Song of songs, outlines

* How to read the book as a whole:

First, as a progression, vaguely discerned:

(1) Acquaintance (2) Interest (3) Deepening of the relationship (4) Betrothal (5) Separation (6) Waiting (7) Seeking (8) Finding (9) Final reunion.

This answers, generally, to our developing relationship with Christ:

(A) Learning the Truth (#s 1-3) (B) Baptism (# 4) (C) Probation, while Christ is in heaven (#s 5-7) (D) Christ’s return and kingdom (#s 8,9)

So the basic NT story is as follows:

  1. The good shepherd = Christ, in the days of his flesh.
  2. The Shulamite = the church, or ecclesia.

  3. Their courtship = ministry of Christ; preaching by apostles.

  4. Disappearance of shepherd = Christ’s ascension to heaven.

  5. “Dreams” of Shulamite about his return = the longing of saints (in all ages since) for the coming of their Lord.

  6. Watchmen’s treatment of the Bride = persecution/tribulations of the church in Christ’s absence.

  7. The shepherd returning as King = Christ returning in his glory (accompanied by angels)

  8. Wedding feast = “marriage supper of Lamb”.

Possible outline narrative:

(a) Song 1:2-6: The end of the story first? (This is the same device as used in Rev, several times, for example.) The bride is brought by her husband (“Solomon”, “prince of peace”) into his royal palace. She speaks with awe of her surroundings, and apologizes for her sun-burnt complexion. She has gone through many trials, but now (at last) she has reached her destination: the home of her Beloved.

Now… how did this come about? In answer, we return to the beginning of the story…

(b) Song 1:7 — Song 2:17: The real beginning of the story: a sequence of courting scenes. The humble “shepherd” whom the maiden loves (Song 1:7,8) is in fact a king (notice how HE speaks in Song 1:9,10,12; although he appears as a shepherd, the imagery and figures of speech he uses betrays his true, royal, identity). She imagines their home and their life together (Song 1:16,17). Then they are alternately together/apart/together/apart, etc (Song 2).

(c) Song 3:1-4 and Song 5:2-8: While seeking her “Beloved”, the maiden is mocked and beaten by the “watchmen” (Song 3:3; 5:6,7). She suffers much because of her love, while the object of that love is absent. (Notice the repetition and alternating of themes in this sequence.)

(d) Song 4:1-7: The “Beloved” describes her “beauty”.

(e) Song 4:8,9,15,16: He proposes to her, and she accepts.

(f) Song 5:9-16: She is separated (again?), and describes her “Beloved” to the “daughters of Jerusalem”, in terms of unrestrained enthusiasm.

(g) Song 3:6-11 and Song 6:11,12: She is almost “surprised” (when at last she finds him) that her “Beloved” (the “simple” shepherd) has been transformed into the great “Solomon” (the King of Peace). The shepherd has returned in his true character, as a great and mighty King!

(h) Song 6:13 — Song 7:9: The wedding festival, with the “guests”: the friends of the Bride (her companions, the virgins, the “daughters of Jerusalem”) and the friends of the Groom (the angels? the mighty warriors?) (Song 6:13).

(i) Song 7:10 — Song 8:14: A series of vignettes: pictures of the “honeymoon”.

…And so, back to the beginning/end (Song 1:2-6): The king ushers his lovely bride into the royal palace…


Another possible outline

This outline takes the wedding itself as the backbone of the book, with various remembrances, or “flashbacks”, to earlier times (the courtship, and separations).

1. The beginning of love: Song 1:1 – 5:1

(a) The wedding day (beginning): Song 1:1 – 2:7

(1) Shulamite in the palace (Song 1:1-8) (2) At the banquet table (Song 1:9-14) (3) In the bridal chamber (Song 1:15 – 2:7)

(b) Reflections on a courtship: Song 2:8 – 3:5

(1) A springtime visit (Song 2:8-13) (2) The little foxes (Song 2:14-17) (3) A dream: on counting the cost (Song 3:1-5)

(c) The wedding day (continued): Song 3:6 – 5:1

(1) The wedding procession (Song 3:6-11) (2) The wedding night (Song 4:1 – 5:1)

2. The development of oneness: Song 5:2 – 8:14

(a) A dream of love refused: Song 5:2 – 8:4

(1) The dream (Song 5:2-8) (2) A change of attitude (Song 5:9 – 6:3) (3) The return of Solomon (Song 6:4-10) (4) Shulamite in the garden (Song 6:11-13a) (5) The dance of the Mahanaim (Song 6:13b – 8:4)

(b) A vacation in the country: Song 8:5-14

(The outline is followed, in large part, by JS Baxter in “Explore the Book”, and RG Moulton in “Modern Readers’ Bible”.)


RW Ask suggests an outline consisting of 12 separate songs:

  • The Bride in the King’s chambers (1:2-8)
  • The Bridegroom and the Bride in a garden retreat (1:9–2:7)

  • The Bridegroom’s call and her response (2:8-17)

  • The Bride’s midnight search for her beloved (3:1-5)
  • A state visit to the Bride — in which he praises her beauty (3:6–4:7)

  • The Bride is compared to a lovely garden (4:8–5:1)

  • The Bride’s portrait of her Beloved and his reply (5:2–6:10)

  • She is overtaken by a sudden impulse to hide herself (6:11-13)

  • The Virgins describe the Bride (7:1-9)
  • The Bride’s invitation to the Bridegroom (7:10-8:4)

  • Love unquenchable (8:5-7)

  • Conclusion (8:8-14)

In this he follows Mason Good, Thomas Percy, and Joseph Bush, and is in turn followed by HP Mansfield. In order to avoid some of the confusion as to time sequence of the songs, HPM turns the 12 songs into two complete cycles of six songs each, the first six subtitled “The Bride selected from Israel”, and the last six “The Bride selected from the Gentiles”.

“Soul”, Bible meaning of

Christendom Admits “Immortal Soul” UnBiblical, and Based On Greek Philosophy

When we turn to works of reference by the learned expositors of the immortal soul theory, we see how this “believing a lie” works out quite naturally. Most of them make no attempt to conceal the fact that scriptural teaching and popular theology are very different regarding the meaning of “soul.” They are in fact, proud that they have developed many “improvements” upon what they consider the partial and hazy conceptions voiced by the “Holy men of God who spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2Pe 1:21).

We soon find that we are forced to choose between Scripture teaching and orthodox Christianity. It is very fortunate for us that the issue is so clear-cut, and that the leading exponents of the immortal soul theory are so frank in admission of its non-Biblical origin. Webster’s Dictionary says:

“The Christian conception of the soul derives from the Greek, especially as modified by the mystery cults, as well as from the Bible…

“The more exact determination of the Christian conception was reserved for the Church Fathers, especially Saint Augustine, who taught that it is simple, immaterial and spiritual, devoid of quality and spatial extension. He argued its immortality from the fact that it is the repository of imperishable truth.”

Funk & Wagnall Dictionary is even more to the point:

“Among the ancient Hebrews ‘soul’ was the equivalent of the principle of life as embodied in living creatures, and this meaning is continued throughout the Bible…

“It was Augustine especially who, in part on religious grounds and in part as the disciple of the later Greek Philosophy, taught the simple, immaterial and spiritual nature of the human soul — a view which has remained that of the scholastic philosophy and of Christian theologians down to the present time.”

Hasting’s well-known Bible Dictionary freely admits:

“Soul is throughout a great part of the Bible simply the equivalent of ‘life’ embodied in living creature. In the earlier usage of the OT it has no reference to the later philosophical meaning — the animating principle — still less to the idea of an ‘immaterial nature’ which will survive the body.”

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says:

“Soul has various shades of meaning in the OT , which may be summarized as follows: Soul, living being, life, self, person, desire, appetite, emotion and passion.

“Nephesh or soul, can only denote the individual life with a material organization or body.

“In the NT ‘psuche’ appears under more or less similar conditions as in the OT .”

Young’s Concordance defines both nephesh and psuche as “animal soul.”

Strong’s Concordance defines nephesh as, “A breathing creature, an animal; or, abstractly vitality.” Psuche it likewise defines as “The animal, sentient principle.”

The noted lexicographer Parkhurst (himself a believer in immortal soulism) says:

“As a noun nephesh hath been supposed to signify the spiritual part of man, or what we commonly call his soul. I must for myself confess that I can find no passages where it hath undoubtedly this meaning.

“Gen 35:18, 1Ki 17:21,22 and Psa 16:10 seem fairest for this signification. But may not nephesh in the three former passages be most properly rendered ‘breath,’ and in the last, ‘a breathing or animal frame’?”

These quotations show clearly that the immortal soul doctrine is generally admitted by its supporters to be entirely different from the BIBLE meaning of soul, and based mainly upon GREEK PHILOSOPHY.


Is God’s Word A Final, Infallible Authority?

The issue then is this: is the Word of God to be our final authority, or is religious truth something to be gradually developed by man’s speculation on the basis of pagan Greek philosophy?

For nearly 2,000 years, the bulk of Christendom, beginning with the Church Fathers, have favored the latter, but there have always been a few who have regarded the Bible as wholly inspired by God, consistent from beginning to end, and the only possible source of true knowledge of such things as life, death and the nature and destiny of man.

A Bible that is anything less than this is NO BIBLE AT ALL. And the Bible itself leaves no room for compromise. It takes a bold and unequivocal stand throughout as the direct Word of God in every part [Isa 8:20; Jer 36:1-4; 1Co 2:9-13; Gal 1:11,12; 2Ti 3:16,17; Heb 1:1,2; 2Pe 1:19-21; Rev 1:1,2]. We must accept it as that, or else throw it away entirely as the most brazen and blasphemous of falsehoods.

Those who take the middle ground are the Bible’s greatest enemies, and this unfortunately includes the vast majority of professing Christians. They dare not openly deny its divinity, because it is so obviously divine, but they seek to rob it of all power by spinning an endless web of theories around it that confuse the mind and distract the attention, and obscure its plain, clear teaching.

It is impossible in any one consideration to fully examine the Biblical use and meaning of “soul.” But it is possible to lay the foundation by demonstrating that popular theology on the subject is admittedly derived from other sources than the Bible, and is at direct variance with it.

The Bible meaning of “soul” (which modern writers mention briefly in passing), is regarded by them as a rather amusing phase of ancient Hebrew speculation, hardly worthy of serious attention, and which no one laying claim to “modern” learning would dare allow his name to be associated with.

The following brief outline of the BIBLICAL use of the term is for those few to whom the Bible is still the one unique Book among millions — the wholly inspired divine message to man — one v of which is worth more than countless volumes of the cloudy, inconclusive speculations of human philosophy and “modern wisdom.” [1Co 1:17; 2:16; 3:18-20].  


The Original Words Translated “Soul”

In the OT Hebrew, the original word for soul is nephesh. In the NT Greek it is psuche. Both mean the same thing and are used interchangeably. One is used to translate the other.

Nephesh occurs about 750 times. About 500 times it is translated “soul” in the Authorized Version. The other 250 times it is translated by over 40 different English words, as shown on the chart.

Psuche occurs about 100 times, and is translated similarly.

It is quite obvious at the outset that a word of such broad application, including all the animal kingdom, all its bodily [and] physical aspects, CANNOT POSSIBLY indicate some immortal essence in man distinguishing him from the lower creation.

It is clear from the words used to translate it that it is related throughout to ANIMAL BODIES, including man, and this will become more and more clear as we consider some of the passages in which it is used.

It can be readily seen, too, that with such a range of meaning the translators could do much to color the various passages by their choice of English words — using one set of terms when used of animals and another when of man.

On the other hand, it is evident that in an article of this kind, it is impossible to quote sufficient of the 850 occurrences to fully illustrate the word, and that by choosing obscure, borderline passages, a very distorted picture could be drawn.

Therefore, only a careful, individual investigation, seeking divine guidance, can bring solid, durable conviction and enlightenment. THERE IS NO SHORTCUT TO THE ENLIGHTENED FAITH THAT LEADS TO SALVATION.

For instance, soul is used in relation to God. He says: “My servant in whom MY SOUL delighteth” (Isa 42:1). But examination will show that this is a very exceptional, isolated use, and is a figure of speech that has no bearing on the literal meaning of soul. The expression “my soul” is often used simply as an emphatic term meaning “myself,” because of its undeniable animal basis. Clearly it is in this secondary sense of emphasis only [that] it is used of God.

The Scriptures Cannot Be Broken

As in the case of most other Biblical subjects, we find ourselves taken back to the opening chapters of Genesis when we begin to examine the meaning of soul.

There the foundations for many things are laid, and lost indeed are those poor “modern” thinkers who dismiss these early books of the Bible as folklore and fairy tales.

Here again, let us courageously face the consequences of our convictions. Christ put his seal upon the ancient Hebrew Scriptures as the unbreakable Word of God. He said:

“The SCRIPTURES CANNOT BE BROKEN” (John 10:35).

And again (John 5:47): “If ye believe not Moses’ writings, how shall ye believe my words?”

If we reject Moses’ writings, let us at least be consistent and reject Christ’s too. If we believe in Christ, let us give those Holy Writings he endorses our full assurance of faith.


Nephesh First Used of Animals

THE FIRST FOUR OCCURRENCES OF THE WORD “NEPHESH” RELATE EXCLUSIVELY TO ANIMALS. That is a good fact to start with and to remember. A good foundation. Let us get them firmly in our mind:

Gen 1:20: “And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life” (The word “life” here is nephesh — soul).

Next verse: “And God created great whales, and every living creature (nephesh — soul) that moveth, which the water brought forth abundantly.”

V 24: “The living creature (nephesh) after his kind, cattle and creeping things.”

V 30: “Every beast… every foul… everything that creepeth, wherein there is life (nephesh).”


Then Used of Man

Then, having prepared our understanding by applying nephesh four times to every species of living creature on the earth, the Scriptures’ next use of the word is in the record of the creation of man (Gen 2:7): “The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground.” (and that in itself is a phrase to be well noted when we consider the nature and composition of man)

“The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul (nephesh).”

(EXACTLY THE SAME WORD as four times already applied to animals: Man, formed of the dust of the ground, became a living soul (an animal, breathing creature) when God breathed into him the breath of life.)

Now the usual response at this point from the immortal soulist is to switch over to the word spirit, and abandon the argument based on soul. Our present subject, is however, SOUL, and we hope to thoroughly dispose of that, but in passing it may be mentioned that exactly the same remarks apply to “spirit.” It, too, in these early foundation chapters of Genesis, is used of animals alone, and also of men and animals together, and to the same point Solomon says (Ecc 3:19): “Man and beasts… they have all ONE spirit.”

In applying both these words, soul AND spirit, to animals as well as to men, the Scriptures seem to be taking especial care to protect us from erroneous conceptions, if only we will heed and accept its divine guidance, and not depend upon the Greek philosophers against whose teachings the Apostle Paul so bitterly contended and so vehemently warned.  


Man and Animals Together Indiscriminately

We have considered the first five occurrences. Of the next eight, six are applied to animals. There are seven places where the word is applied to man and animals together without distinction. An interesting example is Num 31:28:

“Levy a tribute… one SOUL (nephesh) of 500, both of the persons, of the beeves, of the asses…”

One more typical passage of the use of soul for animals before we go on, Pro 12:10:

“A righteous man regardeth the life (nephesh — SOUL) of his beast; but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.”

Surely we can consider it definitely established, therefore, that there is no difference between men and animals in the matter of being or having souls. This IS VERY IMPORTANT. It is one of the first principles of Scripture. If we have not definitely fixed this in our minds, let us keep going back over these facts and passages and stick with them. They are worth more than all the volumes ever written of Greek or modern philosophy.


Adam’s Sentence “Dust Thou Art”

The sentence passed on Adam is in full accord with the record of his creation from the dust (Gen 3:19):

“Dust THOU art, and unto dust shalt THOU return.”

The sentence was passed upon the conscious, thinking, sinning individual — the LIVING SOUL, created from dust, and animated by breath from God. This is in harmony with the general expression of the dispensation of God’s justice, as expressed through Ezekiel:

“The soul that sinneth, IT SHALL DIE” (Eze 18:4).

Any attempt to transfer this sentence from the thinking, responsible Adam to his mere body is such an obviously weak subterfuge as not to be worthy of serious consideration.

And finally, we note, in passing, very distinctly that in this first pronouncement of the wages of sin, THERE IS NO MENTION OF ETERNAL TORTURE — but on the contrary, the sentence is dissolution into original dust.


Nephesh: Physical Functions of Fleshly Creatures

Now a few passages to show that soul (Hebrew: nephesh) is not some immaterial essence, but is applied to the ordinary, natural functions of fleshly creatures:

  • Pro 6:30: “Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul (nephesh) when he is hungry.”

  • Isa 29:8: “A hungry man dreameth, and behold, he eateth; but he awaketh, and his soul (nephesh) is empty — a thirsty man dreameth, and behold, he drinketh, but he awaketh, and his soul (nephesh) hath appetite.”

  • Lev 17:10-11: “I will even set my face against that soul (nephesh) that eateth blood… For the life (nephesh — soul) of the flesh is in the blood…”

  • Deu 12:20-23: “Thy soul (nephesh) longeth to eat flesh thou mayest eat flesh, whatsoever thy soul (nephesh) lusteth after… the blood is the life (nephesh — soul); and thou mayest not eat the life (nephesh — soul)…”

It is clear that the immortal soulists’ only solution is to do what they have done, and regard the Bible as merely the speculations of partially enlightened men. They could not possibly agree with Peter’s statement (2Pe 1:21), that:

“Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”

Souls Subject to Death

Now we reach what perhaps may be termed the climax of the subject — the soul’s relation to death. The term “immortal soul” expresses one side of the argument. “Immortal” means “not subject to death.” That is the stand of Plato and orthodox Christendom.

Let us look at what GOD says. Now it would have been quite possible for the Scriptures never to have mentioned soul in connection with death. Many other terms and expressions could have been used. So that when we find that in nearly 300 places (one-third of the total uses of the word) souls are described as being mortal, subject to death, from which they can be saved and delivered, it is quite clear that God is taking special pains to give us correct ideas on this subject, and remove all excuse for believing in “immortal souls” after the manner of the unenlightened heathen. Examples of this are:

  • Psa 22:20: “Deliver my soul (nephash) from the sword…”

  • Jer 38:17: “If thou wilt assuredly go forth unto the King of Babylon’s princes, then thy soul (nephesh) shall live…”

  • 1Sa 19:11: “If thou save not thy life (nephesh — soul) tonight, tomorrow thou shalt be slain.”

  • 1Ki 19:10: “…they seek my life (nephesh) to take it.”

  • Est 7:7: “Haman stood up to make request for his life (nephesh)…”

  • Psa 22:29: “…none can keep alive his own soul (nephesh).”

One out of every three occurrences of the word are of this character — referring to its mortality and liability to death. How could the immortal soul theory be more strikingly disproved? The most prominent fact regarding the soul that is forced upon our attention throughout is its frailty and danger of destruction. Upon this is based the one great lesson of Scripture:

“Hear, and your soul (nephesh) shall live” (Isa 55:3).


Souls Killed

Let us go further. In 32 passages, souls (nephesh) are spoken of as being KILLED BY MAN. Examples are:

Jos 10:28: “Joshua took Makkedah, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and the king thereof he utterly destroyed, and all the souls (nephesh) that were therein…”

This is repeated in vv 30,32,35,37, and 39.

Deu 27:25: “Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person (nephesh — soul).”

Let us look particularly at Lev 24:17-18. The AV reads:

“…he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death. And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast.”

In the original, nephesh occurs here four times, as follows:

“He that smiteth the nephesh (soul) of a man, shall surely be put to death. And he that smiteth the nephesh (soul) of a beast shall make it good; nephesh for nephesh.”

Here again the translators have, by inconsistent and biased translation, obscured another clear divine lesson in the meaning of nephesh, or “soul.”


Souls Dead

One more step, and then we are as far away from the immortal soul theory as it is possible to be — in 13 places souls (nephesh) are said to be actually DEAD.

Examples are:

  • Num 6:6: “…he shall come at no dead body (nephesh).”

  • Lev 21:11: “Neither shall he go in to any dead body (nephesh)…”

These are parts of the Mosaic regulations concerning uncleanness and defilement by contact with corpses.

NT and OT In Harmony

All references quoted so far have been from the OT. That is the foundation of the New, and the word “soul” occurs in the Old seven times as often as in the New. It is ignoring the foundation work of the OT that has prevented so many from understanding the New.

The Bible is one single, indivisible unit. It cannot be broken up and a part cast aside. Only when it is regarded as one equally inspired and equally divine book can it be properly understood. God has varied His commands at different times to different people, but statements of FACT and TRUTH never change from beginning to end.

“Soul” in the NT cannot be considered apart from soul in the Old. Considering them together, we find them in complete harmony. As in the Old, so in the New, “soul” is used of animals; it is spoken of as dying; it is used for the mind, the heart, the appetite and the emotions.


“Living Soul” Equals “Natural Body”

Whenever speakers in the NT quote from passages in the Old containing the Hebrew word nephesh, they use the Greek word psuche. One outstanding example will illustrate this. In 1Co 15, beginning at v 42, Paul makes a contrast between corruption and incorruption, weakness and power, mortality and immortality. Then (v 44) he says:

“There is a natural body and there is a spiritual body.”

The word “natural” here is psuchikos — soulish, from psuche — soul. He continues, v 45:

“And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul (psuche)…”

He is quoting Gen 2:7 which we have considered. In v 46, he calls this living soul, “that which is natural.” In v 47, he calls it “of the earth, earthy.” In v 50, he calls it “flesh and blood” and “corruption.” Paul’s conception of soul fits perfectly with what we have already discovered.

Similarly souls are applied to animals, and souls die, in the NT just as in the Old. In Rev 8:9, we read:

“And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life (psuche — soul), died…”

Rev 16:3: “…every living soul (psuche) died in the sea.”

And “soul” is used for natural life and function, as in the Old. In Mat 6:25, Jesus says:

“…Take NO THOUGHT for your life (psuche — soul), what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink…”

The soul here is clearly that which is supported by eating and drinking. Acts 15:25,26 we read: “…Our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men that have hazarded their lives (psuche) for the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

In faithfully serving Christ, they certainly could not have been hazarding immortal souls, but they WERE hazarding their scriptural souls — their natural lives and bodies.

The same applies to Paul’s words in Acts 20:24: “…neither count I my life (psuche) dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy…”

And Jesus’ words (John 10:15): “…I lay down my life (psuche) for the sheep.”

And Phi 2:30: “…for the work of Christ he was nigh unto death, NOT REGARDING his life (psuche)…”

In all these, psuche is used in the common sense of natural life, and cannot be harmonized with the immortal soul idea.


“Not Able to Kill the Soul”

Now, as in the Old [Testament], so in the New [Testament], there are a few passages where the use of the word could possibly be made to fit with the immortal soul idea. There are none, of course, that prove or even support this idea — that would be impossible as we can see from the basic meaning and general use of the word — -but there are some where it could be read in if the rest is ignored.

The passage most frequently quoted is Mat 10:28:

“…fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear Him which is able to DESTROY both soul and body in Gehenna.”

Now it is rather peculiar at the outset that the one passage most quoted to support the indestructible soul theory is the very one that speaks of the soul being DESTROYED, but, we find that these people do not regard “destroyed” as meaning destroyed, but the opposite — eternally preserved.

And we find further that they do not regard “death” as meaning death, but “eternal LIFE in misery.” We can see that with definitions such as this we could make anything prove anything.

We have seen that according to the Scriptures elsewhere, a man can and DOES kill the soul. We have looked at several passages to this effect, and there are many others. The first use of the word in the NT (Mat 2:20) speaks of Herod “seeking the young child’s life” (psuche — soul). The first appearance in the gospel of Mark is similar. Jesus says (Mark 3:4): “…is it lawful… on the sabbath… to save life (psuche), or to kill?…”

Paul in Rom 11:3 quotes Elijah as saying: “…I am left alone, and they seek my life (psuche).”

What is meant here by saying that man cannot kill the soul? Are the Scriptures contradictory? Of course they are not. We must use wisdom to discern them properly. There is no difficulty in understanding what Christ means, if we sincerely seek a scriptural solution. Man can kill the body, but this has no permanent effect on our ultimate existence. To the faithful, this is but a brief sleep [Isa 26:19; Dan 12:2; Mat 9:24; 27:52; Mark 5:39; Luke 8:52; John 11:11-14; Acts 7:60; 1Co 15:6, 18, 20, 51; 1Th 4:13-15; 5:10; 2Pe 3:4; Deu 31:16; 2Sa 7:12; 1Ki 1:21; Job 7:21; 14:12; Psa 13:31 Jer 51:39, 57; Acts 13:36; 1Ki 2:10; 11:21,43; 14:20,31; 15:8,24; 16:6,28; 22:4050; 2Ki 8:24; 10:35; 13:9, 13; 14:16,22,29; 15:7,22,38; 16:20; 20:21; 21:18; 24:6; 2Ch 9:31; 12:16; 14:1; 16:13; 21:1; 26:2,23; 27:9; 28:27; 32:33; 33:20; Job 3:13; Mat 25:5]. In this sense, the ultimate, eternal sense, man can not kill the soul, or life. But God on the other hand is able to blot us out of existence forever and make all our memory to perish [Deu 32:39; 1Sa 2:6; Ecc 9:4-6; Psa 31:12; 88:5; Isa 26:14; Ecc 8:10].


Summary

Now, to sum up the points that have been covered:

  1. We have seen that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul is admittedly traced to heathen Greek philosophers, and its followers are quite willing to concede that the Bible meaning of soul is something very different.

  2. The issue is clear and there is no middle ground — we must choose between Bible teaching and human speculation.

  3. The words nephesh and psuche, translated “soul,” occur 850 times in the Bible and in not one case is there any suggestion of immortality.

  4. The translators have used over 40 words in translation and a glance at this list shows how far different the Bible soul is from the orthodox one.

  5. The word is first used of ANIMALS.
  6. One-third of all its occurrences speak of it in terms indicating its mortality and subjection to death.

  7. It is often spoken of as being killed by man, and it is several times spoken of as actually being dead, and being handled and touched in a dead state.

ANYTHING MORE DIFFERENT FROM THE IMMORTAL SOUL THEORY, IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE.


Salvation Requires Devotion, and Diligent Application to Truth

In conclusion, let us urge two points of action: FIRST, make a thorough, scriptural examination of the word “soul.” The word occurs 850 times. Make the effort to trace them through. Compare them with the general, hazy ideas on the subject. It takes time, but there is no other way. God requires us to work and search.

And SECOND, having determined the facts of what we are — perishing creatures of dust — investigate God’s great offer of what we may become: “…There is a natural (soul) body, and there is a spiritual body” [1Co 15:44].

“…As we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly” [1Co 15:49].

“…this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality… then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory” [1Co 15:53-54].

These glorious words of the Apostle Paul will be fulfilled someday in the great joyful host of the redeemed, as they stand assembled before the judge of all the earth [Rev 5:9-14; 14:1-5; Gen 18:25; Acts 10:42; 17:31; Rom 2:16; 14:10; 1Co 4:5; 2Co 5:10; 2Ti 4:1,8; 1Pe 4:5].

For all others it will be: “As the beasts that perish” [Psa 49:12,20].

“Like sheep they are laid in the grave; death shall feed upon them… and their beauty shall consume in the grave…” [Psa 49:5.14].

Let US choose the path of wisdom and life.

(GVG)

Septuagint, how useful? (HAW)

Nobody knows just when the Old Testament Scriptures were first turned into Greek, but there is, apparently, an allusion to that translation in Ecclesiasticus, a book of the Apocrypha dating from about BC 180.

There is a highly artificial story, repeated with much gusto by the learned fathers (sic!) of the early church, that Ptolemy Philadelphus, one of the Greek kings of Egypt, was at the back of it. Himself a well-read man, he sought to encourage the study of all forms of learning by bringing together in Alexandria the finest library that could be assembled. In pursuance of this object he sent to Jerusalem for a team of learned men who would turn the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek for him. Already Greek had become the international language of a large part of the civilised world. The high priest obliged with the loan of no less than seventy-two of his best scholars. Each pair were given their own cell, and, the guidance of God having been invoked on their undertaking, they set to work, and in due time produced thirty-six translations of the Old Testament, all of them word for word the same! It may have happened that way. Or, it may not. Septuagint is a shortened form of “seventy”. One legend even says that two of the men died on the way to Alexandria, hence “seventy”. Certainly in later days the copies of the Septuagint (LXX) became very corrupted. Several recensions are available today. There are some indications that Paul took his quotations from what is known today as the Alexandrine, as distinct from the more popular Sinaitic, text.

“Buy a Septuagint”

The LXX shall be recognized for what it certainly is — one of the finest helps in Bible study available today, especially to those who have a modicum of Greek. The story is told that a certain professor of Old Testament studies at Heidelberg University used to begin his lectures by saying: “Gentlemen, have you a Septuagint? If not, sell whatever you have and buy a Septuagint.” That was one way of making a very valuable point.

Working Man’s Bible

It is true that the LXX is very variable in quality of translation as well as of basic underlying Hebrew text. It is true that it includes here and there various materials which do not appear in the Masoretic text. It is true also that it omits bits of the text which are there in Hebrew. It is true that it not infrequently dislocates the sequence of the Hebrew text. It is true that its translation frequently presupposes either a different pointing or a different reading in the original. And yet in spite of these disconcerting features — sometimes because of them — the LXX can be a wonderful help to a better appreciation of the Book. This is primarily because Jesus and his apostles were all at home in the LXX. A big proportion of their Scripture quotations are directly from or are based on, this working man’s Bible (eg, all Stephen’s Old Testament quotes and allusions in Acts 7 are straight LXX). It has to be remembered that, in the first century, whereas only a limited few were familiar enough with classical Hebrew to be able to handle the original text purposefully, practically everybody was familiar enough with the common Greek to be able to appreciate the message of the LXX. Estimates as to its authority have varied considerably. The “early fathers”, and some scholars of the past century deemed the LXX to be fully inspired by God. Perhaps for this reason orthodox Rabbinic scholars have adopted an opposite opinion. The day which was supposed to celebrate the making of the LXX they called “the fast of darkness… like the day on which the golden calf was made.” Without coming to any hard and fast opinion on this question, on which little valuable guidance is available, it is necessary for any Bible student worth his salt to build up a certain familiarity with the Bible of Jesus and Paul.

Re-arranged text

Where the LXX follows a markedly different text it is usually possible to judge just how authoritative or useful the alternative is. In the Ten Commandments, the LXX order is: “Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not kill.” Which order is right? In any case, is it very important? But when the chronology of the first half of Genesis appears with wholesale alterations the problem is more serious. When the LXX picks up Jeremiah chapters 46-51 — the long sequence of judgments against the nations — and tucks them in next to Jer 25, before and behind, this seems right, for those chapters are an obvious expansion of that dire and comprehensive prophecy.

Proverbs

There are certain chapters in Proverbs which in the LXX display unexpected additions as well as distinctly different readings. Indeed many rather mystifying aphorisms from this book of wisdom take on an altogether different flavour. A few examples of this, all from Pro 15, may not be amiss here.

Verse 1: “A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up strife.” The LXX prefaces this with the trenchant addition: “Anger slays even wise men; but…” The rest of the verse shows how this is possible.

Verse 4 reads: “The healing tongue is a tree of life, and (LXX) he that guards it — or, possibly, watches his opportunity — shall be filled with the Spirit.”

Verse 5 has this addition which no one would wish to discard: “In abounding righteousness is great strength (another tree of life), but the ungodly shall perish, his roots entirely out of the ground.” The mind goes instinctively to: “Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up” (Mat 15:13): and to this: “Ye shall say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it shall obey you” (Luke 17:6).

The majority of the parables of Jesus are traceable to the Book of Proverbs.

Verse 18 (King James’ Bible) has this: “A wrathful man stirreth up strife; but he that is slow to anger appeaseth strife” — which is near to being a platitude. Much more colourful is the LXX reading: “A passionate man prepares strife; but the patient man will pacify even that which he had determined.”

Verse 27 has an addition to which no counterpart exists in the Hebrew text. “By alms and faithful dealing sins are purged away.” A palpable forgery, for in the Bible, from beginning to end, there is only one road to forgiveness of sins, and this is not it.

Improvements in Isaiah

There are times when the LXX is immediately seen to be right, and valuable as a correction of the received text. Consider that intriguing passage in Isa 16:4: “Let mine outcasts dwell with thee, Moab”. This has often been interpreted as a divine fiat that in the last days “Moab” (whoever that might mean) should grant a place of refuge for people of Israel fleeing for their lives. In the LXX: “Let the outcasts of Moab dwell with thee (Israel).” This is palpably right, for the same passage prophesies Messiah: “And in mercy shall the throne be established: and he shall sit upon it in truth in the tabernacle of David, judging and seeking judgement, and hasting righteousness.” At such a time there will be no outcasts of Israel needing sanctuary. But then those who have cherished hostility to God’s People over many years will need to “kiss the Son, lest he be angry.”

Still in Isaiah: “where is the house that ye build unto me: and where is the place of my rest? For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the Lord” (Isa 66:1,2). That last rather meaningless phrase reads thus in the LXX: “and all these things are mine.” This reading is so obviously sensible in its meaning, and so necessary to complete the parallelism, that few will be disposed to question it.

Omissions made good?

There are a number of places where the LXX appears to have preserved a reading, perhaps only a phrase or a mere word, which has somehow dropped out of the Hebrew text. A fairly well-known example is in Gen 4:8 where LXX adds: “And Cain said to Abel his brother, Let us go out into the plain.” The words are important as indicating Cain’s deliberate intention to murder his brother.

More problematical is the way in which the LXX fills up what is an obvious gap in Psa 145. This is an acrostic psalm, with the middle verse, beginning with Hebrew N (nun) omitted. Was it omitted originally by design, to draw attention to a rather dramatic change in tone? Or has it dropped out of the Hebrew text, but been preserved in LXX as the second part of v 13: “The Lord is faithful in his words, and holy in all his works”? The second explanation is made less likely when one observes that this LXX reading is only a tame reproduction of what the psalm already says in v 17.

1 Samuel (LXX)

Many believe that LXX has the answer to a problem often raised regarding the story of David and Goliath. How explain the strange inability of Saul to recognize David (1Sa 17:55), when apparently the boy had already spent a good deal of time in service at the king’s court both as harpist and armour-bearer? The LXX solves this difficulty by omitting altogether 1Sa 17:12-31 and 1Sa 17:55-18:5. Strangely enough, the story of David and Goliath suffers comparatively little by this omission, but the story of David and Jonathan suffers a lot. Perhaps, then, it is the section 1Sa 16:14-23 which is out of place. If this were transferred to 1Sa 18:5, would there be any problem?

The LXX text of 1 Samuel is remarkably good and usually preferable to the Hebrew. In that book users of the RSV or RV should look with favour on any marginal readings labelled “Gk” or “Sept”. But this rule cannot be carried over with safety to other parts of the Old Testament. In 2Sa 17:2,3 LXX the counsel and promise of Ahithophel to Absalom reads much more intelligibly and convincingly than the common text: “And I will smite the king only. And I will bring all the people to thee, as a bride turns to her husband. For thou seekest the life of one man (only), and (then) for all the people there shall be peace.” Textual alternatives such as these are valuable.

Another example: Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the temple has this LXX addition: “The Lord created the sun, but he hath determined to dwell in darkness (the Holy of Holies). Build thou my house, a beautiful house for Thyself to dwell in newness (a new order?). Behold, is not this written in the Book of Jasher?” (1Ki 8:53). Probably this is a quotation from the lost Book of Jasher belonging originally to the occasion when a house of “newness” was fashioned for God in the wilderness. Solomon quoted the words because they enshrined a principle that still held good — God’s choice of the Holy of Holies as His dwelling place in the midst of His people.

Help with Old Testament allusions

Examples such as these are interesting and often informative. But of much greater value are the instances when the LXX helps appreciably with the understanding of obscure passages. “Beware of dogs, beware of the concision,” wrote Paul in curt contempt (Phi 3:2). It was obviously a slighting reference to Judaists with their confidence in circumcision (see v 3). But the point of it comes out so much more when the same Greek word is traced to the ordeal of Elijah on mount Carmel. Then the priests of Baal sought to commend themselves to the attention of their god by the way they “cut themselves… with knives and lancets” (1Ki 18:28). To liken dedicated Judaists to such men was an act of temerity. Yet what fundamental difference was there? For these zealots for the Law also sought the favour of Jehovah by “cutting themselves with knives and lancets.” Paul rubbed the point well in by his other jibe: “Beware of dogs.” Let a man be never so zealous for Moses, he makes himself into a mere dog of a Gentile if he relies on his own observance of forms and rites to earn his salvation. Or were those priests of Baal “dogs” of a different sort? (Deu 23:18).

In Isa 65:22-25, the LXX rescues a delightful allusion which is otherwise liable to get lost. In the prophet’s entrancing picture of the kingdom, “as the days of a tree shall be the days of my people.” This is impressive indeed when you think of the age of Californian redwoods. But the LXX says: “As the days of the Tree of Life”! — and this is transparently correct, for the prophecy continues: “mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands” — contrast the curse of unremitting toil put on Adam. LXX: “My chosen shall not toil in vain, nor beget children for the curse (the curse in Eden), for they are the seed of the Blessed of the Lord (belonging to the Seed of the Woman)… and dust shall be the serpent’s meat.” It is the LXX whch supplies the clue here.

Exact word meaning

The question sometimes arises as to whether Mat 24:34 is correctly translated in the AV: “This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be fulfilled.” But all the things spoken of by Jesus were not fulfilled in that generation. And, it is argued, the normal meaning of the Greek word “genea” is not generation but race; so surely the allusion is to the imperishable character of Israel. This argument would be correct if the gospels were written in classical Greek. But the LXX comes to the rescue with its clear evidence of copious use of “genea” with reference to a generation in the normal sense of the term. And the New Testament adds yet further support on this point.

More subtle allusions

Above all else, the LXX helps in the tracing of Old Testament allusions which otherwise it would be almost impossible to detect. It is possible, for example, to establish that Paul wrote the first few verses of Romans 5 just after he had pondered Psalms 25,26 in the course of his daily readings. At no point is there any direct quote from these Psalms, but one key word after another is traceable in the Greek of the LXX text: “rejoice… hope… stand… glory… tribulation patience… ashamed… without strength… ungodly… truth.” Similarly, in Eph 3 it is possible with the help of the LXX to trace a series of allusions to Job 28 and its description of the search for Wisdom. It is as though the apostles’ profound appreciation of the fulness of God’s wondrous work in Christ was flood-lit by the sharp contrast of Job’s groping for higher truth.

There is lovely allusiveness of this kind also in Christ’s warning to Peter on the night of his betrayal: “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.” [Luk 22:32] In the LXX this is very close to the word of David to lttai the Gittite at the time of Absalom’s rebellion: “return thou, and take back thy brethren” (2Sa 15:20). Peter made answer: “With thee I am ready to go both to prison and to death,” which seems very much like an echo (in the LXX) of Ittai’s reply to David: “Surely in what place my lord the king shall be, whether in life or in death, even there also will thy servant be.” And Peter promptly went back into the city, even as Ittai had done. It would seem that both Jesus and Peter appreciated at this time the close parallel between the betrayal of the Lord and the rebellion of Absalom. Since Peter’s rejoinder came so readily and so aptly out of that Scripture, one is led to wonder if he and his Master were discussing it as they went to Gethsemane (note Joh 18:1; 2Sa 15:23).

The New Testament is shot through with this kind of allusiveness, but much of it is extremely difficult to detect, especially since in many instances the allusion comprises a single word or one brief phrase which, as often as not, appears differently translated in the English version of the Old Testament. The identity has to be established between the Greek of the New Testament and the Greek of the LXX. For example, “betrayed” (Mar 14:21) = “made intercession” (lsa 53:12 LXX); “gall of bitterness” (Act 8:23) = “gall of wormwood” (Deu 29:18; Jer 23:15?); “he hath done all things well” (Mar 7:37) is very close to Gen 1:31 LXX: “everything that he had made… very good”; “The Holy Spirit shall… overshadow thee” (Luk 1:35) = “The Spirit of God moved (Gen 1:2 LXX). There are so many of these that their occurrences cannot be written off as coincidence.

The Concordance to the Septuagint, by Hatch and Redpath, a superb piece of scholarship, is the best tool available for work of this sort. But it is very expensive, and even for those with a ready facility in Greek the using of it is a tedious labour, since all the passages are quoted in Greek. For most readers of this book, reading in English the LXX of Genesis, Psalms and Prophets with an ear tuned to catch any familiar cadence is probably the most fruitful approach. If this is done in the Bagster edition (Greek and English) there is additional help also from the footnotes. But whatever the method the use of the Septuagint is only for the enthusiast.

(WBS 10.16)

Sermons we see

I’d rather see a sermon than hear one any day; I’d rather one should walk with me than merely tell the way. The eye’s a better pupil and more willing than the ear; Fine counsel is confusing, but example’s always clear: And the best of all the preachers are the men who live their creeds, For to see good put in action is what everybody needs.

I soon can learn to do it if you’ll let me see it done; I can watch your hands in action, but your tongue too fast may run. And the lecture you deliver may be very wise and true, But I’d rather get my lessons by observing what you do; For I might misunderstand you and the high advice you give, But there’s no misunderstanding how you act and how you live.

When I see a deed of kindness, I am eager to be kind. When a weaker brother stumbles and a strong man stays behind Just to see if he can help him, then the wish grows strong in me To become as big and thoughtful as I know that friend to be. And all travelers can witness that the best of guides today Is not the one who tells them, but the one who shows the way.

One good man teaches many; men believe what they behold: One deed of human kindness is worth forty that are told. Who stands with men of honor learns to hold his honor dear, For right living speaks a language which to everyone is clear. Though an able speaker charms me with his eloquence, I say, I’d rather see a sermon than hear one, any day.

Edgar Guest

Seven helps for overcoming temptation

  1. Firm denial: “Just say no!” “I will not do/think this!” (Psa 45:7; Mat 26:69-74).

  2. Separating needs from wants: “I don’t need this!” “I don’t need to pamper myself.”

  3. Separating temptation from desire: “This can’t MAKE me sin” (Jam 1:12-15).

  4. Accurately assessing strengths and weaknesses: “This DOES tempt me, but — with God’s help — I CAN overcome” (Rom 12:3; Jam 1:12).

  5. Self-control: “I’m in charge here! I am not going to let someone else run my life!” (Gal 5:23; Pro 1:10).

  6. Thinking ahead to the consequences: “I will feel guilt and shame later if I do this!” (Gen 3:7,10).

  7. Christ is in me, and my life belongs to him: “Sinning is just a waste of time. Christ would not do it!” (Gal 2:20; 1Co 6:19,20).

(Adapted from David Levin)

Seventy “sevens”

Literally, the phrase is “seventy sevens” — no units are given. However, the only unit of measure which fits is years, as determined by the 7 sevens (49 years) plus 62 sevens (434 years) to the coming “of the anointed one”, that is, Messiah, Jesus the Christ. Confirmation is found in the split of the seventieth “week” into two three and one-half-year periods.

[“The ‘seventy weeks’ prophecy is usually regarded as the classic instance of ‘a year for a day’ in the understanding of prophetic time-periods. It is nothing of the sort, for the original phrase is not ‘seventy weeks’, but ‘seventy sevens’, the unit of time not being specified. (By contrast, Dan 10:2 has the literal word: ‘weeks’)” (WDan).]

“In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering” (Dan 9:27) — this refers to the sacrifice of Christ. His death and resurrection, at the end of his ministry, terminated the first 3 1/2 years — leaving a final 3 1/2-year period to complete the full “week” or “seven”. See Lessons, 3 1/2 years and 1,260 / 1,290 / 1,335 days.)

The duration of Jesus’ covenant with the faithful is said to be “a week”, or better, “one seven” (v 27). But clearly, Jesus’ covenant lasts more than seven literal years. The explanation is found in the “gap” or “discontinuity” of Daniel’s prophecies, which was seen to be characteristic in Dan 2; 7; 8; and 11. Daniel goes from a first-century fulfillment to a “last days” fulfillment, from one verse to the next (eg Dan 8:22,23; 11:39,40), or even in the same verse (Dan 7:24, and here in Dan 9:27)! So from the beginning of his ministry (the first 3 1/2 years) to the time of his Return (the final 3 1/2), Jesus will keep covenant with his disciples.

The details in Dan 9:24 — “to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, etc” — can all be interpreted as applying to Jesus at both his first and second Coming.

The years between the first and second Coming are evidently ignored by Daniel. His prophecy seems to focus only on the critical events of Jesus’ life dealing with the fulfillment of God’s promises. In the first century, Jesus by his death and resurrection conquered sin, so as to confirm the promises (cp Rom 15:8; Acts 13:32,33). In the future, Jesus will judge the world, restore the Kingdom to Israel, and grant eternal life to the faithful, ie fulfill the promises (cp Acts 1:6,11; 3:19-21; Rev 11:18; 20:4; Dan 12:2,3). Relatively speaking, the time between the two Comings of Jesus is unimportant, and thus it is given little, if any, prophetic detail.

Sex, the gospel and

“My beloved is mine and I am his.”

Some of the world’s most beautiful descriptions of the relationships between men and women in love are contained in the Bible. By any standards, we would find it hard to surpass the spirit of courtship which breathes through these ancient words:

“My beloved speaks and says to me: Arise, my love, my fair one, and come away; For lo, the winter is past, The rain is over and gone. The flowers appear on the earth, The time of singing has come, And the voice of the turtledove is heard in our land. The fig tree puts forth its figs, And the vines are in blossom; They give forth fragrance. Arise, my love, my fair one, and come away.”

Or, again, how could the completeness of belonging to one another in the bonds of marriage find better expression than in eight simple words — “My beloved is mine and I am his”?

These are Bible words: they touch upon one of life’s most precious experiences. There is a charming simplicity and a moving wholesomeness which elevate the treatment of the subject, and give a seemly insight into the feelings of those concerned. Nothing, perhaps, could seem further removed from the blatant treatment of the same subject by press and radio, in books and on television in our “daring”, “frank”, “revealing”, “free” twentieth century. Are we the better for the change from the alleged prudishness of the Victorian era? Is the standard of Christianity an unnecessary discipline? Should men and women by mutual consent be free to choose whether or not there should be rules to bind the most intimate of relationships between members of the human race?

The writers of this booklet invite you to look at “sex”, as our modern jargon has it, through the eyes of the Bible. Then, you can judge for yourself. We are convinced that there is no better point of view and, which is more, there is no surer way to a happy, healthy courtship, marriage and family life. The Bible knows its subject and there is every reason why it should.

How it all began

“But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female’. ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’.”

These are the words of Jesus Christ and they tell us that the first man and woman were made by God. The mutual attraction was implanted by God. Not only were they made by God, they were made for each other and their experience was to be shared by their posterity. The relationship was designed to meet man’s need of companionship and support:

“It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.”

Man and woman were made in order that they might live together to their mutual satisfaction and happiness. To do so, they would leave their separate family circles and form a new bond: “A man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife.”

“Joined to his wife” is not simply the physical link between a man and his wife. It is deeper than that. The union is an expression of the willingness and promise to share life together. The marriage bond is unique and God intended that it should be for life:

“What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

One of the purposes of marriage is that man should be “fruitful and multiply”. Children should be conceived and born in wedlock. The Bible does not countenance “unmarried mothers” and irresponsible fathers as a natural and acceptable basis for bringing children into the world. Why not? Because family life should be the environment in which children are brought up:

“These words which I command you this day, shall be upon your heart: and you shall teach them diligently unto your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house.”

“Honour your father and your mother, as the Lord your God commanded you.”

The family is the Bible unit. Neither the twentieth century world nor any other has found a better workable alternative.

To preserve the distinctiveness of the marriage bond and to ensure the strength and joy of family ties, a husband living according to the first laws of God was forbidden to cast desirous eyes on any other woman than his wife: “Neither shall you covet your neighbour’s wife.”

Illicit desires can lead to harmful relationships and wrongful indulgence. Adultery was forbidden on the grounds of offence against God’s provision for human happiness in marriage. It creates a breach in the wall of family life and can cause deep injury to children born out of true wedlock into uncertain and troubled homes.

In the eyes of the Bible, therefore, “sex” is not an experience to be sought for in isolation from the other human relationships of marriage. It is designed as part of the life-long bond between a man and woman who, having come to live together for mutual support and comfort, share the innermost things of their hearts one with the other and find satisfaction in expressing their love and self-giving in the most intimate of human associations. Sex Is God-given

“Sex”, then, was provided for in the beginning by the all-wise Creator. He it was who planted in man that inner desire which can culminate in separation from parents, in moving from the home of one’s birth into a new family circle, a new life – an unknown adventure – with a member of the opposite sex. To have normal sexual feelings is nowhere condemned in the Bible, nor is the ultimate exercise of these desires in love within the bonds of marriage. What is condemned is the unbridled thought which ranges beyond the limits which God has laid down for man’s well-being and happiness, and the promiscuous or passing intimacy with one or more partners outside the relationship of true marriage. “Trial” marriage, “experimental” sex and other forms of permissiveness and all forms of perversion are sin. Sin is violation of God’s law and provision. It is interesting to note that when the Bible shows disapproval of sinful behaviour of any kind, it often uses terms which speak of improper or loose affairs between man and woman.

Similarly, when God wishes to convey comfort or assurance, there is no language more fitting and no relationship more apt than those which are found in the love of man for woman, of parent for child, and of family for the precious association known as “home”. The spirit of these words is unmistakable:

“As a father pities his children, so the Lord pities those who fear him.”

“Let not your hearts be troubled; believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?”

“As one whom his mother comforts, so will I comfort you.”

“I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my soul shall exult in my God; for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation, he has covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decks himself with a garland, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.”

What comfort and assurance would there be in these words if God were like the “unknown” fathers of illegitimate children, or to be compared with the “unmarried” mother who wishes to be rid of her child? Surely, it is clear that God’s provision for human love and marriage is designed to be a reflection, however faintly, of the love which God bears for mankind and of the desire He has shown to provide security and family life of the highest kind in the fellowship of Christians with Himself through the Lord Jesus Christ.

“Be fruitful and multiply”

Under favourable circumstances, the various forms of life on earth are self-perpetuating. There is a built-in mechanism for reproduction which ensures continuation of the orders of living things. Modern science has probed the secrets of procreation and can tell us much — often in highly technical language — to assist our understanding. The Bible gives the same fundamental information in remarkably simple language:

“The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth.”

In one way or another, this generation produces the next. Some forms of life reproduce themselves simply by dividing into two or more separate living parts. This is called asexual reproduction. Other forms require the co-operation of male and female members of the species in order to produce new members. In some cases, co-operation is a matter of fact affair, with rather remote involvement of male with female; for example, in some fishes the female deposits her eggs and the male releases the fertilizing sperm as he swims behind.

The desire and ability to reproduce sexually is a cyclical event, dominated by chemical substances called hormones, which are released into the blood stream by certain glands. Thus, in birds, this can be restricted to once a year, though there are exceptions, but in most quadrupedal mammals it occurs more frequently, being governed by the time of ovulation in the female. Many animals perform the sexual act simply under the influence of these hormones, but in others there is obvious pleasure from the act which serves as an added incentive to reproduce.

In these matters, man is both like and unlike the lower animals. Like them he has a chemical powerhouse in which hormones play their part and, particularly in the female, produce a cycle of activity of varying intensity. Unlike them, man has processes of higher thought and intelligence whereby he can bring about a unity of mind as well as of body when he engages in sexual activity. The stimulus of hormones is harnessed to love and tenderness which find expression in the intimacy of personal contact. It is true, however, that man can degrade this relationship, sometimes below that of the beasts. It should be remembered that man is able to excel, the beasts are not. Nature reaches its pinnacle in man; he should therefore elevate his sexual activity to match his superiority of mind.

Not an act of worship

However, we must not imagine that the act of sex in man is an act of worship. Many heathen and idolatrous religions have associated sex, often prostitution or homosexuality, with the rites connected with their gods. The God of the Bible is not the god of heathendom. He does not indulge in the acts attributed to heathen gods, or the gods of Greece or Rome. Whilst for the Christian, therefore, sex can be ennobled by a purity and communion of thought, it is not essential to his worship and full life as a disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ. We call to mind that the Lord Jesus Christ himself was unmarried. Thus, the inability of a man or woman to find a partner need not of itself be a bar to spiritual growth, and for some it can be a means to it.

Whilst, then, in marriage sexual activity is the means to procreation, is the sex act to be reserved solely for the purpose of having children? Or, to put the question another way, is it always to take place under such conditions that pregnancy may result? The twin nature of man’s experience — the physical and the mental — may lead us to an answer. This experience serves two purposes: procreation from time to time where physical conditions permit, and the satisfying of the sense of possession and love whereby man and wife are bound together, without necessarily seeking or wishing to procreate at that time. The Bible describes this latter aspect of the sexual union in different ways, for example:

“Then Isaac brought her into the tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her.”

“For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does. Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self control.”

Clearly, therefore, the divine provision found with the normal, healthy married couple is for union to occur with greater frequency than is needful for or intended for begetting children. This raises a question which married couples must answer for themselves: Should steps be taken, by whatever means, to avoid the possibility of conception except when the actual intention and desire is to have a child? Comment must be made on this subject but it falls more naturally under the wider context of

Sex in Marriage

Let us get some facts straight first of all. Marriage is not sex and sex is not marriage. One of the scourges of our age is that the subject has been given undue prominence by an appeal to the baser instincts, often promoted by the motive of commercial gain by sellers of fashion and other goods. Marriage is the whole of the shared life together. It is the fusing of two independent ways of life into a partnership in love with common aims and a willingness by each partner to give of self for the mutual good of both. We have already made it clear that Bible marriage envisages a home and family relationship of which sex is but a part. From this it follows that a wholesome, happy marriage reaches its finest joys in the bonds of minds with high ideals, unselfish devotion and a love which stems from pure desire, reciprocal respect and honour, rather than in the climactic ecstasy of mere physical association, though it may experience that as part of its full expression.

That is why marriage for money, for sexual appetite, for social status or whatever, will fall short of the marvellous potential of which a human being is capable. The following counsel expresses the spirit of these things:

“Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord … Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church [ecclesia] and gave himself up for her. Even so, husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife, loves himself. Let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.”

Marriage after this pattern will realize the joy and complete integration which God intended. Anything less, any disproportion of activity or desire, will not attain the happiness which is within our grasp.

It follows, therefore, that the seeds for a successful marriage have a variety of qualities. There must be mutual attraction. Outward beauty alone is no guarantee of happiness, however, neither to the one who possesses it nor to the beholder. Nor are common ideals, Christian or otherwise, sufficient grounds in themselves for marriage, though they will contribute greatly to its success. Ideally, there must be a fully mutual appeal of the one person for the other, and a corresponding willingness to possess and to be possessed for life.

Whilst perfection of the marriage relationship, whether physical or otherwise, remains an ideal even in the best marriages, there are means whereby the imperfections can be minimized. From the professional experience of one of the authors — a family physician — it can be said that where a real companionship exists, founded upon oneness of mind and outlook, the physical side of marriage is almost always satisfactory. Supremely, the true marriage of two sincere believers has the most favourable circumstances in which to produce also a happy physical union. When, therefore, the Bible directed believers in Christ only to marry “in the Lord”, that is, to marry a similar believer, it was not simply seeking to ensure a sound spiritual basis to family life, but it was also contributing to married happiness in every sense, including the physical unity associated with marriage.

A higher love

Is it to be assumed, then, that unity of mind and outlook will remove all unevennesses of sexual relationships, especially those occurring during the early part of marriage and, perhaps, in later life? Of course not. But, the Christian life brings Christian qualities to bear upon all that the Christian does. He is guided by a higher love than is found in the finest merely human companionship. This love “is patient and kind; is not jealous or boastful; is not arrogant or rude; does not insist on its own way; is not irritable or resentful.”

Thinking on these lines will transform any situation. Try it in the human situation of love, even in the most intimate sense in marriage, and discover whether it is not the key to greater happiness. A thoughtless or rough husband will thereby find considerable guidance for his behaviour in sexual as in other matters. A cold, unsatisfying or forgetful wife will learn some thing to her advantage from the same precepts.

This is not to say that Christians do not have problems in their marriages, and in particular with this side of marriage. Marriage is the blending together of two human beings, and human nature is pretty difficult material to work with. On account of the physical make-up of the partners or because of the cyclical bodily changes or of differing emotional influences, the man and his wife may have completely different attitudes towards sex. A very common problem, familiar to every medical man engaged in family practice, is the marriage in which the woman does not have the desire to partake in sexual activity to the same extent as her husband. The reasons may not be far to seek: tiredness after an exhausting day coping with home and children; a more reserved temperament with a corresponding lack of responsiveness; an over-eager husband with a lack of tenderness and understanding; or, simply, the fear of conceiving another child. In such circumstances, a wife may seek more and more to avoid her husband and to ward off his advances. He, on the other hand, feels that he is not wanted and may be in danger of seeking satisfaction elsewhere with disastrous consequences to their marriage.

A careful re-reading of the Scriptures on page 7 will help a great deal. The secret of understanding lies in seeking to look at problems from the other partner’s point of view. It is essential to consider the needs of each other and to seek to satisfy them. Little is gained by speaking of “rights” or by making “demands”. Love does not insist on its own way. A quiet talk with one another in the spirit of patience and sympathy will find a way to mutual satisfaction and to full harmony of marriage.

A married man or woman must not seek to find an outlet for sexual desire outside the marriage bonds. Wayward thoughts must be dismissed even when they require very little to provoke them. The Bible makes it plain that illicit associations are shameful and sinful:

“Let marriage be held in honour among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled; for God will judge the immoral and adulterous.”

A man or woman should seek to preserve the marriage vows with the same instinct by which we seek to save our lives. Marriage is part of ourselves: the injury we cause to it, we cause to ourselves.

A matter of conscience

But, to return to our theme of problems in marital union: what about a wife’s fear of pregnancy? There is no doubt that for some it is a constant and real fear. Is it right that every sexual act should expose a wife to gnawing anxiety which not only diminishes her pleasure but arouses her defensive mechanism to the detriment of both partners? On the other hand, is it right to take any steps to avoid this fear, to render conception impossible or the risk minimal? In other words, what of contraception? This is no place in which to discuss the mechanics of this subject but it is the place to discuss principles, thereby paving the way for the exercise of every man’s conscience in the sight of God.

We have established earlier that procreation is not the purpose of every occasion of intercourse in a well-balanced and happy marriage. The profusion of human “seed” in man and woman and its discharge from the person by various normal processes is an indication in itself that there is nothing “holy” in the seed as such. Venting the human seed is not akin to loss of “life” or of “persons unborn” or anything of that kind. Nor are there countless immortal souls awaiting access to the fusion of a male and female seed. The Bible knows nothing about these speculations of men. In discussing the discharge of human seed, the law of God to the Jews counselled them to wash themselves and to observe certain ritual acts as a discipline of the mind and as an indication that the seed of man, when it comes to the birth, is in need of redemption. We conclude, therefore, that the prevention of the blending of male and female seed is not of itself destroying life or any such thing.

On the other hand, are there dangers associated with the use of contraception? Undoubtedly, there can be — moral dangers. The easy availability of contraceptives has led to an increase in intimate relationships outside the confines of marriage. In these circumstances, moral constraints have been cast away, and many people today regard pleasure of this kind as legitimate. The teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ is clear: such practices are evil. Moreover, the Bible makes it clear that God repays repeated sexual promiscuity by diseases peculiar to that form of living. Twentieth century western society has an alarming degree of incidence of such afflictions, and the prevalence is increasing, particularly among young people. For this reason, it is to be understood that whilst contraception may serve one purpose, it can bring dread consequences in other fields. Wherein modern methods of avoiding pregnancy have been an encouragement to some people to indulge in dissolute living, they have not been a blessing.

But what about the use of contraceptives by married people? Is there any danger here? There can be. Over-indulgence in sex, like any other disproportion in life, has its evils. It is possible, even within marriage, to reduce that which can be a satisfying, beautiful experience of mind and body to the unbridled gratification of lust. Marriage does not give licence to the degrading of one partner by the other, or of each by both. If contraceptives become the means of unleashing wrongful passion, then they are not serving a good purpose.

Is contraception, then, an evil? May it have any part in Christian marriage? We have already said that we consider this to be a matter of mutual conscience between married partners in the sight of God. It would, however, be hypocritical to pretend that avoidance of pregnancy by one means or another has not been practised from antiquity, long before the more sophisticated means of a modern age became available. By this is meant not the mere abstinence from intercourse. The earlier reference on page 7 makes it plain that the Bible considers abstinence as unusual and not the norm of married life. Clearly, whilst having normal relationships almost all married couples have in one way or another sought to avoid the possibility of conception. Provided that true love exists and the unity is not marred by sinful thought or intent as mentioned above, we know of no Scripture which forbids such avoidance. Medical or physical or emotional reasons may be advanced, and may be valid in individual instances, for not using this or that or, perhaps, any method of prevention, but this is not a Christian dictate.

In view of the way in which the Abortion Act is working in Britain, perhaps mention should be made of “abortion”. There is obviously a difference between prevention of the mingling of male and female seed, and the deliberate termination of a pregnancy. Without entering into the many arguments which have raged around this subject, it is salutary to note that God regarded the loss of an unborn child when caused by a man’s violence against the mother-to-be as a matter requiring compensation even if the woman suffered no lasting harm (see Exodus 21:22-25). It was not treated as murder. Therefore, God did not regard the unborn child as a “person”. It is in God’s eyes an injury against the woman and against her husband to cause the woman to abort. Taking this lead, therefore, we feel that it is not in keeping with the Christian way of life to secure an abortion except on the strongest medical grounds, e.g. when the mother’s life is endangered. Personal convenience or economic reasons are not acceptable.

Before ending this aspect of the main subject, it is right that we emphasize that the normal marriage in Bible terms should produce offspring. The number and frequency may be something which most couples will wish to determine for themselves as far as possible. It would be a sad thing, however, if the order of our priorities was disturbed by a wrong emphasis on the economic difficulties of our age to the detriment of the betterness which lies in having a family of one’s own. This is a living expression of that truly wonderful and deeply satisfying companionship of two persons pledged to each other for life.

Adolescence

One of the strange phenomena of modern western society is the unnatural jump which children are encouraged to make from childhood to maturity. The steady growth and development which are intended to build the bridge from one time of life to another are ignored or artificially shortened. Far from being a waste of time, youth is a distinct time of life, a very real time, a process by which both body and mind are released from the dependence of childhood and brought to the experience and responsibilities of adult life. This transition is a process which should be enjoyed as one of the delights of life. It is sad to see the developing teenager trying to lose his very precious years by simulating the grown man in dress or in habits. Being young is a joy not to be squandered or distorted or wrinkled by premature anticipations of later life.

The changes which take place in the human body during adolescence are true, fundamental experiences. Properly understood, they are taken naturally in one’s stride; when occurring in ignorance or under stress or thoughtless exploitation, they can adversely affect a formerly happy and pleasant personality.

Trite or platitudinous advice on this well-worn subject would be worse than useless. Therefore, the following remarks describe some of the advantages which attach to growing up in a good Christian environment.

First of all, it is good to remember that the atmosphere in which children are brought up is created by the parents. Ill-mannered, unprincipled, loosely moralled parents are unlikely to give a good start to their family. The decline in Christian thinking and living in British homes has been accompanied by a drastic fall in moral standards, and there are few who would not acknowledge the connexion between these two parts of life. It is true that some believe that the new “freedoms” of the past decade are the result of casting off the shackles of a prudish and restrictive age. What ever our viewpoint, the increase in the numbers of broken homes, unmarried mothers and cases of venereal disease among young people should give all of us serious food for thought. It is undeniable that the observance of Christian principles, or even of the Ten Commandments of Moses, would considerably reduce these unhappy circumstances. Jewish parents were given the following commands by God, and they account for the very strong family ties which persist among that people:

“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might. And these words which I command you this day shall be upon your heart; and you shall teach them diligently to your children, and talk of them when you sit down in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.”

There is no substitute for good parents. The influences of teachers at school or of youth leaders or of mass teaching by television cannot stand in for the power for good in united and good homes. Parents who fail to take hold of the reins of responsibility for the upbringing of the children they have brought into the world, are undoubtedly rendering a grave disservice to the young and are abnegating one of the prime responsibilities of marriage. “Let them find out for themselves” is as dangerous in the development of children in this bewildering age as it is to throw a child who can not swim into water beyond its depth. The Bible says that children need discipline. There is good evidence in the world around us that the Bible is right. Discipline does not mean harsh corporal punishment or stern repression, nor does it entail cruel impositions or a denial of the joys of living. Rather is it the inculcation by precept and example of wholesome, beneficial principles. This can be helped along considerably by daily Bible reading in a loving, uncensorious, nurturing atmosphere in a freely communicative and happy home.

Healthy understanding

“Let them find out for themselves” is sheer folly when it comes to sex. Good parents pave the way for their children from the tenderest years to a simple and healthy understanding of sex and reproduction. Questions and answers are the obvious way: nothing can stop children asking questions, and parents should take the opportunities they offer with both hands. Keeping pets, sharing the excitement of expecting a new birth in the family and the judicious provision of the right level of reading material are unfailing means of getting home the right information at the right time and of having a right attitude to it. Unseemly stories, suggestive expressions and doubtful reading material and illustrations about the home are equally certain means of breaking down the defences of young minds.

By the time sexual changes are apparent in the body and new sensations occur in the mind, young people in Christian homes will have been well prepared. At this critical time, parental forbearance is essential, especially when young people surprise themselves by upsurges of self-assertion in a very positive manner or by sudden fits of tears or other outbursts aroused by new but very powerful feelings. Understanding, sympathetic advice and scope for activity suitable for maturing persons are helpful, particularly when stress is apparent. One of the surest ways of complicating the problems which adolescents experience is for parents to pretend the problems do not exist, or equally bad, to forbid youthful activity in the home. Ostrich-like behaviour on the part of parents can be the cause of a great deal of unhappiness. The right place for dealing with problems is on home ground and young people should accordingly be encouraged to talk freely and to bring their friends into the home. There must be mutual respect throughout the family and a realization that young people are individuals and not simply an extension of their parents’ lives. By this means, the whole family can pool its experiences, exchange views and share life together. Wise Christian counsel sympathetically given or made available will dispel many difficulties and nip problems in the bud before some of them bring forth bitter fruits.

A right balance

Apron strings are no substitute for reciprocal confidence and mutual trust. It is impossible for parents to monitor everything their young people do, nor is it desirable that they should attempt to do so. Well-laid principles, honestly believed and followed, are better than a thousand finger-waggings and constant suspicious checks on behaviour. This does not mean giving way to those prevalent and undesirable practices whereby parents go out for the night and hand over the home to a crowd of teenagers without any senior, responsible member present to ensure sensible behaviour. Worse still is the all-night party, when young folks are allowed to pair off in various parts of the house. Emotions and responses can be aroused which soon lead to sexual involvement and, maybe, irretrievable loss of integrity of person. There are other and more innocent ways in which young people can enjoy the adventure and pleasure of mixing with the opposite sex and of forming friendships. For parents to forbid it is to stand Canute-like against nature’s sea. To give it unbridled and provocative expression is to be overwhelmed by a flood of sorrow.

Striking the right balance is a matter of judgment which must be developed against the background of understanding between young people and their parents. Enlarging the home circle by welcoming other young people is a truly pleasurable experience, and is an excellent basis for young people’s personal friendships. Not that two young people whose friendship is becoming more than a casual attachment can be denied privacy. They must not be denied it. It is only at such times – and perhaps in letters one to the other – that there is a true exchange of minds. Privacy, then, is a privilege of friendship and when it is granted in the right place, at the right time and in the right circumstances it will not place temptation in the way of innocent hearts. It goes almost without saying that long periods at night or in bedrooms or in scanty dress do not satisfy the conditions which are wise and proper.

On being young

This section deals with only part of the joys of youth and only part of the problems. It is written out of love for and long acquaintance with young people, in the family circle and else where. Much has been said in recent times about the irresponsibility and selfishness of youth. Our own experience has provided an antidote to the current “anti-youth” feelings to be found in some quarters. We know many fine young people who are a credit to youth in general and all the more so when measured against the complexities and trends of our age. The following paragraphs, therefore, are written in the hope that they will be of help to such young people, and to others who might wish to improve their standards or overcome some of the difficulties which accompany the processes of growing up.

We become aware of these processes when it is obvious to us that our bodies are developing and our minds are beginning to experience a broadening of their horizons. This is an exciting and unique time. Suddenly, we are aware of the beauty of someone who yesterday seemed but a girl and now is a young woman, or of the handsome dash of a young man whose deepened voice and strength betoken the end of boyhood. We sense a power of attraction in ourselves and are ourselves responsive to the attraction in others. A wish for friendship of a special kind is awakened in us and some of the inner feelings are strangely poignant and powerful. Our behaviour is often an odd mixture of shyness and assertion, and we scarcely recognize our old selves.

Youth is a gift from God and He knows how it can be best enjoyed. It is precious and comes only once, bringing fragile qualities, exquisitely keen emotions and deep-seated ideals. More over, as we become conscious of our individuality and independence, we sense that there are parts of our person and personality which are not for everyone; they are reserved to ourselves or some one person in particular.

Youth is both sensitive and vigorous: how to care for it has engaged the minds of thinkers throughout the ages. There is one way which is supremely commendable — the Christian way, the way of discipleship. Some young people have imagined that to follow Christ is to take the pleasure out of life. Nothing could be wider of the mark. True discipleship is the perfection of joy in the highest sense. Without any degree of cant or superficiality, it can be said that young people who choose the path of Christ are the happiest young people on earth. They need no artificial aid to give them a lift, or kicks or to get them “high”. Their joy is realistic and clear-sighted, well-founded and enduring. To those who have joys of a different kind, whether by the artificialities we have mentioned or by following their own philosophy of life, it can be said that the best is yet in store — the deeper, wider and fearless happiness of following the highest ideals of all time and the finest leader ever known, the teaching and leadership of Christ.

In passing, reference must be made to other forces which come from the storehouse of the human heart: such powerful attitudes as jealousy, hate, envy, greed, selfishness and deceit. We are not blamed by God for having a heart which is able to devise these things; after all, we have inherited our nature from our parents. But the Bible makes us aware of the dark powers of our own minds and of the consequences which result from giving them free expression. At the same time, Bible teaching shows us a better way of using our thoughts.

Take, for example, those first feelings of love for someone of the opposite sex. They are sometimes described as “heavenly”, “divine” or “fabulous”. What we really mean is that the experience is extremely pleasant. But, think what can happen when we inject the poison of jealousy, envy or the other undesirable emotions of our “other” self into the human situation. We can destroy our happiness — and, that of someone else. A Christian has special signposts which help him to avoid the pitfalls of temptation which might ruin the joys of friendship or the nobler ideals to which we aspire. Good living and good thinking are not attained by chance or casual effort — the darker side of our hearts is too powerful to let that happen. No, there must be conscious effort and a sound basis. That is why daily Bible reading is an unfailing source of instruction, and prayer a means of steadying the thoughts and keeping them in contact with God. A man is known by the company he keeps: choose the right company – always. Books are a powerful influence – read the right kind of literature and daily newspaper. Take stock every day of what has been achieved. By these means, proper and lasting pleasures can be developed in the context of the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ. “Being in love” will be a pure, lovely and unashamed happiness.

How far?

One is sometimes asked how far it is permissible to go in love-making, even when marriage has not been promised between the parties concerned. “How far” means how far in the physical sense of physical contact with the one for whom at that time there is a strong affinity.

In answering what is a very good question, it might be helpful to ask a series of different questions: with whom? how did we meet? what have we really in common? what is the real purpose of showing in some physical way our affection? is it to catch a fleeting pleasure? is it part of what we feel in our minds — a true desire to show in some tangible way what is a true affection?

The fact is that when we have begun seriously to exchange physical affection — caresses, kisses and the like — we have begun to tap that very precious store of personal things which each of us possesses. In this, every man, and especially the disciple of Christ, needs to walk with care. “How far?”, then, begins with “with whom?” We need to exercise care in the choice of companions, the friends with whom we share our leisure (a plentiful commodity in modern society). Not only are we known by the company we keep: the more we keep it, the more like it we become. Quite simply, if we choose bad company because it is bad, the Bible says:

“Do not be deceived — bad company ruins good morals.”

Therefore, we must choose well when we select our boy or girl friend. An attractive form or a pretty face is not a substitute for a clean mind. The finest minds come from association with fine things: the finest things come from God.

Elsewhere, the Bible puts it another way:

“Can a man carry fire in his bosom and his clothes not be burned?”

Obviously, not. Therefore, bad company, bad thoughts and bad practices scar the mind, pollute the processes of thought and breed evil deeds. Conversely, good company, good thoughts and good practices fortify the mind, purify the desires and make themselves known in a good way of living. There is a general principle of Scripture which helps here:

“Do not be mismated with unbelievers. For what partnership have righteousness and iniquity? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?”

It is often too late to ask “how far?” in love making when the wrong lover has been chosen. Get the right companion and the question takes another form: How best do I show my love as a Christian lover? and what should I expect to take in return?

Love is a process

Two lovers with the same standards will find a common response to the sound principles of Christ whenever they are alone. Love is a process and not simply a passion: love needs time and not haste and thoughtlessness. First there are the overtures, the means of “getting to know” each other — conversations, the exchange of letters, the close observance (even from afar!) of the one in whom we are particularly interested, the times spent together and the exchange of confidences. These lead on to an awareness and trust, a respect and loyalty, which accompany an increasing affection. When the friendship has ripened in this way — and, especially, when we have visited each other’s homes and seen something of the kind of life that is lived — how far, then, can we go?

It is unfortunate that the level of modern conversation, and certain types of television programme and magazine, have made kisses very cheap currency. Kisses between two individuals alone are of most value when reserved for the one whom time and proof have singled out as thereby entitled. She who grants kisses easily and takes caresses from all and sundry, may find she has very little in reserve by which to betoken the real feelings of love when they are aroused.

This leads us a step further. Kisses and caresses, repeatedly given and taken by two persons alone for a long period of time, lead almost imperceptibly to an irresistible desire to give expression to love in the most intimate way possible between two human beings. This expression is reserved for marriage. Repeat, this is reserved for marriage and should not be entered upon outside those precious bonds. By those who would follow Christ, this principle is upheld. A Christian lover, even when engaged to be married, would not wish to pursue his love-making so as to imperil and, perhaps, blight for ever, that final unique status of which each of us is possessed and which God has arranged to be exchanged in wedlock. It is not to be imagined that stolen fruit is the same fruit as that which marriage gives. It is not; it cannot be, and it can have a bitter centre. The other has increasing joy. True lovers who wish to follow the highest ideals and find the lasting and true pleasures which marriage affords, will shun those things which stimulate to undesirable limits, and will not seek time or opportunity to put unbearable tension on the brittle strands of human strength. There is a time, therefore, when “No further” is the reply to “How far?” There is a time when “How far?” has given way to ultimate possession of one by the other: that time is when life together has begun and the marriage bonds have made it plain that we are irrevocably committed to one another.

A mixture of sad experiences

Several times a year, every doctor engaged in family practice is confronted with a girl for whom life will never be the same again. Her tears express her sorrows and fear. She is afraid of parental reaction, of social opinion, of losing her job or of having to discontinue her education and she is ashamed to face the world in which she previously moved in freedom and joy. All this is followed by a lifetime of looking back and regretting the foolishness of youth. Quite possibly, a distorted attitude towards sex will result and with it an inability to find sexual happiness in marriage.

Her condition is indicative of a widespread breach of the personal chastity which should characterize wholesome living. She is the one whose sin has found her out; there are many who remain undetected. Let us make our convictions clear in this matter, too: the evil does not lie in the fact that an unmarried girl becomes an unmarried mother. It is more basic than that: the evil lies in having intercourse before marriage. Some girls are to be more pitied than blamed, and others more blamed than pitied. The same goes for the young man. But let none of us be priggish and self-righteous in this matter. None is exempt from the temptation to commit such sin and young Christians should not under-estimate the power of desire when once it is awakened. Many mighty men and women have fallen both before and after marriage to illicit associations. The outstanding example in Bible history is king David’s act of adultery with the beautiful Bathsheba.

Sin is roused in only three ways: by what the eyes see, by what the body desires and by man’s insufferable pride. Therefore, the surest course by which to fortify one’s heart against temptation is to control the use of one’s eyes, to avoid provoking the latent desires of the body to wrong uses and to learn to walk humbly before God. The first of these is difficult in an age when the mass media transmit the suggestive and the provocative. Moreover, the modern dress of women and men is designed to give accent to the appeal of the eye. It is true, of course, that we can be sexually provocative in any kind of clothes. There are, however, at the present time, degrees of near-indecency in the diminishing length of dress and the increasing exposure of parts of the body. The soundest advice which can be given to any who wish to endorse the highest principles is this: “Is the nature of my dress and the reason for adopting it such as would cause no embarrassment to Christ and no shame to me, were Christ and I to be face to face?”

Positive thinking

But, real progress is made in this as in every other aspect of character by positive thinking. The Bible puts it this way — and, surely, there could be nothing better:

“Whatever is true, whatever is honourable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious — think about these things.”

Bible thinking is clean thinking. If a young man or woman will take this to heart and, in addition, follow the practical advice given on pages 22 and 23, no evil will result and, what is more important, there will be a joy and contentment of mind undisturbed by inconvenient desires.

At this point, it is suitable to mention something which troubles a lot of young people of both sexes, particularly young men. Whilst not seeking opportunity for wrongful association with a member of the opposite sex, there is ample play within the mind upon themes of that kind. These are stirred in a variety of ways not least among which are the sexual provocations which come through the impact of television, magazines, books and the manner of dress of the opposite sex. The result is the desire to seek relief of pent up feelings and this is done by physical excitation of the sensitive parts of the body. Sometimes, of course, the stimulus might come through wholly innocent means.

What is one to say concerning this subject? Obviously, it lies in a different category in some respects from the matter with which this chapter began. Some writers have treated it in a matter-of-fact way and taken it for granted like eating or having a bath. However, it is more likely than not that the thoughts associated with such practices would not find a place in the catalogue of edifying, acceptable food for thought given in the verse of Scripture quoted above. For that reason, if for no other, we should seek not to be caught up in such habits or, if already enmeshed, to escape.

The way to improvement

Little purpose is served simply by being filled with self-pity or morbid self-reproach. The way to improvement is to engage mind and body in other things. Substitution of the better for the worse is a sound Bible remedy — and, it works. To begin and end each day in prayer is medicine in itself: moreover, it gets to work at those times of our waking hours when we are most vulnerable to idle thought. Wholesome reading is the second cure. The Bible heads the list but there are many other books which give the mind something to bite on. Good companionship is remedy number three. Talking it over with someone else is a marvellous help. Choose someone who is understanding, trustworthy and approachable. Don’t neglect good fresh air and the exercise which young bodies need. Set yourself high ideals, Bible ideals, and seek to live up to them by every means in your power.

Do not be discouraged if, because you are already caught up in the habit, you do not succeed in overcoming it in a single heave. A man we knew gave sound advice when talking about how to conquer bad habits. Set yourself a limited objective, he used to say, a target you can reasonably hope to attain, and gradually lengthen it until your habit is weakening and you are getting on top of it. There is a depth of understanding behind that advice. Try it.

An economic problem

Now to another matter. Marriage these days is far different from the simple, public acknowledgement of Old Testament times, when a man and woman had little courtship as we know it, and were married as soon as convenient after the decision to marry had been taken (read Genesis 24 for one of the most exquisite records in Scripture). Today, economic circumstances make for long courtships, in most cases at any rate. When the initial phase is passed, the friendship merges into companionship based on love and mutual desire. If nature’s course were followed, marriage would not be long delayed once the two hearts were beginning to beat as one. But nature and economics are not always good friends, and a long period often elapses during which financial preparation is made for setting up home. This does not interrupt the meetings of lovers, indeed it tends to make them more fervent and filled with longing.

Whereas, therefore, nature’s course would have resulted in physical union, this is put off by the frustration of circumstances. A number of voices from various quarters, including leaders of religion in some cases, have begun to say that pre-marital intercourse between two people pledged to marry is natural and proper. Bible teaching is plain: marriages are sealed by this final act of giving and receiving. It is known as “two becoming one flesh”. That is marriage — at least on the purely physical side. To anticipate it is to undermine the protecting wall which safeguards the uniqueness of married life. Moreover, and we cannot say this too strongly, the experience of pre-marital union is not the experience of union within the marriage bond; it lacks the essential qualities of mind which signify that two persons are living one life in one home. Union reflects the separation of two people from all others and the establishment of a nerve centre from which the mutual happiness springs. Therefore, we are not simply waiting for the marriage lines to give sanction to complete union; we are waiting for the right conditions for such fulfilment.

Finally, in this chapter of sad experiences, we must needs refer to acts which modern society condones contrary to the direct counsel of scripture. We refer to sexual activity between members of the same sex. Undoubtedly, there are mentally sick people in whom abnormalities of behaviour are sometimes found. They need sympathy and special treatment. It is not of them that we write. Our words are directed against the deliberate fostering of monosexual behaviour which is altogether contrary to the decrees of God. Read Genesis 19 and see for yourself. Read Romans 1:24-32 and see whether or not such a way of life is likely to lead to contentment of mind and happiness. Man is made for woman and woman for man in these matters; and marriage is the basis of it all. Anything else is wrong.

But supposing . . . ?

But, supposing someone has been involved in one or other of the sad experiences we have described, or others which are related but have not appeared in our comments? Is there no way of redeeming the position? Are we cut off from God for ever? Does God condemn us for a single act of folly or for a habit which we want to break? Of course not. God wants us. However black the past has been, be assured that you can be washed clean of all past sins and start life afresh as a sanctified member of the house hold of God.

When Jesus was here, his company was sought by people of ill-repute. Not because he condoned their sins, but because he made them want to forsake them. Surprising things happened to what must have seemed to be incorrigible sinners. Turn up 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, if you would really like to know what a difference it made to some people including the immoral, and adulterers and homosexuals. When the teaching of Christ comes in and we espouse the desire to serve him, then evil ways drop off and we can make a new start. That is what repentance is about. That is why baptism in water was chosen by Christ as the simple ritual act for every adult believer. As water washes the body, so Christ cleanses the mind.

Cleansing is not restricted to those who are beginning to serve Christ. It is offered to those who, having begun to serve him, fall into sin and want to be restored. Forgiveness is freely available for those who fully repent.

True repentance will be followed by forgiveness and a new way of life. Christ improves everything he touches and the ordinary experiences of life are no exception. The affairs of men and women take on a new perspective. Courtship develops a fresh beauty; marriage has an added dimension; and, life has a fuller meaning, purposeful and full of hope. Human marriage is seen to be a reflection of something far greater, the relationship between Christ and his church. The love of Christ for her, and her complete dependence upon him are a model on which marriage, true marriage, is based. But, whereas human marriage is simply for a lifetime, discipleship is for ever. Moreover, when the Lord Jesus Christ comes back to the earth in the day when God’s kingdom shall be established over all the wide face of the globe, the bride of Christ will be blessed with the beauty of everlasting life which she will spend with him in endless joy.

John Allfree and Harry Tennant

Shema, the

“Echad” (Heb “one”) is a numerical adjective which appears 650 times in the OT, and at no time does this word itself carry the idea of plurality. While it is true that “echad” is sometimes found modifying a collective noun — one family, one herd, one bunch, etc — the sense of plurality actually resides in the compound noun, and not in the word “echad”! Echad appears in translation as the numeral “one”, and also as “only”, “alone”, “undivided”, and “single.” Its normal meaning is “one and not two”, as we find in Ecc 4:8. Abraham was “only one man” (“echad”) in the NIV’s rendition of Eze 33:24, and he was “alone” (“echad”) in the KJV translation of Isa 51:2.

Koehler and Baumgartner’s Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (1967) clearly states that the fundamental definition of “echad” is “one single.”

The truth of this is reaffirmed by a Trinitarian professor of theology who concedes that the popular Trinitarian argument from “echad” is even more frail than the argument from “elohim” (ie based on Gen 1:26; see Lesson, Gen 1:26, “Us”): “Even weaker is the argument that the Hebrew word for ‘one’ (“echad”) used in the Shema (‘Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord’) refers to a united one, not an absolute one. Hence, some Trinitarians have argued, the OT has a view of a united Godhead. It is, of course, true that the meaning of the word may in some contexts denote a unified plurality (eg, Gen 2:24, “they shall become one flesh”). But this really proves nothing. An examination of the OT usage reveals that the word “echad” is as capable of various meanings as is our English word one. The context must determine whether a numerical or unified singularity is intended” (G Boyd, “Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity”).

Shepherds and hirelings

“It is unfortunate that the chapter division dissociates the shepherd allegory from the discussion reported in Joh 9. Jesus had convicted the Pharisees of blindness and incompetence in dealing with the flock of God. As bad shepherds they had cast out the healed man, but the good shepherd had found him” (CJo 119).

“And they cast him out. Jesus heard they had cast him out; and when he found him…” (Joh 9:34,35). “Him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out” (Joh 6:37).

With bold actions and words, Christ dramatically set himself apart from the other teachers of his nation. They pompously dictated and threatened; he lovingly instructed and comforted. They “cast out”; he “found” and recovered. They “cared not for the sheep”; he “laid down his life for the sheep” (Joh 10:15), and in so doing became the model for all shepherds, overseers, and elders. Doubtless Peter had “the Good Shepherd” in mind when he wrote:

“The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock” (1Pe 5:1-3).

The true ecclesial shepherd, then, must do the works of his Master:

  • He must feed others first (Eze 34:2).
  • He must strengthen the diseased or weak (Isa 40:11; Eze 34:4; Rom 15:1).

  • He must bind up what is broken (Eze 34:4).

  • He must seek what is lost (Eze 34:4,11,16; Mat 18:12; Luk 15:4-7).

  • He must assume a personal responsibility in the face of a threat.

  • And he must be prepared to protect the flock at all costs: “Take heed to all the flock… remember that I warned you” (Act 20:28-31).

The characteristics of a true shepherd are set in contrast to those of a “hireling”:

“But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth… The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep” (Jon 10:12,13).

It is said of the hirelings or false shepherds that they “feed (or shepherd) themselves” (Eze 34:2).

“The shepherds shepherded themselves! They were prepared to sacrifice the flock for themselves, whereas they should have extended their self-sacrificing devotion to the flock and carefully pastured or shepherded it” (HPM on Ezek 30).

“From these words one would think it transparently obvious that in time of danger to the flock from false teachers (‘After my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock’ — Act 20:29), a man’s duty will keep him with the flock in order that he might exert every possible effort in defence of those less able than himself to combat spiritual evil. Yet in sharp contrast to this the attitude of some seems to be: ‘There is a wolf in the flock. I have told the sheep to chase it away, but they do nothing of the sort. So now it is time for me to get out as quickly as I can.’ The incisive word of the Lord for men who act in this way is the shameful term: ‘hireling’….Without doubt those who withdraw to an exclusive ‘pure’ fellowship are hirelings in the sense in which Jesus used the term, for their separatism is solely a means of furthering, as they think, their own safety and benefit” (HAW, “Block Disfellowship”, Tes 43:340).

A hireling may seek to benefit materially by his labors, and this of course is a serious offence (1Pe 5:2; 1Ti 3:3,8). But, as the Pharisees so amply demonstrated, one may be a “hireling” even if he cares not at all for financial profit. He may be a “hireling”, for example, in caring for power and authority, or for honor and respect without responsibility. He may be a “hireling” if he abandons his flock when the “wolf” (or false teacher — Act 20:29) approaches. He thus shows his true character when he saves himself first — subjecting his employer’s “investment” to possible ruin. As members of the one Body, we should develop the mind-picture of ourselves as “partners” in the enterprise, not mere employees! The employee is nothing but “hired help”, a “hireling” who works for his “wages” and nothing else (but the “gift” of God, which we hope one day to receive, is not “wages”; our proper “wages” can only be death — Rom 6:23). The hireling is not — as he should be — a “partner” or a “partaker”, who expects to participate (the significance of “fellowship”) in the ultimate profits of the enterprise.

“The disciple of Christ who is worth his salt will not beat a hasty retreat, or even a reluctant retreat, at the signs of danger, but will persistently and courageously set himself to antagonize and expose every symptom of apostasy which may manifest itself in his own ecclesia” (Ibid, p. 341).

In the brotherhood, therefore, the brother is best off when he cares first and foremost for the welfare of his brethren.

“Let any who are troubled by current contentions and worried by vague apprehensions as to their own responsibility for ‘condoning’ evil ponder these words of the Good Shepherd again and again. He calls men to be good shepherds after his own pattern, giving themselves in devoted service and care to the harassed flock, and even laying down their lives for the sheep. How strange that it does not seem to dawn on rigorous separatists that they testify for Truth against error far more efficiently by staying where the error is and witnessing against it than by fleeing to a ‘holier than thou’ sanctuary, from which to carry on a campaign of scolding across a great gulf which they themselves have fixed” (HAW, “False Teachers”, Tes 36:212).

Is our salvation endangered by “fellowshiping” “doubtful cases”? Let the “shepherds” of the Bible — types every one of the “Great Shepherd” — give the answer:

  1. Abraham — whose near kinsman Lot strives with him and then departs (Gen 13:6-8) — nevertheless moves swiftly to save his ungrateful nephew from bondage (Gen 14). Later he even intercedes for him with the Lord when his life is threatened in Sodom (Gen 18): Notice that his boldest approach to the Lord is to beg for the sparing of others (Gen 18:27,28), when it might reasonably be argued that they did not deserve to be spared.

  2. Joseph — whose brothers plotted against him and would have taken his life — still found the love to forgive them and take them into his “fellowship” again when they were in great distress: “Now therefore fear not: I will nourish you, and your little ones. And he comforted them” (Gen 50:21).

  3. Moses became the great intercessor for a nation which was obviously at fault. His fervent prayer needs no comment (Exo 32:32).

  4. David, who always viewed Israel not as his kingdom but as his flock, wrote the words from his youthful experience which might well be termed “The Shepherd’s Manual” (Psa 23). When he might easily have laid the blame for shortcoming upon a stiff-necked nation, and the sword of the angel was poised to continue their destruction, David the shepherd-king pleaded their “doubtful case”: “Lo, I have sinned, and I have done wickedly: but these sheep, what have they done? [He refuses to point out that they have done even worse!]… Let thine hand, I pray thee, be against me” (2Sa 24:17).

  5. Daniel did not mind “fellowshiping” his “doubtful” brethren; he even went so far as to pray on their behalf, taking the sins of the nation upon his innocent shoulders: “We have sinned,” he prayed, “and have committed iniquity… neither have we obeyed the voice of the Lord… therefore the curse is poured upon us…” (Dan 9:5-15).

  6. And Paul, the greatest of the shepherd-apostles, could wish that he were accursed for the sakes of his brethren the Jews (Rom 9:1-3), who were not even in Christ! If this could be his attitude towards enemies of the Truth, how much more should we yearn for and seek unity and brotherhood with those whom we know to be in covenant-relationship with Christ? “So there shall be one flock, and one shepherd” (Joh 10:16, RSV).

The day will soon come when before the Lord of all the earth will be gathered his flock (Mat 25:31-46), his one flock — for they will then be treated as one, all the man-made barriers swept away. It is then that the true force of the King’s question will come home to each of us: ‘What have you done for my brethren? for my sheep?’ How confident would we feel to say the following?: ‘Lord, I did the best I could for a little while; but then I heard of a false doctrine somewhere or other, and I left as quickly as I could. After that I really don’t know what happened to them.’

Satan, who is?

“Satan” is simply a term meaning adversary or opponent. It doesn’t necessarily have an evil connotation since it can refer to any person or being who deliberately gets in the way of another. Satan is invariably used to personify opposition as manifested in some human or power. Therefore, although the word is sometimes used in a similar context, “Satan” is quite distinct in meaning from “the devil”, and to equate the two is erroneous.

  1. The word “Satan” (Hebrew satanas, an opponent or adversary) is an OT term transliterated in the NT. It has a wide range of applications as a label, including an angel of God, God Himself, David, Peter, an infirmity, a temptation, the Roman authorities, Jewish opposition, etc., as the following passages will indicate.
  2. In Num 22:22,32 it refers to an angel of God, an adversary who withstands the wicked prophet Balaam.
  3. In 1Ch 21:1 it refers to one who tempted David to an unworthy deed, but in 2Sa 24:1 it is said that the LORD moved David in this way.
  4. David is regarded as a possible adversary (1Sa 29:4), as are the sons of Zeruiah (2Sa 19:22). Other various human adversaries of Solomon and others are found in 1Ki 5:4; 11:14, 23,25; Psa 38:20; 71:13; 109:4,6,20,29.
  5. The classical application of the word “Satan” is to Peter himself, who is said by Jesus to be a “hindrance to me — you are not on the side of God but of men” (Mat 16:23; Mar 8:33).
  6. “Satan” is used in the sense of an infirmity in Luk 13:11,16, and of temptation in Mat 4:10; Luk 22:3; Act 5:3,4.
  7. Several times it is used in reference to the Jewish (or Roman?) power as an adversary of the Gospel (Rev 2:9,13,24).
  8. It is apparently twice used of this world, into which Paul determined that unworthy disciples should be excommunicated (1Co 5:5; 1Ti 1:20).
  9. On the remaining occasions, “Satan” refers to the source of temptations and persecutions, or to the embodiment of the power of evil (Mat 12:26; Mar 1:13; 3:23,26; 4:15; Luk 4:8; 10:18; 11:18; 22:31; Joh 13:27; Act 26:18; Rom 16:20; 1Co 7:5; 2Co 2:11; 11:11,14; 1Th 2:18; 2Th 2:9; 1Ti 5:15; Rev 3:9; 12:9; 20:2,7).
  10. In special passages like Job 1 and 2, the word “Satan” occurs 12 times of someone who appears in the councils of God and with God’s consent plays a leading role in the trials of Job. Note, however, that in every case it is God who was the real source of all the evil that came upon Job (Job 1:20; 2:10; 42:11).
  11. Similarly in Zec 3:1,2 the word occurs 3 times of an accuser in a visionary trial of the priest Joshua. The historical context of Ezr 4:1,4,6 shows there were real enough adversaries against the rebuilding of the Temple.