What the Bible Doesn't Say About Sex (Does the Bible give mixed and contradictory teachings on sex?)

Reputable Christian scholars are outright rejecting one author's message that the Bible gives mixed and contradictory teachings on sex and sexuality.

Earlier this week, a Newsweek article entitled, "What the Bible Really Says About Sex," brought attention to the work of Jennifer Wright Knust, author of Unprotected Texts: The Bible’s Surprising Contradictions About Sex and Desire.

Knust, a religion professor at Boston University, argues that there are cases in the Bible where premarital sex, homosexuality and prostitution is permissible, according to her book and the Newsweek piece.

Evangelical scholars say she fails to demonstrate authentic scholarship and correct biblical interpretation despite teaching religion and being an ordained American Baptist pastor.

"Jennifer Knuts offers a revisionist interpretation of the biblical texts. Her interpretation departs, not only from the traditional ways those texts are interpreted, but also from the true meaning of what the texts actually say," Dr. Claude Mariottini, professor of Old Testament at Northern Baptist Seminary, told The Christian Post.

In his blog post responding to the Newsweek piece, Dr. Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said the Bible already presents a "clear and consistent sexual ethic" and that the issue at hand is not lack of clarity.

"The real problem here is not that the Bible is misunderstood and in need of revision," he wrote Wednesday. "To the contrary, the real problem is that the ethic revealed in the Bible is both rejected and reviled."

In an interview posted Thursday on the Huffington Post, Knust contended to Stephen Prothero, author of Religious Literacy, that the story of Ruth is an example of how premarital sex is "a source of God's blessing" in the Bible. She claimed that the Bible's record of Ruth "uncovering the feet" of Boaz and lying down at his feet is actually a scene of the great grandparents of King David having sex. "Feet" can be a euphemism for male genitals, according to Knust.

Dr. Paul Copan, a philosophy professor at Palm Beach Atlantic University in West Palm Beach, Fla., told The Christian Post that he believes Ruth's uncovering of Boaz's feet was just that and that nothing sexual took place.

"The Bible doesn't shy away from recording sexual encounters and would have recorded it if one took place," he said.

President of the Evangelical Philosophical Society, Copan also pointed out that the grammar in the Bible doesn’t support a sexual act. The word "lie" can be used in a sexual way, such as Potiphar's wife telling Joseph "lie with me," he noted. But in the story of Ruth, "the word is used here without sexual connotations," said Copan.

Mariottini acknowledged that "feet" can refer to "genitals" in a few passages of the Old Testament, but to say that "Ruth exposed Boaz’s genitals, is to read a sexual meaning into the text that may or may not be there," he said.

"Even if Ruth exposed Boaz’s genitals, it does not mean that they had sexual intercourse. It is possible that Ruth was tricking Boaz into thinking they had sex," offered the Old Testament professor.

Bottom line: "The case of Ruth cannot be used to give approval to premarital sex," said Mariottini.

Both Copan and Mariottini referred to Deuteronomy 22:28-29 to explain that the Bible is against premarital sex. According to the passage, sex consummates the marriage so if a man has violated a virgin woman, he must pay her father 50 pieces of silver and also take her as his wife, the scholars said.

They also cited the passage in Genesis 2:24, which states, "This is why a man leaves his father and mother and bonds with his wife, and they become one flesh."

Scripture affirms God's creation order of marriage between a man and a woman and sexual pleasure as taking place in the context of marriage, they said.

In another controversial claim, Knust also argues that the Bible justifies prostitution, pointing to the story of Tamar.

Tamar was left a widow after the Lord punished Er, Judah's eldest son, with death for his wickedness. Judah then asks his second eldest son, Onan, to marry Tamar and give her an offspring but he, too, is slain by the Lord after he intentionally withheld his seed from Tamar. When the third son Shelah was grown but was given to wed Tamar, she posed as a prostitute and had sex with her father-in-law.

"The Bible does not approve prostitution, but like in our society today, prostitution was very common," said Mariottini.

"The reason Tamar dressed like a prostitute was because Judah violated a societal rule and refused to provide an heir for his dead son. So, she was forcing him to fulfill his obligation," he said.

In a commentary to CNN this week, Knust takes another stab at the Bible's claims on sexuality by arguing that Scripture supports homosexuality. Again using Old Testament characters to make her point, she sets her sights on David and Jonathan, alleging that the two were same-sex partners.

"There is no evidence that David and Jonathan were gay partners," stated Mariottini. "Both of them were married and had children. They were just friends who had the kind of friendship that was common in the Ancient Near East. This type of friendship is unknown today. This is the reason people mistake this kind of friendship with a gay relationship."

Mohler had this to say about Knust's claim on homosexuality, "No Jewish or Christian interpreter of the Bible had ever suggested that the relationship between David and Jonathan was homosexual – at least not until recent decades."

"The revisionist case is equally ludicrous across the board. We are only now able to understand what Paul was talking about in Romans 1? The church was wrong for two millennia?" he asked rhetorically.

Knust acknowledged in her CNN commentary that same-sex intimacy is condemned in a "few" biblical passages, but claims that "these passages, which I can count on one hand, are addressed to specific sex acts and specific persons, not to all humanity forever, and they can be interpreted in any number of ways."

Copan, who addresses the topics of homosexuality and gay marriage in his book When God Goes to Starbucks, said that homosexuality is strictly prohibited by the Bible in Leviticus 18:22 and again by Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 6.

Homosexuality "goes against the very design that God intended: marriage is between husband and wife," said Copan, reaffirming the passage in Genesis.

"Paul speaks very strongly against homosexuality," he said. "He says that these sorts of things are not to be approved in the Kingdom of God. He is also saying that people can be redeemed from this."

In his book, Copan cited the work of Richard Hays, dean of Duke Divinity School, who calls such attempts to label Ruth and Naomi as lesbians or David and Jonathan as gays "exegetical curiosities” that just aren’t taken seriously by biblical scholars.

"The Scriptures offer no indications – no stories, no metaphors – that homosexual relationships are acceptable before God," concluded Copan in When God Goes to Starbucks.

You have refused to cite even one valid verse that supports your position that drinking of alcohol is forbidden by the Bible. It may not be wise, but finding evil in an object created by God rather than the behavior of man is ludicrous.

The moderate consumption of alcohol has been accepted by the Church since the beginning. All Church's of the Eastern Rite, Catholic Rite, Reformed Tradition, and many Evangelicals have understood that moderation of consumption is historically understood to be Scriptural. This prohibitionist view is really only held by unaffiliated Fundamentalists, Southern Baptists and Seventh Day Adventists. Your prohibitionist view really is a relatively modern creation and one that is at odds with history.

I can appreciate anyone who says that it may not be prudent to consume alcohol, but to find an outright ban in the Bible is not possible...and dishonest.

As to your selected verses, I shall use the NIV:

1. Proverbs 20: 1 Wine is a mocker and beer a brawler; whoever is led astray by them is not wise.

This does not prohibit drinking, it counsels moderation.

2. Proverbs 23:19-20 19 Listen, my son, and be wise, and set your heart on the right path: 20 Do not join those who drink too much wine or gorge themselves on meat, 21 for drunkards and gluttons become poor, and drowsiness clothes them in rags.

This also doesn't say not to drink alcohol. It says don't drink too much.

3. Proverbs 23:30-32 Those who linger over wine, who go to sample bowls of mixed wine. Do not gaze at wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup, when it goes down smoothly! In the end it bites like a snake and poisons like a viper.

Another passage that doesn't say not to drink. This one also clearly says not to "linger" or over indulge. Earlier in the passage, Proverbs 3 says that vats bursting with wine were a consequence of honoring Yahweh. The clear context here is that alcoholism is forbidden.

Your exegesis is flawed and you are reading what you want into these texts.

Pr.23:29-Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? who hath babbling? who hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of eyes? Pro 23:30 They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine. Pro 23:31 Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, [when] it moveth itself aright. Pro 23:32 At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder. Pro 23:33 Thine eyes shall behold strange women, and thine heart shall utter perverse things. Pro 23:34 Yea, thou shalt be as he that lieth down in the midst of the sea, or as he that lieth upon the top of a mast. Pro 23:35 They have stricken me, [shalt thou say, and] I was not sick; they have beaten me, [and] I felt [it] not: when shall I awake? I will seek it yet again.

Actually, what you do is try to find loopholes and ignore the clear negative comments dealing with alcohol.

Religion has always done that (Mk.7:7)

The Bible says, “. . . at last it biteth like A SERPENT.” Do you know what a serpent bite is? POISON! Did you know that alcohol is poison? Every major organ in your body is poisoned by alcohol. According to The Birmingham News (Nov. 19, 1990), “Scientific data show alcohol is THE MOST PHYSICALLY DETERIORATING drug there is. It causes more organic damage than any other drug. . .”Why is it when people get drunk, they have a tendency to vomit? Because your stomach knows POISON when it comes down! No wonder the bartender says, “NAME YOUR POISON”! When a man is drunk, he is INTOXICATED. Do you know what a TOXIC is? IT IS A POISON! A drunk man is a man who has LITERALLY POISONED HIMSELF!
Scientists have only recently discovered the physical process that creates the slurred speech and drunken stupor. Once in the blood stream, alcohol causes a coagulation of the red corpuscles referred to as “sludging”. The blood thickens so that it cannot flow freely and clogs the metabolic exchange of life-giving oxygen. And when cells are deprived of oxygen - THEY DIE! And because brain cells require a high oxygen supply continuously, they are particularly vulnerable! And brain cells are the only cells that do not reproduce! Brain cells destroyed are never replaced! Autopsies performed on drinkers, often reveal hollow cavities in the skull, where ENTIRE CONVOLUTIONS OF THE BRAIN HAVE DISAPPEARED! And according to studies by Dr. Melvin H. Kinsley, brain damage occurs progressively from THE VERY FIRST DRINK! The next time you see that man staggering drunk - YOU ARE WATCHING A MAN LITERALLY DESTROYING HIS BRAIN!
http://biblebelievers.com/watkins_alcohol.html

Proverbs 23:29-32 does not at all prohibit the consumption of alcohol. You accuse me of taking this out of context, but every Evangelical, Reformed, and Catholic Scholar that I've read agrees with my interpretation. The question posed by verses is who is going to experience "Woe, Sorrow, Contentions, Complaining, Wounds without cause, redness of eyes?" This is talking about drunkards who stay up late and drink alcohol until the ends of the evening like in Isaiah 5:11: Woe to those who rise early in the morning to run after their drinks, who stay up late at night till they are inflamed with wine.

Nowhere does it say that moderate use of alcohol is forbidden.

Did you know that drinking was not banned in the Southern Baptist Convention until 1896? Did you know that Parishoners in Southern Baptist Churches would tithe their whiskey? Did you know that bourbon whiskey was invented by a Baptist minister?

If ever there was a man-made doctrine looking for evidence in the Scriptures it is this one.

What peer-reviewed medical journals support what you've posted? I'd be curious to review them to verify that alcohol is really the most physically deteriorating drug there is.

Of course getting drunk is bad. I can agree with that. But anything in quantity is poison. Even potatoes are poisonous if you eat enough of them.

But what most perplexes me is that you'd cite Terry Watkins. He is a King James Only believer who believes the following:

1. rock music is evil, that both "mainstream" and "Christian rock" music are tools of Satan and that popular Christian artists such as DC Talk and Jars of Clay could be "under the influence of Satan.". 2. Santa Claus is really the devil. 3. Hell is a physical place located in the core of the Earth.

That's a credible source. If you are also a KJV-only believer, then I'm done with this...the whole exchange is pointless since you'd already hold to an unsupportable view of Scripture.

First, the NIV is not a good translation of Scripture (bad manuscripts and methodology) and would encourage you to study the subject more fully from both sides.

Second, my exegesis is just as good and frankly better than yours. Let’s take the wine out of it and change it to something else.

Proverbs 20:1
Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.

If I said Satan is a mocker and Satan is raging and whoever is deceived by him is not wise, would you take it as an invitation to just take him in moderation? You are reading moderation into that text to try to support your case when it says nothing neutral about the elements.

Likewise, Proverbs 23 has nothing encouraging to say about the drinking of wine and in fact says stay away from those who drink the fermented beverage.

Verses 30-32 speak of those who drink to excess and counsel the person to not even look at the wine because it bites like a serpent. Not moderation - abstinence.

Drinking, even social drinking, cannot be legitimately supported by the Bible. Every drink that is available today, even beer, falls into the category of unmixed or strong drink. Clearly, Christians should not drink alcoholic beverages. Drinking socially is a worldly activity and in light of the fact that believers are neither to be conformed to the world (Romans 12:2) nor love the world(I John 2:15) our choice should be clear. We ARE to be SEPARATE FROM the world (II Corinthians 6:17) and LIGHT TO the world (Ephesians 5:8; Phillipians 2:15). Perhaps social drinking has enhanced the acceptability of Christians in society, but it has not advanced the cause of Christ, and it does not glorify God! Social drinking is simply a means which the devil uses to blunt our testimony for Christ and squeeze us into his mold. There are at least SEVEN GOOD REASONS A BELIEVER SHOULD NOT DRINK. One should be enough.
http://logosresourcepages.org/Believers/drinking.htm

I'd be interested is seeing someone refute their arguments, based on the words of Scripture alone. The dispute about the meaning of the specific Scriptural terms is found here:

Hello Mrs. Don-o... say hello to the hubby for me. Hope y'all are well.

1Co 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1Co 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
1Co 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
1Co 6:12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

e-Sword:KJV
(emphasis mine)

Hmm. I always interpreted those story as: God is merciful, and he can bring good out of evil.

And they ignore that Tamar was “sinned against” by Judah: He refused to let her marry his younger son, or arrange another marriage, an action that condemned her to live like a slave in her parents house, without a spouse, children, or honor. And her (dead) husband would lack legal offspring to carry on his memory.

So Tamar “Broke” the law, not out of lust but so she could give her (dead) husband an heir. She didn’t sleep around, she targeted her son’s father so her son would have a family to raise him, even if they decided to kill her for her sin.

Most religions recognize these subtleties, but Newsweek is so busy religion bashing they don’t recognize that these books are about destroying the law, not saying: the law is correct, but God’s mercy covers a lot of “sins”.

Wine is wine. I find all this disingenuous, because prior to the beginning of the temperance movement in the 19th century, Baptists drank alcoholic beverages like everyone else and perforce they had to use wine in communion. The many denunciations of drunkenness in the Old Testament tells us wine was in general use. As for the good wine at Cana , it was wine that had not been watered down. That was one point that John was trying to make. One does

The usual sophistry on display here. The gays themselves claims that the Jewish antipathy to homosexuality was owing to their clashes with the Greeks and other nations where homosexuality was part of religious worship. But the Greeks themselves practiced pederasty in accordance with certain standards. Alcibiades, one of Socrates most brilliant students was held in low repute because he continued homosexual relations with other grown men of his own age. As for their interpretation of Romans, it has no merit. Idolatry, which is a perverted relationship to God leads to perverted sexual relations. What they claim, of course, is that homosexality is not naturally perverted, therefore Paul could not be condemning the practice itself but its abuse.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.