from beng - Thursday, February 26, 2004
accessed 1717 times
This is a commentary on the “Law of Love”, divided into three sections:
1. A personal overview from me the writer of the beginning roots of the “Law of Love” and a little of its history and after effects.
2. A few of Dad quotes on the “Law of Love”, marriage, sex and FFing.
3. A look at some of the cornerstone verses used to justify the theory of the “Law of Love”.
Before starting I’d like to explain that in writing this it is not my goal to hinder anyone’s religious freedom. Nor is it to vent off anger or hate toward any person or persons. But rather to examine the principals and belief structure of one of the Family’s most diverse and controversial fundamental cornerstone beliefs--“The Law of Love”. In writing this I do not propose to that I now hold the doctrine of truth. But rather I wish to write this as a debate or discussion.
The Family’s “Law of Love”, has repeatedly been said to be Biblically based and bears good fruit. These are the two main topics that I wish to examine.
So if you are someone that feels comfortable with the “Law of Love”, and the way that you are practicing it, or the way that it’s being practiced, then this discussion will most likely not be to your liking. But if you are someone who feels that there are too many gray areas in the “Law of Love”, or wonder why so many problems seem to come as fruit from the sexual sharing of the “Law of Love”, then this may be of interest to you.
The point of going over this is not to now go on a negative down spiral and feel miserable about our past. But rather to take account of our lives and see what we can learn from it and what from our past experiences we can benefit from. And to do this we have to look at the matter at hand.
One verse that has been used time and again to justify the Family’s actions has been Mt 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
As you read this dialogue, join me here and ask yourself, is this good fruit?
A personal overview
I think it is important to acknowledge the fact that Dad gave a very convincing argument on the “Law of Love”. I grew up on his letters and read his theorizing and came to the conclusion that he really knew the Bible and knew what he was talking about. He was intelligent and came across as being very sincere. And so he may have been. But too often sincerity is not enough, as you are no less wrong, even if you are sincerely wrong.
From the Family’s very beginning Dad had an extramarital sexual agenda with Maria going on. In fact, through later letters we find that sex was really something that was occupying his mind quite intensely from a very early age. It appears that through what he seems to feel was a real void in his younger years, later turned into a very big vacuum that ran wild. Dad had grown up with the idea that sex was bad. So when later as a grown man he discovered that this was not true. He had a very big sexual liberation. And what he had tried to suppress for so long turned into a passion that he pursued to the full for the rest of his sexually capable years.
Dad’s official introduction of the “Law of Love” didn’t come out until “flirty fishing” was introduced. It was perfect; it all of a sudden came together and made “sense”. It’s all about giving. What could possibly be wrong with sacrificially giving love to those in need, if the ultimate purpose was to win them to God and to win their souls into Gods Kingdom, forever! Well I agree, he had a good sales pitch and it really was a very good argument. How could you possibly withhold something that might win someone to eternal redemption? Would you be that cold and heartless? Well a lot of Family women were obviously moved by this sales pitch. Personally I admire every woman that went into this ministry in a sincere desire to do just that. Although I think this was a rather simplistic look at the situation and taking things too much at face value.
One thought to ponder is. If the purpose was really just to get them saved, why was there then a need to be continually going to bed with the same people who we called “fish”? Many already had wives and families at home. Did their wives know and agree? Was this right? Was this being honest?
Then we saw from the effects or fruit of this “word” put into action, that along with being little flirty fishies for Christ to win souls for the kingdom, a lot of our dear mothers and women in the Family soon became involved in escort services and call girl services. FFing became a financial fundraiser for the Family. Some may wish to defend this by saying that escort services happened in only a few rare exceptional cases and that Dad did not encouraged and promote FFing as a main Family fundraiser. This is simply not true though. Escort servicing was at the time very accepted and normal in the Family, and FFing was listed by Dad as one of the Families 7 ways to fundraise in the letter “7 Supporters”. In fact in “7 F’s of FFing” he shares how he feels that it is probably the Families best way to support itself. I have included a paragraph from “7 F’s of FFing” on this in my next section of “Quotes from Dad”.
So from what I understand, Dad and the leaders along with our fish were some of the first who had the privilege of enjoying this freedom. But then there were all these needy guys in the Family that weren’t getting it; this could not continue to hold out. So Dad decided to let the girls give it to our dear Family boys as well. So then we started to see a shifting in purpose.
First step in the sales pitch was; we need to give these people sex so we can witness to them and so they can understand that God loves them.
Then the next step, since there’s nothing wrong with sex why can’t we enjoy it amongst ourselves as well? It’s no sin if done in love. Then before long just about anything goes. People are doing sex for all kinds of reasons, to get to know each other, to smooth over differences, to give some love after a correction, to be able to talk more honestly, because they are needy, or maybe even just for the fun of it. And before long there’s no real definition anymore. We saw this in the Fellowship Revolution, which were mainly just big time sexual orgies where everybody got together for dance night and was swapping with everybody and just really going wild. Basically anything went except for guys with guys. That’s one place where Dad drew the line, although at first he was rather hesitant and debated it a bit. But finally he did draw the line.
It’s interesting to note that he did not come to this conclusion on the basis of his new “Law of Love”. As in theory, the “Law of Love” did seem to condone homosexuality. And this was what was giving Dad some trouble. But in finding it too revolting, what he had to do was come back to the Old Testament example of Sodom and Gomorrah. So although there was a time of speculation, he turned out to be morally capable of drawing a line there and saying the “Law of Love” does not go that far.
So we found out that Dad’s “Law of Love” did have some limits after all. Somehow though, it didn’t seem inappropriate to us that he jumped back to the Old Testament and borrowed a few essentials for cooking his new concoction, while leaving other main condiments untouched.
So a while after this, after things had been going wild it began to be too obvious, even to any sincerely mislead person that things were getting out of hand. So “ban the bomb” came and restrictions were put down. As one of the effects (or fruits) of all this sharing was STD becoming more and more prevalent in our little “heavenly homes”.
So again why go over all this? Because I think it is important to have a look at how this idea developed and where it came from. And although the Law of Love has had many growing stages the principal and foundation of the “Law of Love” remained, which it continues to do in the Family to this day. Now I’m not going to go through all the different revolutions the Family went through, this is just a sort of very quick overview to look at some of the fruits and effects that it had on us in our lives.
One of the other effects of all this promiscuity was that we ended up having a lot of babies, which Dad and the rest of us were very proud of. The only problem was, a lot of these babies didn’t have Daddies. Now how in the world did we get a problem like that? Where are the fathers? Could it be that promiscuous attitudes have a tendency to produce irresponsibility?
This section could naturally be much longer as there really are many more examples on this topic. But to not make this too long I will move on to the next subject.
2. Quotes from Dad
Most of these letters are taken from the DB 1, as this is one of the few books I still have. If I had more Family letters I would be able to come up with lots more examples here. But regardless of that, DB 1 contains more than enough evidence on this subject to make a point.
Grace vs. Law DB 1 pg 85
There is one thing that is very essential to being a Family member and believing Dad’s teachings. That is to believe Dad, above all else.
Here in Dad’s own words: There are a lot of things that I don’t agree with the apostle Paul on, and I think that I have as much right to my opinion as he had to his….
So you have got to believe in the Lord and in me, that I am a new prophet of a new day of a whole lot of new things that Paul never even thought about. A lot of things that Paul said were right for his time and his day, but they don’t necessarily bind us today. If God has spoken at all and shown me these things at all, if it’s the Lord at all, it is His Words for today and it supersedes anything else that has ever been given, if it is different, if it is a change.
I must say that is quite a statement and I underlined that last line to emphasis what is being said. Well if you believe this statement here by Dad, then there is no use in trying to convince you about where Dad was wrong. Because he has made himself an authority over the Bible, therefore there is no standard beside what he picks and chooses and he becomes your “new man”, with a “new way”, for your “new day”.
But think about it, this doctrine and belief would really only be needed if his words were coming in conflict with the Bible. If he was only reiterating what the Bible was saying there would be no need to have this “special” authority. Which goes to show why it is so crucial and so important for the Family to believe that Dad was God’s Endtime Prophet speaking God’s Word for today and therefore had the right to exercise this kind of “special authority”.
Now in this same letter there is a good example of how Dad uses a verse by Paul about women keeping silence in the church as a way to prove his point. It may seem at first glance to be easy to agree with Dad here, for surely many Christians today will readily agree that women have a definite place in the church. But it’s important to look at how he does not properly examine the scriptures to get the full picture and therefore draws the wrong conclusion. “What he said about women in the church (1 Cor 14:34 ,35) and that was totally contradictory to what the Holy Ghost said through the mouth of Peter right in the second chapter of Acts. Acts 2:17-18 How are they going to keep silence in the church if they are going to prophesy, or how are they going to prophesy if they are going to keep silence in the church?”
Here he puts Paul in the wrong, therefore puts the Bible in the wrong and gives himself a license to have his own doctrine. This cracks the door open for a lot of possibilities. This is a good example of how when you don’t come to a decision correctly, although you may have an element of truth you can end up with a lot of other misconceptions.
Now let’s do a simple little examination of this verse and see what we can come up with.
Just three chapters earlier in 1Cor 11:5Paul tells the Corinthians how the women should cover their heads when they pray or prophesy. So we see that he is in agreement with Acts 2:17about women prophesying. But the point here is: He isn’t saying that women can’t prophesy. Paul was not trying to contradict Acts 2:17,18.In Acts 21:9he went into the house of Philip a man who had four daughters that prophesied.
So if that was not the problem, why did Paul say this? Well, like Dad very often quoted, “I may not always know where it is but I sure know where it ain’t”. And it was definitely not because Paul was in contradiction with the Holy Spirit.
Sometimes it’s not always easy to give a definite answer on some of these things as there are so many things that need to be taken into consideration and sometimes we don’t have a means to know them all, simply because we were not there and therefore don’t know the exact circumstances of why he said what he said.
But with a little searching and good hermeneutics we can find better possibilities than to say Paul was contradicting the Holy Spirit. The problem here is more likely to have been the same as in 1Tim 5:11-15and 2 Tim 3:6-9where the women were responsible for some of the false teachings going on. The epistles are letters that are written to a specific congregation and were meant to deal with specific problems. Therefore it seems that he was specifically correcting the women in this case, as he did in Ephesus with 1Tim 2:11-12.There was also a very big cultural difference between Paul’s time and ours.
But I believe that it is definitely incorrect to state that Paul was contradicting the Holy Spirit. As that would also contradict 2Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God. I do not wish to go into further discussion of this, as it does not deal with the immediate subject at hand. But I did include it here are it serves as a good example.
In going back to Dad’s letter, he says, I am a new prophet of a new day of a whole lot of new things that Paul never even thought about.
It is only too obvious to see where he is going with this and that he is referring to his new interpretation of the “Law of Love” and his belief in sexual promiscuity, and if so, I beg to differ.
To give just one example, let’s look at how things where in Paul’s time, as it seems that Dad apparently feels that Paul never had to deal with sexual promiscuity so then never thought of applying the Word in the kind of ways like he has. Lets look at what Halley’s handbook has to say about the Corinthians in the time of Paul.
In Corinth: Venus was the principal Deity of Corinth. Her Temple was one of the most magnificent buildings in the city. In it a thousand Priestesses, Public Prostitutes, were kept, at the public expense, there always, always ready for Immoral Indulgence, as worship to their Goddess. Some of the Corinthian Christians, having been used to a religion that encouraged immoral living, were finding it a little hard to adapt themselves to their new religion, which prohibited immoral living. Paul had said, in discussing certain things, that all things are Lawful (1Cor 6:12). Some of them evidently were quoting this to justify their promiscuous sexual indulgences. Paul positively states that it does not so apply; and positively in unmistakable language, prohibits Christians from such indulgences.”
Paul was very much up to date on the issues of sexual promiscuity, as sexual promiscuity done in the name of religion is nothing new now and neither was it then.
If you want to go back further to the time of Abraham “Ningal the moon-goddess of Ur, was the deification of sex and passion; her worship required licentiousness; sacred prostitution in connection with her sanctuaries was a universal custom among women of Babylonia. In connection with her temples were charming retreats or chambers where her priestesses entertained male worshipers in disgraceful ceremonies. In addition to these prostitute priestesses, every maid, wife or widow had to officiate once in her lifetime in these rites”.
If you want to find more examples of sex with the gods or sex and religion of which there are plenty, you’ll have to find them yourself. But this is just to say that it is nothing new to mix these two together. And I don’t think it’s right to say that we have now found a new way around what has always been wrong. If Paul said it was a sin in his time it’s still a sin today. This approach of Dad’s is as old as the day sin itself was born in the garden. “Hath God really said thou shalt not?”…. Well what he really means is….
But please let’s get back to our subject at hand.
In Love vs. Law it says: First of all we know that all Mosaic laws are null and void as far as we are concerned. Christ was the end of the law… He fulfilled the law, and from then on we were no longer under the law!
So as far as we’re concerned and as far as the Bible says, for us there is no such thing anymore as a biblical law against adultery, as long as whatever is done is done in love, because the “Law of Love” supercedes all other laws!
Let’s see what kind of “wise” conclusions we can come to with this kind of doctrine as our basis. A month later after “Love vs. Law” he gave this in the Letter “When Sin is Not a Sin”. Mama asks a very interesting question. Maria just asked me a question: She said she understood from the letter “God’s Only Law is Love” that we now, as Christians, are no longer under the laws of Moses but under the love-law of Christ. “But”, she said, what about the fellows we make love with? Aren’t they still under the Mosaic Law and committing a sin when they make love with us?
Interesting to know that somebody was considering that there still might be such a thing as adultery. ‘Cause with quotes like the previous one I had begun to get a very strange assumption that there was no such thing as adultery in the Family’s beliefs. At least it seemed so remote that to be ever engaging in something like adultery was most difficult and highly unlikely. Like Dad said in the letter previous to this and in “The Devil hates Sex” DB1 pg214: But as far as God’s now concerned, there are no more sexual prohibitions hardly of any kind. —Except He sure seemed to hate sodomy and I don’t see where he withdrew that.
Anyway back to Mama’s question and Dad’s answers.
As I stopped for a moment and thought, the first thing that came to me was: Like Christ was our atonement and He bore our sins for us, we are their atonement before they find the Lord, and in a sense we bear their sins for them which are already forgiven in Christ and therefore by us. Jesus Himself said, “Whosoever sins ye shall remit, they shall be remitted unto them”. If you forgive them, then God will forgive them also. Whoever you forgive, God will forgive. If you don’t forgive them, then God won’t forgive them either. He says in the same verse, “Whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained.” (Jn 20:23) Besides what was the idea and purpose of the old Mosaic Law against adultery? Even behind the old Mosaic Laws there was the love of God and His desire to keep people from hurting each other and damaging each other either physically or otherwise, even their feelings.
Feel like the ice is getting thin yet. Well you’d better spread yourself out, cause it gets thinner.
Then comes the other question which Maria just brought up, “Well what about his wife, if he’s married? Isn’t he committing adultery against his own wife? (Notice the he, it doesn’t even phase them in the slightest that there could be a possibility that maybe the Family girls are committing anything against the wife. And we find out why.)
The physical act in itself is not what is the most important thing. You are in no way whatsoever trying to come between him and his wife, which would be adultery, and in which case it would be a sin for you to be stealing another woman’s husband—unless she’s already forsaken him. But instead, you are trying to do him good by giving him the love of God to actually make a better husband of him and a better father for her.
So here we see Dad’s new and revised definition of adultery. Adultery is only if you’re trying to come between him and his wife or if you were to be stealing another woman’s husband. Maybe somebody in WS could compile this and title it, “How to cheat on your wife to become a better husband!” I’m sure it would be a great seller.
So if you can keep yourself outside of these two issues you can engage in as much promiscuous sex as you want. The physical act in itself is not really important. Never mind the fact of asking the wife if she’s all right with what you are doing, this is not taken into consideration. After all, how could it? Just picture it.
Latest news flash: Please check with the wife of the married men that you are FFing and please be sure to explain to them that you are going to have sex with their husband so that they can get saved, which will make them a better husband and father and in turn she will have a better home. (Editors note: Don’t forget to explain that you will also need to be having regular sex with these men as this is of course the case with many of our fish.)
It’s seems to me funny how the theory of the “Law of Love”, has this concept that once you accept Dad’s new explanation, it’s like you get this inoculation and congratulations!!! You have now been accepted into our new “immune to all sexual sin” society.
The picture I get is that of a scuba diver who goes so far down into deep that he looses his sense of direction and doesn’t know which way is up or down.
The theory of saying all things are lawful when done in love has yet more serious flaws. As what do you do in the case of Child/Adult Sex and Sodomy? We already went over earlier how Dad hesitated on the point of Sodomy but did finally manage to contradict his own theory and draw a line by going back to the Old Testament example of Sodom and Gomorrah. In a quote I just used earlier “In the Devil Hates Sex”, he says, but as far as God’s now concerned, there are no more sexual prohibitions hardly of any kind. -Except He sure seemed to hate Sodomy and I don’t see where he withdrew that.
To follow through with this thought, I don’t see anywhere in the New Testament where Jesus or any of the Apostles or any of the other New Testament writers withdrew the sin of adultery or fornication?
I find it very sad that in this letter Dad never came out and gave a Biblical condemnation of Child/Adult Sex. In fact it is clear from the Davidito Series that he condoned it and knowingly had his adult childcare worker put it into practice on his 3 year old son by her having sex with him. Surely there could be no wrong in this as it was sincerely done in love. Mind you, I’m not being sarcastic in the fact that I think that Sara did this thinking she was doing the loving thing. Nor am I sarcastic in the fact that I think Dad sincerely taught it, thinking this was true love. But the point here is that this is clear evidence of how Dad’s own theory led him to some seriously misguided conclusions. Dad, by his own words and actions stands condemned.
In DB1, “God’s gift is God’s Work” there’s a lot of nice talk about how wonderful children are and that we should be happy for them and make sure that we take good care of them, that when our women do get pregnant we should act responsible and that we are diametrically opposed to abortion and so on. Let’s take a look at how we are taught to act responsible.
God gives a baby and the father and mother had better want it, especially when it’s a gift and a creation of God! You had better want it and be thankful for it and start right off taking good care of the baby by taking good care of the mother! Up until now it sounds pretty good and all, but lets read on a bit.
We’re all married! We are all married together into one Family to one Lord, one wife, one bride, so forget about who is responsible! That’s so ridiculous! God was responsible! It’s His doing, and it makes it your job no matter who she is, what she is, who supposedly got her pregnant or who the hell she’s been fucking! If they’re the sisters in your home and your living together you’re bound to be ministering to each other, so you’re, one family, one wife, and one bride. Hmm right?!?! Quite a family vision Dad has there. Ever heard of, “What’s everybody’s business is nobody’s business”. Doesn’t end up sounding like a very responsible plan after all, does it.
Here’s another quote from the same letter.
I don’t mind you men going around fucking the girls, even if it’s just for fun. But once God has made a baby out of that, in a way the fun is over and you’re down to serious business! —
I imagine it would be very easy to walk away thinking. I can go with as many girls as I want, and do it as much as I want even if it’s just for fun it’s all right, as long as I don’t get anyone pregnant. But ask yourself is that a good way to teach young men responsibility?!?!! Well I think the Family’s single mom’s problem spells that out much clearer than I could. Mat 7:20 By their fruits ye shall know them. You may feel that Mama has now taken care of this in the new amendments to the Law of Love in the Charter. But to me it doesn’t really present much of a change, as the general policy is still that you can basically be as promiscuous as you want, as long as you don’t get the girl pregnant. Okay with the “new” amended Love Charter your now suppose to go through some, supposedly very responsible procedures to commit an irresponsible act. But in truth, how many in the Family really follow all those rules? Who right now remembers them all by heart? But everybody knows that if you get a girl pregnant you will get a few months mandatory responsibility. From there on you are again back to the way it was and are asked like you always were to try to act responsible. Very much like the illustration Dad liked to use of a hospital at the bottom of the cliff rather than a fence at the top. So the Family has been busy constructing their “new improved” hospital at the bottom of the cliff rather than leaving the good old fence on the top of the cliff.
This next quote is from “7 F’s of Ffing”, and is a quote that confirms what I said earlier about FFING BEING ONE OF THE FAMILIES BEST FINANCIAL MINISTRIES.
It’ll still be an effective, effucktive, efficient and fruitful ministry right up to the End, probably the last or the 7 supporters when provisioning is gone and you’re not even allowed to hold a job anymore because you haven’t got the number. But you’ll still be working girls, as long as they’ve got your number, your phone number! HALLELUJAH!
I’ll bet we could get 7 F’s out of that somehow! (Sara: Financial!) Yes the most financial! What have we got? The most effective, effuctive, efficient, Fruitful, supportive would be financial, offercerish, or official—you get at more officials that way, important men—and it’s forever, praise God! TYL! That’s 7 F’s, the 7 F’s of ffing! PTL?
Dad’s endtime financial plan. Guess it didn’t pan out quite like he planned.
You could say, well the Family doesn’t do FFing anymore so it’s really out of the question. Well I don’t think so, because it is on these very principals the Family doctrine and belief is built and though they may not be presently practicing FFing, they believe in it and hold to it just as much now as they did then. They cannot deny the past without it deteriorating the present. So it is imperative that they maintain the theory on these past grounds as well.
While we’re here on this letter, I’ll add another quote where Dad proudly proclaims:
“Our 2500 family couples roughly speaking are producing about 700 Babies per million fucks a year, or only one baby for about every 1500 fucks! So God is blessing the FFing and we’re getting higher percentage of Jesus babies according to the number of FF fucks than we are from Family fucks! Now that ought to be a point in favor of FFing! But maybe that’s going to scare some of you girls out of FFing! Ha! You’ve got a five-to-one better chance of being blessed with a baby through FFing.”
If this is not a break down of basic morals and family values (and I don’t mean the Family’s values) then I’m not sure I know what is.
3. What does the Bible have to say?
In this last section I would like to look at the “Law of Love” from a Biblical approach and see some of the verses that Dad used to base his theory on. Some people may get a little offended in this next section as it may look like I am trying to teach you a thing or two. Or that I’m trying to make it sound like I have just discovered some “new” and “amazing truths”. This is not the case though and I’m sorry if you feel like that. But that’s really up to you whether you want to take that approach or not. All I’m trying to do here is read these verses from the Bible, examine them, try to put them into context, and try to understand the message that is being put forth by the givers. And if you can focus on the subject rather than on me the writer, I think you’ll have a better chance of getting something out of it. This section is by no means exhaustive. As there is a lot more from a Biblical perspective to be said on this. So I’m not covering all aspects of the Law of Love from a Biblical angle in this one section here. But I do believe that this can show the individual who has an open heart, that Dad’s interpretation of the Law of Love has some serious Biblical flaws. If you’re a firm believer in the “Law of Love”, I don’t expect that what I write here is all of a sudden going to convince you otherwise. The actual convincing is something you have to do on your own. Even Jesus who always spoke the truth had few who believed. Because belief takes a willingness that has to come from the individual, you. Also I do not think that in giving this debate here, that I now have a monopoly on the “truth about sex”. My desire is to put this doctrine of Dad on the table and test it scripturally and bring out some opposing sides to this theory that I feel should be brought out in the open for discussion
The approach I wish to take here is to pick a few key verses and look at what context the verse is in. To look at the verse in context, we need to look at what verses surrounding it. I have become very cautious of people who pick one verse here and one verse there, to build up their doctrine while ignoring a multitude of surrounding verses. This is one of the things that I have found about Dad’s teaching on the “Law of Love”. It hinges on a few selective verses and a lot of theory, while at the same time ignoring other important verses within the same context, and with an approach like that it is simply impossible to come out with a sound doctrine. I tried to pick the verses that have been the most used and the ones that would seem to be the best to use in the defense of the Law of Love. Let’s look at some of those verses.
All things are lawful unto me,
Unto the pure all things are pure
But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
Now if you look closer at these verses, you will see that in reality the theory latches itself unto only part of what is being said or in some cases only part of the verse. The rest turns into a lot of stretching, theorizing and “ifs”. Actually, whenever Dad would explain his “perfect” Law of Love scenarios, there is one word that he would use a lot. If everyone is in agreement, if everybody’s feelings are taken into consideration, if the people involved are being led by the spirit, if it is done in love and so on. After awhile of doing this you end up with a whole lot of ifs. And in actuality it starts sounding very iffy.
One of the heart and soul “ifs” about the Law of Love is, if you are being led by the Spirit, you can engage in what would normally be considered sexual immoral acts. A thought on this may be, what is moral and what is not? Whose opinion are we going by? Well even a general opinion from society at large who do not necessarily represent a very Godly point of view, will say that a lot of what goes on in the Family including their belief in FFing and sex outside marriage is immoral. Of course I don’t suggest we use society’s opinion as a measuring gauge, but I use it here rather as an example that the Family is below average here.
So Let’s look at Gal 5:18
But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
For a little overview of who Paul is talking to and with what purpose he is entering in to this discussion: he is talking to the Galatians whose congregations we conclude consisted largely of Gentiles. After Paul left Galatia some Jews came into the congregation and started saying that to be saved they needed to get circumcised. So Paul is namely dealing with refuting this: That the physical act of circumcision had nothing to do with Salvation.
So let’s read the verse again.
But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
If you read it like that it sounds simple enough and we can now enter a long theological debate on how, if God’s spirit led you to go and have sex with someone you are not under the law, therefore it must be right.
But let’s remember that God’s spirit would not led you to do something that is contrary to His Word. Just to clarify, as in the Family we have gotten use to using the term the “Word” very liberally. But in this case I’m speaking of the Bible, as this is the common ground we all use as our reference.
So lets look at what kind of context this verse is embedded into, as you need to remember the epistles were written as letters without verses or chapters and should be taken as a whole. We won’t go into the whole epistle of Galatians now, although I recommend you to do it on your own. But we will look at some of the surrounding verses to help give us a better picture of its context.
The two verses before it say
16 This I say then walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh.
17. For the flesh lusted against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
So we see here that the spirit and the flesh are something that are not in harmony with each other. And the flesh hinders us from doing what we would like to do.
Now verse 18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. Now how can you know whether you are being led by the spirit? To give us a better understanding of this he goes on to list the works of the flesh and then the fruits of the Spirit.
19. Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20. Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, sedition, heresies, 21. Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of which I tell you before, as I have also you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Adultery and fornication are listed here as works of the flesh. If you’re one of Dad’s disciples you’re either thinking there is no such thing as adultery and fornication, or you’re thinking if such sins exist you are not guilty of them, for all acts of sex that you do are done in love. Both of these conclusions I find to be quite amazing.
Now the fruits of the Spirit.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23. Meekness, temperance (temperance meaning, self-control): against such there is no law.
You may say, “See, there is no law against love”. But what you’re really trying to say is there is no law against sex done in love. But when Paul is quoting love here in this verse I don’t think he is thinking about the physical act of sex. At least I don’t see how after reading the next verse.
24. They that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. The word lust here can also be translated as: a longing (especially for what is forbidden) concupiscent, which means sexual desire, or desire.
25. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
Now Dad’s basic interpretation of this was that if you walk in the spirit you can have all those things you want to do in the flesh.
I mean after all if you seek first the kingdom of God all these things shall be added unto you. Right?!?!?!?! It doesn’t quite work like that though and if you look at what Paul is saying here in it’s entirety in it wholeness, I find it very difficult to walk away with that view. Through these scriptures here we see that the liberation was made to benefit our spirits not to have a free for all in the flesh. In short he’s saying if you live in the Spirit you going to walk in the spirit and be interested in spiritual things and you’re not going to be so busy walking after the things of the flesh and being concerned about satisfying your carnal desires.
A question to ask yourself is, was Dad a person who you would consider exercised a good amount of temperance, meaning self-control.
In our verse here in Gal 5:19we saw adultery and fornication were at the top of the list of works of the flesh.
Now you may well say, when we share between consenting adults we are not committing adultery, because it is done in love and everybody is in agreement. Tell me then, how does that work on the issue of fornication? When done between consenting singles it’s okay? If so what is fornication?!?!?!
It is important to understand that mutual consent does not absolve wrong. Wrong is wrong no matter how many people around you consent to it. So to say that if everybody is okay with it, it’s all right is not a good argument.
Another possibility is that you may like to think that this verse is talking about spiritual fornication. If so I would like to review the opening line: Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these.
For a secular definition, the Oxford dictionary defines fornication as: voluntary sexual intercourse between unmarried persons.
So the question you need to ask yourself is what is fornication and adultery. Because once you have figured out that you will know what it is Paul is telling you to keep away from.
Let’s look at: Tit 1:15a
Unto the pure all things are pure
How many times have you heard this verse used in the context of the “Law of Love”. What has been very much magnified here is that, “unto the pure all things are pure”. Unto US that see things in the eyes of the spirit truly all things are pure.
But the question that seems to have been neglected here is; are you pure?!!?! I imagine that most of us will say no, even Dad himself admitted this. We still have a long ways to go to achieve the ability to see things purely through the eyes of the spirit unadulterated by the carnality of our flesh. If so, then how can you assume to proceed in your actions as though you are? Don’t you find this a bit contradictory? You see there is a need for safe guards because after all we are humans, with human weaknesses and human tendencies. And there are certain limitations that the Bible has told us that we should not trust ourselves beyond. So to take this verse and apply it in the way that it has been applied in the “Law of Love” is rather deceitful. It is not being honest with yourself and others and worst of all being dishonest with God.
How familiar are you with the rest of the verse. But unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but their mind and conscience is defiled.
16. They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.
Now one of the things that Paul was up against here was false teachers who were professing to be believers but were “abominable”, “disobedient”, “reprobate” shown through their works. 16. They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him.
In the verse after this he says,
But speak thou the things which become of sound doctrine.
Do you find the Law of Love to be” sound doctrine”?!!
Now dare we take on the heart and soul of the “Law of Love”? Well here it is.
All things are lawful unto me.
All things are lawful for me,
Lets look at the whole verse in both places.
1Co. 6.12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
1Co. 10.23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
When you read this verse it is important to think, what is Paul trying to say? What is the point he is trying to make when he says all things are lawful unto me? To do that you need to look at the whole context of what is being said, which includes taking a good look at the rest of 1Corinthians chapter 6 and 1Corithians 7, which are verses on this thought and topic that immediately follow our “all things” verse. A mistake would be to read this verse and then figure a way that you could make it apply to what you want to believe. Nobody likes to have their words taken out of context and I don’t think Paul’s any exception to this. So if you want to use Paul’s word to justify your actions, which in this case would be the first part of the verse in 1Cor 6:12 all things are lawful unto me, you should be sure to familiarize yourself with the rest of 1Corintians and for that matter, the rest of the Bible as well.
In taking into account the whole spectrum of Paul’s teachings, where do you find him condoning sexual immorality or sexual promiscuity? In actuality, we all know that Paul’s attitude towards marriage and sex is quite strict, what some would call conservative. But isn’t it odd how the same people that call Paul conservative, will be the same ones using his words to justify sexual promiscuity and immoral behavior? Right after our “All things” verse Paul clearly states in the very next verse: Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body. And we clearly see from the next verses that he is not talking about spiritual fornication.
15. Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of a harlot? God forbid. 16.What? Know ye not that he which is joined to a harlot is one body? For two, saith he, shall be one flesh
18. Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
Then in the next chapter he goes on to give his and the Lord’s view on the matter.
1Co. 7.1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman (NIV: It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman). 2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
1Co. 7.8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if they cannot contain (NIV: if they cannot control themselves), let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn (NIV: burn with passion).
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
If you want to see Paul’s view on marriage, virgins, singles and sex you should read 1Cor 7. From what I see here, Paul does not preach sex outside marriage. Rather he says contain yourself or get a wife. And he defines fornication as this. It is good for a man not to touch a woman. (NIV: It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman). 2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
My understanding of this verse is that Paul’s definition of fornication is sexual relations before marriage, not spiritual fornication.
Some may feel that what Paul says here is just a bachelor’s prejudice. Or that’s his opinion. But the point that I’m ultimately trying to make here is: Doesn’t it seem inappropriate to use Paul’s words as a means to go against what he actually preached?
Is it right to say, “Well, I like what Paul said in 1Cor 6:12”, well actually more specifically 12a. “But I don’t like what surrounds it”. Could your conclusion really then be considered scriptural and Biblically based?
If you wish to believe in Father David’s “Law of Love”, you have every right to do so. But don’t take a few lines from Paul and use that to promote something that is in total contrast to his teachings.
Lets look at some of the verses leading up to verse 12.Verse 9 says Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind 10. Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
In this case we’re focusing in on the fornication and adultery part of the verse as it specifically hits the subject we are dealing with here.
We also saw earlier what Halley Handbook said about 1Cor 6:12on how. “Some of them (Greek Christians) evidently were quoting this to justify their promiscuous sexual indulgences. Paul positively states that it does not so apply; and positively in unmistakable language prohibits Christians from such Indulgences.” So picture it, according to Halley, they were quoting “all things are lawful” to Paul. Sound like a familiar scenario? So Paul was quoting it back to them and telling them that although all things are lawful, all things are not expedient: What does it mean to say all things are not expedient. Well another word you could use which may be in the margin of some of your Bibles that in some ways makes it a little clearer is, profitable. All things are not profitable, or like it says later, all things edify not. Oxford dictionary gives this definition of profitable: Beneficial, yielding profit. I think it would be fair to coin that into our well-used phrase “does not bear good fruit”. So if it does not produce good fruit it could not be good. Therefore we must come to the simple conclusion that all things are NOT good for us. It’s quite simple really if you look at it honestly.
What we see here is that the beginning of the verse has been overly emphasized but not the full context of the verse, and most definitely not the full context of the Bible.
All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. What does, “but I will not be brought under the power of any ” mean. The NIV translates it as “But I will not be mastered by anything” He didn’t want to let himself be brought under the influence of things that were not going to be good for him. He didn’t want to be mastered by them, and let them control him. He was in fact teaching temperance, self-control rather than a free for all.
1Co. 10.23All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
So when I compare what Dad says: But as far as God’s now concerned, there are no more sexual prohibitions hardly of any kind. —Except He sure seemed to hate sodomy .To the verses we just read from Paul. I find they are not speaking the same thing. Then of course many Family people would gladly take Dad’s word over Paul’s any day. I find I’m very much in the opposite there. As I think Paul is a much more reliable source.
For those who want to go a little more into depth on the meaning of lawful: The Greek word used here which is translated into the King James version as lawful may need a little clarifying. As it can be thought to be something that is according to the Law or under the Law. But obviously it could not be referring to the Mosaic Law. But the word used here is not ennomos, which means: legal, under the law. But is exesti, which means: May, let, is allowed, or like the NIV translates it, permissible. Exesti is a word derived from the words ex and eimi. Ex. meaning: origin. Eimi meaning: I exist.
Exesti: Impersonally implies something that is right, through the figuratively idea of being out in public.
Personally I think the NIV gives a better more understandable translation of this verse than the King James does when it says: “Everything is permissible”- but everything is not beneficial. It’s interesting to note that the NIV version put the “ Everything is permissible ” in quotation.
It’s possible that the Greek with all their philosophy had some kind of saying that said all things that were publicly accepted were all right. The word itself gives some indication to this understanding that things that exist in their original form are allowed. But whatever the case, Paul was correcting the situation by saying, but that doesn’t make it good.
Knowing this, a possible understanding of this verse could be: all these exist or are allowed to exist but that doesn’t make them good.
Some may feel that this is becoming way too technical and a dull approach to the Word of God. But the importance of understanding each word cannot be emphasized enough as if we don’t understand a word correctly how can we understand it’s meaning?
But the truth and simplicity of the message here is rather simple really. We are not pure. So we should not proceed as though we are. If we do, we are sure to be wrong. All things are allowed, but that doesn’t make them good.
I would like to move on to another important issue that has to be addressed here and although I will most certainly step on some toes with this the point should not be avoided. This has to do with the doctrine put forth by Dad that all Old Testament laws are null and void.
One verse used in this context was Gal 3:24,25, which says wherefore the law, was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
Dad taught us that this meant we no are longer under the Mosaic Law therefore they don’t apply to us at all. As it also says in Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
This topic in itself is quite a big study and although I won’t address it extensively here, it is essential that we do not leave it untouched. To cover this point I have chosen the book of Romans. Although we start with the verse in Gal 3:24, 25we will stay mainly in Romans, the reason being simply so that we can get a better understanding of the context.
Let’s take another look at Gal 3:24,25.If the Law was our school master and taught us what sin was, as Romans 7:7also says I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. If you went to school and learned that 2+2=4. When you leave school 2+2 will still equals 4 whether you wish to abide by it or not. What is taught in school does not become wrong once you leave school. It just doesn’t guarantee you a 100% success in life.
It’s like someone coming out of University thinking that he has now secured himself for life. The education itself does not secure you for life but it can sure help. Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe:
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
So Paul’s main message was that keeping the Law was not going to save anyone but that accepting Jesus would. Does that then mean that we don’t need to heed any of the things written in the Law? Of course this was Dad’s doctrine, which turned into a big free for all under the name of “Love”. Which brought the name of love into many gray, and dark areas where it has been difficult at times to put a finger on whether it really was love or not. In truth lust and love became more and more difficult to differentiate.
But Paul answered this question knowing that this would be some people’s first conclusion. In verse 31 of the same chapter He says: Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. Or as the NIV puts it: we up hold the law .The NIV translation again helps make it clearer as the Greek word used here can also mean: abide, continue or hold up as it is put in the NIV. Paul goes into the subject quite thoroughly here in Romans on the purpose of the law and how it brings us to Christ. I strongly recommend that you reread it. One point that Paul is trying to get across is that the law taught us the way to sin and Jesus taught us the way to salvation. But he makes it very clear that he is not throwing the baby out with the bath water, (an expression Dad so often liked to use) when he says. (NIV) 31 Do we then nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold it. 1 Tim 1:8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; or as the NIV says if a man uses it properly.
In Romans 6:1 he reiterates it and says What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? In verse 15 he says What then? Shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Again in chapter 7 verse 7 he says What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
The law taught us what lust is. For I had not known lust except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet .So if you are not suppose to be coveting your friends wife, what are you doing in bed with her? You may then say. “If I willing give my wife out for another man to sleep with in love, it can’t be wrong.” Do you not then become a teacher to another person on how he may covet another man’s wife? Rom. 13.8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. Then Paul reiterates here 5 of the 10 commandments: 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.
Why would he reiterate the Mosaic commandments right after he had just said in Roman 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. Because he wants to make sure you get the point of what he is trying to get across.
Rom 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. So if you love your fellow man you wouldn’t teach him to sin. So we see here that the law serves a purpose cause first you need to learn what sin is. Rom 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. 16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. In verses 17through 18Paul shows us how the flesh is weak and struggles with the spirit and that there is no good thing in our flesh. Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. The righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us only through obedience.
Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? 17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine, which was delivered you. 18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. Through obedience we become servants of righteousness. But if you yield yourself to your fleshly desires you are yielding to the flesh, and you become the servant of your own flesh simply because your flesh is in control and dictates what you want and desire.
Rom. 6.12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. 13 Neither yield ye your members (members: body parts) as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
So who are you yielding to?
The law is really only capable of condemning you and telling you what a sinner you are. But this does not make the law wrong, but rather puts us in the wrong and shows us where our sin is, which in turn is suppose to help us realize how much we need Jesus.
Just because nobody is perfect and is therefore not able to keep the law, doesn’t mean that we should now throw all the rules laid out in the New Testament in the trashcan and have a free for all. That would be a bit like telling your child “If you can’t be good and always obey everything I have told you, don’t even try”. I personally don’t know any sensible parent who told their children that. I think most parents try to teach their children what is right from a very early age. And through the years children too often disobey and many times do the opposite of what we tell them. But still we try to teach them and help them to learn so that they can become a better person. The rules help them and teach them to become a better person. Not that we think they are ever going to be perfect. But still we strive to make them better. God our father does the same to us His children. And since He knew that we would never be perfect He sent His Son Jesus to save those of his children that with a sincere heart are really trying to do their best to obey Him, to those he will show mercy. That’s Love! But you need to show a willingness to obey.
So although Jesus came and gave us a new covenant and finished the Mosaic laws of which there were hundreds, you will find that God’s basic 10 commandments are reiterated within our New Testament text. This is a study in itself and we will only deal with the laws that pertain to our subject at hand.
I would like to now look at what there is on the subject of adultery and fornication in the Gospels to see what the Man himself had to say.
In Mathew 5:27-30Jesus deals on the subject of adultery he says.
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. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that they whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
Now Dad said that the reason Jesus said that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. Was to show us that it is impossible to keep the Mosaic Law. This is true as even our thoughts betray us to sin, as Pr 24:9 says the thought of foolishness is sin. But to come to the conclusion that: Since nobody can keep this law you can go ahead and do what you want sexually as long as you to do it in love, goes beyond stretching it a bit. How many times through history have we seen things done in the name of God only to later understand that this was clearly not the case? To say that you are doing something in the name of God or in the name of Love does not justify your actions nor make it right, if it is wrong.
Now when I read the Sermon on the Mount I do not see Jesus doing away with the law I rather see him enforcing it and bringing it a step further. Not just to let it govern your outward actions but to let it govern your inward actions as well.
Now in looking at Mt 5:27-30and then on Dad’s new definition of adultery. I find them in strong contrast with each other. As we saw earlier from Dad’s definition on adultery, he tries very hard to distance the possibilities of anyone in the Family being capable of committing adultery. Only if you’re trying to come between him and his wife or if you were to be stealing another woman’s husband, is it adultery in Dad’s eyes. In Dad’s “new revised version”, of adultery we get a lot leeway and surely in his theology there is a lot of room for practically anything except sodomy. But according to Jesus’ words here: whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. I must say it is a very strong doctrine, especially after reading verses 29 and 30 about what to do if your right eye or right hand offend you. These verses come from the Sermon on the Mount and are written down in the context of adultery.
Mat 5:17 think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfill. Well in the past I always understood it as if I have fulfilled a job or task it means I have finished it. Therefore Jesus finished the old Mosaic Law and gave us a new covenant, Love. Like I said earlier this is partly true as Jesus did come to give us a new covenant. But once again you’ll have to notice in our New Testament that when we look closer at His new covenant, we see some basic things from the Old Covenant renewed and reemphasized. Surely if it was not his desire for us to use these rules as an example or as a guide to follow, why would he have said in the very next verse.
Mt 5:19 Whosoever shall break one of these least of these commandments and shall teach men so, he shall be the call the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
So we see in verse 17he says he has not come to destroy the law. Then in 19 he says anyone who breaks these laws or teaches others to break them will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.
Now to understand better what Jesus meant when he said but to fulfill we need to look at the fact that Jesus was the only one who was able to fulfill the law without any sin. Therefore He fulfilled for us what we could not do for ourselves. He was born a Jew and came and lived under the Law and did so without any sin. Therefore He did not destroy the Law but came to fulfill it. Of course the Pharisees accused him of breaking the Law. But the truth of the matter is that he never broke one law. The frequent law that he supposedly broke was the Sabbath day law. But this was really just a false accusation, as the Jews had made a lot of additional laws to God’s Laws about what you could or couldn’t do on the Sabbath, how far you could walk on the Sabbath and so forth. And they had gotten so into all their additional laws that they had forgotten God’s original Law and its intent. And these additional laws Jesus broke without hesitation.
Another good example of this is in Mark 7:1-23 where he was said to not be holding the tradition of the elders….
So in coming back to Matthew chapter 5 he then says 20 Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. So our righteousness needs to go beyond the Pharisees righteous and their legalism, by learning to apply the spirit of the law. So in Mt 5from verse 21to 48which is the rest of the chapter he goes on to give an example of what the spirit of the Law means. So in dealing with our subject, let’s think about the spirit of the law and look again at what Jesus said in verse 27. 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. I believe He was trying to tell us that we shouldn’t think so highly of ourselves just because we may not be committing the physical act of adultery, as even looking on a woman in lust is sin. Here Jesus is challenging us to look beyond the mere legalisms of the Law and teaches us the Spirit of the Law. Jesus is showing us here that the law is not just a legalistic code that governs our physical actions. The law is something that reaches down into our very hearts and soul and is suppose to help govern our mind and thoughts and intents of our heart as well. Heb 4:12.We need to learn to clean our mind, heart and spirit so that when we see a beautiful woman we don’t let our physical circumstances dictate what we want to do. Now the preachin’s gone to meddling.
Now another example of where Jesus reiterates and confirms the Law is in Mt 19:18-21 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do to 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 said 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, Honor thy father and thy mother: and thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. So here we see Jesus reiterating 5 of the 10 commandments and one commandment from Lev. 19:18. Why would he do that if they were laws that he came to get rid of or didn’t want you to follow?
Remembering Dad’s definition of adultery. Let’s take a look at one of Jesus’ definitions of adultery and compare notes. For that we stay right here in the same chapter that we’re already on, in Mt 19:3-12 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4. And he answered and said unto them, have ye not read that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female. 5. And said for this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6.Wherefore they are no more twain but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. 7. They said unto him, why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8. He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9. And I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whosoever married her which is put away doth commit adultery. 10 His disciples say unto him, if the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
Ouch! That’s a pretty strict marriage code there if you ask me. In fact it was so strict that Jesus’ disciples felt that if it was so strict, it would be better not to marry. We already went over this with Paul earlier and it is clear that Paul is only reiterating what Jesus is saying here when he says. But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
Now don’t you all begin to throw stones, I wasn’t the one who came up with this I’m just reading what it says and trying to understand to the best of my ability.
But like Jesus says in verse 11 All men cannot receive this saying save they to whom it is given. So I guess you have to choose whether you can receive this or not. I agree it is most definitely a very strict marriage code. But my goal here is not to make things look nice and pretty or to tell you what I think, but rather to look at the matter at hand and see what we find in the Bible about it. But I would like to explore this thought that Jesus puts forth here just a bit.
Now for a minute let’s just excluded the more exceptional cases that everyone is going to want to come in with after I ask this next question.
How many divorces happen because one or both parties are not as interested in the other as they use to be? How many divorces happen because (mostly) both parties are not willing to humble themselves to do what is needed to make a marriage work? Dare I say it, divorces happen largely because of lack of love? Like Jesus said because our heart is hard.
Now if you were divorcing for one of these reasons and you that knew that if you divorced you would have to spend the rest of your life as a single, or be reconciled to your spouse, how many people do you think would give their marriage a second chance? I dare say I think they would give it a few more chances. You might have less people rushing into marriages as well. Don’t you think married couples would be much more inclined to work out their differences if they knew that they couldn’t just go out and find someone else? If we truly lived this I think we find that we would learn a lot more about sacrificial love. To fulfill this commandment takes real love, sacrificial love. The kind of love that we all like to preach about but find difficult to live.
Now Jesus does go on to give you three other options in verse 12, but for the most of you I don’t think it is going to be of much interest unless you are willing to become a eunuch.
There is really a lot more to say on the subject. But I think I will wrap it up here as this has already gotten longer than I intended it to be and it makes me wonder if anyone will even find interest in reading this whole dialog through. It is most definitely not a popular or well-received doctrine by many and it was not one that Dad liked, quite on the contrary he rejected it. The question is, what will you do?
But it should be fairly easy to see that taking things out of context is something that Dad quite frequently did in his letters. I don’t consider myself to be any spiritual giant or to have any great discerning spiritual insight that understands more in depth than the average person. I don’t have an IQ like Dad. And in most cases I don’t think I know more than the next guy. I’m really just a person who had a lot of questions, so I went to the Word, in this case to be specific, I went to the Bible and read on the subject I was wondering about and was kind of amazed at what I found. Not because I thought I struck on some “new” revelation that was just so wowie that no one ever heard of. But rather because it was so fundamental and simple that I was amazed that I hadn’t seen it earlier.
So in writing this I really just wish to bring some things out in the open for discussion as I think there are some definite misconceptions that Dad and the Family have been responsible for teaching and promoting. Of course there is a lot more in the Bible on the subject. But each and every one of us is more than capable of digging it out for ourselves.
Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
I have had many discussions on the “Law of Love”, with loved ones, and friends in the Family. And I have especially found that with the older generation they are much more ardent in their stand and defense of the “Law of Love”. Not that there aren’t younger generation disciples that would do the same. But I find it more prevalent among the older generation to be a little more patriotic about the “Law of Love”. And they will give all the “benefits” and “good fruits” that the “Law of Love” gives us. But when I look at each family individually to see if it strengthened family life, I find that it has taken a serious toll on the individual family unit. Sure it may have helped blend the Family as a group into a much more complex inter-marital exchange. But when I look at the individual family unit, I seldom see a family that has not suffered from it’s after affects. And I think that our shepherds and leaders are some of our leading examples here. Some of the consequences have been a lot of mixed marriages, broken marriages. Within one family children with different fathers, divorces, single moms, and children that are expected to grow up and feel honored that they were called to be Jesus babies. I often find that when someone tries to go into all benefits and good fruits of the “Law of Love”, they end up having to turn their back on many of the more long-term bad fruits.
If you are someone that was won into the Family as a disciple, it is very possible that you may feel that Dad is responsible for turning your life around and is responsible for giving you answers that you were looking for in your life. You may feel this is the good fruit that you have seen borne in your life because you have now dedicated your life to serving God. I know from personal experience that there are many lives that were touched and reached with a message of love because of Dad’s willingness to bring it to them through his letters and in turn through his disciples. I have heard many personal testimonies of how people’s lives were changed. And I in no way wish to diminish or discredit that fact. But a thought to ponder is; if Dad’s Law of Love is wrong, how much did you really gain if you traded in your old ways of sins for a new set of sinful practices even if it is done in the love or in the name of God? Winning converts to a cause in the name of God or in the name of love does not sanctify the cause. Remember what Jesus said of the Pharisees, Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
In November 1991 the Good News published "Questions and Answers on Sex, Freedoms and Relationships."
"There was - and is - absolutely nothing wrong with the freedoms that the Lord gave us. The Lord showed Grandpa that the scripture, "All things are lawful unto us", literally means exactly what it says; that there are no exceptions, all things indeed are lawful for believers in Jesus who are motivated by love
In God’s Only Law is Love Dad says: Therefore since we do all that we do in love, all things are now lawful to us in love, including our sexual freedom, as long as it is done in the unselfish, sacrificial love of God.
I emphasis: all things are now lawful to us in love, including our sexual freedom. Here it comes across like the sexual aspect is something to be included in the all things theory. But the real truth is that the sexual aspect is really all Dad wishes to include. For which of all the other sins or taboos is Dad willing to include? He obviously explored what was of interest to him.
But it may be interesting to note that society is now debating many other formerly considered taboos and unlawful practices and are finding good legitimate reason why they should become lawful. One of those is “preemptive strikes”. It has a good argument but personally I don’t see how it fits in with the Christian ideology. Another issue being discussed now is if torture could be considered legitimate in interrogations if in turn you may save hundreds maybe thousands of lives. Again there are some very good ifs here to consider. What about Dr. Kevorkian and his mercy killing? Doctors agree that he brought some issues to light that many Doctors face in their work and are already making decisions on, although they don’t make a public issue out of it. Should mercy killing be made legal?
Now why would I bring up these totally non-related issues? Because when defending any of the three examples above, the approach in the argument is that there are very good seemingly legitimate examples and scenarios where it strongly suggests that it would be the right thing to do. And this is why it is causing such a controversy in the world today. Personally I am very leery of these “new improved ways” of thinking because I think the opportunities that arise from this legitimate reasoning will bring in more evil and wrong than good. In the long run it will destroy the purpose it was created to help. My view on the Law of Love is very much the same.
Although I feel that there is a strong Biblical case against Dad’s theory on the Law of Love. And I find that the Bible sheds a lot of light on some mislead concepts that Dad puts forth in his “Law of Love”. I, at the same time have to admit that there are some lurking shadows left for those who truly wish to defend Dad’s theory. I would call them the gray areas. There will always be those if situations that just seem to make such perfect sense.
A friend of mine in the Family once told me a while back, “there’s no black and white it’s all just gray”. At the time I agreed with him, as I couldn’t see a line dividing the two. I have since come to learn that there is black and white and there is also such a thing as gray. But we get the gray only when we mix the two. And the gray can be for better or worse depending on which side you are coming out of. Gray areas will undoubtedly always have a part of our lives, as no one holds all the truth all the time. But the point here is not to deliberately find gray areas to live in. So although I acknowledge those gray areas I think I would try to stay away from them if possible, as I have seen what they can do to a man.
If I look at Dad the “Endtime Prophet of the Family”, who was suppose to be to most spiritual and spirit led person of us all, advocating child adult sex and having it practiced on the kids in his own home. (And please don’t give me the line that the Davidito series was all Sara’s doing) At the dinner table he masturbates his daughter Faithy under the table with his toe. In the letter “Childhood Sex” Faithy gives a testimony, which in reality is more of a confession of how Dad use to give her “front rubs” when she was a little girl and says she felt good all over and didn’t get perverted by it. Dad fantasizes about making love to his daughter in law when she is a teen, when at the time she was just a little girl. While having sex, he has visions of having sexual intercourse with heathen goddesses like the Voodoo witch goddess Macumba. He dreams of having sex with his mother and says if he hadn’t been so conservative when they were sleeping together while on the road they could have had good sex together. He gives a strong rebuke to a woman for not being willing to commit a lesbian act and have sex with one of his female leaders. He practices group sex in his house with 3-year-old Davidito present. He shares with the family how he has a dream of a 10-year-old girl that crawls in bed with him and Mama and wants to have sex with him. And he describes how he was seriously considering it but hesitated because in his dream he was in a room full of church people. And everybody’s okay with this? Well these are just some of the kind of things that the theory of the “Law of Love” led the most “spirit led” man in the Family to do.
Pro 6:27 Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned? 28 Can one go upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned? 29 So he that goeth in to his neighbor’s wife; whosoever toucheth her shall not be innocent.
With this I end this personal evaluation on the “Law of Love”
Much love and prayers to you all, Beng