John Schoenheit's Research Paper on Adultery

(It is said that the circulation of this research paper led to John Schoenheit and several others who assisted him being fired from the staff of TWI in the late 80's. It is further said that anyone found reading this paper would never be allowed to rise in leadership in TWI beyond that of a "twig" fellowship coordinator.)

Foreword: In 1982 or 1983 Rev. Ralph Dubofsky and Rev. Vince Finegan came to me. Dr. Wierwille had asked them to do some work on the subject of adultery. Ralph and Vince wanted to know what I knew and if it would help them. I was genuinely surprised at how little I knew about the subject from the Word of God. This paper is the result of those years of study.

Actually, I had done a little study before Ralph and Vince came to me. During my last year in residence in the Way Corps, I was alone in my bedroom when a girl whom I had always thought was attractive came in looking for Diane. She thought that Diane was there and I was gone, and she came in wearing an "exciting" black nightie. I was surprised at how strong my desire was to make love to her. As I struggled to control my mind, I realized that I did not have a scripture to grab onto for support. I literally was not completely positive as to what the Word of God had to say on the subject. I began studying the Word of God, and I got as far as the Mosaic Law that proscribes the death penalty for adultery. I believed that if God commanded the death penalty for adultery in the Old Testament, His will on the subject could not have changed with the change of administration. If anything, the marriage relationship is even more important now, during the age of Grace, because it portrays the Great Mystery.

The reason for this paper is that I have discovered that not everybody believes that adultery is wrong. This paper is an attempt to clearly set forth the Biblical perspective of adultery and fornication so that every believer has a chance to see the will of God on the subject. This paper is not an attempt to "legislate morality" or to make rules and regulations that will improve the old man. It is an attempt to help every believer come to "an accurate knowledge of the Truth" (I Timothy 2:4). When a person knows where God stands on the subject, he can decide for himself where he wants to stand--on God's Word or off it.

Please make sure that you read the Question & Answer
format Appendices at the end of this paper.

Many Christians are confused about adultery and fornication. Some are not sure what the terms mean. Others think they know what the terms mean, but are not sure of God’s position on the subject. This paper is an attempt to clarify what the terms mean in modern English, what the terms meant as they were used in the Word of God, and God’s will concerning adultery and fornication.

Adultery is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language as "voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful husband or wife." Although that definition is not the biblical one, this paper will show that in the modern sense of the word, as well as the biblical sense, is a sin. The biblical definition of adultery is the breach of a marriage contract, and occurred when a man (married or unmarried) had sexual intercourse with a woman who was either betrothed or married. This definition will be developed from the scriptures in the course of this paper. The word "adultery" was also used by God to show Israel’s spiritual unfaithfulness to him. Thus there is both a physical side and a spiritual side to adultery. The thesis of this paper will basically deal with the physical side of adultery, i.e., actual sexual intercourse between a man and a woman.

This paper will also deal with fornication. The definition of the word "fornication" as it is used in modern English has stayed very close to the biblical definition. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary gives the following definition for "fornication":

"human sexual intercourse other than between a man and his wife: sexual intercourse between a spouse and an unmarried person: sexual intercourse between unmarried people."

Thus the definitions of "fornication" and "adultery" do overlap to some extent. The definition of fornication will also be developed in this paper.

This paper is in two parts with extensive appendixes. Part One deals with adultery and Part Two deals with fornication. In each part, the subject - adultery or fornication, has been developed in the order of biblical administrations. Thus adultery is considered first in the Patriarchal Administration, then in the Law Administration, followed by the Christ, Grace, and Appearing Administrations. Fornication is dealt with in the same manner.

Every time the issue of adultery comes up in the Patriarchal Administration it is considered wrong and a sin. In Genesis 35:22, Reuben, Jacob’s oldest son, had intercourse with Jacob’s concubine.

And it came to pass, when Israel dwelt in that land, that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father’s concubine: and Israel heard it. Now the sons of Jacob were twelve.

There is nothing in the immediate context to indicate that Reuben was in any way punished for his adultery. But years later, on his deathbed, it was that event in Reuben’s life that Jacob remembered and spoke specifically about.

Reuben, thou art my firstborn, my might, and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power:

Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel; because thou wentest up to thy father’s bed; thou defiled thou it: he went up to my couch.

Reuben’s adultery was wrong. Reuben’s action "defiled" his father’s bed. The word "because" in the phrase, "Thou shalt not excel; because thou wentest up to thy father’s bed..." points to a cause and effect relationship. Reuben’s adultery somehow caused him not to excel. So Reuben defiled his father’s bed, and he would not excel because of his action. The incident of Reuben is thus similar to that of David. Nathan used the word "because" when he spoke to David:

Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and has taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.

The "because" in this verse again points to a cause-and-effect relationship. David’s treating God with contempt and "taking the wife of Uriah to be thy wife" was a cause, and the effect was "the sword shall never depart from thine house."

The book of Job, which is another record during the Patriarchal Administration, also mentions adultery:

The eyes also of the adulterer waiteth for the twilight, saying, No eye shall see me: and disguiseth his face.

The context of this verse is people who do evil, and includes "those that rebel against the light" (verse 13), "the murderer" (verse 14), and burglars (verse 16). Adultery is placed in the same context with murderers and burglars. And the verse itself says that the adulterer tries to hide his action, clearly showing the evil nature of adultery. Job mentions more about adultery in chapter 31.

If mine heart have been deceived by a woman, or if I have laid wait at my neighbor’s door;

For this is an heinous crime; yea, it is an iniquity to be punished by the judges.

For it is a fire that consumeth to destruction, and would root out all mine increase.

Job’s attitude toward adultery is clearly stated. It is a "heinous crime" and an "iniquity to be punished by the judges."

There are three other incidents in the Patriarchal Administration from which to learn about adultery. Abraham and Isaac both tried to pass off their wives as their sisters. Abraham did it twice, and Isaac once. In all three cases, the pagan kings who took their wives knew that adultery was wrong, and returned the wives untouched when they found out that the women were already married. These three accounts are covered in detail in Appendix B.

There is one other record of adultery, actually an attempt at adultery, that must be considered. Joseph was one of the twelve sons of Jacob, and he was sold into slavery and taken to Egypt when he was still a teenager. Joseph was purchased by Potiphar, an "officer of Pharaoh, captain of the guard" (Genesis 39:1). After a time Joseph had risen in position until he was the overseer of Potiphar’s house. At that time, Potiphar’s wife desired Joseph and wanted to have sexual intercourse with him. She was bold and up front with her desire, and said to Joseph, "Lie with me" (Genesis 39:7). Joseph refused. He called the intended adultery "great wickedness" and a "sin against God." Joseph, like Job, understood the nature of adultery. It is a great wickedness and a sin against God.

The information on adultery that can be gleaned from the Patriarchal Administration is clear. Adultery was wrong. It defiled, it made one guilty (Appendix B), it was great wickedness, a heinous crime, an iniquity to be punished by the judges, and a sin against God. There is nothing in the Word of God to indicate that adultery was in any way acceptable before God in the Patriarchal Administration.

After the Patriarchal Administration came the Law Administration. As in the Patriarchal Administration, there is nothing in the Law Administration to indicate that adultery was in any way acceptable behavior. The Mosaic Law forbids adultery. The seventh commandment is: "Thou shalt not commit adultery". That the usage of "adultery" in the seventh commandment is physical, i.e., a man with a woman, was made clear by Jesus Christ when he quoted the seventh commandment as is recorded in Matthew:

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

It is obvious from Jesus Christ’s usage of the seventh commandment that he knew it referred to illicit sexual relations between men and women. A study of Old Testament scriptures shows that for a man, married or unmarried, to have sexual intercourse with a woman who was either betrothed or married was a capital crime, carrying the death penalty.

And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbor’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her; then the man only that lay with her shall die:

But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbor, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

There was one exception to the law as recorded above, and that was when a man had intercourse with a betrothed woman who was also a slave. However, even then, there were consequences for their having had intercourse, and the act is called a "sin."

And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondsmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.

And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering.

And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the Lord for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him.

In contrast to these clear verses, there is not one verse or record showing that adultery was acceptable to God in the Law Administration.

A number of clear verses during the Christ Administration, which followed the Law Administration, show beyond a shadow of a doubt that adultery was a sin. Jesus Christ clearly addressed the issue on several occasions. He quoted the seventh commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery," on two different occasions. One was during his teaching from a mountain in Galilee during the summer of 27 A.D. (which has been quoted earlier).

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Jesus quoted the seventh commandment a second time while he was in Perea, just prior to his trip to Jerusalem when he was crucified and slain. At that time, a rich young ruler came to Jesus and asked him what he should do to have eternal life.

And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness.

It is clear from these two separate records in Matthew that Jesus Christ knew and taught that adultery was wrong.

John, chapter 8 is the record of the scribes and Pharisees who brought a woman to Christ "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, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

The scribes and Pharisees said to Jesus, "Moses in the law commanded us that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?" (verse 5). They said this to Jesus so they would have something to use as an accusation against him (verse 6). Moses did say that a woman caught in adultery should be killed.

If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

Nevertheless, at that time, the Romans had made it illegal for the Judeans to put any person to death. This is why the Pharisees had to take Jesus Christ to the Roman authorities when they wanted him killed.

Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.

The trap of the Pharisees who brought the adulterous woman to Jesus Christ was very clever. If Jesus had said to stone the woman, the Pharisees would have seen to it that he was arrested for breaking Roman law. If, on the other hand, Jesus had said, "Well, Moses said to stone her but we have to obey Roman law," the Pharisees would have accused him of placing Roman law above God’s justice and discredited him (Remember, they brought the woman to Jesus, not for justice but so they could find something of which to accuse Jesus.) When Jesus gave his answer about casting the first stone, all the accusers left the scene. Jesus then asked the woman, "Where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?" According to Mosaic law, there was to be a trial and witnesses who would testify to a person’s guilt. If the person were found guilty, the witnesses were to cast the first stones at the guilty party (Deuteronomy 17:4-7). When Jesus stood up, there was no one there to be a witness and no one to fulfill the Mosaic law by casting the first stone. So Jesus said to the woman, "Go, and sin no more."

By calling the woman’s adultery "sin", Jesus clearly stated what adultery is - a sin. Furthermore, Jesus told the woman not to commit adultery again.

It is thus clear that adultery was a sin in the Christ Administration. Christ quoted the seventh commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery" in his teaching from a mountain in Galilee. He quoted it again to the rich young ruler who asked him what to do to receive eternal life. He called the adultery of the woman mentioned in John, chapter 8 a "sin" and he gave illicit sexual relations as the only valid reason for divorce. In contrast to these records, there is not a scripture in the gospels that indicates that adultery was not a sin or that it was to be taken lightly.

This paper has dealt with adultery in the Patriarchal, Law and Christ Administrations, and it has shown that adultery was considered wrong and a sin in all of them. For adultery to be acceptable to God in the Grace Administration would be a change, and God would have to say it is acceptable. In fact, the opposite is the case. In the Grace Administration, God continues to call adultery a sin.

From Acts to Revelation, the words "adultery," "adulterer," and "adulteress" are only used fourteen times in the King James Version: Romans 2:22 (twice); Romans 7:3 (twice); Romans 13:9; I Corinthians 6:9; Galatians 5:19; Hebrews 13:4; James 2:11 (twice); James 4:4 (twice); II Peter 2:14; and Revelation 2:22. Only the first seven of these uses are in the church epistles. Each of the fourteen occurrences will be examined.

1) and 2)	Romans 2:22 Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? The context of Romans 2:22 is Judeans who are "instructed out of the law" (verse 18). Thus the reference to them, saying, "A man should not commit adultery" comes right out of the ten commandments, i.e., "Thou shalt not commit adultery." The reference is simple and straightforward, and refers to the physical act of adultery. There is no reason to read spiritual adultery into this verse since the reference is obviously to the law and since idolatry (which would be spiritual adultery) is mentioned in the same verse.
3) and 4)	Romans 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. The context of Romans 7:3 is Judean law. This is clear from verse 1 "(for I speak to them that know the law)." Romans 7:3 is speaking about laws regarding divorce and remarriage and closely parallels what Jesus Christ said in Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; and Luke 16:18, giving fornication as grounds for divorce.
5)	Romans 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Romans 13:9 is a very clear verse of scripture, especially in light of immediate context. The quotation, "Thou shalt not commit adultery" is from the ten commandments. It is noteworthy that the specific commandment was given in the ten commandments in the Law Administration, then quoted in the Christ Administration, and is now being quoted in the Grace Administration. The context of Romans 13:9 is easy to understand. God’s will for the believer is made clear in verse 8, i.e., "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another." All the believer needs to do then is to find out from the scriptures how to love his neighbor as himself. The answer, at least in part, is in verses 9 and 10. And verse 9 makes it clear that "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" includes not committing adultery, not killing, not stealing, not bearing false witness, and not coveting. All those "Thou shalt not’s" are "briefly comprehended," i.e., "summed up," in the saying, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." It is clear from verses 8 and 9 that a person who loves someone will not steal from them, kill them, bear false witness about them, covet their belongings, or commit adultery with them. Furthermore verse 10 points out that "love is the fulfilling of the law" because it works no ill to his neighbor. The word "ill" is kakos in the Greek and is usually translated "evil." Love is the fulfilling of the law because the person who walks in the love of God will do what the Old Testament Law tried to do, i.e., get people to work no evil to their neighbors. Thus the person who walks in love will not steal, which is something the law tried to get people not to do. The person who walks in love will not commit adultery, which is something the law tried to get people not to do. Since the Old Testament law forbade adultery, in fact made it a capital crime, it cannot be "fulfilling the law" to commit adultery. So the person who walks in love, and thus fulfills the Old Testament law, must be a person who does not commit adultery.
6)	I Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrightous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind. The question that needs to be answered in this verse is whether or not the adultery is physical or spiritual. The context of the verse is both spiritual and physical sins. "Fornicators" will come up later in the paper. "Idolaters," of course, is definitely in the spiritual category. "Effeminate" is the word used for the man who plays the female part in a homosexual relationship. "Abusers of themselves with mankind" refers to homosexuals and pederasts. Since many of the other terms refer to physical, sexual acts, and since idolatry is plainly listed, the weight of evidence is that "adultery" in I Corinthians 6:9 refers to the physical act.
7)	Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness. The word "adultery" has been erroneously inserted here. It is not in the majority of the Greek texts, nor in the Syriac Peshitta text. This ends the usages of "adultery" in the seven church epistles. The clear scripture is Romans 13:9 which leaves no doubt about God’s position on adultery - that it is not a loving thing to do, but is doing "evil" to ones neighbor.
8)	Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. This verse is clear. Although marriage is honorable and the marriage bed "undefiled," i.e., unsoiled, unstained. Adulterers, who are breaking the marriage covenant, God will judge. Whoremongers, or fornicators, are covered in Part Two.
9) & 10)	James 2:11 For he that said, "Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. This is another time the seventh commandment is quoted in the scriptures. The context clarifies this verse. James 2:10-12 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, "Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. The overall point that is being made in this section of James is that it is not good enough to keep most of the law. Sin in even one area of a person’s life is still sin and makes him guilty under the Law. James 2:12 says, "So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty." The believer is to walk for God and not ignore sin in his life, thinking, "Well, after all, most of my walk is okay, so a couple sins won’t hurt." The reason adultery is even mentioned in James 2:11 is that it was an acknowledged example of sinful behavior, just as killing was. Adultery would not have been used in the verse if it was not a sin.
11) & 12)	James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God. The words "adulterers and" should be omitted from this verse. They are not in the majority of the Greek texts or the Syriac Peshitta text. The word "adulteresses" has the spiritual meaning here, i.e., those who turn from God to serve worldly things. The context of this verse is those who serve worldly things rather than worshipping God. This is the first time that the word "adultery" has referred to idolatry or spiritual adultery.
13)	II Peter 2:14 Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children The use of "adultery" in this verse is a good example of how closely tied physical adultery and spiritual adultery can be. The phrase "eyes full of adultery" forcefully reminds one of Christ’s words, "Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery already..." Thus the phrase carries the imagery of literal physical adultery. While the context of the verse will allow that, the context also demands that the ones involved are spiritual adulterers, i.e., idolaters. They have "forsaken the right way" and have "gone astray" and are "following the way of Balaam" (verse 15). Thus, in this verse, there is no need to separate the spiritual sine from the physical sin. The men involved are guilty of both.
14)	Revelation 2:22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. This verse illustrates the use of the physical sin to communicate a spiritual truth. "Adultery" carries the image of the physical act: "cast her into a bed" and "those that commit adultery with her." Nevertheless, in the context, the verse seems to be speaking of judgment for sin, not saying that there actually was a woman whom God would cast into bed. God uses one sin, adultery, to communicate truths about another sin, idolatry.

All fourteen uses of "adultery" in the New Testament have now been covered. Not one of them indicates, in any way, that adultery is acceptable to God. Quite the opposite is the case. Adultery is a sin. Furthermore, the sin of adultery is used to graphically portray the sin of idolatry.

Adultery has now been studied in the Patriarchal, Law, Christ, Grace, and Appearing Administrations. In not one single instance has it been shown not to be a sin. In stark contrast, there were many verses showing that adultery was a grave sin.

Adultery, in the Old Testament, involved a man, either married or unmarried and a woman who was either betrothed or married. The evidence from the Gospels (Cp. Matthew 5:32) and from the epistles (Cp. Romans 7:3) indicates that that definition holds true all the way through the Word of God. There are no examples of the term "adultery" that involve a man, married or unmarried, with a single woman. That means that, up to this point, all this paper has shown is that for a man to have sexual intercourse with another man’s wife is a sin. This next phase of the paper will deal with fornication and will show that in the Grace Administration it is a sin for a man to have sexual intercourse with any woman unless he is married to her.

In the Old Testament men were allowed to have more than one wife. Surely things are not stricter in the "Grace Administration" than they were under the Law. God must allow men to have intercourse with other women besides their wives, especially single women.

Men were allowed to have more than one wife in the Old Testament (Exodus 21:10 and Deuteronomy 21:15). That is not the case in the Grace Administration as Corinthians, Timothy, and Titus make clear. Timothy and Titus are specifically addressed to leaders in the church. According to I Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6, a "bishop" (episkopos), i.e., one who is a ruling elder, an overseer, in the church, must be the "husband of one wife." According to I timothy 3:12, the "deacons" (diakonos), i.e., one who serves in the Body of Christ, are also to be the "husband of one wife". Thus the Word of God clearly states that any man who serves in the Body of Christ must only have one wife. More than that, however, the Word of God declares that every Christian man should have just one wife and every Christian woman should have just one husband.

Corinthians, which is addressed to every believer, addresses the one-husband, one-wife issue. Corinthians says "Let every man have his own wife and every woman have her own husband" (I Corinthians 7:2). This verse clearly sets the monogamous Christian marriage. If the wife is sharing her husband with other wives, then the husband is not "her own," but is shared property. Similarly, a woman is not to have more than one husband, for then she would not be "his own." Thus although the Old Testament Law allowed for more than one wife, the New Testament does not.

Believers in the Grace Administration are not allowed to have more than one wife, and they are not allowed to "sleep around" either.

Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

The essential meaning of the word "touch" in this context is "touch as if the woman were your wife." Bauer’s lexicon handles the word "touch" as sexual intercourse with a woman. In the Grace Administration, the wife is to meet the sexual needs of the husband and vice-versa.

Even though the Old Testament Law made provision for a man to have more than one wife, there were laws governing people’s sexual behavior. Each wife was to be well taken care of, having food, raiment and sexual companionship.

If he take him another wife, her food her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

Adultery was forbidden in the ten commandments and was punishable by death (Exodus 20:14; Leviticus 20:10).

If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that shall lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

If a man had sexual intercourse with a free woman who was betrothed, that was also considered either adultery or rape. If the act occurred in the city, the act was considered to be adultery and the man and the woman were stoned to death. If the act occurred out in the countryside, the act was considered rape and only the man was killed (Deuteronomy 22:23-27). Thus, whether the betrothed woman was willing or not, if a man had intercourse with a betrothed free woman, he was killed. If a man had sexual intercourse with a slave who was betrothed, there were still consequences, but they were less severe. The woman was scourged (whipped) and the man fined.

And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.

And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering.

And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the Lord for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him.

It is noteworthy that even though the consequences for adultery with a betrothed slave girl were less severe, the act itself was called a "sin" twice in verse 22.

And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.

The one exception to this occurred if the girl’s father absolutely refused to let the man marry his daughter. In that case, the man was required to pay a fine equal to the "the dowry of virgins" (Exodus 22:17).

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away (i.e. divorce her) all his days.

These two verses refer to rape, according to the context. Verses 26 and 27, just prior to these, refer to rape, and the words "lay hold on her" in verse 28 indicate rape. The New International Version translates Deuteronomy 22:28 and 29 as follows:

"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.^*

One reason the Law of Moses specified that single girls marry the man who seduced or raped them was that if a girl was not a virgin on her wedding night she could be stoned to death.

But if this thing (the woman’s not being a virgin) be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

From the above information it can be seen that Israel under the Law was not a sexual panacea, where men had the sexual affections of women freely available to them. If they had more than one wife, they had to make sure that each was well taken care of. If he seduced or raped a married or betrothed woman, he was stoned to death. If he seduced or raped a single woman, he was forced to marry her.

People have tried to say that the Old Testament Law does not forbid a man to visit a prostitute or have intercourse with his slave girls. Although it is true that in practice men did visit prostitutes and take advantage of their slave girls, had the Law been properly applied, this would not have happened. Thus, if the Law was carried out, the master would have married his slave girl, and the prostitute would have married her first customer.^**

From the above evidence it can be seen that the men of the Old Testament did not live in a society where they had vast sexual freedom. Yes, they could have more than one wife, while we today in the Grace Administration cannot. Although the reasons why God allowed more than one wife in the Old Testament but only allows one wife today may not be clear, one thing is clear: The Word of God does say that today, in the Grace Administration, marriage is to be monogamous. Having sexual intercourse with a woman who is not your wife is a sin.

The sin that David committed and which God was really angry about was the murder of a faithful believer, not adultery.

Murder and adultery are both specifically mentioned in the ten commandments, and both were capital crimes, carrying the death penalty. You may say that David’s adultery was not a sin or not that big a sin, but David did not feel that way. He knew what he did was wrong and tried to cover it up. When his initial scheme to cover his sin of adultery by getting Uriah to have sexual intercourse with Bathsheba did not work, he finally covered it by committing the sin of murder.

God is no respecter of persons. To say that it was all right with God for a king to commit adultery because he was king is to say that God elevates the position of king above His Word. That is patently false. In God’s sight, it is a sin to break any commandment. If it was all right with God for David to break God’s commandment and commit adultery because he was the king, then it would have been all right for David to break any other commandment because he was king, including the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" (Heb. ratsach = "murder"). Then Nathan could not have reproved David at all. In fact, when Nathan did reprove David, he mentioned both sins: adultery and murder - each mentioned twice. In II Samuel 12:9, Uriah’s murder is mentioned twice and David’s adultery once, and then in verse 10, David’s adultery is mentioned a second time. If David’s adultery was not an issue with God, then why was it brought up at all? The adultery was a sin in God’s eyes.

There are three kings mentioned in the Word of God who unknowingly placed themselves in the position of committing adultery: Pharaoh (Genesis 12), Abimelech (Genesis 20), and a different Abimelech more than 60 years later (Genesis 26). "Abimelech" was an official title for the kings of Gerar, just as "Pharaoh" was the official title for the kings of Egypt.

In Genesis 12 Abraham went to Egypt because there was a famine in the land of Israel. He told Pharaoh that Sarah was his sister, and did not let Pharaoh know that Sarah was also his wife, because he was afraid (Genesis 12:11-13). Pharaoh, thinking Sarah was unmarried, took Sarah to his house (Genesis 12:15). When Pharaoh found out that Sarah was Abraham’s wife, he was upset with Abraham (verses 18 and 19), and he was upset that he might have had intercourse with Sarah (verse 19). Pharaoh then sent both Abraham and Sarah out of his kingdom (verses 19 and 20). Pharaoh knew adultery was wrong and was upset that Abraham had placed him in a position of unknowingly committing adultery.

Abraham journeyed into Gerar in Genesis chapter 20. Abraham told Abimelech, the king of Gerar, the same thing he told Pharaoh - years earlier - that Sarah was his sister, not mentioning that she was also his wife. Like Pharaoh, Abimelech took Sarah. God came to Abimelech in a dream and told him "Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man’s wife." Abimelech was the king. If the king was above the law, then Abimelech could have taken Sarah and had no problem with God or man. The word of God clearly indicates that it was not all right with God. He revealed to Abimelech that Sarah was another man’s wife, and it was not all right to take her. This was true even though Abimelech was a king and lived before the Mosaic law.

Abimelech was upset when he found out he had unknowingly taken another man’s wife. He answered God and said, "Said he (Abraham) not unto me, She is my sister? and she (Sarah) even she herself said, He is my brother: in the integrity of my heart and the innocency of my hands have I done this." Abimelech did not know that Sarah was already married, and he obviously did not think he had any right to another man’s wife. Abimelech was very upset with Abraham and confronted him.

Then Abimelech called Abraham, and said unto him, "What hast thou done unto us? and what have I offended thee, that thou hast brought on me and on my kingdom a great sin? Thou hast done deeds unto me that ought not to be done."

It is noteworthy that even though Abimelech had never had sexual intercourse with Sarah (Genesis 20:4), he considered the fact that he had even taken her into his house (20:2) a "great sin" both "on me" and "on my kingdom" (20:9).

Abraham was not the only patriarch to spend time in Gerar. Isaac went to Gerar and, being afraid for his life, lied to the people, telling them Rebekah was his sister.

And the men of the place (Gerar) asked him of his wife; and he said "She is my sister," for he feared to say "She was my wife;" "Lest," said he "The men of this place should kill me for Rebekah;" for she was fair to look upon.

Isaac’s lie was discovered by the king when he looked out a window and saw Isaac "sporting with," i.e., sexually caressing, his wife (Genesis 25:8). Abimelech called Isaac and reproved him because if one of his people had had intercourse with Rebekah "Thou should have brought guiltiness upon us." Thus Abimelech clearly recognized that adultery was a sin and that it made people guilty. Abimelech then gave a command, saying, "He that toucheth this man or his wife shall surely be put to death."

It is obvious from the fact that David tried so hard to cover his adultery that he considered it a sin. It is also obvious that other kings thought that adultery was a sin, both for them and for their people. The evidence is thus conclusive: adultery was a sin, no matter what "position" or "title" a person held.^*

In I kings 17, Elijah traveled to Syria where he stayed "many days" with a widow woman. Surely they had a sexual relationship. Yet Elijah was one of the greatest prophets that ever walked through Israel.

There is not one speck of evidence in the Word of God that Elijah had sexual intercourse with the widow woman with whom he lived. There was a loft in the woman’s house where "he" (not "they") lived, and he had "his own bed." The loft called a "chamber" in I Kings 17:23, was separate from the house so there was privacy for both him and the woman and her son (verse 23).

If Elijah did have a sexual relationship with the widow woman (and I repeat: there is no evidence for that), then he would have been required to marry her and take her back to Israel with him as a wife.

Jesus Christ and Paul both traveled with women. They must have provided sexual companionship as well as taking care of other physical needs.

The verses referred to about Jesus Christ and Paul are in the gospel of Mark and in I Corinthians.

There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome.

(Who also, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered unto him;) and many other women which came up with him unto Jerusalem.

Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

There is absolutely not one shred of evidence that Jesus Christ ever had sexual intercourse with a woman. If he had, he would have been required to obey the Mosaic Law on the subject and marry her (of course, if the woman were married, then his intercourse would have broken the Law and Jesus could not have been our redeemer). There is also no evidence for the Apostle Paul’s ever having intercourse with a woman.

The biblical culture, both Judean and Greco-Roman, kept woman and men more separated than our twentieth-century culture does. In many cases, only a woman would be allowed to get close enough to another woman to minister to her effectively. Also, the Biblical culture generally had much stricter norms concerning the separation of labor between men and women. Women would minister to Jesus, Paul, and others by doing jobs that would have degraded the men in the eyes of people to whom they taught God’s Word.

The last verses of Romans 14 clearly indicate that for people who can so believe, their actions are not sin.

It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.

And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

If I am not causing my brother to stumble and I am believing God to stay in fellowship, my adultery is not sin.

The context of the whole chapter of Romans 14 is food, not sex. Although the principles in the chapter can be applied to other areas of life, the principles must be examined carefully so that they are not applied in error. A major key in Romans 14 regarding food is in verse 20. "For meat destroy not the work of God. All things are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offense." "All things are pure...." All what things are pure? Is this verse saying that everything in the wide world is pure? Of course not. The context is food. All food is pure.

If all food is pure, how could eating food possibly be a sin? It is a sin when it is eaten in such a way that it causes a brother in Christ to stumble, or if it is eaten with doubt and not believing. Of course, if the food is eaten with believing it is not sin.

The point of Romans 14 is that doing something that God says is okay to do can be a sin if there is doubt and fear involved. Thus, an ex-Judean can eat pork, which is okay with God to do, but still be sinning in doing it because he has doubt, fear, and condemnation in his life from eating it. This principle can be applied outside the food category. Smoking a cigarette is not a sin. Yet it would be if it were done with doubt, fear, and condemnation instead of believing.

The premise in Romans 14 that governs verses 21-23 is that "All things (food) indeed are pure." There is absolutely nothing in Romans 14 about taking something that God calls impure in His Word and purifying it by believing. No homosexual can "believe" to make homosexuality not a sin. God calls it a sin. It is not "pure" in God’s sight, and man cannot make it pure by believing.

In one sense, the principles of Romans 14 do apply to the sexual field. My having sexual intercourse with my wife is pure in God’s sight. Yet I can take that "pure" act and make it a sin by having sexual intercourse in the aisle of the local grocery store. Yes, it is possible to make something that is pure in God’s sight a sin by doing it with doubt and fear, or by doing it in such a manner that a brother in Christ stumbles. It is not available to "purify" an act that God says is a sin by "believing" it is not a sin.

We live in the Grace Administration and are not bound by hard-and-fast laws. I Corinthians 6:12 and 10:23 both say "All things are lawful for me."

The born-again believer has eternal life. He has the seed of Christ, and spiritually, he cannot sin (I John 3:9). He is heaven bound and all hell cannot stop him. Yet every believer sins. In fact, if we say we do not sin, we are liars (I John 1:8-10). Sin is broken fellowship with God, and the only way we can know whether our behavior is acceptable to God is by studying God’s Word. We know idolatry is a sin because the Word of God says so. A born-again believer can worship idols and still go to heaven. We know that homosexuality is a sin because the Word of God says so. A homosexual that is a born-again believer will still go to heaven. Experience is never a guarantee of Truth. The fact that a believer does not "feel" worse off for his sinful behavior does not mean he was not sinning. The only guidebook to what is and what is not sin is the Word of God. If the Word of God says something is a sin, then that thing is a sin. The believer must strive to line up his walk with the written Word. In the case of adultery, the written Word is clear - it is a sin and thus a behavior to be avoided. You can commit adultery and still go to heaven just as you can steal, or murder, or worship idols and still go to heaven. Nevertheless, the only way we can know God’s will is through His Word. If God has not said what he meant concerning adultery - and there are many verses that show adultery is wrong - then how can we ever know what God does mean? If adultery is not a sin because "all things are lawful for me," then murder is not a sin either. After all, murder is only mentioned twice in the Church epistles, while adultery is mentioned six times.

The phrase "all things are lawful for me" is not the same thing as "nothing is a sin for me". The Word of God says we all sin (I John 1:8-10). All things are lawful because whether you sin or not you are going to heaven. But if you want to walk in fellowship with God, you must learn from His Word what things are sins - and His Word is clear concerning adultery. It is a sin.

According to I Corinthians, chapter 7, the marriage relationship is one of permission, not law. I am not breaking any of God’s laws by getting my sexual needs met outside as well as inside my marriage.

I Corinthians 7:6 says, "But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment." This verse means that what the Apostle Paul was writing was God’s Word, but he was writing by God’s permission, not because God had commanded him to write. Just because Paul was writing by permission does not mean that marriage was any less binding. No one has to get married. God does not force anyone to get married, but once two believers make a freewill decision to get married, then they are bound by what the Word of God says about the marriage relationship. The Word of God says that once you are married you are not to commit adultery.

Colossians 2:20 and 21 say that people are no longer to be subject to ordinances like "touch not; taste not; handle not." "Do not commit adultery" is just another "not" that was done away with when we got born again.

Colossians 2:20 and 21 are only part of the context of this section of scripture. When more of the context is quoted, these verses are clear.

Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,

Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?

Notice that "Touch not; taste not; handle not;" is part of an epitrechon. An epitrechon is a figure of speech. It is a parenthetical addition "rapidly thrown in as an explanatory remark."^* What is the epitrechon explaining? It is explaining the word "ordinances" which are "after the commandments and doctrines of men." There are many ordinances, rules, regulations, and laws that are "after the commandments and doctrines of men," i.e., man made. However, there are rules that are "God made."

Colossians is not saying that believers are not subject to the ordinances of God. What Colossians is saying is that the believer is not to be subject to man’s ordinances, man’s commandments, and man’s doctrines. That we should not commit adultery is a doctrine of God. It is clearly stated in the Word of God that adultery is a sin. To say that Colossians 2:20-22 applies to adultery would mean that it applies to every other doctrine given by God. In that case, God should not have bothered to tell us in His Word what to do and what not to do, since we would not be subject to those ordinances anyway.

Whenever the word "adultery" is used in the Word of God, the term applies to spiritual adultery, not physical adultery.

Some people erroneously believe that the words "adultery" and "fornication" in the Word of God do not refer to the physical act of sexual intercourse, but refer instead to spiritual unfaithfulness to God. It is correct that the terms "adultery" and "fornication" sometimes do refer to spiritual unfaithfulness. It is also correct that they do refer to the actual physical acts of fornication and adultery. In fact, the terms "fornication" and "adultery" were used of spiritual unfaithfulness because physical unfaithfulness was so clearly understood and known to be a sin against God. Spiritual unfaithfulness is called "adultery" and "fornication" because those words communicate how grave the sin of idolatry is in the sight of God. Of course, God does set forth His position on idolatry in literal terms also (Compare Exodus 20:1-6, the first two of the ten commandments). Idolatry, like adultery, was a capital crime (cp. Exodus 22:20; Deuteronomy 13:1-11; Deuteronomy 17:2-5).

Another reason that "adultery" and "fornication" were used of the spiritual sin, as well as the physical sin, was that the parallels were so close. A person who committed adultery broke a covenant (Malachi 2:14). Well, God had made a covenant with Israel at the base of Mt. Sinai. Israel had promised to be faithful (Exodus 24:3-8). When Israel broke the covenant and was unfaithful, God called their action "adultery." People were aware that physical adultery was a sin and carried the death penalty. Thus by calling idolatry "adultery" the seriousness of the sin of idolatry could be effectively communicated. Besides the parallel of the broken covenant, there are other parallels between an unfaithful wife and a man who is unfaithful to God. A person can be "seduced" into an adulterous relationship either physically or spiritually. On the other hand, a person can enter into an adulterous relationship (physically or spiritually) with full awareness and a hardened and lustful heart.

The point is that physical adultery and fornication were understood by the people and known to be a sin against God. God took advantage of the close parallels between the physical and spiritual, and called spiritual unfaithfulness by the terms "adultery" and "fornication." To say that the words "adultery" and "fornication" only to the spiritual act of unfaithfulness to God misses the point and robs the words of their full impact.

Another reason that God ties together physical adultery and spiritual adultery in His Word is that they were so associated with pagan worship. Sexual intercourse was an actual part of many pagan rituals, especially fertility rituals. There are specific terms in the Old Testament for men and women who were temple prostitutes. Qedesheh refers to a woman and Qadesh refers to men who were "set apart" for sacred prostitution in pagan religion. The Hebrew root word is qadash, which is translated "be holy," "be sanctified," "hallowed," etc. Qedesheh referring to the female temple prostitute, is translated "harlot(s)" in Genesis 38:21 twice, in Genesis 38:22 once, Hosea 4:14 once, and as "whore" in Deuteronomy 23:17. Qadesh, referring to the male temple prostitutes, is translated as "sodomite(s)" in Deuteronomy 23:17; I Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; II Kings 23:7, and as the "unclean" in Job 36:14.^* Israelites were specifically forbidden to be temple prostitutes. "There shall be no whore (qedesheh = temple prostitute) of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite (qadesh = temple prostitute) of the sons of Israel (Deuteronomy 23:17). Not only were there to be no temple prostitutes in Israel, but the wages of a male or female temple prostitute were not acceptable to be used as money for a vow. "Thou shall not bring the hire of a whore (qedesheh = female temple prostitute) or the price of a dog^** into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow" (Deuteronomy 23:18).

These are verses in the Word of God that clearly show beyond a shadow of a doubt that the word "adultery" is applied to physical unfaithfulness. Each of the verses below clearly show adultery between a man and a woman.

And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul.

Because they have committeth villany in Israel, and have committed adultery with their neighbors’ wives, and have spoken lying words in my name, which I have not commanded them; even I know, and am a witness, saith the Lord.

But as a wife that committeth adultery, which taketh strangers instead of her husband!

Ezekiel, chapter 18 contains a verse of scripture showing not only the physical side of adultery, but also showing that it is "unlawful," and not "just" or "right." Adultery is indicated by the phrase "defiled his neighbor's wife."

And hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither hath defiled his neighbor's wife, neither hath come near to a menstrous woman,

In the Gospels Jesus Christ obviously understood the commandment "Thou shalt not commit adultery" to apply to physical adultery with a woman.

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, thou shalt not commit adultery:

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

When Christ said, "Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart," he was not inventing a new sin. He was simply applying one of the Old Testament commandments. As well as forbidding the act of adultery, the ten commandments had forbidden coveting another man’s wife: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" (Exodus 20:17).

It has been clearly demonstrated that the word "adultery" can and does refer to the actual physical act. The examples used were taken from the Law Administration and the Christ Administration. Examples from the Patriarchal and Grace Administrations can be found in the thesis section of this paper. In summary, the reason that the term "adultery" was used by God to indicate spiritual unfaithfulness was that there were so many parallels between spiritual and physical unfaithfulness, and that the seriousness and the wrong of physical unfaithfulness was so clearly understood.

I married a woman with a very weak sexual drive, and I have a very strong sexual drive. I am always "horny." I know that God meets needs, and I believe He meets my needs through other women who are willing to have intercourse with me.

You are correct that God meets needs, but He does not meet them in ways that flow at cross-purposes with His Word. There are probably very few marriages where the sexual drives of both partners are the same. Part of the joy and privilege of working together as a Christian husband and wife is to work out differences using the Word of God as a standard. The reason the needs exist is that you and your wife have not gone honestly and lovingly to the Word of God. I Corinthians 7:3 and 4 apply to your situation.

Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.

The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his body, but the wife.

The word "render" in verse 3 is apodidomi, and in the context of I Corinthians 7 it means "to pay off what is due" (Thayer). It carries a sense of obligation (Bullinger). The words "due benevolence" are the Greek words ten opheilen and mean "the debt," or "that which is due." This phrase is a euphemism for marital duties (Bauer).

The use of the words "render" and "due benevolence" are clear. The wife is to meet the sexual needs of her husband, and vice versa. Neither the husband nor the wife has the right to refuse to meet the sexual needs of the spouse. They have a "debt" to each other, as verse 4 makes clear: "The wife hath not power over her own body, but the husband; and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife." There may be times when one partner may not "feel" like having sexual intercourse. If the husband and wife wait until they both "feel like it" to have sexual intercourse, God would not have written I Corinthians 7:3 and 4. Believing men and women are to love God enough that they work with their minds and bodies to obey God. Believers work with their minds and bodies in many other categories and try to "put on the new man" (Colossians 3:10), so there is no reason for believers not to obey God in the sexual field.

If the husband and wife will walk in the love of God and genuinely obey the written Word of God from their hearts, they will find that they can work out their sexual differences. The richness of the relationship as a husband and wife standing together on the Word of God will be one of the greatest blessings of life.

My job and responsibility takes me away from my wife for long periods of time, and I need to have sexual intercourse regularly. I know that God always meets the need of His people. Having sexual intercourse with other women while I am away from my wife meets that need in my life.

This "reason" for committing adultery is not an honest one. A husband disobeys the Word of God by leaving his wife for a longer period of time than his body and mind can handle. Thus he made his own need, which would never have existed at all had he obeyed the Word of God. Then he sinned by adultery to meet the need he himself made by his disobedience. Of course, the same could be true of women who leave their husbands.

Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, That ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, That Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

The word "defraud" is unclear because it is King James English. A better translation would be "deprive." God’s Word says the husband and wife are not to deprive each other sexually except: 1) it be with mutual consent, 2) it be for a specific time and, 3) that it be for the couple to give themselves to fasting and prayer. The reason the couple is not to deprive each other is that "Satan tempt you not for your incontinency."

If a husband is going to leave his wife at all, there is to be mutual consent about the separation. He probably has not agreed with his wife to have other women have sexual intercourse with him while he is away. Even if she did agree to it, that would not make adultery all right with God. God specifically says that the time a husband and wife are to be apart is to be limited, so that Satan cannot tempt them because of their "incontinency," i.e., lack of self control. If a husband and wife are allowing themselves to be away from each other for a longer period of time than either of them can sexually handle, they are already off the Word. In those times their "need" is to get back together, not to commit adultery.

Flesh is flesh and spirit is spirit. When you look at sex objectively, the penis and vagina are simply flesh of the human body. In that respect there is no difference between a man and woman holding hands and a man and woman having sexual intercourse.

Human logic is only "logical" if it lines up with the written Word of God. The Word of God does not forbid holding hands but does forbid adultery. If the fact that the human body is only flesh made adultery okay, why wouldn’t homosexuality be okay? Two men may shake hands, or even hug each other. Yet there is a big difference between that and a homosexual experience. The Word of God openly condemns the homosexual/lesbian lifestyle. But psychologists today say that homosexual/lesbian relations are simply an "alternative lifestyle," citing for "logical proof" that they are mature adults, have good jobs, make significant contributions in the field of art, education, etc., and have no discernible psychological abnormalities or deficiencies. The student of the Bible knows that homosexuality is a sin because the Word of God says it is a sin. What the psychologists say, or how the homosexuals feel makes no difference to God. The Word of God is the truth on the subject.

The flesh of two homosexuals or two lesbians is no different than the flesh of two people who commit adultery, because flesh is flesh. What is done in the flesh is a sin if and when God says it is a sin. Holding hands or kissing did not carry a death penalty in the Old Testament Law. Homosexuality and adultery did carry a death penalty. Surely the testimony of the Word of God is that there is a vast difference between holding hands and committing adultery.

Adultery is so commonly practiced it has actually become part of the culture. There are cases where the Word of God flexes with the culture. A good example is in I Corinthians 11:5 and 6 where it says that every woman ought to either wear a hat or shave her head when she prays. Yet we do not enforce that today because we accept the cultural norm that women do not wear hats. Wouldn’t adultery fall in the same category as a rule that can bend with the culture?

One reason that apparel and dress codes come up so often in the New Testament is due to the many cultures that were coming in contact with one another. Corinth was a case in point. Corinth was one of the most cosmopolitan cities of the Roman world. It controlled much of the sea trade going east and west and controlled land trade going north and south between mainland Greece and the Peloponnese. The city was populated with people from all over the Mediterranean world and parts of Africa and Asia. The advice in I Corinthians, chapter 11 pertaining to dress was to help bring some unity to the fellowship. I call it advice because of verse 16, "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." In other words, if somebody wants to fight and argue, they can wear what they want.

Thus the reason the dress code in the New Testament bends with the culture is because God specifically stated that it would bend. This is not true of murder, stealing, adultery, etc. The believer is not to steal because everyone else is stealing, lie because everyone else is lying, or commit adultery because everyone else is committing adultery. The believer is not to be conformed to the world (Romans 12:2). The believer is not to walk "as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, having their understanding darkened" (Ephesians 4:17-18). The believer is to put off the old man and his behavior, and put away lying and other sins (Ephesians 4:22-31). Believers are to be the ones who have "obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you" (Romans 6:17). If the believer wants to obey God in the field of adultery, his action is simple: do not do it.

I am completely wrapped up in adultery. Between the various women who pressure me or expect me to spend time with them, the friends that I hang out with who are into adultery, and the lies that I have told to my wife, children and others, I cannot stop now. My marriage and my public life would be destroyed.

This situation is the result of unchecked sin. Adultery is a sin and part of the "snare of the devil" (II Timothy 2:26) and can have very serious consequences.

For the lips of a strange woman drop as an honeycomb, and her mouth is smoother than oil:

But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul.

This problem developed because of disobedience to God’s Word, and the answers and deliverance will come from God. Although it may seem impossible to get out of the situation, it is possible with God. Believers should not want to continue in sin. Besides the broken fellowship and loss of eternal rewards, the situation on earth will only get worse. Since each individual case is different, there are no "pat answers" for deliverance from the snare of the Devil. Seeking the aid of a person or persons capable of helping through God’s Word, believing, prayer, and wise counsel may be necessary. Always remember that with men things may seem impossible, but with God all things are possible.

My story (short version): In the spring of 1986 a girl came to me and said she had had sexual intercourse with Dr. Wierwille. I had no reason to doubt her as we were friends and she "had her head on her shoulders" in life. I started asking around to girls I knew always got to ride on the motor coach, fly on Ambassador 1, get "back room" duty instead of housekeeping or grounds, etc. Lo and behold, I talked to many women that were very candid about their sexual relations with leadership.

Perhaps the most disturbing thing about those months was the developing picture was that this was not just practical sin based on lust but rather was sin based on wrong doctrine--many of the people involved thought it was okay with God. In fact, all of the "reasons" that I wrote about in my appendix came out of the mouths of women I talked to. I would ask them why they thought it was okay or why they were told it was okay and those were the reasons I got, so that is why I answered those specific questions.

In the midst of interviewing the women I suspected might have had sexual relations with leadership, I had three different women tell me I would be killed if I tried to stop it. The first time I thought it was a totally stupid thing, but by the third one I really stopped and thought about it. David had Uriah killed for the same reason. To protect my work I sent it to about 7 people I knew and trusted (I do not remember the exact number or all the people now) sealed in an envelope inside an envelope with instructions to "go public" if I ended up dead. I told them that the paper was going to be sent up proper channels, and not to share the work with others. As you know, The Way had strict guidelines for handling research, and at that time I had been in the Research Dept. for six years, loved my job and believed in the system even though I was beginning to have doubts about the integrity of the leadership. I handed the paper in to Walter Cummins in late September. It just sat on his desk. One of the people I had given a copy to had been hurt by the sex stuff and really wanted it to "make an impact." She went to Ralph, who, of course, knew nothing of the paper (like I said, I had not gone public). Ralph talked with somebody (who?) and the next thing I knew there were all kinds of meetings about the paper and all kinds of untrue things being said about me.

On October 23d I was "released" from The Way by order of Chris Geer. It was a Friday. I had a lot of friends at HQ still. On Monday at noon Walter got up in front of the staff and told some made-up lie about me violating department procedures and thus being let go. A friend snuck out of lunch and called me to let me know what was said (I did not ask for that but he did it anyway). I got right on the phone with Walter and told him what he did was wrong and that he should not lie about a brother to all those other Christians. I asked to meet with him face to face but he refused. After that there was a huge witch-hunt and more lies were told about me than you can possibly imagine. Even really weird stuff like I believed in the Trinity and the dead being alive.

Because I still had friends around the country, I got some requests for my paper. Since I was no longer on staff, and since my "belief in the system" had really taken a blow, I mailed it to anyone who asked. By that time the Trustees and Corps Coordinators were starting a rumor that the paper personally attacked Dr. Wierwille and taught all kinds of false doctrine. Corps going home for "ho-ho relo" were told if they read my paper not to come back in residence. It was also stated that the paper had devil spirits and anyone who read it became possessed. Well, that all backfired because as people read it they could tell that what was said about it was lies. And so there was an escalation of people challenging the leadership and leaving The Way.

In time I hooked up with Ralph Dubofsky, Tom Reheard, John Lynn, Mark Graeser, Robert Belt, and some others and CES was born. It took awhile for the smoke to clear, but when it did all that was left of us was John Lynn, Mark Graeser and myself, and we have been together ever since. The Lord has been leading us, and now I think we are turning out some really first-class stuff.