This article is a continuation of “Mr. Gothard’s Sexual Rules,” a three-part series we ran last December. Mr. Gothard’s teachings on sex within marriage are not among the Institute in Basic Life Principles’ (IBLP) central doctrines. However, this section of the Advanced Seminar is an excellent example of how Mr. Gothard both views the Law and how he abuses Scripture. Both are very important to understanding Mr. Gothard’s overall teachings. The material quoted in this article is found in the Advanced Seminar Textbook starting around page 171.
How do we know when we are sowing to the flesh? This question is answered in amazing detail in the Old Testament Law ("...the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes" Ps 19:8) We don't keep the law in order to gain or maintain salvation, but we should apply the principles of the law to avoid sowing to the flesh and reaping corruption.
So, according to Mr. Gothard we don’t need to follow the law to become or to stay saved, but we do need to follow the law in order walk a successful Christian life. This is just another form of legalism. Of course, Gothard likes to misuse words just like he likes to misuse Scripture, so in order to avoid having the label “legalism” stick to his teachings, he insists that one of the common meanings of legalism isn’t really legalism. The dictionary of Bill Gothard is as full of fallacies as the bible of Bill Gothard.
And, not surprisingly, he finds room to throw in another abuse of Scripture. In order to support the idea that we are to follow the law, he refers to the concept of “sowing to the flesh”–a concept found in Gal 6:8. This is another technique used by Gothard–make reference to a familiar concept from Scripture but without giving the actual passage or its context. If the concept is flexible enough, then why not use it however one wishes? After all, it’s Scripture isn’t it? So, take the familiar Scriptural phrase, ignore its immediate context and then use it to support some unrelated point.
Mr. Gothard is certainly not the only Christian teacher to use this technique but he seems to take it further than most. Not only does he use phrases out of context, he often uses them to make them say the opposite of what they were meant to convey. Go to Galatians 6 and read the whole chapter. You will find that this passage has to do with NOT following the law. After Paul introduces the idea of not sowing to the flesh in verse 8, he then uses this to segue into a discussion of those who seek to make a “good showing in the flesh” and to “boast in the flesh.” How do they seek to do this? By compelling believers to be circumcised–that is, to follow the stipulations of the law. According to Paul, seeking to follow the stipulations of the law is “glorying in the flesh.”
So, in Gothard’s mind, the danger of sowing to the flesh is a reason to follow the law, but in Paul’s mind it’s a reason to NOT follow the law. Gothard’s conclusion is that there is spiritual benefit in following the law. Paul’s conclusion is that there is no spiritual benefit in following the stipulations of the law.
Furthermore, the entire law is summed up by Christ in two commands: "...you should love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.... thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Matt 22:37-39 A person may think he is a loving partner by things he says or does, but God's law is much more precise and accurate in defining what is loving and unloving. The laws and commandments throughout Scripture constitute a single unity. In light of this concept, Scripture explains, "whosoever shall offend in one point, he is guilty of all" (Jam 2:10). The claim that the Old Testament Law has no application for us today not only violates the unity of Scripture, but also the clear instruction of II Tim 3:16-17.
OK…the logic here is so convoluted that it would be impractical to deal with it in detail in this article. Instead, let’s just assume, for the sake of argument, that Gothard’s reasoning is correct. After all, we would all agree that we should follow the essence of the law–to love God with our whole being and our neighbor as our self. Let’s also assume that Gothard is right when he says that the Old Testament (OT) law defines how to do this, and that therefore we should follow the stipulations of the OT law in order to fulfill its essence. Let’s assume all this is true and accurate.
So, if all this is true…why doesn’t Mr. Gothard himself follow the whole of the OT law? Why does he cherry pick the parts he wants and leave out the others? Why does he regularly ignore the fact that offending in one part is breaking the whole of the law? Either his teaching is correct here and he is in blatant violation of his own reasoning, or else the reasoning is false and this is just another example of his blatant twisting of Scripture. After all, as Mr. Gothard points out, the law constitutes a single unity and if you break one part you are guilty of breaking it all. If this is true, then this would have to lead to the conclusion that if you are going to follow the rules about abstinence during menstruation, then you should follow the laws about clean and unclean foods. If breaking the law in one part means you break it all, then it does no good to keep the laws on abstinence during menstruation yet eat pork.
Lev 15:19-20 "If a woman has a discharge, and the discharge from her body is blood, she shall be set apart seven days; and whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening. Everything that she lies on during her impurity shall be unclean; also everything that she sits on shall be unclean." How is "uncleanness" related to the menstrual cycle?
As we saw in the earlier articles on Gothard’s sexual rules, Mr. Gothard teaches that couples should refrain from intercourse two weeks out of each month. Here we see that he is tying this idea to the concept of not “sowing to the flesh” and goes so far as to claim that failing to follow this practice is unloving. And, Mr. Gothard (rightly) points out that failing to keep one part of the law is to be guilty of breaking it all. However, when we more closely examine this set of assertions it becomes apparent that Mr. Gothard can’t even keep one little part of the law much less the whole of it. Notice that in the verse Mr. Gothard quotes, the law says a menstruating woman is to be set apart. That whatever she touches, lies or sits on is unclean. Yet instead of teaching that a menstruating woman should be set apart and that everything she touches at all is to be treated as unclean, Mr. Gothard ignores all this and teaches only that a couple should not have sexual intercourse during this time.
Oh, and let’s include the next few verses as well…
“22 And whoever touches anything that she sat on shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. 23 If anything is on her bed or on anything on which she sits, when he touches it, he shall be unclean until evening. 24 And if any man lies with her at all, so that her impurity is on him, he shall be unclean seven days; and every bed on which he lies shall be unclean.”
Oh wow, not only is what she touches, lies or sits on unclean, but if someone else touches one of those things they become unclean as well.
Given all this uncleanness, why does Gothard stop with merely not having sex with your wife during the period? After all, as Mr. Gothard points out, the law is single unity and breaking one part means you break it all. If uncleanness is the issue, then shouldn’t the husband refrain from even hugging his wife or sleeping in the same bed as her during that time? Or, closer to home for single Mr. Gothard, shouldn’t he prevent women who work in the IBLP offices from being around others during their time of uncleanness? Why restrict the issue of uncleanness to sexual intercourse when Scripture makes it clear that it involves so much else?
If breaking one part of the law is to be guilty of it all, then what good does it do to refrain from sex for two weeks out of the month if you ignore every other restriction the law requires for menstruating women? Clearly it does no good at all to keep some yet not all. Mr. Gothard is either twisting Scripture or is teaching a hypocritical keeping of the law.
Rom 1:24; Rom 6:19; II Cor 12:21; Gal 5:19; Eph 4:19; Eph 5:3; Col 3:5; I Thes 4:7 What does the New Testament say about uncleanness?
I find it interesting that he failed to include one of the classic passages on uncleanness in the New Testament (NT). I figured any discussion of uncleanness in the NT would start with Acts 10:10-16: “But Peter said, “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.” And a voice spoke to him again the second time, ‘What God has cleansed you must not call common.’”
Or maybe Mark 7:15: “There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.”
I guess these verses don’t support his thesis.
But go ahead and read the verses Mr. Gothard references yourself. Notice that Gothard places having sex with your wife during her period on the same level as things like homosexuality, unrestrained lust, fornication, adultery, and idolatry. Furthermore, notice that Gothard is using the OT law to define what Paul means when he refers to uncleanness in the NT. So if you are unclean by the OT law, then by Mr. Gothard’s reasoning you are in violation of these NT verses on uncleanness. Yet Paul makes no mention of the major things that would make someone unclean under the OT law. And here is the kicker–According to Lev 15, a woman is unclean by the simple fact of menstruating. So, Gothard wants verses in the NT which condemn uncleanness to be seen as condemnations of having sex with your menstruating wife. He ignores the fact that by his same logic, these verses would condemn the wife for menstruating in the first place!
Not to mention that, by this logic, having any contact with menstruating women at all is “condemned” by these NT verses! So if Mr. Gothard’s teachings about the law are correct, then shaking hands with a menstruating woman is equivalent to adultery and idolatry.
I also want to point out to you that Mr. Gothard doesn’t go nearly far enough. The law is a single unit, right? Uncleanness is uncleanness, right? And uncleanness is condemned in the NT, right? So why does Mr. Gothard not teach the whole truth of the matter? Notice Lev 15:16–having sex at all makes one unclean! If Mr. Gothard is using the NT verses and OT laws on uncleanness to forbid sex during menstruation, why doesn’t he remain consistent and simply forbid sex altogether?
Or maybe he hopes no one will notice just how inconsistent his teaching is and how badly it twists Scripture if his logic remains vague and convoluted enough…
And he gets by with it.
What’s even more amazing is that some will read this analysis and still excuse Gothard and hold him up as a good teacher of Godly principles!!
Throughout Scripture, God consistently teaches us that children are His blessing. He also cursed several women by closing their wombs. "Lo, Children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward." (Ps 127:3) When God brought judgment upon Abimelech and his household, He closed up the wombs of all the women (see Judges 20:18). God assigns a special woe to those who reverse His pronouncements. A man and wife who call that which God loves "evil" receive to themselves a special woe: "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!" (Isaiah 5:20) Children are good, not evil; they bring light into a home, not darkness; they are a sweet experience, not a bitter one. The woe continues upon "...them that are wise in their own eyes and prudent in their own sight!" (Isaiah 5:21) Some of the woes include the physical, psychological, and spiritual destruction of modern birth control methods. Guilt comes by calling God's blessings "curses" and God's curse "a blessing."
So by Gothard’s reasoning, whatever prevents a blessing is equivalent to considering it a curse–whatever prevents a good is equivalent to considering it an evil. This is the core of Gothard’s reasoning. Without this hidden assumption his whole teaching on birth control falls apart. If he were to allow that one might prevent a blessing for a time without considering it a curse, then he would have to allow that periodic and temporary use of birth control is perfectly acceptable. But he isn’t even willing to bend his reasoning to that small extent. To him, birth control is preventing a blessing and therefore birth control is equivalent to considering that blessing a curse.
I could give a detailed reasoning why this is fallacious on so many levels. But I won’t. It’s boring. It’s much more fun to turn his own reasoning back on him. So without any more ado, I now present a basic principle which Gothard somehow missed…
_____________________________________________________________
Guilt comes by calling God’s blessings “curses” and God’s curse “a blessing.”
Throughout Scripture, God consistently teaches us that marriage and sex is His blessing. He also cursed several men by denying them wives.
“Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the LORD.” Proverbs 18:22
“Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.” Prov 5:18,19
When God brought judgement on the tribe of Benjamin, he denied them wives. Judges 21:1,2
God assigns a special woe to those who reverse His pronouncements. A man who calls that which God loves “evil” receive to themselves a special woe: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” Isaiah 5:20
Marriage and sex are good, not evil; they bring light into a home, not darkness; they are a sweet experience, not a bitter one. The woe continues upon “…them that are wise in their own eyes and prudent in their own sight!” Isaiah 5:21
Some of the woes include the physical, psychological, and spiritual destruction of remaining single…
Even to those who promote Gothard’s principles as scripturally sound should notice that he is very inconsistent in his own application of them.
__________________________________________________________
1 Legalism is trying to earn salvation--Eph 2:8-9 2 Legalism is trying to live the Christian life with the energy of the soul--Rom 7:15 3 Legalism is following 'the letter' not 'the spirit'--II Cor 3:6 Distinguish between legalism and Godly living.
And, the one definition of legalism that Gothard leaves out…
4. Legalism is attempting to follow the law after one has already come to Christ in faith–Gal 3
Gothard refuses to accept one of the most common meanings of the term–the meaning dealt with at length by Paul. The meaning which causes Paul to be so vehement in his attack on those who told believers they needed the law to be “complete.”
Gothard refuses to accept what nearly every other theologian does accept (barring Seventh Day Adventists). Gothard MUST restrict the meaning of this word…or else he has to accept the label of legalist. Most other legalists try to prove how they aren’t really legalists because they aren’t really teaching others to follow the law (it’s just about health benefits, etc.). Gothard tells us blatantly to follow the law and then tries to escape the label of legalist by rewriting the most commonly accepted meaning.
But again, let’s assume that Mr. Gothard is correct in his definitions of legalism and that his teachings are really all about holy living. It still raises the question of why Mr. Gothard is so inconsistent in his application of the law to believers’ lives. Mr. Gothard requires other believers to follow some particular stipulation of the law yet fails to keep the law himself. He points out that the law is a single unit and breaking one part is to be guilty of breaking it all, yet he cherry-picks some aspects of the law while ignoring others.
Share this post:
Tweet this Share on Facebook Stumble it Share on Reddit Digg it Add to Delicious! Add to Technorati Add to Google Add to Myspace Subscribe to RSS
David Moeller is married and is a father of five children. He grew up in the public school system, but after his family joined the Advanced Training Institute he worked in various training centers from 1995 to 2001. David has been writing about Bill Gothard's abuses of Scripture for over a decade.
More posts by DavidM
JM, I could care less whether or not you think ...
December 16, 2024 Then I have to rule that you have no evidence for ...
December 16, 2024 Alfred isn't going to put that on his blog and if ...
December 9, 2024 I can easily say that Alfred hasn't denied it, bec ...
December 9, 2024 Alfred denied directly to me she and Sacred Honor ...
December 4, 2024 When did Alfred or Holly deny that she was Mormon? ...
December 4, 2024 Facts are this JM, Alfred denied when directly con ...
December 1, 2024 Interesting you bring up the Jinger/Jill controver ...
November 25, 2024 Here is the facts JM, Holly is a Mormon, part of ...
November 20, 2024 Because she isn't a fraud. I'm sorry that bothers ...
November 18, 2024 JM, let me be very clear to you. Holly is a fraud. ...
November 13, 2024 I don't disagree that that action is what should h ...
November 13, 2024 I have a very long-term view of Bill and IBLP whic ...
November 12, 2024 Some would say the posts here are just spin and fa ...
November 12, 2024 Curious that you would bring up "Charlotte" becaus ...
November 3, 2024 I have seen the Amazon series, and I've seen the r ...
October 29, 2024 Did you ever watch any of the Amazon series? The s ...
October 25, 2024 Yes, it does. Claims must be addressed because the ...
October 24, 2024
I like how you pointed out what would really be required to follow all of the law; someone who pretends they are doing it is deluded.
Freedom in Christ is found alongside freedom from the law, although I know this sounds like "license to sin" in the mind of IBLP people.
"The free man is he who does not fear to go to the end of his thought" - Leon Blum
Ah, so all those vows of temporary singleness were really calling marriage a curse . . .
Just because I sometimes see people confused about this, I would point out that most of the time when the OT law talks about "uncleanness," it's talking about physical uncleanness, as in go wash up, not moral uncleanness (which is what the NT is talking about). So, no, it is not saying women are bad for menstruating. It's specifying sanitary precautions for a culture with limited water access. The NT uses our "yuck" instinct about physically unclean things to help us see spiritual problems for what they are. Muddling the two results in some very silly applications (as seen here).
So Gothard says to stay away from physical contact for 2 week would the other week be right after the womens period?
Yes. And he says this even though the law only requires the extra 7 days if a woman's bleeding goes longer than 7 days. So, not only does he require that a Christian keep the law, he also adds requires more than the law...and ignores other aspects of the same law.
How ironic that he would encourage women to avoid having intercoure right after their period when women actually can ovulate any time of the month! I ovulate the day or two RIGHT after my cycle. If we had followed these strange instructions we would not have gotten pregnant with any of our kids. How many women think they are 'cursed' ( no children- how sad for them to think God has 'closed' their wombs!) when actually they are missing their ovulation day b/c of Gothard's teachings.
There is actually a term for this, because Gothard borrows 7-days after the period idea from Orthodox Jews, and it's called "Jewish Infertility." Borrowed Pharisaical trouble is what I would call it here.
We sadly "drank this koolaid" in the 80s and thus have a ten year gap between child #2 and #3. As soon as we eliminated the second week, we conceived our third born and still had time for one more after that before I was past my childbearing years. So glad to be free from these wrong teachings.
David, you said "according to Mr. Gothard... we do need to follow the law in order [to] walk a successful Christian life. This is just another form of legalism." This is not a form of legalism. It's the same position as the Lutheran Formula of Concord (1577) part 6, on the "Third Use of the Law". The Lutherans wrote, "although the truly believing and truly converted to God and justified Christians are liberated and made free from the curse of the Law, yet they should daily exercise themselves in the Law of the Lord, as it is written, Ps. 1:2;119:1: Blessed is the man whose delight is in the Law of the Lord, and in His Law doth he meditate day and night. For the Law is a mirror in which the will of God, and what pleases Him, are exactly portrayed, and which should [therefore] be constantly held up to the believers and be diligently urged upon them without ceasing." So the Lutheran theologians believed that the Holy Spirit uses the law, which is God's immutable will written down, in order to teach the Christian how to live, even after regeneration, so that we don't just go off and do our own thing without consulting the Bible. Exactly what Mr. Gothard is trying to get across. The difference, however, is how Mr. Gothard tries to apply the ceremonial law in an uneven fashion, as you pointed out. The Lutherans would probably take a general principle from the OT sexual codes, not trying to apply them literally.
There's a really great book you might like to read... It's called "Galatians"... Also check out the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15)... Kinda puts the OT law into perspective for NT believers.
Nathan, what David said is true. Paul makes it explicitly clear in Romans and elsewhere in the New Testament, that we are not under the law.
In Romans 6:14-15, Paul says "for ye are not under the law, but under grace. What shall we say then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law, but under grace? May it never be!"
In Romans 7, Paul talks about how the Law aroused sinful passions. He makes clear that the law was not a bad thing in and of itself, but that it had a counter-productive effect. Paul then clearly says that we have been released from the law.
Now, such should not be taken to mean that we have license to sin. However, the OT law is not a requirement for NT believers.
There are two ways to approach God's Law. The first is to attempt to follow it as a means of ingratiating oneself to God. This approach assumes that a man whose "delight is in the law of the Lord" will experience greater blessing than a man who fails to keep God's commandments. It's an approach driven by obligation: it assumes that God's blessing is conditional upon man's performance - that, if we push God's buttons in the correct sequence, he'll dispense proportional favor. This approach ignores the fact that we stand or fall before the Father by the righteousness of Jesus Christ alone (2nd Cor. 5:21), and thus nullifies the sacrifice He made to cleanse us from our past and future sins (Gal. 2:15-21). The one thing this approach has going for it, though, is that it certainly makes us feel powerful.
The second way to approach God's Law is to attempt to keep it not as an obligation, but rather as an expression of gratitude to God for the fact that He's released us from *having* to keep it. Since "there is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear" (1st John 4:18), it was only through freeing us from the necessity of following the Law that God enabled us to truly love Him without the fear of punishment or alienation or loss of favor or 'falling from grace.' The one who approaches the Law under these terms is free to falter or fail without cringing from some looming spiritual retribution, since he has been "perfected for all time," even though he's still "being sanctified" (Heb. 10:14). There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. It is God Who justifies. Who is he who condemns? (Rom. 8:1,33-34).
The Law is - of course - holy, righteous, and good (Rom. 7:12), and we should strive to follow it (Rom. 6). But the way in which we speak of it makes a world of difference to the potency of the Gospel message itself. Do we speak as Bill Gothard speaks, putting all his emphasis on the supposed importance of external behavior and claiming that God's 'grace' is just another means toward the all-important end of 'good character'? Or do we instead glorify the unfathomable Savior of our souls, the romantic God-Man Who proposed to me, a soiled prostitute, by sacrificing His own life upon an instrument of torture (Eph. 5:25-32; Hos. 3:1-3; Phil. 2:5-8)? If God was willing to relinquish EVERYTHING for my sake while I was still dead in my sins, how can I possibly believe that His acceptance, favor, or blessing are now suddenly conditional - determined by how closely I walk with Him? Having begun in the Spirit, am I now being perfected by the flesh (Gal. 3:3)? Even the insinuation of such a thing would be an insult to the finished work of Christ.
And Bill Gothard insinuates it every single day.
Pardon me, where in the NT does it state that Christian believer's are obligated to follow OT law? Certainly not in Romans 6, as you have cited.
Hannah,
I very deliberately did not say that "Christian believers are obligated to follow OT law." What I said was that we "should strive to follow [the law]." There's a world of difference between those two statements. If we were "obligated" to follow the law, then Christ's sacrifice would be null and void. But that doesn't mean we should suddenly just ignore the law. Jesus certainly didn't do that, and we're called to follow Him. The whole purpose of my comment was to differentiate between two motives for law-following: obligation (which ignores the Gospel of God's grace) and gratitude towards God for freeing us from said obligation. Romans 6:11 says clearly that we "must consider [ourselves] dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus." And how do we know what sin is? The law. As Paul says in Romans 7:7, "If it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin." In Christ, we are freed from the curse of the law. But if we then turn around and pretend that the law never existed, that God hasn't already explained to us His nature, doesn't that say something about us? Doesn't it indicate that we don't desire to follow Christ? (Again, I'm not asserting or even insinuating that God's unfathomable love for us is somehow dependent on our performance. He is faithful even if we are faithless.)
But perhaps I just need to define my terms better. When I refer to the law, I'm not talking about the whole body of ceremonial rules delineated in the Torah. I'm talking about the 'spirit of the law' - the reflection of God's character through action. I'm talking about what Jesus meant when He said "on these two commandments ['love the Lord your God,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself,'] depend all the law and the prophets" (Matt. 22:35-40), and what Paul meant when he said "the one who loves another has fulfilled the law" (Rom. 13:8-10). Most of the ceremonial law was fulfilled by Christ's final sacrifice once for all on the cross, and Acts 10-11 clearly tells us that OT dietary laws no longer apply. In Acts 15:22-35, the Apostles exhort the gentile believers in Antioch to heed only a brief summary of OT law, but they certainly don't discard the law entirely. After all, there's a reason God wrote it. The fact that Christ has fulfilled the law doesn't make the law irrelevant. Perhaps my comment will make more sense if read with that understanding in mind. Or perhaps you disagree with my analysis. If so, please correct me.
Shalom. Could you please help me understand something about what you all believe? I don't care anything about Bill Gothard, but I'd like to ask about one particular aspect of what this article is talking about: a man lying with a woman (in the biblical sense) during her menstrual cycle.
If I understand you correctly, there was a time window of roughly 3,000 years during which it was forbidden for a man, at least a Hebrew man, to have relations with a woman during her menstrual cycle. But outside of that particular time window it is okay for all, as long as the two are married.
So there are three time periods to consider:
1. Time period ONE began at creation and went up until the moment that Moses gave the commandment saying doing so was unclean. During time period ONE everyone was free to do it.
2. Time period TWO began when Moses gave the commandment and ended at, say, the moment when the Messiah was crucified and the veil of the temple was rent in two. During time period TWO, it was forbidden, at least for Hebrews.
3. Time period THREE began at the crucifixion and continues until the present day. During time period THREE, it is once again permissible for all.
Thank you for your help in understanding what you believe.
I believe the author is making the point, that Christian believers are under grace, not under law, and as such, are not obligated to keep the requirements of Jewish Old Testament Law, Scripturally speaking. Acts 15 was a landmark decision in the history of the Christian Church, when this was determined. Therefore, it is inacurate for a Christian teacher to teach that Christians must keep the OT Law, and even to add to it. This places restrictions upon Christians, which the Bible does not. Clear as mud?
Thank you, "Hannah," for taking the time to reply. I think I understand now what you believe about grace and the law.
I understand that I am not exactly typical of the demographic of visitors to this website. So please feel free to ignore these posts, and if the moderators would like to delete them I will understand. I have no desire to waste your time, but I would like to get a better handle on what you believe, if possible.
Speaking again generally to the posters on this website, I'm still wondering whether my assessment of your beliefs in this matter is accurate, especially regarding the three time periods I mentioned and the allowed/forbidden/allowed status of the deed in question.
I am familiar with the New Testament, and I am particularly curious as to what you believe about certain other things in Moses' law, especially things that are not specifically addressed in the New Testament as being right or wrong. For example, regarding the laws against incestuous relationships, I believe the only time the New Testament addresses the topic is regarding a man having his father's wife, which the author strongly condemns. I am wondering why you believe the author frowned upon that relationship, since his condemnation could not have had anything to do with Moses' law, which Christians are under no obligation to keep.
And I have a question regarding the other forms of incest that Moses' law forbids, but the New Testament says nothing about, as well as other deeds forbidden in Leviticus 18 that are not mentioned in the New Testament, such as those in verses 18 and 22. Of course I assume that you disapprove of all those actions as well, but what do you base your disapproval on, since Christians are under no obligation to keep the law of Moses?
Thank you very much for your time.
Correction: I meant verses 18 and 23, not 18 and 22. I understand that the subject of verse 22 is in fact mentioned in the New Testament.
Son of Abraham, I am not sure that anyone can really answer your questions about what those of us on this site believe, because there are so many of us, and we are all at various places in our walk with God. If you scroll back up to the end of the article, you will see a little disclaimer that says that, essentially, each Recovering Grace contributor is at his or her own place on his or her faith journey, and that each person's opinions are his or her own. There is also a link to the basic statement of faith in that disclaimer.
From my personal study, I do not think that the Law of Moses is binding on anyone who is not of Jewish descent. I think that the Council of Jerusalem made this very clear when they told the Judaizers to stop pressuring Gentile believers in Christ to get circumcised, and told them that the only things they needed to avoid were eating blood and strangled things, things polluted by idols, and fornication.
That said, I ALSO believe that there is a "natural law" written in our hearts that guides us as we listen to God's spirit. And I believe that "natural law" would guide us away from many of the behaviours listed in the Mosaic law. I think this "natural law" is an older, more ingrained law than the Mosaic law, and it is reflected in many of the ancient codes. Tradition says that the Noachide Laws were given by God to the descendants of Noach; they prohibit idolatry, murder, theft, sexual immorality, blasphemy, and eating live animals. The oldest extant law codes reflect these same prohibitions, including the Codes of Hammurabi, Assura, Ur Nammu, and the Nesilim. So it seems reasonable to me to say that there is SOME basic "natural law" underlying all law codes espoused by human civilizations.
But that is just my opinion, and it is probably different from that of many of the other contributors to this site.
WendyA, thank you for sharing your perspective. It's obvious that you've put a lot of intelligent thought into this subject.
If any other posters would also like to add their views I'd appreciate it. Please understand that I'm not challenging what you believe or trying to argue against it. I'd really like to know why you might believe your Creator assigned the status of "allowed/forbidden/allowed again" to certain deeds, as outlined in my original post, above.
I'm just using the matter of lying with a woman during her menstrual cycle as an example, since the article above talks about it. It's obvious why the Creator's instructions would change when it comes to matters in Moses' law that had to do with the priesthood and sacrifices for sins, the need for which was obviously eliminated by the sacrificial death of the Messiah.
But I would like to know why you might believe our Creator had this change in his approval of actions that are a mundane part of everyday human living, and that have nothing to do with the old priesthood and sacrificial system. First, he approves of it during time period ONE (from my original post), then disapproves of it for Israelites during time period TWO, then approves of it for all again starting with time period THREE. Why the change?
Here's my non-scholarly view... For the 2nd time period, God was setting the nation of Israel apart, to be different and act different, as His nation. Certain customs were around before then, like circumcision, as was faith, but the Law was an operations manual of how to be clean/holy before God. A few laws spread into many, and why those laws were chosen...God will have to answer that.
Jesus fulfilled the Hebrew prophecies and the Law. While Israel still is God's special nation, he established a wider body set apart for Himself...His church. Jesus is the key to being set apart for God, and through him we are clean before God. This applies to mundane cleanliness as well as the system of sacrificial cleanliness. To highlight what Jesus has accomplished and to shift our attention to the grace extended to us, the entire understanding of what is clean and unclean was upended.
RE: Gothard. Men like him come along and say, yes, you must have faith for salvation...but you are unclean in your daily life, and you must work hard to become and stay clean...and all the grace you get is your own effort. Welcome back to the Law.
Thanks very much, Jay. That helps me understand your viewpoint better.
Thanks for this article. I'm beginning to see what people mean when they say that Bill Gothard twists Scripture. I was going to keep my materials so I could go back through and keep the good and throw out the bad but I'm beginning to think I should just get rid of everything and move forward.
[...] (Click here to read a follow-up article to this series: “Sowing to the Flesh”) [...]
Gothard has NO right to teach about sexual rules. This is a very sick man. All we need to know is in the Bible, used with common sense.