind that He enhanced other's perception of their sexuality. He didn't deny that gift of God, He heightened it (Thomas, 1986: 29, 33, 35, 39, 50, 57, 60, 90).
Even the "missionary position" is falling out of favor among Christians according to the Janus Report. Forty percent of "very religious" people in the study indicated that they agree, even strongly agree, that "a large variety of sex techniques is a must for maximum pleasure." And 77% of "very religious" & 84% of "religious" people even rated "oral sex" as ranging from "all right to very normal" (Janus, 1993: 244, 245, 254).
CAN SEXUAL PASSION BE USED TO REVIVE CHRISTIAN CHURCHES?
Even sexual intercourse can turn into a ministry, a favor that one does for the other (Rousseau & Gallagher, 1986: 47).
Passionate couples, who become transformed from being strangers into being intimates, help all the rest of us strangers become each other's intimates, too. They do so by making Love credible, so that we can believe in it. And once we believe, we can begin to live it. Then all of us strangers begin to be each others intimates, & we are the Church (op. cit., 124).
Professor Rousseau & Father Gallagher put forth a position on Christian sexual expression that if taken one step further, beyond the context of marital sex, closely resembles David Brandt Berg's proposition of the divine role that sex can play in attracting & winning souls to the Kingdom of God:
Some parishes stand out for being progressive in their liturgy, others for being oriented toward social justice. But what if a parish were outstanding for the passion of its couples? If Catholics were known everywhere for sexual intimacy, the church would certainly not look like just one organization among many. She would be a clear light in the darkness of ordinary lives. Her light would so shine before men that people who never heard a professional missionary will be drawn to her--for the right reason. Converts haven't flocked to us because of our moral righteousness or our organizational genius. But converts would certainly flock to us if we showed in action the deeply incarnational truth that human sexuality is a genuine & powerful way to Holiness. When we say that sex is not evil, that it is quite permissible in certain circumstances, we take but one very tiny step in the right direction. We need to proclaim from the housetops that sex is Holy. The passion of couples is part of the church's inheritance, a pearl of great price, a light that should not be hidden under a bushel (op. cit., 131).
Rousseau & Gallagher even take the point further by saying:
Now imagine another world, one in which Catholic couples were noted for their passion & intimacy, a passion which transfigured them into living symbols of the living flame of divine love--the Gospel would seem relevant to everyday life because it would be relevant. People would fall over themselves to join such a church. Few people who know of Jesus question His goodness. What many do question though is His relevance to them & their daily lives. Sexual love is central to the lives of most people, but what they usually fear from the church are prohibitions & inhibitions on sexual love. And so their enthusiasm for the rest of the message is chilled. But if we, who know the power of sex to tenderize hearts, would celebrate that gift, the Gospel would be relevant indeed. People would be drawn to the church like flies to honey (op. cit., 133-134). (Emphasis added.)
ADULTERY
The Janus Report on Sexual Behavior, published in the US in 1993, was described as "the first broad-scale scientific national survey since Kinsey." That report revealed that 44% of "very religious" people & 40% of "religious" people, & 59% of "slightly religious" people admitted they had sex before marriage. "Very religious" people slightly outscored "religious" people 57% to 56% in their personal agreement with the statement, "Sensually, I feel that sex is deliciously sensuous" (Janus, 1993: 252, 255). Another surprising discovery made by these scientists was in response to the question "I've had extramarital affairs." Thirty-one percent of people in the "very religious" category indicated they had at least one affair, whereas only 26% of those people who thought of themselves as simply "religious" said they had been involved in extra-marital sex. Forty-four percent of the "non-religious" responders admitted to extramarital sex (op. cit., 249).
It is said that the French reformer, John Calvin (1509-64), was particularly preoccupied with adultery, & made references to it in almost every matter he discussed. G. Rattray Taylor, commenting on this characteristic in Sex in History, generalizes that "Since repression always stimulates what it sets out to repress, one is not surprised to learn that Calvin's sister-in-law was taken in adultery in 1557 & that his daughter suffered a like fate 5 years later" (Taylor, 1970: 164).
It seems that Episcopalian Rev. Leo Booth could not agree more. In his book, When God Becomes a Drug: Breaking the Chains of Religious Addiction & Abuse 1991), Booth points to Eric Fromm's theory that sexual taboos create sexual obsessiveness & perversions. He also notes:
Jimmy Swaggart preached some of his most scathing sermons against sex immediately following his liaisons with prostitutes (Booth, 1991: 72).
Although I do not agree with Rev. Leo Booth when he labels most Bible-quoting, Jesus-preaching Christians as being "God addicts," I can still agree with some of his views on sex & sexuality.
I believe that God created sex & made it pleasurable to us for a reason; not just to procreate, but as a means of physically expressing spiritual unity. To insist that it is dirty is an abuse of God's gift, & from that abuse springs more abuse: guilt, shame, humiliation, fear (op. cit., 75).
Booth is of course not alone among the outspoken clergy within the Episcopal church. Bishop John Shelby Spong is another very notable player in the unfolding sex-&-spirituality Christian conundrum. Bishop Spong receives praise even in the respected National Catholic Reporter, a respected Roman Catholic publication. In reviewing Bishop Spong's book Living in Sin?, they conceded that "John Shelby Spong is a brave churchman. He has the guts to tell it like it is!"--And what is it that the Episcopal Bishop Spong is telling the world that is so significant & takes so much courage?
Bishop Spong suggests that there is much ambiguity in the Bible concerning sex. To take just one example, adultery in the Bible was defined as sex with a married woman. The marital status of the man was irrelevant. If the woman was not married, then having sexual relations with her was not adulterous. Women, Spong points out, were considered the possessions of the primary male in their lives & he quotes the story of Judah & Tamar in Gen.38 & the story of the Levite's concubine in Judg.19.
TRADITIONAL "MORALITY" -- A MYTH?
Bishop Spong notes that in the Bible the prevailing marital pattern of the times was not monogamy but polygamy. In fact, moral patterns ascribed to Bible times actually were never the way those who call us to reaffirm "traditional morality" think they were. In his book Living in Sin?, also favorably reviewed in Time magazine, Spong brings this fact out clearly. Marriage, for example, was not ever universally required to legitimize sexual activity even in western Christian society. It was not until the Council of Trent in 1565, that the Church declared that a Christian ceremony was necessary in order to have a valid marriage. He adds:
Marriage does not make sex holy, the quality of the relationship does (Spong, 1989: 65).
The Bible's view on relationships & sex is further demonstrated in the passages which mention how the patriarch Abraham on 2 occasions in order to save his own life offered his wife Sarah, first to the Pharaoh (Gen.12) & later to King Abemelech (Gen.20). His son Isaac, following in his footsteps, later offered his wife Rebecca to the same or similarly named Philistine king (Gen.26)! Spong mentions that in some nations of the western world, older & sexually experienced women were expected to initiate young post-pubescent boys into the mysteries of love-making. This would prepare a young man to be a gentle & effective lover with his virgin bride.
In his book Beyond Moralism, Spong protests:
The original prohibition against adulterous relationships came from a people who continued to practice polygamy for many years after their covenant at Sinai. Monogamous marriage is not the original context of the injunction. This commandment was presumed to have been given in the wilderness around the year 1250 B.C. Yet 300 years later Solomon, with his 300 wives & 700 concubines, reigned as king in the land whose law proclaimed, "You shall not commit adultery." [In Living in Sin?, Spong adds: "What does adultery mean when one man (Solomon) can possess an unlimited number of women for his own amusement? How can an injunction based on these premises be used to define morality today?"]
The patriarchal society in which this law was both interpreted & applied did not regard sexual intercourse between married men & unmarried women as an adulterous offense. A story in chapter 38 of Genesis told of Judah's affair with Hirah, an Adullamite who was described only as a friend, even after he had had 3 children by her. In chapter 21 of Judges, the men of Benjamin seduced first & married second. A man was found guilty of adultery only if he took another man's wife. Adultery was primarily an offense against another man's marriage, not against his own. . . . If a married man avoided married women, he could have as many sexual affairs as he wished & still not violate this commandment. . . . Also sexual behavior with foreign women encountered while traveling or captured in war . . . was not governed by these laws (Spong, 1986: 89-90).
Eric Fuchs, is a Swiss Protestant pastor. He has been director of the Protestant Study Center in Geneva & is now head of the ethics department of the Faculty of Theology at the University of Geneva in Switzerland. In his book, Sexual Desire & Love: Origins & History of the Christian Ethic of Sexuality & Marriage, he devotes almost 90 pages to a chapter entitled, "Christianity & Sexuality: An Ambiguous History." One point he makes is that some sexual conduct can be very, very harmful & hurtful. The Old Testament certainly does not hide these dangers. Improper sexual conduct can lead to murderous violence as told in the astonishing story of Judg.19-21, where the inhabitants of Gibeah abused the concubine of the Levite from Ephraim. Since that incident transgressed the most sacred laws of hospitality, of heterosexuality & of respect for even the concubine of one's neighbor, it led to collective violence & destruction of almost the entire tribe of Benjamin.
Fortunately, the Old Testament also contains an abundance of beautiful examples of the creative use of human sexuality being wonderfully used for the good of God's people. As Eric Fuchs puts it:
The exemplary couples amongst the patriarchs demonstrate how sexuality, ordained as a benediction of God on life, becomes creative with regard to history & love (Fuchs, 1983).
There is the story of Esther who captured the heart of a heathen king & saved her people from destruction. Then there was Ruth, the Moabite widow who wooed the wealthy Boaz & became an ancestor of Jesus. And of course there was the stunning beauty of Abraham's half-sister & wife, Sarah, that more than once was used to save the life of that revered patriarch. Or the love of Joseph for Mary his young pregnant-by-another, wife to be, to cite a few examples.
TOUGH QUESTIONS FOR CHRISTIANS -- JUST WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE?
In, Beyond Moralism, Bishop Spong poses numerous sexually challenging questions for Christians to answer:
What is the basis for sexual morality for Christians in this age? Is there an area between the ideal & the immoral where sexual relations between consenting unmarried adults could be viewed in some way other than as destructive or wrong?
Can sexual activity apart from the context of marriage ever be more positive than negative?
Is abstinence the only choice a Christian ethic can tolerate for widows, widowers, unmarried adults, or divorced people?
Half the population in our culture is engaged in serial polygamy--several marriages over the course of a lifetime with one partner at a time & numerous children related to one another by step-parents & half parents. More than 40% of the households in America are now single-parent or single-person households. . . . How can the commandment "You shall not commit adultery" be approached within the actualities of the 20th century?
If fullness of life is the goal of the Christian Gospel, sexual abstinence may not always serve that goal. . . . Are some sexual relationships beautiful, life-giving, beneficial, even though they are not lived out inside the marital bond? Surely the answer . . . is yes (Spong 1986: 96, 99, Preface p. xi, 97, 104). (Emphasis added.)
SODOMY
Christian churches in general are increasingly split over demands for official recognition & acceptance of homosexuality. However, for a large number of concerned Christians, the homosexual question remains "non-negotiable" in spite of the increase in homosexual acceptance[12] & growing support for this lifestyle in society. Politics & media promotion is not sufficient to overturn moral concerns that rise from Scriptural admonitions specifically opposing it (Lev.18:22 & 20:13; Rom.1:27).
The Family is considered somewhat liberal in certain sexual views, yet highly traditional in others as evidenced by the following view expressed by David B. Berg, founder of The Family:
You don't find the Bible condemning sex anywhere, only the wrong kind of sex. So what's the wrong kind of sex? Well, the Bible makes it very clear the wrong kind of sex is: "men with men doing that which is evil" (Rom.1:27), homosexuality, sodomy, the misuse of women, the misuse of sexual organs, evil sex, perversion, masochism, unloving sex, sex that hurts somebody, sex without love. Sex in the wrong way, perverted sex, sex that hurts & damages & destroys the body, selfish sex! (Letter #2,475, Sept88).
THE LAW OF LOVE
Whatever position on the sexual spectrum other Christians may take, they likely can agree that
(1) Christianity is in for a very rough ride in the days ahead as society at large becomes increasingly decadent & anti-Christian; and
(2) that as Christians, we do need some guidelines to govern our sexual behavior, especially any that would be hurtful or harmful.
In his writings, David B. Berg has put forth a simple rule to govern sexual conduct, in fact all conduct. Based on the teachings of Jesus, this principle is referred to as the Law of Love. Simply put, this "Law" says that Jesus' commandment to love God with all our heart & our neighbor as ourselves should be the guiding principle in all our dealings with others. All other rules & laws should be subservient to--in fact fulfilled by--this one. God will not condemn us if love & concern for others is our main motive, even in sexual matters. This general Law of Love principle can be found in one form or another among the teachings of most Christian churches.
In Oct93, the Department for Studies of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America issued a first draft of a proposed social statement entitled The Church & Human Sexuality: A Lutheran Perspective. The more controversial sexual aspects of the document received predictably mixed reactions from church members. That document, in my opinion, contained an excellent summary of what "love of neighbor" is all about, very much like The Family's Law of Love.
Paul also understood the Law to be completed in Christ (Rom.10:4). Through Christ's redemption, we are made right with God & called to love the neighbor. All the commandments are summed up in "Love your neighbor as yourself." "Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law" (Rom.13:8-10; see also Gal.5:14). Love of neighbor takes precedence over purity concerns, since nothing is unclean of itself (Rom.14:14; see also Mk.7:14-15). Christians are freed from the requirement to observe numerous cultic & purity laws. Instead, we are called to the more challenging task of discerning what it means to love God & the neighbor in particular situations (as Paul illustrates in Rom.14-15 & 1Cor.). This discernment occurs as the Spirit works through the Gospel in the community of the baptized (The Church & Human Sexuality: A Lutheran Perspective, a draft proposal, 1993).
Bishop John Shelby Spong (whose overall sexual liberality in some areas of his general teachings far exceeds what The Family considers the scripturally allowable boundaries) does, however, express the underpinning principles of the Law of Love as follows:
Sex is still powerful. Where sex enhances life I am prepared to call it good. Where sex destroys or diminishes life, I am prepared to call it evil. I seek a pattern in which sex can be holy for the mature post-married adult (Spong, 1989).
THE BIBLE -- RELIC, ANTI-SEX HANDBOOK OR X-RATED READING?
L. William Countryman prefaces his book Dirt, Greed & Sex with the following comment:
Controversy over sexual ethics have pervaded the Western world in our century, & the Bible has been an important factor in them. Some voices invoke its authority; others attack it as a baleful influence. Some hold that it lays down a clear-cut sexual ethic; others hear in it a multiplicity of messages not always in agreement with one another. Whichever may ultimately be right, we have at least learned that interpreters of Scripture do not all agree with one another & that people can invoke the Bible on behalf of a variety of contemporary ethical positions. Such a situation calls for a fresh & careful reading of the Scriptures. . . . I began looking into the Biblical texts on this subject [sex] with several quite definite presuppositions. . . . I expected to find no more than scattered & independent moral pronouncements on sexual issues. . . . & that the biblical authors as a whole were negative toward sex & regarded it as something to be avoided in general & indulged, reluctantly, only under narrowly defined circumstances. In both cases, I have found that close study of these texts has modified my understanding of the matter sharply & in directions that I could not have predicted (Countryman, 1988: 1).
Many Christians are tempted to abandon their confidence in the Bible because they don't see how it can or does apply to "real" life in our times. David Brandt Berg was firmly convinced that the Scriptures can be just as alive, joyful, liberating, meaningful & applicable in today's world as they have ever been, & that the universal principles set down in God's Word will most certainly survive this present troubled world. Part of the mission of the Family has been to help others rediscover that wonderful path to Jesus, joy & freedom that is laid down in the Scriptures.
Many liberal theologians suggest we now set aside our Bibles as antiquated artifacts, no longer needed in the present stage of human spirituality. The very liberal Bishop Spong is known for making some very strong pronouncements about the Bible's validity, or lack of it, in today's world. Still, although critical of anyone taking too literal an interpretation or application of Scripture--which he believes needs to be considered more in the context of the time in which they were written--he still admits that for Christianity to survive, somehow our perception of Scripture & our human sexuality need to be brought more into perceivable harmony, for a house divided against itself simply cannot stand.
I do believe that there is a spirit beneath the letter that brings the Bible forward in time with integrity. That spirit must be sought with diligence. Without it the Bible will not be for our times a source of life or a guide in the area of sexual ethics (attributed to Bishop Spong).
CONCLUSION
Is sexual repression one reason why so many Christians are "falling away" from traditional churches? Are people finding sexual & spiritual fulfillment more attractive outside mainstream Christianity & finding themselves more & more in conflict with church teachings & traditions? Are they distancing themselves from what they perceive as aging Christian institutions?
Catholic priests McMahon & Campbel argue that for spirituality to be authentic & conducive to personal growth it must be firmly anchored in our bodily existence:
Our experience as 2 Catholic priest-psychologists active in ministry for nearly 25 years leads us to recognize that a significant number of those drifting away from institutional churches are responsible, mature, & developing adults. They are by no means self-indulgent individuals looking for an excuse to live a licentious life. In far too many instances, these are people who are profoundly concerned about spiritual matters, & who are totally undernourished by their church & therefore look elsewhere for resources to support growth (cited in Feuerstein, 1989: 55).
Bishop Spong puts forth the following provocative thoughts in his book, Beyond Moralism:
Many troubled people find healing, loving alternatives that are clearly short of the ideal but also short of the immoral. Life conspires to move us all out of a moralistic legalism into more loving & compassionate attempts to discover the best alternatives for both the individual & the community in a broken, imperfect world. It is our conviction that Christianity itself compels us to reject any rigid system that applies rules indiscriminately to human beings. No one would distribute shoes to people without first checking for size. Surely the moral code whose purpose it is to support & improve life can not be dispensed without a similar size & fit.
Christianity can be separated from the repressive legalism of yesterday, a legalism that is neither biblical nor essential in the realities of the 20th century. Christianity, however, does have standards & norms that need to be heard in the midst of the hedonistic revolution of today. These principles are not so crisp or clear as the old prohibitions, but they are more loving & do spring from the sacredness of human life.
"Ye shall not commit adultery." This ancient commandment invites us to look at the depth of personhood, the depth of relationships, the sacredness of bodies, the fact that sex is powerful, & then decide how love, life, & being can be expressed so as to glorify the Creator in the sexual acts of the creature. Christians of the 20th century are called to bear witness in word & deed in the arena of human sexuality (Spong, 1986: 106). (Emphasis added.)
Although The Family would not fully agree with all aspects of the sweeping sexual tolerance embraced by Bishop Spong & many other sexually liberal theologians, we can agree on the universal need for Christianity to make more loving moves forward in restoring sex to its rightful place of celebration, respect, testimony, joy & pleasure in Christian life. For nearly 3 decades our Christian Missionary movement has not only carried the message of God's love & salvation through Jesus into all the world, but we have also encouraged our fellow Christians to re-evaluate their attitudes towards sexuality. Our Family has weathered many storms of criticism & persecution arising from our sex-affirmative approach to life in the context of Christian growth & spiritual development.
As a member of The Family I strongly affirm the wonderful & needed place Scripture has in my life. Although certain Scriptures do seem to appear sexually restrictive, I believe that a comprehensive study of Scripture allows much greater sexual freedoms than traditional Christian sexual customs seem to permit. I would never suggest that the Scriptures must now be tossed aside as irreconcilable with present sexual realities, or as irrelevant & a hindrance to the dawning of a new liberating Christian sexual era. To presume in this most critical moment in Christian history that we have outgrown the need for the Bible, God's recorded Words of guidance, I would consider total folly. I firmly believe that Christian sexuality & Scripture will yet join together in the wonderful unity & celebration God intended.
Dr. L. William Countryman in his book Dirt, Greed & Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament & Their Implications for Today, carefully examines all the things he felt the sexual ethic of the New Testament seems to forbid. Still he does attempt to have us look at these in a whole new context. I will leave you with his well-balanced concluding remarks, made after a most exhaustive study of the matter.
The Bible takes sex more or less for granted & does not explicitly lay out a theology or philosophical understanding of it.
The New Testament's positive account of sex is that it is an integral part of the human person, particularly joining us to one another, & therefore has a right to be included in the spiritual transformation which follows upon our hearing of the Gospel. The Gospel, as it permeates every aspect of life, will & must permeate sexuality as well. If Christian teaching appears to flinch from sex, as something dirty or suspect, it is falsely Christian. . . . Sexuality, like every other aspect of human life, should be related to the center goal of that life, the reign of God.
Sex, therefore, is to be received with delight & thankfulness. It is a gift of God in creation which reflects for us the joy of God's self-giving in grace & the perfect openness of true human life in the age to come.
If I make satisfaction of sexual desire the overarching goal of my life, I have put the part in place of the whole & thereby lost perspective on its real value. . . . Sex is not the final goal of the creation.
The world begins in God's free act of creation & concludes in God's free act of grace--or rather in the rejoicing to which it gives rise. Prudery, narrowness, self-confident respectability will be no preparation for the life of the age of rejoicing. It is not surprising that Jesus alienated those who practiced such "virtues."
As marriage & family could not be the final goal for the 1st-century Christian, sexuality & self cannot be today. The Christian will find it very difficult to live in an intimate relation with one who does not understand or accept the kind of demands which God's calling makes. . . . The Christian must also retain a certain freedom to respond to God's call loyally in critical times.
The measure of a sexuality that accords with the New Testament is simply this: the degree to which it rejoices in the whole creation, in what is given to others as well as to each of us, while enabling us always to leave the final word to God, Who is the Beginning & End of all things (Countryman, 1988: 265-267).
Sex is created & commanded by God for your enjoyment, unity, fellowship, procreation, & a type of His own relationship with us in the Spirit. God uses sex as a tool to keep man & woman together in beautiful harmony & having children & families & a happy, loving home. He wants you to have sex not only for your own physical enjoyment & satisfaction, but also to produce human beings, immortal souls for the Kingdom of God!
God in His wisdom has created this sexual union, this husband & wife relationship, this lover & loved intercourse to be a marvelous picture, an illustration in the physical of your spiritual relationship with Him & your union with your Heavenly Bridegroom. The sexual relationships & its fruits are symbolic of His own holy relationships with us, His Bride. He blessed it, empowered it, used it, & referred to it constantly throughout His Word as the greatest physical experience & relationship of man & woman with the most essential results: Procreation of the race!
Sex is the greatest proof of Love & God's existence, & the greatest loving experience that creates new life & new immortal souls for the Eternal Kingdom of God!--by David B. Berg (compiled quotes, DM 2:196).
BIBLIOGRAPHIC & BIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES
Booth, Father Leo
When God Becomes a Drug: Breaking the Chains of Religious Addiction & Abuse. Jeremy P. Thacher, Inc. LA, 1991.
Father Leo Booth is the vicar of St. George Episcopal church in Hawthorne, California. He specializes in recovery-treatment programs, & is the author of Meditations for Compulsive People, Say Yes to Life, & Spirituality & Recovery. He lives in Long Beach, California.
Countryman, L. William
Dirt, Greed & Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament & Their Implications for Today. Fortress Press (USA), 1988.
L. William Countryman is Professor of New Testament at the Church Divinity School of the Pacific, Berkeley, California.
Feuerstein, Georg
Enlightened Sexuality: Essays on Body-Positive Spirituality. The Crossing Press, Freedom, California, 1989.
Georg Feuerstein has published a dozen books, including Structures of Consciousness, Integral Publishing, 1987. He did postgraduate research in Indian philosophy at old University of Durham, England. He is a recipient of awards from the British Academy, editor of Spectrum Review, & general editor of the Paragon Living Traditions series of dictionaries.
Foucault, Michel
The History of Sexuality Volume I: An Introduction. Translated from the French by Robert Hurley, Penguin Books, 1978.
Fox, Matthew
The Coming of the Cosmic Christ. Harper & Row, San Francisco, 1988.
Fuchs, Eric
Sexual Desire & Love: Origins & History of the Christian Ethic of Sexuality & Marriage. NY: Seabury Press, 1983.
Eric Fuchs is a Swiss Protestant pastor. He has been director of the Protestant Study Center in Geneva & is now head of the ethics department of the Faculty of Theology at the University of Geneva in Switzerland. In his book, Sexual Desire & Love: Origins & History of the Christian Ethic of Sexuality & Marriage, he devotes almost 90 pages to a chapter entitled, "Christianity & Sexuality: An Ambiguous History."
Gudorf, Christine E.
Body, Sex, & Pleasure: Reconstructing Christian Sexual Ethics. The Pilgrim Press, Cleveland, Ohio, 1994.
Janus, Samuel S., & Cythia L. Janus
The Janus Report: Sexual Behavior. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., NT, 1993.
Dr. Samuel S. Janus is a respected researcher in human sexual behavior & related issues & the author of The Death of Innocence, & A Sexual Profile of Men in Power. He is a diplomat of the American Board of Sexology, a Board-certified sex counselor, & a Fellow of the American Institute for Psycho-therapy & Psychoanalysis.
Dr. Cynthia Janus has written & lectured widely on subjects in radiology & obstetrics & gynecology. She was formerly an executive board member of The Women's Medical Association of NYC.
Knaster, Mirka
"Massaging the Spirit: Bodywork." East West Magazine, Jul90, v20 p. 50(3) n7.
Lebacqz, Karen & Ronald G. Barton
Sex in the Parish. Westminister/John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky, 1991.
Karen Lebacqz is Professor of Christian Ethics, Pacific School of Religion, Berkeley, California.
Ronald Barton is Associate Conference Minister, Northern California Conference, United Church of Christ, San Francisco.
Moss, Rachel
God's Yes to Sexuality: The report of a working group appointed by the British Council of Churches. Collins Fount Paperbacks, London, 1981.
Nelson, James B.
Between Two Gardens: Reflections on Sexuality & Religious Experience. NY, Pilgrim Press, 1983.
Raphael, Dominic S.
Dominic Raphael is a widely published & pastorally active Roman Catholic author writing here under a pseudonym. He feels that both his church & society need healing ideas in the area of sexual ethics. He feels it best to avoid personal controversy & confrontation but to quietly promote objective discussions.
Rousseau, Dr. Mary & Father Charles Gallagher
Sex Is Holy. Element Books Limited, Longmead, Shaftesbury, Dorset, 1991.
Professor of Philosophy at Marquette University. Dr. Rousseau, is a mother & chairperson of a special committee established by the Catholic Philosophical Society.
Father Gallagher is the founder of Worldwide Marriage Encounter, an ecumenical Christian program engaged in the concerns of married couples.
Schulz, David A.
David Schulz is a part-time professor, Episcopal priest, wood sculptor, residing in California. He is the author of Human Sexuality: The Changing Family, & other books on human relationships. He has taught seminars on sexuality & sexual harassment.
Sherrard, Philip
Christianity & Eros: Essays on the Theme of Sex & Love. SPCK Holy Trinity Church, London, 1976.
Philip Sherrard, formerly Assistant Director of the British School at Athens, is Lecturer in the History of the Orthodox Church at London University. He is the author of many books & articles on Orthodox, Byzantine, & Greek themes.
Sipe, A.W. Richard
A Secret World: Sexuality & the Search for Celibacy. Brunner/Mazel, Inc., NY, 1990.
Richard Sipe is an ordained Roman Catholic priest, now retired from the active ministry, who lives in Maryland, where he is a psychotherapist in private practice. He also lectures in family therapy at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, where he has held an appointment since 1972.
Smali, Dwight Hervey
Christian: Celebrate Your Sexuality. Fleming H. Revell Company, New Jersey, 1974.
Dwight Smali is a member of the faculty at Westmont College in Santa Barbara, California.
Spong, John Shelby & Denise G. Haines
Beyond Moralism: A Contemporary View of the Ten Commandments. Harper & Row, San Francisco, 1986.
Bishop John S. Spong's home-base is St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Richmond, Virginia.
Denise G. Haines is a female Episcopal priest, ordained by Bishop Spong in 1977. By 1983 she was a staff member of the Diocese of Newark serving as an archdeacon, thus becoming the highest-ranking woman-priest in the ecclesiastical structures of the Anglican communion. She is a wife & mother & is musically talented.
Spong, John Shelby (Bishop)
Living in Sin?: A Bishop Rethinks Human Sexuality. Harper & Row, San Francisco, 1989.
Taylor, G. Rattray
Sex in History: The Story of Society's Changing Attitudes to Sex Throughout the Ages. The Vanguard Press, Inc., New York, 1970.
Gordon Rattray Taylor brings his broad training in both biological & social sciences to bear on the subject of sex & its historical affect on people.
Thomas, Gordon
Desire & Denial: Celibacy & the Church. Little, Brown & Company, Boston, 1986.
Gordon Thomas is the author & co-author of 24 books. Total sales exceed 34 million copies in 36 countries. Four have been made into successful motion pictures. He has reported on the papacy since the closing months of Pope John XXIII's pontificate in 1963. He covered the election of Pope Paul VI & had several private audiences with the pontiff during his 15-year reign, which ended with his death in 1978. He commented on the 33-day pontificate & funeral of Pope Paul's successor, the first Pope John Paul, & the end to the 455 years of Italian domination of the papacy with the emergence of Poland's Karol Wojtyla as Pope John Paul II. He has continued to monitor the workings of the Vatican & the Church without interruption, co-authoring 2 best-sellers, Pontiff & The Year of Armageddon. Desire & Denial has been sold as a major film production.
Wright, Lawrence
Saints & Sinners. Alfred A. Knope, NY, 1993.
Lawrence Wright grew up in Dallas, graduated from Tulane University, & spent a year at the American University in Cairo, Egypt. He has written 2 previous books, City children, Country Summer: A Story of Ghetto Children Among the Amish, & In the New World: Growing Up with America, 1960-84. His articles have appeared in many places, including Texas Monthly, Rolling Stone, & The NYT Magazine. He is a staff writer for The New Yorker. He lives with his wife & 2 children in Austin, Texas.
NOTES
[1] On Tuesday, 6Jun95, a Church of England report, the first major study of the family by Britain's state religion for 20 years, was made public by the Church's Board of Social Responsibility, chaired by Bishop Alan Moorage. The report said that, "Living in sin" should no longer be regarded as sinful & the phrase should be dropped given the number of people who now live together before getting married. It also warned against judgmental attitudes about cohabitation & fornication, the report estimated that 4 in 5 couples will live together before they marry by the year 2000. The report also said the Church should resist the temptation to look back to a "golden age of the family" & help people build strong, committed & faithful relationships. The Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, leader of the Church of England, welcomed the report as a "rich resource in a continuing process of debate & soul searching," but he said it was not the Church's authoritative teaching. The report's recommendations are likely to go before a decision-making general synod of the Church of England. (Reuters, London.)
[2] Anthony Kosnik et al. (The Catholic Theological Society of America), Human Sexuality: New Directions in American Catholic Thought, NY: Paulist Press, 1977: 85. Cited by Labacqz & Barton in Sex in the Parish, 1991: 35.
[3] Sister Kristen, a Franciscan nun who is a masseuse at the Jesuit Renewal Center in Milford, Ohio, had her initial invitations to her Christian "Massage Parlor" thrown back in her face by frightened Christians. However, she & her fellow nuns persisted & now operate several massage centers. Sister Kristen says: "I think people are really hungry for the healing effects of touch" (Knaster, 1990: 50).
[4] B. Myers, "Mother-Infant Bonding: Status of This Critical-Period Hypothesis," Developmental Review 4, 1984: 240-274; Robert Crooks & Karla Baur, Our Sexuality, 303; Jessie Potter, "the Touch Film."
[5] S. Rice & J. Kelly, "Love & Intimacy Needs of the Elderly," Journal of Social Work & Human Sexuality 5, 1987: 89-96.
[6] Alan Shestack et. al., Hans Baldung Grien: Prints & Drawings. WDC: National Gallery of Art, 1981: 131.
[7] William H. Masters, Virginia E. Johnson, & Robert C. Kolodny, Human Sexuality, 4th ed., NY: HarperCollins, 1992: 339.
[8] Jeffrey S. Turner & Laura Robinson, Contemporary Human Sexuality, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1993: 425-426,429.
[9] Crooks & Baur, Our Sexuality, 480, 562-563.
[10] Citing author Margo Woods in Masturbation, Tantra, & Self Love, Burlingame, California: Down There Press, 1988: 102.
[11] We don't need a lot of words when we make love--4 will do. These words are "please," "thank you," "ooh" & "wow!" The "wow!" is the one that counts, the one that all the others lead up to (Eric Berne, Sex & Human Loving).
[12] The Janus Report found that 22% of men & 17% of women in the study had had a homosexual experience. Of those, only 39% of the males (8.5% of the sample population) & 27% of the females (4.5% of the sample population) were actively involved in regular homosexual relations & only 4% of the men & 2% of the women polled actually considered themselves to be homosexuals. (Janus, 1993: 69,70).
[End]
THE X-RATED BIBLE
by Ben Akerley
Editor: Loving Jesus intimately may seem unconventional or unorthodox to may in the world, & people wonder how in the world a religion could also profess such sexual beliefs. In actuality, the Bible, the book which is the cornerstone of the Christian religion, is full of unorthodox sexual beliefs & practices, as the following book summary points out. Although this book was written by an unbeliever, & has somewhat of a condescending attitude toward the Bible in places, it still provides an interesting overview of parts of the Old Testament. Naturally, the fact that we’re making this book summary available doesn’t mean that we’re promoting or advocating the practices that are mentioned!
On the one hand, the Bible is the world's undisputed, #1, all-time bestseller with more than 2 billion copies extant in at least 1,800 languages. On the other hand, it is one of the least read of books, & certainly one that few ever venture to read through from cover to cover.
Most Bible reading, therefore, centers on selected passages or favorite portions which are usually the same excerpts heard from the pulpit. That much of the Holy Writ has a decidedly salacious flavor comes as a surprise, consequently, to the average layman. This is also due in no small part to the majestic sweep, the grandeur, & the melodic ring of the great King James version—the 1611 translation which is the one most familiar to the English-speaking world. The lofty 17th-century idiom masks most of the bawdy narrative by its plethora of obsolete & archaic forms, the literal meaning of which escapes the modern reader.
Let us now explore the "racy material" & get a fresh perspective on the Bible & its many interesting, colorful, & very human characters.
In the Beginning Was Incest?
Genesis 4:1–2
And Adam knew Eve his wife; & she conceived, & bare Cain, & said, I have gotten a man from the Lord. And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
The word translated here as "knew" is the Hebrew verb yada, which, in this context, could best be rendered in modern English as "had sexual relations with."
The next passage relating that Cain "knew" his wife is the one from which we can infer incest, for he would have had to cohabit either with his own mother Eve or with one of his unnamed sisters.
Genesis 4:17
And Cain knew his wife; & she conceived, & bare Enoch: & he builded a city, & called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.
To be sure, incestuous liaisons were to become quite commonplace throughout the Bible. Moses, the great leader of Israel, was himself a son of incest.
Exodus 6:20
And Amram took him Jochebed his father's sister to wife; & she bare him Aaron & Moses: & the years of the life of Amram were an hundred & thirty & seven years.
Amnon Rapes His Sister Tamar
Amnon's infatuation with his half-sister was of such magnitude that he became physically ill as a result of his amorous ardor. He didn't know exactly how to get to Tamar since she was still a virgin, & seeing her privately was very difficult because of the custom of segregating young men & women from one another.
2 Samuel 13:1–2
And it came to pass after this, that Absalom the son of David had a fair sister, whose name was Tamar; & Amnon the son of David loved her. And Amnon was so vexed, that he fell sick for his sister Tamar; for she was a virgin; & Amnon thought it hard for him to do anything to her.
Amnon had a cousin, Jonadab, who was very crafty & it was his suggestion that if Amnon wanted so badly to see Tamar in private, he should feign sickness & then ask his father David to allow Tamar to minister unto him.
2 Samuel 13:3–5
But Amnon had a friend, whose name was Jonadab, the son of Shimeah David's brother: & Jonadab was a very subtil man. And he said unto him, Why art thou, being the king's son, lean from day to day? Wilt thou not tell me? And Amnon said unto him, I love Tamar, my brother Absalom's sister. And Jonadab said unto him, Lay thee down on thy bed, & make thyself sick: & when thy father cometh to see thee, say unto him, I pray thee, let my sister Tamar come, & give me meat, & dress the meat in my sight, that I may see it, & eat it at her hand.
Amnon followed Jonadab's advice & his father David granted his request & sent Tamar to wait on him. Amnon sent all the men away from his chamber so that he & Tamar would be alone at last.
2 Samuel 13:6–10
So Amnon lay down, & made himself sick: & when the king was come to see him, Amnon said unto the king, I pray thee, let Tamar my sister come, & make me a couple of cakes in my sight, that I may eat at her hand. Then David sent home to Tamar, saying, Go now to thy brother Amnon's house, & dress him meat. So Tamar went to her brother Amnon's house; & he was laid down. And she took flour, & kneaded it, & made cakes in his sight, & did bake the cakes. And she took a pan, & poured them out before him; but he refused to eat. And Amnon said, Have out all men from me. And they went out every man from him. And Amnon said unto Tamar, Bring the meat into the chamber, that I may eat of thine hand. And Tamar took the cakes which she had made, & brought them into the chamber to Amnon her brother.
When Tamar entered Amnon's bedroom with the food, he asked her to go to bed with him. She refused, saying that it was a crime of incest. She then suggested that Amnon speak to David & ask him for her hand in marriage so that there would be no scandal about the affair.
2 Samuel 13:11–13
And when she had brought them unto him to eat, he took hold of her, & said unto her, Come lie with me, my sister. And she answered him, Nay, my brother, do not force me; for no such thing ought to be done in Israel: do not thou this folly. And I, whither shall I cause my shame to go? And as for thee, thou shalt be as one of the fools in Israel. Now therefore, I pray thee, speak unto the king; for he will not withhold me from thee.
But Amnon would not listen to reason. He forcibly raped Tamar & then hated her for having refused him, his hatred exceeding the love he had felt for her. Amnon had his servant put Tamar out of his quarters. As Tamar left, she rent her clothes, put ashes on her head & went away weeping.
2 Samuel 13:14–19
Howbeit he would not hearken unto her voice: but, being stronger than she, forced her, & lay with her. Then Amnon hated her exceedingly; so that the hatred wherewith he hated her was greater than the love wherewith he had loved her. And Amnon said unto her, Arise, be gone. And she said unto him, There is no cause: this evil in sending me away is greater than the other that thou didst unto me. But he would not hearken unto her. Then he called his servant that ministered unto him, & said, Put now this woman out from me, & bolt the door after her. And she had a garment of divers colours upon her: for with such robes were the king's daughters that were virgins apparelled. Then his servant brought her out, & bolted the door after her. And Tamar put ashes on her head, & rent her garment of divers colours that was on her, & laid her hand on her head, & went on crying.
When Amnon approached Tamar, he undoubtedly already knew of the legal prohibitions against copulation with his own sister, even though she was only his half-sister. When he first accosted Tamar, she forcefully reminded him that what he was asking of her was against the Hebrew law.
Leviticus 20:17
And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, & see her nakedness, & she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; & they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.
Deuteronomy 27:22
Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of his mother. And all the people shall say, Amen.
Tamar's suggestion that David might be willing to give her to Amnon in marriage indicates that matrimony between a brother & a sister was not out of the question at this stage in Israel's history.
Lot Impregnates His Daughters
Before the destruction of Sodom, Lot fled Sodom for a city named Zoar. Later, Lot was fearful of the people of Zoar & he & his 2 daughters headed for the nearby mountains, where they decided to live in a cave.
Genesis 19:30
And Lot went up out of Zoar, & dwelt in the mountain, & his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: & he dwelt in a cave, he & his two daughters.
Because of the fate of their mother, Lot's 2 daughters were determined that their clan should continue uninterrupted, & since their father was seemingly unwilling to let them marry any of the local men, before Lot was too old to father any more progeny, they decided literally to take matters into their own hands. The eider daughter devised a plan whereby they would both get their father drunk & she would then engage in intercourse with him.
Genesis 19:31–33
And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, & there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth: Come, let us make our father drink wine, & we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night: & the firstborn went in, & lay with her father; & he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
The following day, the elder daughter suggested that her younger sister repeat the incestuous act, & that night, they got Lot drunk once again & this time the younger daughter took her turn lying with her father. In both cases, Lot's drunken stupor was so great that he didn't even realize he was having sexual relations with his daughters.
Genesis 19:34–35
And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; & go thou in, & lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our Father. And they made their father drink wine that night also: & the younger arose, & lay with him; & he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
Both young women became pregnant by their father Lot & their plan to preserve his seed was successful.
Absalom's Defiant Act of Multiple Incest
Absalom had joined with all the men of Israel in a conspiracy against his father David. When David fled Jerusalem before Absalom's arrival there, he left 10 of his concubines (mistresses) to keep the house.
2 Samuel 15:16
And the king went forth, & all his household after him. And the king left ten women, which were concubines, to keep the house.
When Absalom arrived in Jerusalem, he fornicated with the 10 concubines in a special tent constructed on the roof of the palace so that all Israel would be aware of what he was doing. His act of multiple incest was the ultimate symbol of his utter disdain for David's authority.
2 Samuel 16:21–22
And Ahithophel said unto Absalom, Go in unto thy father's concubines, which he hath left to keep the house; & all Israel shall hear that thou art abhorred of thy father: then shall the hands of all that are with thee be strong. So they spread Absalom a tent upon the top of the house; & Absalom went in unto his father's concubines in the sight of all Israel.
Absalom's deed provided all Israel with an opportunity to become voyeurs while watching the royal philanderer "hard" at work.
Wife After Death
Hebrew law dictated that if a married man die without children, his wife should become his brother's wife so that she would have a chance at children & be able to carry on his name. This made for multiple wives in some cases, of course.
Deuteronomy 25:5–10
If brethren dwell together, & one of them die, & have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, & take her to him to wife, & perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her. And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel. And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders, & say, My husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother. Then the elders of his city shall call him, & speak unto him: & if he stand to it, & say, I like not to take her; Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, & loose his shoe from off his foot, & spit in his face, & shall answer & say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother's house. And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.
Venereal Disease
David once pronounced a curse upon Joab in which he declared: "Let there not fail from the house of Joab one that hath an issue." (2Sam.3:29) R.H. Pfeiffer translates this in The Hebrew Iliad as "one ill with gonorrhea." It is impossible to conjecture what else it would be.
Lot Thwarts a Gay Mob Assault
This is how it all began: Abraham's nephew Lot went to live in Sodom. Because of the great wickedness of the inhabitants of Sodom, Jehovah revealed to Abraham that he was going to destroy this city of the plain together with her sister city of Gomorrah. Abraham entreated Jehovah to spare Sodom, but to no avail. Jehovah was willing to spare the life of Lot & his family, however, & as our story opens, 2 angel messengers have just arrived in Sodom & Lot has invited them to stay at his home.
Genesis 19:1–3
And there came two angels to Sodom at even; & Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: & Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; & he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, & tarry all night, & wash your feet, & ye shall rise up early, & go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night. And he pressed upon them greatly; & they turned in unto him, & entered into his house; & he made them a feast, & did bake unleavened bread, & they did eat.
The lustful men of the city had noticed the 2 strangers in their midst, & they went to Lot's home to seek them out so that they could use them for their own sexual gratification. In verse 5, we encounter the Hebrew verb yada once again, but here the best translation would be: "Bring them out unto us so that we may rape them."
Genesis 19:4–5
But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old & young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, & said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
Lot was horrified at the suggestion of sexual liberties being taken with men who were guests under his roof & he forthright offered to give his 2 virgin daughters to the mob to do with what they wanted.
Genesis 19:6–8
And Lot went out at the door unto them, & shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have 2 daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, & do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.
The Sodomites were resentful of Lot, a relative newcomer to the area, setting himself up as their judge, & they lunged at him & attempted to break down the door of his house.
Genesis 19:9
And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, & he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, & came near to break the door.
The angel guests pulled Lot inside, bolted the door & struck of the Sodomite mob with blindness,
Genesis 19:10–11
But the men put forth their hand, & pulled Lot into the house to them, & shut to the door. And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small & great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door.
The angels then warned Lot of the impending doom of the city & instructed him to flee with all his family.
Genesis 19:12–14
And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? Son in law, & thy sons, & thy daughters, & whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place: For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the Lord; & the Lord hath sent us to destroy it. And Lot went out, & spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, & said, Up, get you out of this place; for the Lord will destroy this city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law.
The next morning, Lot & his family fled from Sodom & headed for Zoar. As soon as Lot & his family entered Zoar, Jehovah obliterated both Sodom & Gomorrah.
Somewhat in defense of what appears as a heinous act on the part of Lot in offering both his virgin daughters to this sensual mob, it should be noted that Lot must have taken his responsibilities of Near Eastern hospitality so seriously that he did not hesitate to do anything to protect his guests. That he undoubtedly would have done the same thing for ordinary human visitors is borne out by the similar account in Judg.19 (see Chap.16), but he surely felt his obligation to be even greater with divine house guests who were personal emissaries of Jehovah.
King David Commits Both Adultery & Murder
When David first spotted Bathsheba from his roof as she was taking a bath, he wasted no time in finding out who she was & in having her brought to him so that he could fornicate with her. He was willing to obey the Hebrew law in part—before committing adultery with Bathsheba, he made sure that she had finished her post-menstrual ceremonial purification rites. Only then did he freely engage in the adulterous act with her.
2 Samuel 11:2–4
And it came to pass in an eveningtide, that David arose from off his bed, & walked upon the roof of the king's house: & from the roof he saw a woman washing herself; & the woman was very beautiful to look upon. And David sent & inquired after the woman. And one said, Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite? And David sent messengers, & took her; & she came in unto him, & he lay with her; for she was purified from her uncleanness: & she returned unto her house.
Bathsheba became pregnant by David, & upon hearing this, he arranged for the return from the front lines of Bathsheba's husband Uriah. David inquired of Uriah how the war was progressing & he told him that he was free to spend the night at home. Uriah, however, as a faithful warrior, spent the night instead at the gate of David's palace & therefore foiled David's plan to cover up Bathsheba's pregnancy.
2 Samuel 11:5–9
And the woman conceived, & sent & told David, & said, I am with child. And David sent to Joab, saying, Send me Uriah the Hittite. And Joab sent Uriah to David. And when Uriah was come unto him, David demanded of him how Joab did, & how the people did, & how the war prospered. And David said to Uriah, Go down to thy house, & wash thy feet. And Uriah departed out of the king's house, & there followed him a mess of meat from the king. But Uriah slept at the door of the king's house with all the servants of his lord, & went not down to his house.
When David learned that Uriah had not gone home, he queried him & he explained that he could not in a time of war put his own comfort & pleasure first.
2 Samuel 11:10–11
And when they had told David, saying, Uriah went not down unto his house, David said unto Uriah, Camest thou not from thy journey? Why then didst thou not go down unto thine house? And Uriah said unto David, The ark, & Israel, & Judah, abide in tents; & my lord Joab, & the servants of my lord, are encamped in the open fields; shall I then go into mine house, to eat & to drink, & to lie with my wife? As thou livest, & as thy soul liveth, I will not do this thing.
David urged Uriah to spend one more day with him, & even though David got Uriah drunk that night, he once again stayed at the palace rather than take advantage of the opportunity to spend the night with his wife Bathsheba.
2 Samuel 11:12–13
And David said to Uriah, Tarry here to day also, & to morrow I will let thee depart. So Uriah abode in Jerusalem that day, & the morrow. And when David had called him, he did eat & drink before him; & he made him drunk: & at even he went out to lie on his bed with the servants of his lord, but went not down to his house.
The next day, David sent a message to his commander Joab for Uriah to be put in the front lines of battle, & Joab executed his command. Uriah then died in battle & the message of his death was immediately transmitted to David so that the monarch knew that his plot had succeeded.
Upon learning of her husband's demise, Bathsheba observed a suitable period of mourning & then married David & bore him a son.
2 Samuel 11:26–27
And when the wife of Uriah heard that Uriah her husband was dead, she mourned for her husband. And when the mourning was past, David sent & fetched her to his house, & she became his wife, & bare him a son. But the thing that David had done displeased the Lord.
Cast the First Stone
John 8:1–11
Jesus went unto the Mount of Olives. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, & all the people came unto him; & he sat down, & taught them. And the scribes & Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; & when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the Law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, & with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, & said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, & wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: & Jesus was left alone, & the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, & saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, & sin no more.
It is frequently pointed out that Christ did not insulate himself from the common people & that he often consorted with thieves, prostitutes &, in this case, an adulteress.
King David the Flasher
David planned to bring the Ark of the Covenant home & he & his men set the Ark on a new cart in order to transport it safely. The drivers of the cart were Uzzah & Ahio, & as the cart wended its homeward way with the Ark perched safely on it, the accompanying procession sang & played musical instruments.
2 Samuel 6:1–5
Again, David gathered together all the chosen men of Israel, 30,000. And David arose, & went with all the people that were with him from Baale of Judah, to bring up from thence the ark of God, whose name is called by the name of the Lord of hosts that dwelleth between the cherubims. And they set the ark of God upon a new cart, & brought it out of the house of Abinadab that was in Gibeah: & Uzzah & Ahio, the sons of Abinadab, drave the new cart. And they brought it out of the house of Abinadab which was at Gibeah, accompanying the ark of God: & Ahio went before the ark. And David & all the house of Israel played before the Lord on all manner of instruments made of fir wood, even on harps, & on psalteries, & on timbrels, & on cornets, & on cymbals.
When they arrived at the threshing floor of Nachon, Uzzah put his hand out to steady the Ark & to keep it from failing from its perch. Jehovah was displeased & struck him dead on the spot for having touched the Ark. David then became angry with Jehovah for having killed Uzzah & named the spot in Uzzah's honor.
2 Samuel 6:6–8
And when they came to Nachon's threshingfloor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, & took hold of it; for the oxen shook it. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah; & God smote him there for his error; & there he died by the ark of God. And David was displeased, because the Lord had made a breach upon Uzzah: & he called the name of the place Perezuzzah to this day.
Since at this point David was afraid to take the Ark home with him, he left it at the home of Obed-edom for 3 months.
2 Samuel 6:9–11
And David was afraid of the Lord that day, & said, How shall the ark of the Lord come to me? So David would not remove the ark of the Lord unto him into the city of David: but David carried it aside into the house of Obededom the Gittite. And the ark of the Lord continued in the house of Obededom the Gittite three months: & the Lord blessed Obededom, & all his household.
When David realized that Jehovah prospered & blessed Obed-edom for having the ark at his home, he decided to get it & to bring it home with him. The procession entered the city with much jubilation & David leaped & danced as they arrived in the city with the crowds acclaiming their return. Michal watched the parade from her window & despised David in her heart for his actions during the procession.
2 Samuel 6:12–16
And it was told king David, saying, The Lord hath blessed the house of Obededom, & all that pertaineth unto him, because of the ark of God. So David went & brought up the ark of God from the house of Obededom into the city of David with gladness. And it was so, that when they that bare the ark of the Lord had gone 6 paces, he sacrificed oxen & fatlings. And David danced before the Lord with all his might; & David was girded with a linen ephod. So David & all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the Lord with shouting, & with the sound of the trumpet. And as the ark of the Lord came into the city of David, Michal Saul's daughter looked through a window, & saw King David leaping & dancing before the Lord; & she despised him in her heart.
The ark was then placed in the tabernacle with appropriate peace offerings to the Lord. David then blessed the people & dismissed them.
When David returned to his home, Michal accused him of exposing himself before the crowd like a common pervert, & her accusation indicates that his dance before the throngs involved a display of his genitals so that the women who lined the road into the city were treated to the sight of their king flashing his royal penis!
2 Samuel 6:20
Then David returned to bless his household. And Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, & said, How glorious was the king of Israel today, who uncovered himself today in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself!
David responded angrily to Michal by explaining that anything he did that afternoon was because of his joy in returning home with the ark. As a result of this altercation, Michal remained childless all of her life.
2 Samuel 6:21–23
And David said unto Michal, It was before the Lord, which chose me before thy father, & before all his house, to appoint me ruler over the people of the Lord, over Israel: therefore will I play before the Lord. And I will yet be more vile than thus, & will be base in mine own sight: & of the maidservants which thou hast spoken of, of them shall I be had in honour. Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.
Prophesying in the Nude
1 Samuel 19:20–24
And Saul sent messengers to take David: & when they saw the company of the prophets prophesying, & Samuel standing as appointed over them, the Spirit of God was upon the messengers of Saul, & they also prophesied. And when it was told Saul, he sent other messengers, & they prophesied likewise. And Saul sent messengers again the third time, & they prophesied also. Then went he also to Ramah, & came to a great well that is in Sechu: & he asked & said, Where are Samuel & David? And one said, Behold, they be at Naioth in Ramah. And he went thither to Naioth in Ramah: & the Spirit of God was upon him also, & he went on, & prophesied, until he came to Naioth in Ramah. And he stripped off his clothes also, & prophesied before Samuel in like manner, & lay down naked all that day & all that night. Wherefore they say, Is Saul also among the prophets?
With respect to the witnesses of this display of nudity, they only seemed shocked to learn that Saul had prophesied for the first time & should now be counted among Israel's prophets.
Although Saul acted on his own, Isaiah was given a direct injunction by Jehovah to prophesy in the nude, & this was to continue for a period of 3 years.
Isaiah 20:1–5
In the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod, (when Sargon the king of Assyria sent him,) & fought against Ashdod, & took it; At the same time spake the Lord by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, Go & loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, & put off thy shoe from thy foot. And he did so, walking naked & barefoot. And the Lord said, Like as my servant Isaiah hath walked naked & barefoot three years for a sign & wonder upon Egypt & upon Ethiopia; So shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, & the Ethiopians captives, young & old, naked & barefoot, even with their buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt. And they shall be afraid & ashamed of Ethiopia their expectation, & of Egypt their glory.
Isaiah's influence was felt among the minor prophets, & the words of Micah indicate that he would imitate Isaiah's actions in his prophesying.
Micah 1:8
Therefore I will wail & howl, I will go stripped & naked: I will make a wailing like the dragons, & mourning as the owls.
Judah Patronizes a Disguised Hooker
After Onan's death, Judah sent Tamar back to her family promising that when his youngest son Shelah was old enough, he would allow him to marry her. Judah probably had no intention of doing this, for both of his older sons had already died at Jehovah's hand & at this point in time, Tamar must have represented a curse to him. Not wanting to jeopardize the life of his only remaining son, therefore, he decided to send Tamar away from his home.
Genesis 38:11
Then said Judah to Tamar his daughter in law, Remain a widow at thy father's house, till Shelah my son be grown: for he said, Lest peradventure he die also, as his brethren did. And Tamar went & dwelt in her father's house.
Tamar must have sensed that Judah's promise of marriage to Shelah was spurious, & not wanting to remain forever barren, she decided to disguise herself as a harlot & offer herself to him as a desperate means of getting pregnant. Her opportunity came shortly after the death of Judah's wife when Judah made a journey through Timnath.
Genesis 38:12–14
And in process of time the daughter of Shuah Judah's wife died; & Judah was comforted, & went up unto his sheepshearers to Timnath, he & his friend Hirah the Adullamite. And it was told Tamar, saying, Behold thy father in law goeth up to Timnath to shear his sheep. And she put her widow's garments off from her, & covered her with a vail, & wrapped herself, & sat in an open place, which is by the way to Timnath; for she saw that Shelah was grown, & she was not given unto him to wife.
Judah mistook Tamar for a hooker & propositioned her as soon as he saw her. Tamar immediately asked what her pay was to be & Judah offered her a young goat. As a security pledge for Tamar to hold until the arrival of the young goat, he gave her his ring, bracelets & staff. Then they fornicated. Convinced that she would now conceive, Tamar went away & removed her harlot's disguise & once again donned her garments of widowhood.
Genesis 38:15–19
When Judah saw her, he thought her to be an harlot; because she had covered her face. And he turned unto her by the way, & said, Go to, I pray thee, let me come in unto thee; (for he knew not that she was his daughter in law.) And she said, What wilt thou give me, that thou mayest come in unto me? And he said, I will send thee a kid from the flock. And she said, Wilt thou give me a pledge, till thou send it? And he said, What pledge shall I give thee? And she said, Thy signet, & thy bracelets, & thy staff that is in thine hand. And he gave it her, & came in unto her, & she conceived by him. And she arose, & went away, & laid by her vail from her, & put on the garments of her widowhood.
Judah sent his friend Hirah the Adullarnite to search for the harlot & to give her the young goat which he had promised. Hirah was unable to find the prostitute to give her the goat or to recover Judah's ring, bracelets & staff. Upon hearing the news, Judah decided that it would be better to let the whore have his things than it would be to cause any embarrassment.
Genesis 38:20–23
And Judah sent the kid by the hand of his friend the Adullamite, to receive his pledge from the woman's hand: but he found her not. Then he asked the men of that place, saying, Where is the harlot, that was openly by the way side? And they said, There was no harlot in this place. And he returned to Judah, & said, I cannot find her; & also the men of the place said, that there was no harlot in this place. And Judah said, Let her take it to her, lest we be shamed: behold, I sent this kid, & thou hast not found her.
Three months later, Judah discovered that his daughter-in-law Tamar was pregnant, & since he believed that she had been guilty of promiscuous & illicit sexual relations, he decreed that she should be burned to death, the severest penalty ever exacted for fornication under the Hebrew law.
Genesis 38:24
And it came to pass about 3 months after, that it was told Judah, saying, Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; & also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, & let her be burnt.
When Tamar was brought before Judah, she declared that the man by whom she was pregnant was the man to whom belonged the ring, bracelets & the staff which she then produced. Judah recognized that Tamar was more honest than he because he had not honored his promise to her to send his youngest son Shelah to marry her, & he forgave her, but never again got it on with her.
Genesis 38:25–26
When she was brought forth, she sent to her father in law, saying, By the man, whose these are, am I with child: & she said, Discern, I pray thee, whose are these, the signet, & bracelets, & staff. And Judah acknowledged them, & said, She hath been more righteous than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah my son. And he knew her again no more.
The story of Judah & the disguised harlot reveals that there was little or no prejudice in Israel against purely secular prostitution. This seems to be the case throughout the Old Testament, & it is not until we arrive at the diatribes of Paul against sex in general that we have a really strong Biblical pronouncement against prostitution.
Rahab, the Favored Madam of Jericho
Before Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, he sent 2 spies to the city to survey the situation. The 2 men stayed at the town brothel run by the local madam, Rahab. The account does not tell whether or not they only "lodged" there!
The king of Jericho heard rumors that there were 2 spies at Rahab's bordello, & he sent for the men. Rahab hid the spies on her roof & confessed to the king's envoys that the spies had been there, but she told them that they had already gone. The envoys pursued the spies as far as Jordan & the city gate was immediately shut behind them in case they were still at large in Jericho.
Rahab next went to the spies & told them that she knew Jehovah was protecting them & that her land would soon be conquered by Israel.
In return for her favor of hiding & protecting them, she asked that she & her family be spared when Israel came to conquer Jericho. The spies agreed to honor Rahab's request.
She then let them down from her roof with a rope, & since her house was located on top of the town wall, the spies easily escaped from the city. She also warned them to hide in the mountains outside the city for at least three days so that the king's envoys who were still pursuing them would not find them.
The Israelite spies promised Rahab that both she & her family would be safe during the attack, but that they must remain inside the brothel & that the scarlet rope which they were going to use to escape should stay outside the window as an identifying sign for the attacking Israelite warriors. They also swore Rahab to secrecy.
Rahab agreed to abide by their terms, & as soon as they departed, she fastened the scarlet cord to her window.
The spies spent 3 days in the mountains, later returning to Joshua & relating everything which had happened in Jericho to their leader.
Joshua did make good his promise & when the army arrived in Jericho, they had instructions to destroy the city except for Rahab & her house.
Not only did Joshua spare Rahab & all her household, but they were also allowed to continue living in Israel for her heroic act of assisting the 2 spies. The inquisitive reader cannot help wondering whether or not Rahab continued to ply her trade among the Israelites.
In the New Testament, both Paul & James extol Rahab for her courageous help to Israel.
Hebrews 11:30–31
By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days. By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace.
James 2:24–26
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, & not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, & had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
Jehovah Commands Hosea to Marry a Whore
Jehovah gave Hosea a direct command to marry the prostitute Gomer.
Hosea 1:1–3
The word of the Lord that came unto Hosea, the son of Beeri, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, & Hezekiah, kings of Judah, & in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel. The beginning of the word of the Lord by Hosea. And the Lord said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms & children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the Lord. So he went & took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim; which conceived, & bare him a son.
Although Gomer bore Hosea 3 children, she was unable to make a complete break with her past & continued to ply her trade & thus to commit adultery.
Hosea 2:1–5
Say ye unto your brethren, Ammi; & to your sisters, Ruhamah. Plead with your mother, plead: for she is not my wife, neither am I her husband: let her therefore put away her whoredoms out of her sight, & her adulteries from between her breasts; Lest I strip her naked, & set her as in the day that she was born, & make her as a wilderness, & set her like a dry land, & slay her with thirst. And I will not have mercy upon her children; for they be the children of whoredoms. For their mother hath played the harlot: she that conceived them hath done shamefully: for she said, I will go after my lovers, that give me my bread & my water, my wool & my flax, mine oil & my drink.
He then moved with Gomer into the wilderness, hoping that by isolating her from all temptation, she would be able to remain faithful to him.
Hosea 2:14–15
Therefore, behold, I will allure her, & bring her into the wilderness, & speak comfortably unto her. And I will give her her vineyards from thence, & the valley of Achor for a door of hope: & she shall sing there, as in the days of her youth, & as in the day when she came up out of the land of Egypt.
Finally, in utter despair over Gomer's unfaithfulness, he sold her into slavery. But the Lord commanded the prophet to bring her back.
Hosea 3:1–3
Then said the Lord unto me, Go yet, love a woman beloved of her friend, yet an adulteress, according to the love of the Lord toward the children of Israel, who look to other gods, & love flagons of wine. So I bought her to me for 15 pieces of silver, & for an homer of barley, & an half homer of barley: And I said unto her, Thou shalt abide for me many days; thou shalt not play the harlot, & thou shalt not be for another man: so will I also be for thee.
Christ & Women of Ill Repute
Christ did not hesitate to mix freely with prostitutes. In the instance of Mary of Bethany, who washed & anointed Christ's feet with her own hair as He sat to eat at the home of a Pharisee, He told her that her sins were forgiven.
Luke 7:36–50
And one of the Pharisees desired Him that He would eat with him. And He went into the Pharisee's house, & sat down to meat. And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment, And stood at His feet behind him weeping, & began to wash His feet with tears, & did wipe them with the hairs of her head, & kissed His feet, & anointed them with the ointment. Now when the Pharisee which had bidden Him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who & what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner. And Jesus answering said unto him, Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee. And he saith, Master, say on. There was a certain creditor which had 2 debtors: the one owed 500 pence, & the other 50. And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most? Simon answered & said, I suppose that he, to whom he forgave most. And he said unto him, Thou hast rightly judged. And He turned to the woman, & said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest Me no water for My feet: but she hath washed My feet with tears, & wiped them with the hairs of her head. Thou gavest Me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet. My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed My feet with ointment. Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little. And He said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven. And they that sat at meat with Him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also? And He said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.
Christ broke even further with tradition when He announced that prostitutes weren't the worst sinners around.
Matthew 21:31
Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans & the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.
All of this break with tradition gives an entirely new dimension of the true nature of Christ. Norman Pittenger, an Anglican specialist in Christology, has written:
It is of first importance to stress that to speak of Jesus as being truly human is also to speak of Him as a sexual being. Whatever ways He may have chosen to express or to rechannel His sexuality ... it is clear that when His sinlessness is mentioned we do not, or should not, take this to imply asexuality.
Sacred Prostitution
The subject of sacred prostitution is a difficult one at best, not only because we really do not know just how the system worked, but also because it is virtually impossible for the modern reader to comprehend such a practice. Gordon Rattray Taylor helps in conceptualizing this activity by his description in Sex in History, p. 227:
The term prostitution, with its connotations of sordid commercialism & hole-&-corner lust, wholly misrepresents the sacred & uplifting character of the experience, as it was experienced by those who took part. It was nothing less than an act of communion with God & was as remote from sensuality as the Christian act of communion is remote from gluttony.
Hagar, the Baby Maker
Sarah was sterile & attributed her barrenness to Jehovah's having withheld from her the privilege of motherhood. She therefore urged Abraham to have intercourse with her maid Hagar in order to perpetuate his seed.
Genesis 16:1–3
Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: & she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the Lord hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt 10 years in the land of Canaan, & gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.
Abraham acceded to Sarah's request, but enmity immediately developed between Sarah & Hagar, with the result that Hagar ran away.
Genesis 16:4–6
And he went in unto Hagar, & she conceived: & when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes. And Sarai said unto Abram, My wrong be upon thee: I have given my maid into thy bosom; & when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: the Lord judge between me & thee. But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, thy maid is in thy hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee. And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face.
Jehovah instructed Hagar to return to Abraham & Sarah, & Hagar obeyed the angel who delivered this solemn message. It was promised to Hagar that her seed would be multiplied exceedingly.
Genesis 16:7–10
And the angel of the Lord found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur. And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid, whence camest thou? & whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai. And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Return to thy mistress, & submit thyself under her hands. And the angel of the Lord said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.
What is interesting about this entire incident of Hagar serving as a baby maker is that although Sarah had not conceived as yet, she was destined to conceive in her old age after her near affair with King Abimelech. The lifting of the sterility curse on the king's household seemed to have had an effect on Sarah as well, & the once-barren wife of Abraham became fertile. The son of her old age was to be Isaac.
When it was first announced to Sarah by 3 angel-messengers sent by Jehovah that she would bear a son in her old age, she was so incredulous of the possibility that she laughed to herself, asking whether she was going to enjoy sex at her advanced age.
Genesis 18:10–14
And he said, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son. And Sarah heard it in the tent door, which was behind him. Now Abraham & Sarah were old & well stricken in age; & it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women. Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also? And the Lord said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old? Is any thing too hard for the Lord? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, & Sarah shall have a son.
The precedent established by Sarah in conceiving a son after a lifetime of infertility was to be followed by other notable Bible personages. Manoah's wife was visited by an angel who announced that she would give birth to Samson (Judg.13:2–3).
Through the ministrations of the priest Eli, Elkanah's wife Hannah promised Jehovah that, if he would open up her womb, she would dedicate her son to him (1Sam.1:1–28). She became the mother of Samuel, whose very name in Hebrew means "asked of God." Samuel became one of Israel's most prominent judges & it was he who anointed David (1Sam.16:13).
In the New Testament, the priest Zacharias was visited by the angel Gabriel, who announced that his wife Elizabeth would conceive although she was well past menopause. Their son was to be John the Baptist (Lk.1:5–25). And of course, there followed the story of Elizabeth's cousin, Mary, who gave birth to Christ.
Jacob's Fertility Contest
After laboring 7 years to win Rachel's hand, Jacob understandably wanted to make up for lost time. Since Jacob favored Rachel over Leah, Jehovah sided with Leah by allowing her to be fertile & making Rachel sterile.
Genesis 29:31
And when the Lord saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren.
Then began the fertility contest which resulted in the birth of the 12 sons who would later become the progenitors of the 12 tribes of Israel. (Jacob's name was subsequently changed to "Israel"—see Genesis 32:28.)
Genesis 29:32–35, 30:1–13
And Leah conceived, & bare a son, & she called his name Reuben: for she said, Surely the Lord hath looked upon my affliction; now therefore my husband will love me. And she conceived again, & bare a son; & said, Because the Lord hath heard that I was hated, he hath therefore given me this son also: & she called his name Simeon. And she conceived again, & bare a son; & said, Now this time will my husband be joined unto me, because I have born him three sons: therefore was his name called Levi. And she conceived again, & bare a son: & she said, Now will I praise the Lord: therefore she called his name Judah; & left bearing. And when Rachel saw that she bare Jacob no children, Rachel envied her sister; & said unto Jacob, Give me children, or else I die. And Jacob's anger was kindled against Rachel: & he said, Am I in God's stead, who hath withheld from thee the fruit of the womb? And she said, Behold my maid Bilhah, go in unto her; & she shall bear upon my knees, that I may also have children by her. And she gave him Bilhah her handmaid to wife: & Jacob went in unto her. And Bilhah conceived, & bare Jacob a son. And Rachel said, God hath judged me, & hath also heard my voice, & hath given me a son: therefore called she his name Dan. And Bilhah Rachel's maid conceived again, & bare Jacob a second son. And Rachel said, With great wrestlings have I wrestled with my sister, & I have prevailed: & she called his name Naphtali. When Leah saw that she had left bearing, she took Zilpah her maid, & gave her Jacob to wife. And Zilpah Leah's maid bare Jacob a son. And Leah said, A troop cometh: & she called his name Gad. And Zilpah Leah's maid bare Jacob a second son. And Leah said, Happy am I, for the daughters will call me blessed: & she called his name Asher.
Then Leah's son Reuben, now a grown boy, went out into the fields & brought his mother some mandrakes. This Mediterranean herb is a member of the nightshade family of plants & to this day in the Middle East, it is believed to increase fertility in women, overcome impotence in men & to act as a powerful aphrodisiac. Even its roots have a decidedly phallic appearance.
Leah planned to keep the mandrakes for herself, when Rachel asked that Leah give her some of the sex plants. Leah became infuriated by the request from her sister, who had already stolen her husband & she thought it presumptuous of Rachel to want the sex plants as well. Rachel then agreed, in exchange for the mandrakes, to allow Leah to sleep with Jacob that night in order to try out her fertility fruit. In polygamous marriages, the husband customarily alternated sleeping with his 2 wives. But one of the wives could always purchase from the other wife the privilege of sleeping with the husband on a given night. Today this would doubtless be called "husband swapping." The result was that Leah got pregnant & bore 2 more sons & a daughter.
Genesis 30:16–21
And Jacob came out of the field in the evening, & Leah went out to meet him, & said, Thou must come in unto me; for surely I have hired thee with my son's mandrakes. And he lay with her that night. And God hearkened unto Leah, & she conceived, & bare Jacob the fifth son. And Leah said, God hath given me my hire, because I have given my maiden to my husband: & she called his name Issachar. And Leah conceived again, & bare Jacob the sixth son. And Leah said, God hath endued me with a good dowry; now will my husband dwell with me, because I have born him 6 sons: & she called his name Zebulun. And afterwards she bare a daughter, & called her name Dinah.
The Hair of the Feet
A curiosity in Bible language is the use of the word "feet." This word is used euphemistically in other places to stand for the genitals. One of the prophets predicted that, as the Israelites were to be carried off into exile, the Assyrian king who was their captor would shave both the hair of their heads as well as their pubic hair.
Isaiah 7:20
In the same day shall the Lord shave with a razor that is hired, namely, by them beyond the river, by the king of Assyria, the head, & the hair of the feet: & it shall also consume the beard.
Major Wife-Kidnapping Expeditions
After the barbaric rape & murder of the Levite's concubine-wife (see Judges Chapter 19), the tribe of Benjamin had been virtually obliterated. The few hundred Benjamites who remained were in need of wives, but the other tribes of Israel had considered Benjamin to be an accursed tribe & they were all refusing to let any of their daughters marry any of the Benjamites.
At a council meeting of the tribes of Israel, one tribe had failed to send any representatives—the tribe of Jabesh-Gilead. Therefore, in reaction to this blatant breach of the Hebrew law, the entire tribe of Jabesh-Gilead was condemned to death.
Twelve thousand soldiers were sent against this tribe & they followed the usual pattern of slaying all the males & all the females who were not virgins. In this instance, they even slew all the children, both male & female, & spared only the virgins of marriageable age.
Judges 21:10–11
And the congregation sent thither 12,000 men of the valiantest, & commanded them, saying, Go & smite the inhabitants of Jabesh‑Gilead with the edge of the sword, with the women & the children. And this is the thing that ye shall do, Ye shall utterly destroy every male, & every woman that hath lain by man.
The total bounty from this foray & massacre was 400 virgins, & all 400 were sent to the Benjamites as a peace & goodwill offering so that they would now have wives to marry. The 400 young women, however, were not quite enough to provide wives for all the Benjamites.
Judges 21:12–15
And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh‑Gilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male: & they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan. And the whole congregation sent some to speak to the children of Benjamin that were in the rock Rimmon, & to call peaceably unto them. And Benjamin came again at that time; & they gave them wives which they had saved alive of the women of Jabesh‑Gilead: & yet so they sufficed them not. And the people repented them for Benjamin, because that the Lord had made a breach in the tribes of Israel.
The council of the 12 tribes reconvened & tried to decide how they could provide wives for the remaining unmarried Benjamites without allowing any of their daughters to marry them & without destroying still another tribe of Israel.
A second expedition was then planned to kidnap prospective wives from among the women of Shiloh who were dancing in the vineyards as part of what was probably a country festival. It was to be explained to any complaining fathers or brothers that this was simply an alternate plan rather than destroying still another tribe of Israel or allowing any daughters to willingly marry a Benjamite.
Judges 21:19–22
Then they said, Behold, there is a feast of the Lord in Shiloh yearly in a place which is on the north side of Bethel, on the east side of the highway that goeth up from Bethel to Shechem, & on the south of Lebonah. Therefore they commanded the children of Benjamin, saying, Go & lie in wait in the vineyards; And see, and, behold, if the daughters of Shiloh come out to dance in dances, then come ye out of the vineyards, & catch you every man his wife of the daughters of Shiloh, & go to the land of Benjamin. And it shall be, when their fathers or their brethren come unto us to complain, that we will say unto them, Be favourable unto them for our sakes: because we reserved not to each man his wife in the war: for ye did not give unto them at this time, that ye should be guilty.
The kidnapping plan was executed as conceived, although the number of virgins who were thus abducted is not revealed.
Judges 21:23–25
And the children of Benjamin did so, & took them wives, according to their number, of them that danced, whom they caught: & they went & returned unto their inheritance, & repaired the cities, & dwelt in them. And the children of Israel departed thence at that time, every man to his tribe & to his family, & they went out from thence every man to his inheritance. In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
Women as Spoils of War
Deuteronomy 21:10–14
When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, & the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, & thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, & hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; & she shall shave her head, & pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, & shall remain in thine house, & bewail her father & her mother a full month: & after that thou shalt go in unto her, & be her husband, & she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.
Jehovah decreed that once a man divested himself of a woman captured in war, he could not sell her as a slave.
Woman Was Made for Man
In Ge.24, the marriage arrangement between Isaac & Rebekah is retold very touchingly & simply. Isaac's father, Abraham, had sent his steward to seek Rebekah's hand. She had never seen Isaac, but didn't hesitate to reply to the emissary.
Genesis 24:58
And they called Rebekah, & said unto her, Wilt thou go with this man? And she said, I will go.
Rebekah accompanied the steward to the home of Abraham & was greeted by Isaac, who was meditating in the fields as they arrived. They wasted no time in consummating their prearranged union.
Genesis 24:63–67
And Isaac went out to meditate in the field at the eventide: & he lifted up his eyes, & saw, and, behold, the camels were coming. And Rebekah lifted up her eyes, & when she saw Isaac, she lighted off the camel. For she had said unto the servant, What man is this that walketh in the field to meet us? And the servant had said, It is my master: therefore she took a vail, & covered herself. And the servant told Isaac all things that he had done. And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, & took Rebekah, & she became his wife; & he loved her: & Isaac was comforted after his mother's death.
Solomon's Sage Advice to Two Prostitutes
A popular children's Bible story is that of Solomon & his wise counsel to 2 women to determine which of them was really the mother of a child. In the expurgated version, Solomon's sagacity is always lauded, but there is never any indication that the 2 women were both prostitutes & that the baby in question was illegitimate. These 2 women had access to the king's audience chamber, & this once again indicates that there was very little stigma against secular prostitutes among the Israelites.
1 King 3:16–27:
Then came there 2 women, that were harlots, unto the king, & stood before him. And the one woman said, O my lord, I & this woman dwell in one house; & I was delivered of a child with her in the house. And it came to pass the third day after that I was delivered, that this woman was delivered also: & we were together; there was no stranger with us in the house, save we 2 in the house. And this woman's child died in the night; because she overlaid it. And she arose at midnight, & took my son from beside me, while thine handmaid slept, & laid it in her bosom, & laid her dead child in my bosom. And when I rose in the morning to give my child suck, behold, it was dead: but when I had considered it in the morning, behold, it was not my son, which I did bear. And the other woman said, Nay; but the living is my son, & the dead is thy son. And this said, No; but the dead is thy son, & the living is my son. Thus they spake before the king. Then said the king, The one saith, This is my son that liveth, & thy son is the dead: & the other saith, Nay; but thy son is the dead, & my son is the living. And the king said, Bring me a sword. And they brought a sword before the king. And the king said, Divide the living child in 2, & give half to the one, & half to the other. Then spake the woman whose the living child was unto the king, for her bowels yearned upon her son, & she said, O my lord, give her the living child, & in no wise slay it. But the other said, Let it be neither mine nor thine, but divide it. Then the king answered & said, Give her the living child, & in no wise slay it: she is the mother thereof.
A Honeymoon with the Wrong Bride
Isaac told Jacob that he should not marry a Canaanite woman, but rather that he should journey to Padan-aram where his Uncle Laban lived & there marry one of his cousins.
Jacob obediently traveled to his uncle's domain & upon arriving there, met Laban's daughter Rachel whom he fell in love with immediately.
Laban warmly welcomed Jacob into his home, & after just one month, they made a pact whereby Jacob agreed to work for Laban for 7 years in order to earn the hand of Rachel in marriage. The intensity of Jacob's love for Rachel can be measured by his statement that the 7 years seemed to him as but a few days.
At the end of the 7-year period, the marriage took place at a wedding feast held by Laban.
On that wedding night, Jacob was awaiting his new bride in the bridal chamber, but Laban brought Rachel's older sister Leah to the chamber instead. In an era of no electric lights, it was not until the next morning that Jacob discovered the trick Laban had played on him. He demanded an explanation from Laban for his actions.
Laban explained that it was the custom among his people always to marry off the older daughter before the younger one, a practice which he certainly should have taken the trouble to explain to Jacob seven years previously. Then a new pact was made, giving Rachel to Jacob at the end of the bridal week with Leah, but only on the condition that he remain yet another 7 years for the privilege. The "bridal week" was the 7-day celebration held in order to feast & make merry in honor of the joyous occasion.
A little later in Israel's history, Jacob would have been entitled to one full year of leisure. The Hebrew law subsequently stipulated that a newly-married male was exempt from military service for one full year & also from the responsibilities of making a livelihood. What a lengthy honeymoon!
Deuteronomy 24:5
When a man hath taken a new wife, he shall not go out to war, neither shall he be charged with any business: but he shall be free at home one year, & shall cheer up his wife which he hath taken.
The later Hebrew law would also have made both Laban & Jacob guilty of allowing 2 sisters to marry the same man. The Hebrew canon decreed that no Israelite could marry a second sister as long as the first sister was still alive.
Leviticus 18:18
Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.
Abraham & Isaac as Pimps
Abraham journeyed to Egypt with his wife Sarah, but he admonished her to pretend that she was his sister so that the Egyptians would not kill him in order to steal his wife.
When they arrived in Egypt, Sarah's beauty was immediately noticed & she was taken into Pharaoh's household, which of course meant that she was added to his great harem. Pharaoh compensated Abraham generously for his "sister." As part of the ruler's harem, she undoubtedly did what every other harem member did to please the king.
Some time later, Abraham & Sarah set off on a journey. This time, the same hoax was perpetrated on King Abimelech. But in a dream, Jehovah revealed to Abimelech that Abraham & Sarah were married & he exonerated Abimelech of any wrongdoing in this instance since he had acted in good faith & since he had not as yet made love to Sarah.
King Abimelech then confronted Abraham, & Abraham revealed to the monarch that Sarah really was his half-sister since they both had the same father.
Like father, like son! Isaac used his wife Rebekah to deceive a king with the same ruse that his father Abraham had contrived with Sarah. Once again, the fraud was perpetrated on King Abimelech, who surely should have learned his lesson by now. In this instance, the monarch discovered the subterfuge when he looked out of his palace window & saw Isaac & Rebekah petting—the modern equivalent of "sporting"—& the couple left the kingdom without Rebekah's ever getting to join the royal harem!
Delilah Betrays Samson
By means of an angel-messenger, Jehovah revealed to the wife of Manoah that she would bear a son & that he was to be consecrated as a Nazarite. This meant that his hair was never to be cut & that he was never to touch strong drink.
Judges 13:2–5
And there was a certain man of Zorah, of the family of the Danites, whose name was Manoah; & his wife was barren, & bare not. And the angel of the Lord appeared unto the woman, & said unto her, Behold now, thou art barren, & bearest not: but thou shalt conceive, & bear a son. Now therefore beware, I pray thee, & drink not wine nor strong drink, & eat not any unclean thing: For, lo, thou shalt conceive, & bear a son; & no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: & he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.
Samson was born as promised & consecrated to Jehovah.
Judges 13:24
And the woman bare a son, & called his name Samson: & the child grew, & the Lord blessed him.
As Samson grew into manhood, he saw a Philistine woman that he wanted to marry, but his parents tried to discourage him.
Judges 14:1–3
And Samson went down to Timnath, & saw a woman in Timnath of the daughters of the Philistines. And he came up, & told his father & his mother, & said, I have seen a woman in Timnath of the daughters of the Philistines: now therefore get her for me to wife. Then his father & his mother said unto him, Is there never a woman among the daughters of thy brethren, or among all my people, that thou goest to take a wife of the uncircumcised Philistines? And Samson said unto his father, Get her for me; for she pleaseth me well.
Samson married the Philistine woman anyway, but she betrayed him by enticing him to tell her the answer to a riddle which he had expounded to 30 Philistines who had gathered at the wedding feast.
Samson was so enraged that he slew 30 other men, & leaving his wife behind, returned to his father's house. His wife was then given to the friend of Samson who had been the best man at Samson's wedding.
Judges 14:19–20
And the Spirit of the Lord came upon him, & he went down to Ashkelon, & slew 30 men of them, & took their spoil, & gave change of garments unto them which expounded the riddle. And his anger was kindled, & he went up to his father's house. But Samson's wife was given to his companion, whom he had used as his friend.
Samson later returned to visit his wife, but his father-in-law refused him entry into the house. He attempted to appease Samson by offering him his younger daughter, but Samson refused the offer & proceeded to burn the land of the Philistines. They, in turn, burned the house of Samson's father-in-law, incinerating both the father & the daughter.
Judges 15:1–6
But it came to pass within a while after, in the time of wheat harvest, that Samson visited his wife with a kid; & he said, I will go in to my wife into the chamber. But her father would not suffer him to go in. And her father said, I verily thought that thou hadst utterly hated her; therefore I gave her to thy companion: is not her younger sister fairer than she? Take her, I pray thee, instead of her. And Samson said concerning them, Now shall I be more blameless than the Philistines, though I do them a displeasure. And Samson went & caught 300 foxes, & took firebrands, & turned tail to tail, & put a firebrand in the midst between 2 tails. And when he had set the brands on fire, he let them go into the standing corn of the Philistines, & burnt up both the shocks, & also the standing corn, with the vineyards & olives. Then the Philistines said, Who hath done this? And they answered, Samson, the son in law of the Timnite, because he had taken his wife, & given her to his companion. And the Philistines came up, & burnt her & her father with fire.
After this & other exploits, Samson patronized a harlot & stayed with her for almost 2 days straight!
Judges 16:1–3
Then went Samson to Gaza, & saw there a harlot, & went in unto her. And it was told the Gazites, saying, Samson is come hither. And they compassed him in, & laid wait for him all night in the gate of the city, & were quiet all the night, saying, In the morning, when it is day, we shall kill him. And Samson lay till midnight, & arose at midnight, & took the doors of the gate of the city, & the 2 posts, & went away with them, bar & all, & put them upon his shoulders, & carried them up to the top of a hill that is before Hebron.
He then fell in love with Delilah, & although she repeatedly betrayed him to the Philistines, he was too weak to resist her seductive charms & finally revealed to her the secret of his great strength.
King Ahasuerus Ditches Queen Vashti for Esther
Ahasuerus was none other than the great & extravagant Persian emperor Xerxes. His queen was Vashti, & at the conclusion of a 6-month-long stag party, he commanded that Vashti promenade before his drunken guests so that they could appreciate her great beauty. This Vashti refused to do, & Xerxes booted her out of the palace & sent a decree to all his kingdom so that all the young virgins of the empire might come to the royal palace & compete for Vashti's throne.
Mordecai, who was already in the king's palace, brought his cousin Esther to take part in the competition for most pleasing virgin. The eunuch in charge of the king's harem was Hegai, & he favored Esther by giving her 7 female attendants & a private apartment. Esther's cousin Mordecai had warned Esther not to reveal that she was a Jewess, & he visited her daily in her quarters.
The purification & preparation rites Esther then engaged in are of especial interest: one full year, the first half of which was devoted to beauty treatments & the second half of which was a 6-month stint of perfuming & application of ointments. After this one-year period of cosmetic foreplay, the virgin was finally ready to spend the night with the king, who would normally sleep with her only once. Unless he found special delight in her charms & sexual prowess, she moved on into the second harem of the palace & remained there on tap.
When Esther's turn came to go to bed with the king, she so pleased Ahasuerus that he set the royal crown on her head & immediately put her in Vashti's place.
Solomon's Thousand & One Women
I Kings 11:1–3
But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, & Hittites; Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love. And he had 700 wives, princesses, & 300 concubines: & his wives turned away his heart.
Solomon's harem included 700 wives & 300 mistresses. If we add to that number the name of Abishag, the Shunammite, whom Solomon presumably memorialized in his great "Song of Songs," he then had a total bevy of 1001 females.
In Biblical times, the only limitation on the number of wives of mistresses were a man's financial resources & the available supply of women. The law placed no limit on the number of wives. Solomon's father, David, married 8 wives specifically & later added many more women to his court harem.
Biblical polygamy, therefore, must be considered as a matter more of prestige than of sensuality. Viewed in that light, it is not unlike the prestige afforded to the 2-car family in today's America. But with such a stable of women readily at hand, Solomon surely must have indulged his passions more than he would have in a monogamous role.
King David's Revival with Female Body Friction
I Kings 1:1–4
Now King David was old & stricken in years; & they covered him with clothes, but he gat no heat. Wherefore his servants said unto him, Let there be sought for my lord the king a young virgin: & let her stand before the king, & let her cherish him, & let her lie in thy bosom, that my lord the king may get heat. So they sought for a fair damsel throughout all the coasts of Israel, & found Abishag a Shunammite, & brought her to the king. And the damsel was very fair, & cherished the king, & ministered to him: but the king knew her not.
Ruth Propositions Boaz & Spends the Night in a Barn
Ruth was the widowed daughter-in-law of Naomi. Naomi encouraged her to return to her people after the death of her husband, but Ruth insisted on staying on with the famous words:
Ruth 1:16–17
And Ruth said, Entreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; & where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, & thy God my God: Where thou diest, will I die, & there will I be buried: the Lord do so to me, & more also, if ought but death part thee & me.
Naomi had a wealthy kinsman named Boaz & she felt that a match between Ruth & Boaz would be a good thing for them both. Naomi instructed Ruth to go to Boaz's barn & to wait until Boaz had retired before going to lie at his side & spend the night with him. Ruth agreed to carry out Naomi's instructions.
Ruth 3:1–5
Then Naomi her mother in law said unto her, My daughter, shall I not seek rest for thee, that it may be well with thee? And now is not Boaz of our kindred, with whose maidens thou wast? Behold, he winnoweth barley to night in the threshingfloor. Wash thyself therefore, & anoint thee, & put thy raiment upon thee, & get thee down to the floor: but make not thyself known unto the man, until he shall have done eating & drinking. And it shall be, when he lieth down, that thou shalt mark the place where he shall lie, & thou shalt go in, & uncover his feet, & lay thee down; & he will tell thee what thou shalt do. And she said unto her, All that thou sayest unto me I will do.
That night, she went to the barn & lay down at Boaz' feet after Boaz had eaten & drunk. When Boaz turned in his sleep at midnight, he discovered Ruth there at his feet. He was delighted to learn that Ruth wanted to marry him instead of a younger man & he promised to take care of all details for the wedding.
Ruth 3:6–11
And she went down unto the floor, & did according to all that her mother in law bade her. And when Boaz had eaten & drunk, & his heart was merry, he went to lie down at the end of the heap of corn: & she came softly, & uncovered his feet, & laid her down. And it came to pass at midnight, that the man was afraid, & turned himself: and, behold, a woman lay at his feet. And he said, Who art thou? And she answered, I am Ruth thine handmaid: spread therefore thy skirt over thine handmaid; for thou art a near kinsman. And he said, Blessed be thou of the Lord, my daughter: for thou hast shewed more kindness in the latter end than at the beginning, inasmuch as thou followedst not young men, whether poor or rich. And now, my daughter, fear not; I will do to thee all that thou requirest: for all the city of my people doth know that thou art a virtuous woman.
After their marriage, Ruth bore a child who became the grandfather of King David, one of the predecessors of Jesus. All this from a girl from Moab, whom Hebrew law forbade marrying!
(end of file)
0 Comments:
Post a Comment