Pornos & Porneia (Part 2 of 3)
Esau syndrome, Jesus on “divorce” & wrong pornos
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17:11; KJV).
Part 2: inhale
The following is not to tell you what to think. You are called to search critically and God gave you the power to do that. You have the power, only given in any meaningful way through Jesus Christ, to study for yourself, examining the scriptures, praying over them, and asking Jesus directly for truth.
The God-breathed scriptures are received by the grace of Christ.
If you are already walking in heart-love with Jesus you may want to just navigate away from this and dive into the Bible. Whether you seek this particular knowledge or not, you won’t just lose God’s love.
Fundamentally, you are responsible for yourself. Nonetheless, many people have precipitated another person’s anti-God decisions. Many have placed stumblingblocks. So if this generates discordance for you, or you’re anxious it will be a like a stumblingblock, then ignore it.
For the rest: know that seeking truth in humility cannot be a stumblingblock, whereas not seeking truth causes multitudes to stumble.
Pride is a great obstacle to truth. Through pride we succumb to “my team” thinking, proudly believing our team is the best and being unable to change our mind because we want to fit in with the team. Your team becomes your truth and you’ll fight tooth and nail for your team because it’s your team. The team becomes your everything. Pretty soon you care more about the team than the truth. If the team says it’s truth, it’s truth. This is pride in action. The team is not the sport and the sport exists whether or not you’re in the team. The truth remains true, no matter what your team is doing. The sport creates the team, the team doesn’t create the sport.
If one person reads this and it brings them closer to Jesus, that is the only reason these words exist.
For one person to be moved out of a harmful situation: is why this is.
If your reading generates confusion or distance from Jesus, stop there and discard: it isn’t for you at this time. I am nothing. I can only guide you to the water. You decide if it’s good for you and what to do with it.
Humans cannot get to the whole universal truth of God; we only see what we are given (and just wow, Breath-inhaling wow, how God gives if we ask).
Such a love: God floods us all freely with love. We must never usurp love with a quest for “truth”: love and truth go hand-in-hand.
So walk hand-in-hand, heart-in-heart with Jesus. Lay your head on his chest, hear his heartbeat, trusting him: only him.
A)
Hebrews 12
Lest there be any pornos, or bebēllos, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright (Hebrews 12:16; KJV).
By the end of this three-part message, if you open your heart, you may have received a deeper understanding of the word pornos than the English-translation committee-people that have iced over it causing loss and harm.
Most English translations will try to tell you that Hebrews 12:16 means something like: “lest there be any fornicator (pornos) or profane person (bebēllos) like Esau…”
This is a distortion.
Bebēllos means someone like a doormat (one who is walked all over), from bélos, meaning entranceway/threshold (Lexicon).
To heal, we need to know the meaning of pornos. It does not mean “fornicator” or “sexually immoral person”. This is Biblically, logically, anything-ly impossible. I cry for the pain caused by this false translation.
Note that the next verse says:
For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears. (Hebrews 12:17; KJV).
So here we have something so serious, such a crime against God, that one who does it might even find no place of repentence.
If you know God even slightly, you’ll know that he is the God of repentance itself, who never stopped offering even Judas Escariot to partake of the bread at his sacred table, who saved the thief on the cross. He is the God who chose Esther, a sex slave / dictator’s concubine, to save the Hebrews from the worst genocide they had ever faced down, and Rahab, a prostitute, to save and be saved herself.
Clearly, God doesn’t have a problem with sex. Evidently, the sexual acts of Rahab in her brothel, or Esther summoned up to the point of a tyrant’s pleasure, did not exclude them in any way. God doesn’t look down on the same people many humans look down on. He doesn’t put them in Magdalene Laundries. In fact, he chooses these to lead, serve and save.
Ask: if you look down on someone because of sex how closely are you aligned with God?
With God, repentance is very much fully available to those who seek it…except for porneia. So what could be so deadly serious to God?
(And they’re teaching you lessons on “sexual immorality”? Let’s try to get a bit closer to Biblical truth. Let’s try to repair this. Let’s reach for truth).
Ruach Elohim (Breath of God)
No place of repentence resembles the “unforgivable sin” of “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit”, the Ruach Elohim. This would be another way of saying: proclaiming full-blown spiritual bankruptcy, which would be another way of saying, aligning one’s speech (as your expression of what’s in your heart) with the forces of darkness, proclaiming the satanic over God. Jesus says that all sorts of blasphemy against the Son will be forgiven, but not against the Holy Spirit. He does not say “the Father” but specifies the “Holy Spirit”. Why might that be?
The Holy Spirit is the ‘Pneumatos’ (the Ruach) which is the Breath (like ‘pneumatic’ in English: the inhale-exhale that powers) of God (Elohim). In the context when he says this, Jesus is being accused by Pharisees (rigidly religious men) of being on the side of the demons. More specifically, they are declaring that the evident works of the Spirit (the very Breath of God) shown forth through him (casting out demons; miraculous blessings) are of satanic power, not Godly power. Jesus replies that all sorts of blasphemy against him, the Son, will be forgiven, but not against the Spirit.
The implication is that if you go around proclaiming the lifeforce Spirit-Breath of God to be the Spirit of Satan, potentially causing the listening people’s spiritual downfall, then why would you expect repentance to be on offer, in this world/age/life or in the next (as Jesus said)? Or to put it another way, if you commit a form of full-blown spiritual adultery, even precipitate the downfall of God’s other children, why would you expect to find repentance? Or another way still: if you commit a form of porneia, throwing the Spirit of God away to profane God’s phenomenal blessing and credit the satanic instead, what should God do without compromising himself? The crime is against the very essence of God’s personhood (the Ruach) moving among us, the Holy Breath that he breathed into us to animate, to light us inside. It is as if Jesus says: speak what you will about me, do what you will to me, the Son, the sacrificial, the lightning rod to take your evil and forgive you all, but speak evil against the Spirit itself, that expression of God that lives in my children’s hearts, and you risk cutting out the very essence of God’s Breath by which they were made alive, replacing it with pitchblack deadness. Even if no one else were impacted, you’ve still gob-spat in God’s face. Spit on the Son, he forgives (grace…and of gaspingly phenomenal, breathtaking beauty). Spit on the essence, the Ruach Elohim: this will not be forgiven, neither in this age, nor the next:
“Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come. (Matthew 12:31–32; NKJV).
Just imagine these words leaving YHWH’s lips as Ruach, carried through the atmosphere, as he walks the Earth as Jesus. He’s just cast out demons. His own people, to God’s own face, tell him he’s of Satan and that’s how he cast out the demons. God turns to them and breathes out in their tongue:
Whoever speaks against Ruach Elohim will not be forgiven, not in this age nor in the age to come.
Do you understand the power of this? Can you see God’s eyes as he breathes this sacred truth to his own children, face-to-face, telling them, the actual Ruach Elohim, Pneuma its very self, breathing it out to them, voice to the wind.
You just called God Satan: porneia.
Despised God’s sacred gift: porneia.
Spat into the Ruach Elohim: porneia.
(As we take a moment to absorb this, isn’t it also amazing that some Christians today will instantly cut off a sibling in Christ for suggesting that there might be a path to salvation after earthly death in this life; yet here Jesus’ own words distinguish between a forgiveness available in this world and a forgiveness in the next? It also says this in John 5:28-29 and Revelation 20. Romans 2 is consistent with it; so is 1 Corinthians 5:5. Amazing, how Christians are deceived by doctrine and my-team-ism when actual truth is right there for them in the Word. We’re called to love them just the same, as Jesus does).
Back to Matthew 12 and the Ruach. Note the specificity of the word ‘blasphemy’ which is speech that others can hear and be lost by. It’s about speaking and therefore other people listening, and their salvation journey being hampered by your lies. If you spit on the Son, God may be able to find a way for you, you may be forgiven at some point, maybe in the next age, eons of time between, but spit all over the Holy Spirit itself, that all-pervading personhood of God, permeating from the waters before spacetime’s creation to our very essence of what is good inside us, taking others to the darkness of utter ruin with you, and what should God do? In other words, replace the Ruach Elohim with the satanic, tell people that the workings of God are actually the workings of evil, convince people the Holy Breath is not the Holy Breath and throw them into darkness, and why would full repentance be available? What justice would you call justice if you were God and someone did that to your child who you love? Discard the birthright (union with God) for your quick impulse-pleasure, spit on God’s infinitely good covenant he paid dearly for with his own self-sacrifice, and you may find that if you ask for it back, God does not give it fully to you again. Maybe he can do something for you, like for Esau, but that full birthright, the fullness of God, might not be (for)given you again, never restoring you in quite the same way as before.
Let’s complete this section by returning to Hebrews 12. The Message English translation has:
…Watch out for the Esau syndrome: trading away God’s lifelong gift in order to satisfy a short-term appetite. You well know how Esau later regretted that impulsive act and wanted God’s blessing — but by then it was too late, tears or no tears. (Hebrews 12:15–17; MSG).
The Old Testament verses being referred to are these:
One day Jacob was cooking a stew. Esau came in from the field, starved. Esau said to Jacob, “Give me some of that red stew—I’m starved!” That’s how he came to be called Edom (Red).
Jacob said, “Make me a trade: my stew for your rights as the firstborn.”
Esau said, “I’m starving! What good is a birthright if I’m dead?”
Jacob said, “First, swear to me.” And he did it. On oath Esau traded away his rights as the firstborn. Jacob gave him bread and the stew of lentils. He ate and drank, got up and left. That’s how Esau shrugged off his rights as the firstborn. (Genesis 25:29-34; MSG).
Throwing away God’s sacred birthright he offered to you, a holy gift of infinite magnitude, which cost God’s own blood, to get your quick earthly satisfaction?
Sounds porneia-like to me.
Sounds like binning off God to me. Sounds like salvation-destruction. The Esau Syndrome: what could be more eternally serious than that?
Spiritual adultery against God (porneia) is somewhat reflected in earthly adultery against each other (moichatai). Adultery is not just understood in our narrow terms. It can be thought of as a root cause of sin (falling short of how we could be in God). Root-adultery is supremely important to God and the whole Bible can be read as God’s saving us from such adultery (in other words, saving us from abandoning good for evil) without God compromising who he is.
Now consider Hebrews 13:4–6, looking beyond distorted translations and reading it deeply in light of the above knowledge, transcending what men have told you and listening to what God is telling you:
Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but pornous and moichous God will judge.
Let your conduct be without covetousness; be content with such things as you have. For He Himself has said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.” So we may boldly say:
“The Lord is my helper;
I will not fear.
What can man do to me?”
B)
Matthew 19:9
Jesus said he would reveal truths held secret since the creation (Matthew 13:35). He freed us at God’s perfect moment, from archaic practices that it was time to move forward from (like hygiene laws of their time, or taking multiple wives, for example): God fulfilled what went previously, when the time had come to cast new light. He showed us truths like the Sabbath was made for us, not us for the Sabbath. He explained that not one jot falls from the law until all is fulfilled (it had its place and continues) and he would be the one to fulfil it (he bathes it in his grace and love, altering its molecular structure and bringing it to fulfilment like carbon transformed into diamond. You could say Jesus diamondises the law, or crystallises it to its ultimate, perfected-beautiful form: still carbon, as before, but now fulfilled as a diamond, the same molecules in a different lattice of arrangement). Spiritual truth must be received spiritually.
One of the sacred truths Jesus revealed when he walked with us was this:
He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for porneia and marries another woman commits adultery. (Matthew 19:8–9; NASB).
Let’s explore this properly. Given the huge ramifications of what Jesus is saying, this needs the utmost care in proper study.
It is paramount to realise that Jesus says “and marries another woman…” In other words, he is saying that if you think you can use a piece of legal writing to throw aside your wife to give you cover for adultery, you cannot. Jesus makes no comment on divorce unlinked with going on to be with another. This suggests that this is all about divorce being used as cover for men to essentially just commit adultery. Why does Jesus care so much about this? Because adultery causes harm to his children and Jesus cares about people not being harmed. Adultery begets shortfalls of God’s standard (and of our potential in God): “sin”.
That is the only way it makes sense. Look at what the words say.
It is also critical to understand that Jesus is very clearly speaking to men. In some parts of the Bible “men” or “man” stands for “humankind”, or it is clear that the principle would stand for all people (not just men). But in this case, it is crystal clear Jesus is speaking to men specifically. Otherwise it would make absolutely no sense, because women simply would not be in the position for his words to apply (women could not serve divorce papers to men under Mosaic law at the time). This was clarified in the previous passage of Matthew 5:31: “It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:” (referencing Deuteronomy 24:1–2: When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.”)
Get Christopher David’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
This speaks very specifically of serving a bill of divorcement just so a husband can get with another woman. Once you understand that Jesus is about protecting the weaker party from being abused and harmed by the more dominant (and just how much harm this would cause to women), this passage makes perfect sense (in fact, it only makes sense if you understand who Jesus is, who he is for and who he protects).
Jesus, God of love, is not outright forbidding all couples ever from separating. If divorce per se were a fundamental crime it never would have been provisioned for in the Mosaic law. You’d never get the Mosaic law provisioning for theft or murder, and Jesus then saying that was “because of the hardness of your hearts at the time”, would you?
Jesus never says that both parties are forbidden from coming to an amicable separation agreement. He never says you can’t leave a horrible marriage. He never actually says that the woman shouldn’t be able to leave the man if she wants to (in fact, later in 1 Corinthians, Paul suggests that people should be allowed to leave if they want to, because God called us to live in peace).
Here, Jesus focuses entirely on a specific situation of men divorcing and marrying someone else as the same linked action. The message is: men should not think they can jettison their wife against her will, causing immense harm, just because she no longer finds “favour in his eyes” and he wants to commit adultery. Men are not morally covered to give free reign to the whims of their sex-lust by divorce bills. They cannot hide behind legal documents. They have as good as committed adultery. Jesus taught that men cannot use divorce as a means to throw a woman to the societal wilderness just because the man wants sex with someone else (and therefore make that all fine by God because he did the paperwork).
The word Jesus uses for “adultery” here is moichatai. So it is clear that “except for porneia” as the only grounds for divorce cannot mean “except for adultery” or “unfaithfulness”, as many English Bible translations have it (otherwise why not use the actual word moichatai for actual human adultery?) Remembering Esau’s porneia crime had nothing to do with sex, it is clear that porneia here has to mean something else.
Jesus says the same thing in a different way in Matthew 5. Here he says that a man who divorces his wife (against her will, because mutually agreed separation is also not covered here) is himself responsible for her “adultery”. In other words, if you use some certificate to get rid of your wife you cannot then accuse her of responsibility for “adultery” if she soon takes up with someone else: you would be the cause of her so-called adultery not her. The man, not the woman, is responsible, because he caused the whole situation. This is perhaps best appreciated if you imagine a man who dumps his wife to dive into an affair then gets jealous or speaks ill of his ex when she finds someone else. Remembering that Jesus protects the vulnerable from harm by the dominant is key to understanding this. It is also worth remembering that Jesus does not “condemn” the woman caught in the act of adultery in John 8, in fact protecting her from certain men who wanted to kill her for it (just as he is doing here by protecting divorced women from being attacked for adultery, by correctly allocating the responsibility onto the men who divorce them so they can “legitimise” their own actual adultery).
To really start to understand Matthew 5 we should use a literal Greek-English word for word translation:
This is consistent with Luke 16:18 (which, unlike Matthew, does not mention the porneia exception) and which translates word-for-word as:
Let’s write out the second one (Luke):
“Everyone putting away the wife of him and marrying another commits adultery.”
(i.e. if you divorce your wife and/to marry another you’ve essentially commited adultery).
“And the one, her having been divorced from the husband, marrying commits adultery.”
(i.e. one who takes for himself the woman who has only just been divorced commits adultery too).
This all seems to me to have everything to do with the immediate finding of a new partner as part of the same act of separation (potentially for both parties).
It only really makes sense this way. If a woman is divorced by her husband and the next day she’s in bed with someone else, this is a very different situation to her falling in love again ten years down the line. Remembering that Jesus protects from harm and wants the best for us, this makes perfect sense. Anyone who’s been on the “rebound” knows this to be true (with all the pain and harm that can cause). Imagine the difference between handing someone a divorce paper and being in bed with someone else the next day, compared to amicable separation and finding love again (after a period of time passing which shows the divorce had nothing to do with pseudo-legalising simultaneous adultery).
The same teaching is documented in Mark 10 (which I come to last because almost all English translations of it contain a distortion). Mark 10 has been distorted in English, emphasising the active voice. So, it appears to say that if a woman divorces her husband she commits adultery. To repeat, a woman in the Mosaic law was not able to just divorce her husband (the man had to do it). Jesus’ underlying teaching in Mark is the same as in Luke and Matthew. The English translators made an error by making it sound like the woman could be the one to actively divorce the man (she could not do that so it is almost impossible that it would mean that). As it’s the same teaching as in Luke and Matthew, it cannot have some significantly different fundamental meaning.
I’ve used the word “divorce” throughout, but actually the Greek word for “divorcing” here is nuanced and doesn’t always mean divorcing. It also means to depart, release or let go. In Mark 10 the Greek word is “apolusasa” and the -sasa past tense (aorist) participle (secondary doing word / verb that accompanies the primary doing word) ending conveys the meaning of: “she having departed” or “she after divorcing”. This is the same word Pilate used for Jesus (Pilate didn’t want to “divorce” Jesus, he wanted to “let him go”: apolysai) and which Paul used in the sense of being “set free” from jail in Acts 28. (A Google search is all you need to read about participles and how the -sasa ending = aorist, third person feminine participle (e.g. “after she divorces”): Ancient Greek verbs — Wikipedia).
It seems to me there’s no way Jesus would teach that if a woman actively divorces a man she commits adultery, because women simply could not just “divorce” men.
Some things just take work to understand. The Bible explicitly tells us we are called to do this work:
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15; KJV).
If you don’t study the scriptures yourself you’re missing out on one of the greatest gifts the world has ever received. It’s not a transaction, it’s not a chore, it’s one of the most beautiful things you can do. You are breathing in God.
If you’re not sure about all this, you don’t need me or anyone else to tell you (humans are clouded with biases, ignorance, prejudice, fear, egotism, etc). Just pray to Jesus and ask him for truth. He will be moved. He loves to be moved. Study the Word prayerfully and cleanly with Jesus as your teacher, the Holy Spirit instructing and creating pathways, rather than taking some man’s word for all this.
If I, or any Christian, or anyone else, ever tells you what God thinks about your sex or marriage, I would be extremely cautious. They probably don’t even know what they don’t know. I apply this also to myself right now as you read this and interface with God through me indirectly. Here, there are at least two human steps between you and God, where error can and will enter. The only one you should trust is Jesus. If you haven’t believed his teachings, that might be because they aren’t exactly his teachings.
But if they are his teachings, you’ll know in your heart that they’re true, if you cut out the noise so you can actually hear his voice.
And if your heart’s too hard for that, just look at the results around the world when people act against what he advised us to do (and that’s not binary: the harder we reject his (true) advice, the worse our situations go).
If you want to understand more about how deep the Mark 10:12 translation deception goes, have in your mind the fact that women could not divorce men at the time Jesus was speaking and read all the English translations of Mark 10:12 lined up next to each other: Mark 10:12 — Bible Gateway.
Why would you prefer the distortions of men to the full truth of God?
The full truth of God takes time and effort.
Men can tell you any old lie in a few seconds.
Pray to Jesus and ask him.
Coming back to porneia, this is only mentioned as part of the sentence about men in Matthew, telling men they can’t use a divorce certificate to cover for their adultery. So why then, does this become OK if there’s porneia?
Let’s consider porneia as it really is: catastrophic throwing away God and choosing darkness over light, destruction over salvation, for you and others. My interpretation is: if someone is doing this, fundamentally embracing the satanic, then the spiritual danger is such that even immediately divorcing (and even finding someone else right away) is permitted. As we’ll see in Part 3, marriage has value in protecting against porneia by standing us together as one (would Esau have thrown it all away if a wife had been there?) God cares about our eternal salvation, arguably more than anything else to do with us, so if your spouse is a salvation throw-away, if she has the Esau Syndrome, if instead of standing together she makes you fall together, then this is so dangerous that an exception is made.
Paul, Jesus’ beautiful apostle of the practicalities, writes in 1 Corinthians that, while permitted, you should try not to divorce a non-believer spouse because they are actually sanctified by your faith, otherwise your children would not be sanctified. Take a moment to let that sink in. He asks, how do you know that your faith won’t save your partner? But if the non-believing spouse wants to leave, then you should let them go. People can say what they like, but I see the goodness of God breathing through all this. Even if your wife starts worshipping the darkness, God may even use your infinitely powerful and sacred faith to save her. That’s how much he wants to save everyone. He’ll bend the rules that much to get her saved. If your partner does porneia, no one should accuse you of adultery for finding someone else in that situation. But even then, do your utmost to not throw them to the wolves of their inner or outer darkness, unless they choose of their own will to go, in which case, don’t dominate or coerce: lovingly let them have their perceived freedom.
Everything about God is love. Forgetting this fact is the reason so many humans have talked such distortion about Jesus, causing enormous harm to our fellow humans and the children of Christ. If it causes harm, it isn’t God’s truth.
So, Jesus gives this one exception, porneia, salvation-jeopardy, by which men can divorce a woman without her consent and immediately find someone else without being accused of adultery. He doesn’t say you have to do it. He just makes an allowance for it. If you’re married to Esau and you find someone else to love who isn’t liable to sell you down the spiritual anti-Christ river, then you won’t be accused of adultery. Essentially Jesus is saying that in this one case, the danger is so great that it is permissible to find someone else, serving divorce papers without your spouse’s agreement to the separation (and you could even be with another partner right after). This means that it only makes sense if it is the most serious situation, the saddest, most spiritually dangerous offence in the eyes of God (binning off God himself: salvation-destruction), otherwise it makes no sense that Jesus provides only this one exception to the rule. If Jesus had really said except for “unchastity”, “fornication” or “sexual immorality”, this would make no sense. What, then, about some other crime? What, then, about stealing? Trying to kill the mother-in-law with a frying pan? What then, about domestic abuse? Refusing sex? Refusing to cook you dinner? What if someone kissed another person once but nothing more? Were perceived to be flirting a bit too much by some insecure, jealous-angry man? What if she longed for someone in lust but did not actually physically touch them (in Matthew 5:28 Jesus reminds us that fantasising about doing adultery is the same as commiting adultery internally in your heart)? What if one husband set the bar at this and another set it at that. What if some couple had this more complex situation or that situation they both agreed to and that was for the good in their case. Unless porneia is the absolute crime of crimes against God himself, then where could you ever draw the sexual immorality line?
Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19:9 and Matthew 5:32 only makes sense if he makes one, and only one, exception: porneia. It is akin to the “unforgivable sin”. In Part 3 we’ll see how it’s related, even, to an Old Testament episode of devil-worshipping, live-child-sacrifice-idolatry which caused thousands of people to die (described as porneia in 1 Corinthians 10:8, referencing satanic idolatry (not sex) in Numbers 25). It is the toxic Esau Syndrome, manifested when Esau threw away his (and his wife (wives, actually) and children’s) solemn covenant with God to “satisfy” himself in the fleshy moment of his desire.
Let’s end by considering Hebrews 10:
Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? (Hebrews 10:29; KJV).
In terms of God, this is the thread running through the entire Bible.
Or consider it another way: what do you think these worshippers are singing about: LION (feat. Chris Brown & Brandon Lake) | Elevation Worship…?
Is the Lion of Judah, Jesus Christ, the God of Abraham and all humanity, the I AM, really a “sexual immorality” God who peeps through your keyhole and tuts at something he created?
Give us a break. The people know.
Ice-breaking
To finish, let’s now re-read those critical verses and hear what Jesus taught:
Jesus said, “Moses provided for divorce as a concession to your hard heartedness, but it is not part of God’s original plan. I’m holding you to the original plan, and holding you liable for adultery if you divorce your faithful wife and then marry someone else. I make an exception in cases where the spouse has committed porneia.” (Matthew 19:8–9; MSG).
Exclusion-focused Christians can get excited about Matthew 19 (“I’m afraid you’re not part of God’s original plan…he made them male and female, you see”). But, obviously, just because God mentions A does not mean B, C, D, alpha, beta, gamma, delta, or any of the countless others cannot exist. In fact, the final line of the canonical gospels is:
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen. (John 21:25; KJV).
One of the greatest errors people make is to read that God did A and so they think A is all there is and everything else is not (Genesis 1 fallacy).
Another common error is to read about people Q doing sin S, and therefore think that regular q people doing regular s is the same thing (Romans 1 fallacy).
All are loved of God.
Jesus can’t list every single thing ever in human language (and none of us would be able to even begin reading such a Book).
Don’t believe me? Believe God’s Word:
For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving (1 Timothy 4:4; KJV).
God created it all in love and for the glory of his Kingdom. So he gives us the power to understand, according to what is good, in keeping with his will, as long as we remember to love God and love one another (for that is receiving it with thanksgiving).
Exclusionary Christians lament that the people aren’t jumping on their bandwagon, completely oblivious that they might be the reason. The people have been given the power by God to know between right and wrong and they correctly discern that rabid exclusionary doctrines are false doctrines of men’s ignorance and harm. In repulsing people from Christ’s love, exclusionary [whatever]-phobic religious people must be careful not to become like pornos of our time: fearful; no stamina for proper effort to put in the work required to receive the promise of God-Word; gobbling down their own quick fix of some morsel of their God-doctrine at someone else’s expense and throwing away the salvation of multitudes who discern correctly from outside that they won’t find the fullness of God inside.
People know what God-love is.
Imagine the harm caused over the centuries by people talking simplistic nonsense about Jesus’ teaching on “divorce”.
Is it time to lance this boil?
It’s about capital-A Adultery: spiritual (porneia) and human (moichatai).
There is no fulfilment in my-team-ism.
If you don’t know, better to be silent and just love, love, love.
If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you do well; (James 2:8; KJV).
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.
33 So Paul departed from among them.
34 Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed: among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them. (Acts 17:30-34; KJV).
