What does 666 mean in the Bible (Rev 13:17-18)?

    
    A: First, lets look at the verses:
    
(Rev 13:17-18) and that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the
name of the beast, or the number of his name. (18) Here is wisdom. Let him that hath
understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his
number is Six hundred threescore and six (666).

    People all through history have speculated on the meaning of these numbers, but
honestly, NO ONE knows for sure what they mean. However, I will share some of the
"theories" that have been given (from the credible to the incredible ).

    We do know that all through the Bible, the number "7" is given as God's number.
It is a number signifying perfection, completion, and rest. For example, there are
7 days in a week. God created all things in 6 days and rested on the 7th day
(Gen 1:1-2:3). (God sanctified the 7th day: Gen 2:3.) There are 7 colors which make
up the color spectrum (the colors of the rainbow). Jesus said 7 things on the cross
(see: Q: #70). The book of Revelation is FILLED with references to the number 7:
7 churches (Rev 1:4,11,20), 7 spirits (Rev 1:4, 4:5, 5:6), 7 stars (Rev 1:16,20, 
2:1, 3:1), 7 lamps (Rev 4:5), 7 seals (Rev 5:1,5), 7 trumpets (Rev 8:2), and many
more...

    In contrast to this is the number "6," which is a number of imperfection. The 
number 6 is one short of God's perfect number. It is correlated with man and his
imperfection in the Bible. For example, man was created on the 6th day (Gen 1:26-31)
and he was to labor for 6 days (Gen 3:17-19)(Ex 20:9-11)(Ex 34:21) due to sinning
in the Garden of Eden.

    In relation to the verses above, it says 666 is "the number of a man." 
Therefore, if we take this literally (much of Revelation is figurative), it is 
saying 666 will represent a man (an imperfect man = "6"). This man is called
"the beast" (also called the "Antichrist") and he will make up what is basically an
"unholy trinity" (Satan [the dragon], the beast, the false prophet: Rev 16:13), in
contrast to God's "holy trinity."

    Most scholars (and MANY non-scholars) believe that 666 represents the name of
this man (the beast) in some way. How do they come to this conclusion? It is 
important to understand that in many languages, for each letter there is a numerical
equivalent for that letter. For example, many of us learned in grade school that the
first 6 Roman Numerals are: I=1, V=5, X=10, L=50, C=100, D=500. Notice what these
add up to: 666. Is that significant? Some believe so. Some believe that the beast
(Antichrist) isn't a man at all, but rather, has something to do with Rome (i.e. a
revived Roman Empire).

    However, most believe that the numerical combination of letters will point to a 
single person. To add to the confusion, different languages are used to get this
combination. Some use Greek, some Hebrew, some Latin... Also, you can alter the 
names to get the conclusion you want. For example, for those who might have thought
that Hitler was the Antichrist, see if the letters Hitler equals 666, if not try
Adolf Hitler, or Hitler the German, or Adolf Hitler the German, or Hitler the Nazi,
etc... Eventually, you can probably any person you want to add up to 666 in some 
language.

    Using these tactics, it is amazing what people some up with. Here are some:
nearly every president has been accused (Ronald Wilson Reagan = 6 letters in each 
name), Henry Kissinger, Saddam Hussein, Prince Charles, Napoleon, Stalin, Ayatollah
Khomeini, Allah, Bill Gates, Santa Claus, and on and on.... And, it doesn't even 
have to be a man. Some throw in the Unites States or the World Wide Web as 
possibilities. 

    There are two theories that seem to have the most scholarly support. An 
overwhelming majority believe that the Antichrist will be the Pope. The Antichrist
is prophesied to be a world leader, and the Pope certainly fits the bill. In 
addition, one of the Popes' titles is "Vicarius Filii Dei," which supposedly adds
up to 666 in Latin.

    Another popular theory is that the man the Bible refers to isn't in the future
at all, but in the past. This man would be Emperor Nero, who was perhaps the 
greatest persecutor of Christians in history. It is believed that John (the author
of Revelation) wasn't referring to a future man, but one who was killing Christians
in his time. Apparently, the name Caesar Nero is spelled KAISAR NERON which in
Hebrew adds up to 666. However, another source says the name NERO CAESAR NRWN QSR
in Hebrew adds up to 666. Other sources say his name adds up to 666 in Greek...
This theory seems unlikely to many though since Nero reigned from 54-68 A.D. (he
committed suicide in 68 A.D.), and John did not write Revelation until app.
95-97 A.D.

    Honestly, it is simply insane how some people get about this number. It doesn't
even have to refer to any of the above. Apparently, people went crazy before and 
during the year 666 A.D. Did you know that if you take the 9's in the year 1999 and
invert them, you have 666? Did you know that the year 2000 divided by 3 is
666.6666...? Did you know that the 1st 36 numbers (1-36) total 666? The numbers on a
roulette wheel total 666. If you have ever worked at a place that uses a cash
register, you know how many people go crazy when a total purchase equals $6.66.
(They will often buy something else to change the price.) There is a popular pizza
chain in our city that used to have an offering that would total $6.66 with tax. The
waiter told me that they had to change the menu price by a penny because it bothered
people so much. People even have house addresses, license plates, id numbers, etc...
changed if they have 666 in them. There is supposedly even a name for the fear of
this number: hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia! 

    Friends, whoever or whatever this number represents, as Christians we need have
NO fear because we know the ending of the story: GOD WINS!

TB Joshua – where this so called spiritual husbands come from? by TB Joshua Fans UK Blog

Below is a list of questions we received today and we feel is worth publishing. It read.....

I wonder where this so called spiritual husbands come from, they are worse than any deadly disease you can ever think of (besides they are the cause) I pray that the Lord would deliver his children from demons who are:
1. Child abuser’s – they claim you while in your mother’s womb by the time you are born you are already taken by them.

2. Abnormal wedding day – the next thing you find yourself being wedded by without your permission and being in a position of not having control of the situation, worst part you get married in the dream and never in the physical.

3. Rapist’s – they sleep with you by force whenever they feel like it and you have no say or control over.

4. Un-wanted pregnancies – now you see yourself pregnant in the dream by force and giving birth for a demon that rapes you every night! for some physically they don't even have children.

5. Lying thieves- their mission in your life is they only came to kill, steal and destroy every good thing the Lord has for you.

6. All they want is to destroy marriage’s and block those who are still single not to marry. they know that women were created to be helpers and if homes were peaceful, the world would be a better place and children would be brighter and smarter without having to grow up in a home where parents are enemies. Today children worry more about problems in the house than the parents involved. Homes have become battle fields, the so called spiritual husband are the foundation of the marriage they make all the decisions in the house instead of the almighty God the founder of the Marriage Institution.

I pray for God’s mercy that people may find it easy to run for deliverance. I pray also for my country because those demons have not yet been exposed fully, people don't even believe in marriage anymore, those who are married infidelity is a daily bread. The man no longer suffer lustful thoughts but rather they are suffering from lustful actions it has become so bad that they can’t control themselves physically! And this has led so many young women to be obsessed with business and their career’s and always putting marriage as the very last option.

The world needs your prayers men of God to restore God’s will in the lives of the people, they need people who will stand up and testify that God is still a match maker and one can still have a divine marriage even in my country and other places in the world suffering from high rates of divorce and single men and women engaging with multiple partners with the excuse of saying “I don’t know which one is my life partner or is from God” what is if i say no to my soul mate?
And all this is the tricks of the enemy because many young people cannot differentiate between a spiritual husband and a husband from God in their dreams besides in our churches we were never taught “the 50 signs he is your husband from God ” like the internet would put it!

Prophet T.B Joshua and the wise men we humbly bring forth this prayer request so that the Lord may lead to prayers to set the people free as for me its been some time now the Lord has lead me to so many homes in my vision to experience the physical pain of divorce and of one partner leaving the wife for another woman without keeping it a secret to the wife or children. Another case was a man leaving the wife for another man! In the vision I could feel the

OUR TOMORROW SHOULD BE BETTER THAN OUR TODAY

Sunday 23^rd June 2013 was an extraordinary day at The SCOAN because it registered the landmark for the global extension of the project Prophet T.B. Joshua introduced during his 50^th birthday celebrations – the employment, empowerment and educational campaign. The project tallies with the slogan of Emmanuel TV – Changing Lives, Changing Nations and Changing the World. The service began with the prayer line where multitudes received healing and deliverance, followed by a time of testimonies. Here are just a few of those who shared their testimonies with the world:

MAKING IMPOSSIBILITIES POSSIBLE

Mrs Hope Okeke, Anambra, Nigeria, came to The SCOAN in a wheelchair with a debilitating problem of inability to walk due to severe arthritis for two years. She had pain all over her body during those years and was unable to do any work. She had visited many hospitals and herbalists in search of a solution but to no avail. Because of her confinement to a wheelchair her children had to be available at all times, to help with her business and her daily chores. She watched Emmanuel TV in her home and had seen how God is using the faculties of Prophet T.B. Joshua to bring solution to thousands of people whose situations were even worse than her own. This encouraged her to come to The SCOAN to receive her healing.

While she was inside her car praying and hoping that God would discover her, one of her sons came into the church and cried out to Prophet T.B. Joshua, announcing her condition. Prophet T.B. Joshua asked for her to be wheeled into the church and three visitors were asked to minister the New Anointing Water to her, in the name of Jesus Christ. As they ministered the New Anointing Water in Jesus’ name, her countenance changed and her eyes seemed to look into the distance. Moments later, she rose up and walked immediately! Mrs Okeke testified that ever since her healing, she had been walking freely and without any pain. Truly, she encountered Jesus Christ, the Miracle Worker and her impossibilities became possible to the glory of God!

KIDNEY STONES FLUSHED OUT THROUGH THE ANOINTING WATER

Mr Jeff Motsetsi, a teacher by profession, from Botswana, was diagnosed with kidney stones in 2009. This caused him unbearable pain and made him unable to perform his duties as a teacher. He had consulted the best medical professionals and had been administered various drugs but his condition only got worse. Traditional therapy had been taken by him to no avail.

In 2011, he was privileged to come to The SCOAN and received the Anointing Water. He went home and one day he was relaxing outside and enjoying the cool breeze when he experienced an excruciating pain caused by the kidney stones.

In desperation, he remembered that he had the Anointing Water with him. He managed to drag himself into the house and reached for the Anointing Water and added a little to a cup of ordinary drinking water. He then drank it, praying in faith that God would flush out the kidney stones from his system once and for all.

The next morning, when he went to the toilet, he passed out the kidney stones in his urine to his amazement. He had gone to many hospitals to no avail but with the Anointing Water, the kidney stones were urinated out.

He displayed his ‘before and after’ healing medical reports and also showed the actual kidney stones that he had urinated out, to the glory of God. His active lifestyle is now restored and he is completely free from pain or discomfort. His advice was that we should not underrate the Anointing Water because it is an “atomic bomb” that will flush out whatever is not of Jesus in us.

TUMOUR THE SIZE OF A BASEBALL MIRACULOUSLY DETACHED

Lemlem Kasa from the USA, shared an extraordinary testimony of the healing power of Jesus Christ through the Anointing Water. She had a huge tumour in her uterus, the size of a human head.

She had gone to many hospitals and the doctors told her that the only remedy was to remove her womb through an operation. She watched Emmanuel TV, saw the miracles and was encouraged and convinced that her own case would not escape the anointing of God.

She came to The SCOAN, received the Anointing Water and returned back to the USA, believing that the end of her problem had come. After ministering the Anointing Water, in Jesus’ name, she had a dream and saw herself in an operating theatre where the man of God, Prophet T.B. Joshua was preparing to perform a spiritual operation on her.

In that dream, Prophet T.B. Joshua, working as the head surgeon, asked one of the wise men to give him a scalpel with which he cut open her uterus, removed the tumour and threw it away. After the dream, she went back to the hospital and when they examined her, to their great surprise, the tumour had detached itself from the uterus making it easy for them to simply evacuate it.

She showed a photo of herself with a huge swollen stomach at the time she had the tumour. Now, she is healthy and strong. She thanked Jesus Christ for restoring her life.

JESUS’ GREAT DESIGN

Quoting Matthew 5:44, Prophet T.B. Joshua began his message by saying, “It was Jesus’ great design to engage His disciples to love one another.” He reminded people of the words of Apostle Paul in Galatians 5:6, explaining, “Without faith working by love, all else is worthless. Faith, where it is true, genuine, real and authentic, is a working grace; it works by love. Love does not intimidate; love does not condemn.”

Talking on the need to let love lead, he said, “We should be known by our love, regardless of religious, ethnic or social background. If you love your neighbour, you will be interested in his welfare.” He spoke practically on the need to see beyond religion or denomination when it comes to showing love and compassion to people. “The medical doctor you go to for a medical check-up and other health issues – you do not mind the faith they belong to as long as they are specialists. The company where you are working, you do not mind who is the chairman and the owner of the company. That is where you earn your livelihood with which you maintain your family, send your children to school and pay tithe in your church. You do not mind the faith he or she belongs to or their religious background. Talking of your education, you never mind the religion or faith your lecturer or teacher belongs to so far as he meets the needs of your education.”

THE MBA TOUR PARTNERS WITH EMMANUEL TV

In line with Prophet T.B. Joshua’s newly launched initiative to assist graduates with employment, a wonderful development has taken place! The MBA Tour, an international event organised to link prospective students with top level business administrative educational institutions around the world, have partnered with Emmanuel TV.

The West African representative of the MBA Tour, Hannah Bertilla Acquah came to The SCOAN to officially announce the unique partnership. She said, “The MBA Tour is here to officially partner with Prophet T.B. Joshua and Emmanuel TV. Our partnership is based on our mutual commitment to nation building through skills development for the young and corresponds with the man of God’s current project of assisting graduates with employment.

“Our partnership will enable African students who demonstrate outstanding potential, access to Fellowships at the world’s top business schools and academic institutions – including: Columbia Business School; Harvard Business School; MIT Sloan School of Management; Yale School of Management; IE University, Spain; Erasmus University, The Netherlands; INSEAD Business School, France.

“Representatives from these renowned institutions will identify the qualifying students and Prophet T.B. Joshua and Emmanuel TV will assist with financial scholarships.”

The MBA Tour which is just one of the hundreds of organisations across the world that have indicated interest in partnering with Emmanuel TV to see to the actualisation of the campaign. Talking about the need to commit resources into such charitable ventures, Prophet T.B. Joshua asked, “What is the value of money but to change lives, change nations and change the world”. He further added that “Our tomorrow should be better than our today.”

You can register and find more information online at www.thembatour.com.

Does the Bible Forbid a Woman to Wear Slacks or a Pant-Suit?

By Wayne Jackson

“Would you explain Deuteronomy 22:5. ‘The woman shall not wear that which pertains unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment for all who do so are an abomination unto the Lord your God.’ Does this passage forbid a woman to wear slacks or a pant-suit?”
A careful consideration of Deuteronomy, chapter 22, reveals a number of commands that are strange to the modern mind. For example, if a man discovered a bird sitting upon eggs, he might take the eggs but not the bird (22:6-7). Different kinds of seeds could not be planted in one’s vineyard (9). The Hebrew farmer was not to yoke together an ox and a donkey for plowing (10). A Jew was forbidden to wear a garment containing two types of cloth (e.g., wool and linen – 11), and so on.
Among these regulations, then, is the admonition that men should not wear feminine apparel and vice versa. The present-day student is curious to know the purpose underlying these regulations. What application do they have today, if any? We certainly recognize that the Mosaic code, as a legal system, is not binding in this age (Gal. 3:24-25; Eph. 2:14-15; Col. 2:14-17).
The reasons behind some of these Old Testament laws are not stated explicitly, and, by virtue of passing time, are shrouded in obscurity. It is, therefore, impossible to speak definitely and confidently with reference to these matters. However, acknowledging the divine inspiration of the sacred Scriptures, one must assume that there was some religious, moral, or practical basis for the requirements. We offer the following suggestions for reflection.

1. Some of the commands of this section appear to have been given to instill the principle of neighborly concern. For example, the Hebrew was to respect the property of others. If a neighbor’s ox strayed, and one comes upon the lost animal, he is not to act as if – “It’s none of my business.” He must make a legitimate attempt to restore the animal to its owner. This ordinance reinforces the concepts of property rights, respect for the welfare of animals, and community benevolence. It is at variance with the modern notion: “Finder’s keepers; loser’s weepers.”
2. The prohibition against taking the mother bird, along with her eggs, may be designed to help maintain the balance of nature, and thus a measure to preserve the wildlife necessary for the welfare of society in those ancient days, when men depended upon such creatures for their food. Though modern environmentalists have adopted radical extremes regarding the resources of nature, the principle of wise stewardship concerning God’s creation is, in fact, valid.
3. Some of the commands may have been designed as “visual” teaching aids to reinforce the principle of separation (e.g., recognizing the distinction between the sacred and the secular). They could have served, therefore, an educational and disciplinary function. The several ordinances that forbid the mixing of heterogeneous objects (e.g., plowing the ox with the donkey, wearing garments of different substances, etc.) may have been directed to this end.
4. With reference to the dressing regulations, several ideas have been advanced by careful Bible students. Verse 5 may be an indictment of paganism in which cross-dressing in certain heathen ceremonies was deemed to be a cure for infertility.
   
   In later history, both Lucian of Samosata and Eusebius speak of transvestism in the worship of Astarte (J.A. Thompson, Deuteronomy, Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1974, p. 234). Professor Earl Kalland also thinks there may be a warning here against the sort of dress that accommodates homosexual activity (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Frank Gaebelein, Ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992, Vol. 3, p. 137).

One must remember, however, that in biblical times, clothing for males and females was different only in styles and details, not in kind. Men did not wear trousers, and women did not adorn themselves with skirts and blouses. While it undoubtedly is true that God wants some sexual distinction apparent in men’s and women’s garments, it is not legitimate to say that all women’s “pants” are wrong, or, for that matter, that Scottish “kilts” are sinful for the men of that culture.
A woman can be feminine in a modest pant-suit (cf. 1 Tim. 2:9-10), and men can still be masculine in a robe-like garment (as in some Near Eastern countries today).
Two principles should be borne in mind. First, the Christian should dress appropriate to his gender. This distinction, incidentally, is apparent in all cultures. Second, the godly man or woman should dress modestly, i.e., in a manner that does not solicit illicit sexual interest.

Straight Talk About Homosexuality

By Jason Jackson

The Almighty does not discriminate. All sin is horrible, as demonstrated by the death of Jesus Christ on the cross. Penitents are saved because their sins are forgiven through the gospel, but others will die lost rebels.
Although God proved his love by giving his Son to die for the world, many choose to stay in their sins, doing “their own thing.” The Moral Judge gives sinners the opportunity to change. His patience is salvation for some, but others wax worse and worse.
You recall the words of the Spanish-born philosopher about learning from the lessons of history? Long before George Santayana graduated from Harvard, Abraham saw the smoke rising from the cities of the plain. Many in Washington forget about Sodom. Many in America do not believe the Bible’s account of Gomorrah — to their shame.
Measure a society by what is considered “normal,” and our’s is not unlike those “tolerant” cities of antiquity. Perversion is glorified. Sodomy is “the way God made me.” Must we debate the design of private parts? One proof of our degenerate world is this confusion over the anatomical compatibility of male and female.
Homosexuality is more than a confusion over private parts. That depressing lifestyle involves a struggle with serious psychological issues. Many individuals have resolved their problems, renounced homosexuality, and found healing. We pray for these people. But please understand that we are presently addressing the truth about homosexuality.
Am I a bigot — a homophobe? One individual advised that the church ought to be addressing the real perverts —child molesters, rapists, and domestic abusers. Nobody of sound mind justifies these crimes. Society is rushing to defend, however, the homosexual lifestyle.
Homosexuality is now an equal rights issue. Political advocacy groups, legislators, activist judges, the media, Hollywood, and some public schools, press to legitimize the behavior. “Gays” can’t help who they are, they say. Supposedly, we must respect their “sexual orientation” as a matter of nature.
Some will object to this article, even though they are not themselves partakers of the sodomite “lifestyle.” It is not “politically correct” to call homosexuality “sin.” Therefore, any discussion that evaluates the morality of the matter is characterized as “gay bashing.”
I am sorry that these rebuffed individuals may be more offended by this article than an evil lifestyle. I am sorry that such persons are more disturbed at the tone, than they are the filth that is taught to some school children. I regret that these people may have their sensitivities offended by this “unloving” diatribe, but they are not repulsed by shows like Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, by the ACLU, and by the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN).
It is time that we are disturbed by the kind of rebellion that brought down fire from heaven. For the moment, I am not writing to the penitent person who is struggling with homosexuality. I am not outlining the steps for sexual purity as a counselor. I am not addressing every kind of sin —so as to be fair and balanced. I am talking about one point. Many in society are bending over backwards to promote this wicked practice —a lifestyle that indicates the erosion of moral objectivity.
Homosexuality is wrong (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). The Bible describes it as strange fornication (Jude 7). It is extreme rebellion against God’s design of humanity as male and female (Romans 1:26-27). It cannot be overlooked, but it can be overcome.
A young man was convicted of child molestation. He objected to the charge since the 16-year-old victim “consented” to the 25-year-old’s homosexual propositions. When asked if he intended to seek counseling, the convicted felon disclosed his reluctance. He was uncomfortable with counselors who are “off” on baptism. How conservative! Never mind that counselor and counselee would agree that homosexuality is destructive, degrading, and damnable.
Now, let me talk to the sincere person who is suffering from years of sinful, homosexual choices. One does not have to agree with the theology of an auto mechanic in order to have his car repaired. Consider the following. If a “Christian” psychiatrist has experience in counseling those who have lived in sexual perversion, then one should seek whatever help is available.
Get a referral for a qualified counselor. Call Dr. Bill Flatt of Memphis, Tennessee (through Harding Graduate School of Religion). He has been involved in this type of counseling for decades. Find someone with the moral foundation and professional experience to help you leave a horrible lifestyle —the truth shall set you free.
The gospel freed some who were lost in homosexuality in Corinth (1 Corinthians 6:11). The blood of Christ still offers hope and healing for the penitent sinner.

Are We Hooking Our Kids on Drugs?

By Wayne Jackson

What’s going on in this country? Thousands and thousands of our youngest children are now being sedated. Parents can’t control them. They can’t motivate them. They don’t understand them. They can’t cope with them. They are frustrated, and at their wits’ end as to what to do.
And so what do they do? All too frequently, at the behest of some doctor, they put their little ones on drugs.
Dr. Julie Magno Zito of the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy in Baltimore has discovered that as many as 1.5% of American children between the ages of two and four are already on such controlling substances as Ritalin—as well as being medicated with antidepressants and other psychosis directed drugs. The use of drug stimulants climbed two-to-threefold between 1991 and 1995, and antidepressant prescriptions nearly doubled during the same period.
The National Institute of Mental Health has a growing concern about this trend, and a five million dollar research program has been initiated to study the impact of psychiatric drugs on children.
According to an article by Charles W. Schmidt, appearing in the September, 2000 issue of Child magazine, there has been an increase of some twenty-two percent in antidepressant drugs for children under the age of ten since 1995. Many medical experts are becoming increasingly alarmed about the long-term effects of this drug treatment.
What is the reason for this surge of drug therapy? Why are there now so many more new supposed disorders than there were just a few decades ago? The physicians themselves are baffled.
Dr. Barry Zuckerman of the Boston University School of Medicine, says:

Kids do seem to be more out of control. For over a decade there have been observations among teachers and pediatricians of increasing behavioral disturbances in children. We don’t know if it has to do with changing communities, family structure, TV, video games, or anything else, but there is the perception that behavioral disturbances are on the rise.

Undoubtedly the causative factors are complex and diverse, but we offer the following thoughts for reflection:
(1) There obviously are some children that are afflicted with naturally generated genetic deficiencies or chemical imbalances, or else they have been mentally impaired in some unintentional manner.
Youngsters damaged in this fashion truly may need responsible drug treatment. We strongly believe, however, that this segment of our young population is a minority element.
(2) Society is inheriting a vast number of “drug babies,” products of an irresponsible mob of dopeheads who are descendants of the hippy culture. The nation has sown to the drug wind, and it is reaping a whirlwind crop of innocent children who are scarred for life. Drug abuse may indeed be a life sentence for many of these unfortunate children.
(3) Some children are out of control and extremely difficult to manage because they have suffered the trauma of broken homes, parental abuse, etc. The younger ones scream for attention; the older ones are searching for identity in all the wrong places. They have never received adequate mom-and-dad nurturing.
Parents have been too busy and more preoccupied with personal interests than to be bothered with patiently training their children. In many cases the child’s diet and sleep habits are unsupervised and aberrant. Accordingly, sedating these youngsters with drugs has become a quick-fix method of control.
(4) For older children, there is little doubt that the influence of countless hours in front of the TV has taken its toll. Kids cannot concentrate. They are disinterested in school work. They have no purpose. Generally, they have few, if any, responsibilities. They are confused and depressed.
About the first thing some frustrated parents resort to is having the family physician put them on a drug—when the drug is not what they actually need. But they may need (read that, be addicted to) the substance henceforth.
(5) Unfortunately, many doctors are so busy they do not take the time for a thorough evaluation of the disturbed child’s problems. It has become fashionable to diagnose almost every sort of erratic behavior as psychologically based.
The incidence of so-called ADHD (Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder), for example, has skyrocketed in recent years. It is now estimated that 2.5 million American children have this “illness.” It is said to be the most common pediatric mental illness in the nation today.
Doctors feel pressured by parents to do something to alleviate the chaos that is occurring in many homes. Too, the drug companies have made their products so readily available, accompanied by glowing promises and promotions, that some physicians see drug treatment as the quickest and easiest way to address the problem in their hectic world.
Many parents, we believe, as well-intentioned as they are, are unaware of the forces they are unleashing in the lives of their children. Perhaps a re-evaluation is needed—before it is too late.
We have no interest whatsoever in denying parents appropriate medical treatment for their children when such is justified. But would it not be a terrible thing to impose drug dependency upon your children when there was no actual need?
Many specialists believe that children are particularly vunerable to drug addiction—much more so than are adults. While a youngster’s brain is still growing, there are powerful chemical forces at work that are unique to this period of life. It is, therefore, extremely important to safeguard children from the unnecessary use of habit-forming drugs.
If a physician recommends drug treatment, it might pay a parent rich dividends to get a second opinion. Especially might one be wise in attempting to find a doctor who entertains Christian values; he or she may not be as prone to the quick fix treatment program as those who are materialisticly oriented.
Your children are a precious possession. Care for them wisely.

The Growing Defense of Sexual Child-Abuse

By Wayne Jackson

Since the dawn of time, humanity has been on a binge of perverting the divine gift of human sexuality. The Creator made the human family male and female. He then ordained an arrangement called marriage. Jehovah decreed that within this relationship men and women could enjoy the benefits of sexual intimacy.
It was not long, however, before rebellious man decided he did not want to be restricted in his sexual activity. Only a few generations from Adam, Lamech, a descendant of Cain, determined he would take a second wife (Gen. 4:18-24). The sexual revolution was underway.
Those of us who have witnessed the American landscape for the past half-century, have observed drastic changes in society’s sexual proclivities. There has been a downward spiral of deviancy that simply is numbing.
In the 60’s, the counterculture of the “hippie” revolt made its disgusting presence felt in America. Communal lifestyles, drugs, open and free sex became common in many metropolitan areas. Then came the popularization of the “gay” agenda. At one time the disdain of respectable people, the homosexual movement was glamorized by the entertainment industry and fortified by the politically ambitious. Progressive “legal” under-girding bestowed a superficial legitimacy upon the perversity. Many began to wonder: “Can the nation sink any lower?” It could — and has.
A word that increasingly is becoming a part of the common vocabulary is “pedophilia.” The term literally means “child love,” but it does not connote anything sweet or healthy. It reflects one of the grossest forms of human debauchery — adult-child sexual activity.
Recent reports reveal that this shocking practice has been accelerating for several decades. It has engaged the general public’s attention only more recently — especially with the scandal that is now shaking the American Catholic Church to its very foundation. The most bewildering thing about the whole distressing situation is the growing tendency to defend, hence, to normalize, this most egregious level of sexual perversion.
Consider, for example, a just-published book, “Harmful to Minors — The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex”. The book was authored by Judith Levine, a Brooklyn-based journalist who founded the feminist organization “No More Nice Girls.” The Foreword to this nauseating production was penned by former Surgeon General (Clinton administration), Joycelyn Elders — which ought to be a “red flag” itself. Moreover, this is not a “brown bag,” under-the-counter enterprise; the book is published by the University of Minnesota Press.
Levine argues that pedophiles frequently are quite harmless people. She contends that sex is a wonderful part of growing up and that teens and children “can enjoy the pleasures of the body” yet be safe at the same time. The author commends the system of the Netherlands, where the law permits sex between adults and children (as young as twelve years old) if the activity is “consensual.” Levine charges that when adults “protect” children from sexual activity, such can do the youngsters more harm than help. One section of the book contains the caption, “The enemy is us.”
When the controversy regarding sexual abuse among Catholic priests began to rage a few weeks back, a Minneapolis newspaper reporter interviewed Ms. Levine. She commented that a sexual relationship between a priest and a boy could “conceivably, absolutely” be a positive experience. Tell that to the victims of Paul Shanely and the hundreds who are seeking litigation damages from the Church! She suggests that a sexual relationship between a teenager and an older person could be “more like salvation than victimization” (“abcNews.com, April 5, 2002”). The pedophile’s “salvation” could lead to the Bible’s “damnation.”
This pedophilia mania has been steadily working its way toward acceptance, in a rather subdued fashion, for several decades. Twenty years ago John Leo, then a writer for Time magazine, warned that “pedophilia arguments were catching on among some sex researchers and counselors.” In 1998, an article appeared in the Psychological Bulletin (published by the American Psychological Association) which alleged that adult-child sex “does not cause harm on a pervasive basis.” This study is now cited frequently by those defending pedophilia (see John Leo, “Apologists for pedophilia,” U.S. News & World Report, April 22, 2002, p. 53).
This sort of deviatory ideology is the by-product of a generation of people who no longer believe there is an objective standard for the moral restraint of human conduct. Some, like Levine, have become their own “god.” They write the rules — consistent with their own base appetites. When the publishers of Levine’s book argue that her philosophy provides “sex-positive approaches that are ethically based” (http://www.umn.edu/), they are appealing to an “ethical” criterion than has no higher authority than their own personal aberrant dispositions. Levine acknowledges that as a teen-minor, she had sex with an older man.
The author insists that “consensual” adult-child sex is moral, but, as Professor David Spiegel, chairman of psychology and behavioral sciences at Stanford University, has noted: “The claim that any sexual relationship between a child and an adult can be consensual is just not possible. Children cannot make a contract” (“abcNews.com, April 5, 2002”).
Besides, if one can simply invent the rules along the way, who says sex has to be “consensual”? Not long ago, some evolutionists argued that “rape” is merely a genetic tendency from our ape-ancestry!
Then add to this sordid mix this fact. The United States Supreme Court has just handed down a decision that allows pornographers “First Amendment” protection to utilize photographs of children in the construction of digital images that depict youngsters as engaging in sex with adults (“Supreme Court strikes down ban on virtual child porn”).
No one has “molested” more, the Constitution of this nation, than some of these “Justices of injustice.”
Surely this growing phenomenon of child abuse, as much as anything else, is a symptom of the spiritual malignancy with which our society has become afflicted. The real question is — is the disease terminal?

Sexual Promiscuity — A National Plague

After a weary wandering for forty long years, the Hebrew people were preparing to enter Canaan. They encountered pagan forces east of the Jordan river, but resolutely defeated them — because the Lord was with his people.
When the heathen armies saw that they were unable to resist the power of Jehovah, they decided to pursue another course of action. They sought to corrupt Israel from within. Accordingly, Moabite women came among the people of God, and the Hebrew men sexually indulged themselves with these women — likely as a part of idolatrous ceremonies (Numbers 25:1-2). As a result, the Lord sent a plague among his people and 24,000 died on account of their fornication — 23,000 of them in a single day (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:8). In this latter passage, Paul warns that this account ought to serve as an example for folks today (vv. 6,11).

Sexploitation Symptoms

The sexual capacity of mankind is not intrinsically evil. It is a part of the divine design for humanity. But its role has prescribed parameters; sexual activity is limited to the marriage relationship.
Ever since the late 50’s and early 60’s especially, America has been on a destructive sexual binge. This degeneracy is manifested in several ways.

Increases Teenage Sexual Activity

Teenage sexual promiscuity is rampant. Encouraged by school programs that distribute birth-control devices, only about one in five teenagers will remain chaste in these early years. Some three million teens annually will contract a sexually transmitted disease. Teen pregnancies are at an all time high and many are terminated by abortions.

Domestic Cohabitation

According to the U.S. Census Bureau there are around nine million men and women who are living together intimately — withot a marriage covenant. That figure has sky-rocketed tenfold since 1960. The number of unmarried, cohabitating couples has increased by 72% in the last decade.

Marital Infidelity

In some regions of the nation at least, marital infidelity is common. Recent studies have suggested that, on average, in the about-50 age group, some 28% of men and 17% of women have had extramarital relationships. One problem with such polls is that people frequently lie about adulterous affairs. The numbers may be higher.

Acceptance of Homosexuality

There may be no better measure of the plummeting standard of sexual morality in the nation than that of the growing acceptance of homosexual relationships. Studies within the past five years indicate that more than three million people are involved in same sex liaisons. A 1995 poll suggested that 90% of the public believes that society “should value all types of families,” including the homosexual arrangement.
These societal trends are a shocking commentary on the changing face of America’s attitudes and actions regarding sexual activity.

Causes for America’s Sexplosion

The causes for this radical shift in sexual practices are doubtless many and varied. We obviously cannot do full justice to the problem in this brief article.
One study of this matter was undertaken in the 1960’s by investigative journalist Vance Packard. Over a span of four years, Packard interviewed some 300 professionals — psychologists, sociologists, etc. — and surveyed approximately 2,000 people relative to progressively changing sex attitudes — both in America and Europe. In his book, The Sexual Wilderness, he postulated a number of factors which shaped the sexual shift that occurred in that decade, and which has a lingering effect unto this day. I have combined some of Packard’s propositions with my own research over the years.

Rationalism

Rationalism is the notion that human reason is perfectly competent to discover and define “spiritual” belief and practice without any appeal to divine revelation. This ideology grew out of that era known as the Enlightenment, an 18th century movement that reacted to the oppressive influence of the Roman Church during the previous millennium. The Rationalists, inventing their own criteria of judgment, e.g., removing the supernatural elements from Scripture, proceeded to discredit the Bible in the minds of many.
A chain reaction resulted eventually. If the Scriptures are not to be trusted in their historical data, why should they be highly regarded in terms of moral restrictions? Accordingly, a gradual rejection of the authority of the Bible arose. The “trickle-down” effect became apparent as the decades passed. If there is no objective standard to regulate conduct, then every man becomes his own “Bible,” and moral chaos reigns.

Darwinism

In 1859, Charles Darwin published his book, The Origin of Species. It was wildly popular from the day of its release. The initial edition of 1,025 copies sold out the first day.
Though Darwin was still a believer in God at the time, the thesis of the book is that mankind has evolved from a lower form of life. Man is, therefore, basically a “naked ape.” Others took Darwinism to its logical extension and argued that the evolutionary hypothesis allows one to be “an intellectually fulfilled atheist” (Dawkins, p. 6). One who has but a modest level of reasoning ability can conclude that if we are but products of the blind forces of nature, then there is no moral standard higher than our own desire. As Darwinism was popularized and accepted in America, there occurred a “descent of man” in terms of morality. The rules for sexual behavior began to erode.

Scientific Discovery

The march of scientific discovery, wonderful as it has been in many respects, has had negative fallout as well. This is not because science itself is intrinsically evil; rather, it has to do with how men have interpreted nature.
As scientific knowledge advanced, more and more it could be seen that there are “laws” that explain the operations of nature. Increasingly, “God” was not needed as an explanation for “how things work.” The idea of a “God,” therefore, who controls nature, and who is sovereign over mankind, blurred into the background.
One of the major fallacies in this line of reasoning, of course, is the fact that these very “laws” of nature demand a lawgiver. Every effect must have an adequate cause. Moreover, it has become painfully obvious that while science may explain how some things work (e.g., nuclear reactions), it cannot explain how they ought to be employed!
Unfortunately, man’s sense of scientific achievement has generated in him an attitude of arrogance. If he can control and manipulate certain forces of nature, he ought to be able to regulate his own life in terms of ethics. This ideology has had devastating consequences.

Wars

For much of the past century, on-and-off, to a greater or lesser degree, the United States has been involved in war. World Wars I and II, the Korean conflict, Vietnam, etc., have had a tremendous effect upon society.
Packard argues that modern wars have had a deleterious effect upon our nation in several ways (p. 30). First, wars tear families apart and create situations of isolationism and loneliness. Second, wars have forced women to leave the home environment and seek public jobs, which created a sense of “independence” not previously experienced. Third, modern warfare — especially weaponry of mass destruction — has contributed to the mood of “living for the moment.” The idea of living for the “intensity of the experience” becomes compelling.

Technological Advancement

What a different world it is today from that which our grandparents experienced. In barely a century we’ve come from the world of kerosene lamps and horse-drawn buggies, to the glittering lights of Vegas, and the era of the supersonic jet. We have more time on our hands and more toys to play with than we’ve ever known before.
For centuries man has been trying to discover some way to separate the “recreational” aspects of sex from the “procreative” factor. Beginning in the mid/late 19th century, and continuing to the present, science has helped in achieving that goal. In 1954 two doctors discovered a drug that could be incorporated into a pill which would prevent conception. Within a dozen years, more than 6 million women were on “The Pill.” A new era of sexual liberation was ushered in to an already ailing society. While there is no intrinsic evil in artificially preventing conception, there is no question but that many have felt freer to engage in intimate promiscuity as a result of birth-control techniques.
Advancing technology and the industrialization of society also contributed to the decline of those close family relationships that generally characterized rural America. Such changes, of course, were inevitable with the passing of time; nonetheless, there was an effect upon the family unit. In many families both parents left the home to work and an ever-widening gap between parents and children developed. Studies have shown that the phenomenon of family estrangement has contributed to accelerated sexual experiences (Schofield, pp. 224-56).
Another aspect of technological progress had to do with the entertainment industry. Packard has an entire chapter titled, “The Bombardment of Sexual Stimuli” (pp. 51ff). He traces the evolution of the sexual revolution via the cinema screen, beginning principally in the ’30’s, and accelerating thereafter. The 1940’s was the decade of more brazen “cleavage” exposure, a sign of even more egregious changes to come.
When television came along in the late 1940’s, it brought sexual visualization right into the home. At least 97% of American homes have access to one or more TV sets. While TV started relatively tame (“Rob” and “Laura,” of the Dick Van Dyke show, sleeping in twin beds), there is now a constant stream of sexually explicit language, nudity, licentious situations, etc. Easy access to hard-core video and the pornography of the internet have added to the sordid mixture.
When men and women allow their minds to become saturated with these stimuli, there is bound to be a lifestyle effect. Jesus said that sexual sins begin in the “heart” [mind] (Mark 7:20-23; cf. Proverbs 4:23). When human minds become sexual sewers, can the corruption of society be far behind?

Cultural Shifts

Several cultural changes have contributed to the new “sexual frontier.” We can but touch upon a few brief points.
First, a gradual chasm has developed between the public’s theoretical faith and a practical connection with personal conduct. Numerous people entertain the notion that one may hold a religious “impulse” or “urge,” but that such has no significant relevance to the manner of his life. This “disconnect” accommodates sexual looseness.
Second, youngsters become sexually “sensitive” at progressively tender ages. Anatomically mature dolls, makeup for preteens, sexually accented dress for little girls, etc., puts our youth on the “fast track” much quicker than once was the case.
Third, the independence that youngsters were gradually allowed drastically changed during the early decades of the last century. Now, many young people have a car by the time they’re old enough to secure a driver’s license. They “date” at younger ages, and have little (if any) supervision or limits as to where they may go, or what they may do.
With developing hormones, time on their hands, money, and raw exposure to the crudest images imaginable, is it any wonder that our maturing youth have undergone a metamorphosis?

Is There Any Turning Back?

It would be easy to lapse into a depressive state, and throw up one’s hands in despair. After all, there are few societies — like ancient Nineveh — that do an “about-face” practically overnight (Jonah 3:5ff). It generally takes a tragedy — perhaps even a dramatic collapse — to get a nation’s attention. Our own recent “mini-revival” of religious fervor, in the wake of September 11, 2001, reflects only a ripple of spiritual interest, when there needs to be a cataclysmic turnaround.
But the Christian must not despair. Advances can always be made on the individual level. There are still honest and good hearts among the masses. The following recommendations, we are confident, would help remedy the condition of the soul — both among young and old — in America’s “sexual wilderness.”

The Bible is Authoritative

There must be a rekindling of conviction relative to the authority of the Bible. Until one is persuaded that he is not “a law unto himself,” he will not be prone to alter his lifestyle. While one may argue abstractly for the existence of God based upon certain logical conclusions drawn from nature (cf. Romans 1:20), instruction relative to human conduct must come from concrete revelation, namely, the Scriptures.
Unless, however, one is persuaded that these documents are from God, and are authoritative for living (2 Timothy 3:16-17), he is adrift in a sea of religious/moral confusion.
There is no field of investigation these days more important than a consideration of the various evidences that establish the credibility of the Bible. And there is a “famine” in the land relative to instruction on this vital theme (cf. Amos 8:11).
Parents must take a greater responsibility in teaching their children the great truths of the Bible. Many youngsters today — especially older ones — show zero interest in church Bible classes. They refuse to do homework and they laugh at the idea of memory work. Why do such attitudes prevail? Because the home is no longer a place where the Word of God is revered, read, and discussed. “Church” has taken a back seat to other interests. For many, Christianity has become an occasional weekend exercise to salve the conscience. Such has no power to protect and preserve.

The Power of the Family

Fathers and mothers must attempt to revitalize the closeness of their family relationships. We are so busy that we scarcely have family time for one another any more. Many fathers are “on the road” constantly and see their families mostly on the weekends. Mothers have their own careers. They are not “fulfilled” by the domestic roles of wife and mother.
Children are placed in day-care centers, farmed out to child-care keepers, etc. Many youngsters are emotionally closer to surrogate “parents,” to their school teachers, etc., than they are to their own moms and dads.
Many of our youth know nothing about a good work ethic and contributing to the welfare of the home — as the youngsters of an earlier generation did. Many of our kids are totally “sports” and “entertainment” oriented. There is little wonder they are so ill-equipped to make their way in today’s world.

Respect for Authority

Not altogether disconnected from the previous point is the reality that many parents need to recapture parental authority, and a supervision of the territory they have surrendered to their offspring. The unparalleled freedom that many children enjoy today borders on the criminal.
The fact of the matter is, many parents are afraid of their children. They are afraid that if they are too strict, they will be reported for “child abuse” — either physical or emotional. I personally know of several cases of this very sort. “If you do not let me do as I please,” youngsters have said, “I will report you to the school counsellor.” And mind you well, there are those in positions of authority who are quite amenable to such charges. They like nothing better than to create a furor within a “fundamentalist, right wing, Christian home.”
But the fact is, strict discipline and protective control will never work in a home where there is no closeness and affection. Children must know that their parents love them deeply. There must be an emotional bond. Yes, under the best circumstances youngsters will disagree with parental decisions. They will pout and get angry at times. But they will remain under control if the proper restraints are imposed in an atmosphere of genuine, yet firm, warmth.

Conclusion

A better nation begins with better homes, and Christians must lead the way in the battle. Let us each resolve to do the best we can to remedy the distressing conditions of our beloved country.

How to be delivered from the spirit of masturbation

Solutions

There are several things that honest souls need to know, and work seriously on, if they would overcome this problem, or any similar one, and live pure in the sight of Almighty God.
(1) They must cultivate a love for God with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength (Mark 12:30). Love is the motivating power behind faith and obedience (Galatians 5:6). You can only do this by immersing yourself in the Scriptures and coming to appreciate their authority and value in your personal life. When Jesus was tempted (Matthew 4:1ff), he appealed to “it is written” as his shield.
(2) Study a wealth of Bible texts on self-control, temperance, etc. A good concordance, e.g., Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, can provide a list of passages relating to these topics. A comprehensive Bible dictionary, or a dictionary of Bible theology, can be very helpful on these themes as well.
(3) Become convinced that you really can do all things in him who is able and willing to “strengthen” (the idea of putting power into something) you (Philippians 4:13). Develop confidence in the Lord by coming close to him through the study of his Word every day.
(4) Talk to God in prayer. Plead with him to help you overcome this weakness. He loves you and wants to assist you and lift you out of spiritual slavery.
(5) Find a Christian friend (perhaps an elder, deacon, or minister), or a parent with whom you may confidentially talk. Confess your weakness and ask for encouragement as you fight the sexual battle. Friendly confidants can be a powerful and wonderful source of strength.

Conclusion

In view of the total package of biblical evidence, the Christian will abstain from this self-centered practice. I will close by quoting Dr. Franklin Payne Jr., a physician and professor at the Medical College of Georgia at Augusta, and one who also reveres the authority of the Scriptures and has studied these issues seriously. “Although masturbation is not explicitly called a sin similar to homosexuality (1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10), the spirit of the law does clearly cover it as a sinful practice” (1985, 170).

Is Sexual Self-stimulation Wrong?

Over the past decade, since the Christian Courier website has been operative, many times I have received mail from obviously sincere people professing devout faith in the Christian religion and the conviction that the Scriptures are God’s revelation to man. But they are perplexed and troubled by their own problems—deep problems. I would even characterize some as tormented, and especially with the problem of sexual self-stimulation (commonly termed masturbation). The word generally is defined as: “Stimulation of the genital organs to a climax of excitement.”
I have responded to many of these requests with biblical instruction, and in so doing have become quite weary of the repetitive and disagreeable chore. From these exchanges I have drawn two conclusions. (1) There is a need to write something on this subject. It is rarely discussed in Christian literature. (2) The problem obviously is a common one—even among those who are attempting to live by Christian principles. Thus, without over-burdening the reader with this extremely distasteful theme, I will address it briefly.

Irresponsible Enablers

I must say at the outset that unfortunately it is the case that some, held in high regard in the world of Christendom (some of whom I admire for several of their moral stands) have, in my considered judgment, compromised biblical truth on this issue. They allege that just because the New Testament does not explicitly condemn the practice by name, no one can oppose it legitimately.
For example, in one of his books, the well-known Dr. James Dobson declines to emphatically condemn masturbation on the ground that the Bible is silent about the practice (1978, 86-87). He does counsel that it is unwise if it produces feelings of guilt. Another writer states: “The Christian cannot oppose masturbation on the grounds that . . . Scripture specifically condemns it” (Vincent 1971, 174-176). This is an extremely weak position.
Many feel that masturbation is acceptable for teenagers as a means of sexual gratification rather than engaging in “unsafe” sex. It is viewed either as a “harmless” indulgence, or else the “lesser of two evils.” That is about like saying that smoking marijuana is a lesser evil than sniffing cocaine! These rationalizations, though doubtless well-intentioned, are wholly pragmatic, with no apparent recognition of biblical principle.
I must add, however, that I do not subscribe to the view that several have advanced, that masturbation is the equivalent of “fornication,” and therefore is a just cause for divorce and remarriage. And Jesus’ statement in Matthew 5:28 cannot be manipulated to that end. (See my article Is Lust the Equivalent of Fornication?.

Religious Legalism

The problem with many, regardless of how sincere they are, is that they are “religious legalists.” By that I mean they feel free to operate in a wide range of what they call “freedom.” If there is not a specific command condemning their actions, they feel they are at liberty to proceed with almost anything. Therefore, because the Bible does not explicitly condemn gambling or cheating on a test, these actions must not be viewed as violations of the will of God. Or, on a more “scientific” level, it is alleged that nowhere do the Scriptures overtly censure “human cloning” or “artificial insemination by a donor (AID).” One must recognize that the Bible can condemn a practice in principle. Elsewhere I have observed:

[E]ven though the Scriptures contain the guidelines for making correct ethical decisions, the instruction, from the nature of the case, cannot always be explicit. If the Bible is to be a perpetual and universal textbook for conduct, its teaching must be set forth largely in principles that will be applicable under all circumstances. The devout person will study the Scriptures to identify these principles (Jackson 1994, 49).

Important Principles

Here are some of the principles the dedicated Christian must ponder when considering sexual self-stimulation.
(1) The practice scarcely can be indulged without thoughts of sensuality or “lasciviousness” (Galatians 5:19; see Thayer’s definition of “lasciviousness” – 1958, 79-80).
(2) Masturbation is a self-centered practice that does not acknowledge that sexual gratification has been designed as an act to be shared within marriage. In his first Corinthian epistle, Paul declares that if a person “burns,” i.e., burns “with sexual desire” (Danker et al. 2000, 899), and feels he cannot exercise “continence,” i.e., “sexual restraint”—the control of “the sexual impulse and its satisfaction” (Kittel 1964, 342)—he can pursue a companion for marriage. Otherwise self-control is to be mastered.
(3) Self-stimulation is enslaving. Virtually all of those who have contacted me, bothered about this practice, have stated: “I have tried to stop, but I cannot.” Dr. Jay Adams, a professional counselor who has written dozens of books, says that “masturbation can get such a hold on a child that it can almost drive him out of his mind.” Again: “©ounselors regularly see young people (Christian youth) who are so tangled up in the masturbation problem that they hardly can think about anything else but sex all day long” (1973, 399, 400).
The rationalization defense, “I can’t stop,” is the same complaint of many drug-addicts, drunkards, gamblers and a variety of other self-indulgers. A strong faith in God, and an intense desire to repent, resolve many issues.
In a context that deals with the eating of meats (but proceeds to the general use of one’s body), i.e., whether one is permitted to eat certain meats, or to restrain—in a cultural environment where the eating of meats (e.g., pork) was considered “unclean”—Paul declares his fundamental liberty. Yet under certain circumstances, he will refrain from forbidden meat on the ground of expediency, i.e., when others could be offended, having their consciences violated, and thus be lost (1 Corinthians 6:12ff; cf. 8:11; cf. Romans 14:15).
In this general discussion, the apostle declares: “I will not be brought under the power of any [thing]” (1 Corinthians 6:12). The Greek verb is exousiasthesomai, a passive form, with this meaning: “I will not be enslaved, mastered, or overpowered by anything” (Fee 1987, 253). The principle here has a broad application, including the practice under consideration in this article. In fact, it is not without significance that Paul’s affirmation is within the larger context of sexual indulgence and restraint.

Solutions

There are several things that honest souls need to know, and work seriously on, if they would overcome this problem, or any similar one, and live pure in the sight of Almighty God.
(1) They must cultivate a love for God with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength (Mark 12:30). Love is the motivating power behind faith and obedience (Galatians 5:6). You can only do this by immersing yourself in the Scriptures and coming to appreciate their authority and value in your personal life. When Jesus was tempted (Matthew 4:1ff), he appealed to “it is written” as his shield.
(2) Study a wealth of Bible texts on self-control, temperance, etc. A good concordance, e.g., Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, can provide a list of passages relating to these topics. A comprehensive Bible dictionary, or a dictionary of Bible theology, can be very helpful on these themes as well.
(3) Become convinced that you really can do all things in him who is able and willing to “strengthen” (the idea of putting power into something) you (Philippians 4:13). Develop confidence in the Lord by coming close to him through the study of his Word every day.
(4) Talk to God in prayer. Plead with him to help you overcome this weakness. He loves you and wants to assist you and lift you out of spiritual slavery.
(5) Find a Christian friend (perhaps an elder, deacon, or minister), or a parent with whom you may confidentially talk. Confess your weakness and ask for encouragement as you fight the sexual battle. Friendly confidants can be a powerful and wonderful source of strength.

Conclusion

In view of the total package of biblical evidence, the Christian will abstain from this self-centered practice. I will close by quoting Dr. Franklin Payne Jr., a physician and professor at the Medical College of Georgia at Augusta, and one who also reveres the authority of the Scriptures and has studied these issues seriously. “Although masturbation is not explicitly called a sin similar to homosexuality (1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10), the spirit of the law does clearly cover it as a sinful practice” (1985, 170).

What Is the Meaning of “Not under Bondage” (1 Cor. 7:15)?

Would you address First Corinthians 7:15? Does desertion by a non-believing mate grant the abandoned Christian the right of remarriage?
In First Corinthians, chapter 7, the apostle Paul responds to a number of questions that had been submitted to him by various members of the church at Corinth (cf. 1 Cor. 7:1). Some of these queries had to do with the relationship of a believer who is married to an unbeliever.
For example, should the Christian leave the unbeliever? Paul’s answer was in the negative — not if the unbeliever is content to keep on dwelling with the Christian (7:12-13). The “sanctified” environment of a home in which the influence of the gospel is found could lead to the conversion of the heathen partner (7:14; cf. 1 Pet. 3:1).
But what if the unbeliever should not be content to remain with the Christian, and he “departs” (chorizetai, literally “separates himself”)? What should the Christian do? Paul says that the child of God “is not under bondage” in such cases (7:15).
Some have argued that First Corinthians 7:15 provides a second cause for divorce (in addition to the “fornication” of Matthew 5:32; 19:9), and so, by implication, expands Jesus’ teaching, and authorizes a subsequent remarriage on the ground of “desertion” by an unbelieving mate. This view is commonly called the “Pauline privilege.”
The theory certainly is not a new one; it was advocated by Chrysostom (c. A.D. 347-407), one of the so-called “church fathers.” It became a part of Roman Catholic Canon law, and was defended by Martin Luther. This view, we are convinced, is unwarranted and constitutes a compromise of the Lord’s teaching on divorce and remarriage.

A look at the context

First of all, this theory reads into the context that which simply is not there. Here are the facts. Some of the Corinthian saints had been influenced by a proto-Gnostic philosophy which asserted that sexual relations were intrinsically evil. These brethren, therefore, wanted to know the following:

1. Should a Christian husband and wife separate from (chorizo_) or leave (_aphiemi) each other (10-11)? Paul’s answer was, No; but should a separation occur, celibacy should be maintained, or else a reconciliation effected.
2. Should a Christian leave his unbelieving mate? Again, Paul’s response was, No; not if the unbeliever is willing to remain with the believer (12-13).
3. What if the unbeliever initiates a separation? What should the Christian do? Let him go, the apostle says, the Christian is not enslaved to that mate, so that domestic proximity is absolutely required (15). “Divorce” is not under consideration here. The New Testament term for divorce is apoluo (literally, to loose away; cf. Mt. 5:31-32; 19:3,7-9; Mk. 10:2-4,11-12; Lk. 16:18), and that word is meticulously avoided in First Corinthians 7:10-15.

In the second place, Paul makes it clear that the general theme under consideration in this context had not been comprehensively dealt with by the Lord. The Lord had taught concerning some matters — “not I, but the Lord” (v. 10), but not with reference to other matters — “say I, not the Lord” (v. 12). However, regarding divorce, Christ had spoken comprehensively (note the “whosoever” and “every one” (Mt. 5:31-32; 19:9). Thus, the subject being reviewed in First Corinthians 7:10-15 was not that of divorce.
Thirdly, the word rendered “bondage” (15) is the Greek term douloo, which means “to make a slave of.” Observe how the word is translated in Titus 2:3 — “enslaved to much wine.” Biblically speaking, marriage is never viewed as slavery! The “bondage,” i.e., enslavement, does not refer to the marriage union. If the unbeliever departs, that is not the Christian’s responsibility. The brother or sister is not enslaved to maintain a togetherness (note the allusion of v. 5) at the expense of fidelity to the Lord.
Interestingly, douloo (under bondage) in verse 15 is, in the Greek Testament, a perfect tense form, dedoulotai. The perfect tense denotes a present state resulting from past action. Its force here is this: “was not bound [past action], and is not bound [present state].” The sense of the verse thus is:

Yet if (assuming such should occur) the unbeliever separates himself, let him separate himself: the brother or sister was not [before the departure] and is not [now that the departure has occurred] enslaved ….

Whatever the “bondage” is, therefore, the Christian was not in it, even before the disgruntled spouse left. But the saint was married (and is) to him; hence, the bondage is not the marriage!
Let the reader substitute the word “marriage” for “bondage,” giving the full force to the perfect tense (i.e., “has not been married, and is not married”) and the fallacy of viewing the bondage as the marriage itself will be apparent.
First Corinthians 7:15 does not expand upon the Savior’s teaching with reference to divorce and remarriage, as much as some wish that it were so.

Note

Some contend that the term chorizo is used in verse 15 of divorce. The word is related to choris which means “separately, apart, by itself.” Chorizo simply means to “divide” or “separate” (cf. Rom. 8:35; Heb. 7:26; Philem. 15).
The term is generic, and thus may include divorce, as Matthew 19:6 indicates, but there is no indication that it means divorce in First Corinthians 7:10-11, 15 (though some lexicographers, leaving their areas of expertise and assuming the role of commentators, have so designated it).
Professor Lewis Johnson notes: “It is true that the verb ‘to depart’ in the middle voice [it is middle in verse 15] was almost a technical term for divorce in the papyri … This, however, really proves nothing here” (The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Charles Pfeiffer & Everett Harrison, Eds., Chicago: Moody, 1962, p. 1240).

Addendum: Additional Testimony Regarding First Corinthians 7:15

“We are not, however, to suppose … that the marriage was, in such a case, ipso facto dissolved, so that the believing party might contract a fresh one. This is alike at variance with the letter and spirit of our Lord’s decision (Matt. 5:32); and, indeed, with the Apostle’s own words in this Chapter … the conjugal union is not to be dissolved by reason of difference in religion; yet if the unbelieving party be disposed to separate, the believing party may blamelessly submit to such separation” (S. T. Bloomfield, The Greek New Testament With English Notes, Boston: Perkins & Marvin, 1837, II, p. 119).
“If the heathen husband or wife is resolved upon separation, they must be allowed to separate. The Christian is not a slave in such matters, although the Christian’s duty is to labor for peace and agreement. The separation here spoken of is not a separation allowing the Christian man or woman to marry again during the lifetime of the heathen spouse. It is separation, not divorce” (J.R. Woodford, “The Epistles to the Corinthians,” Commentary on the New Testament, New York: E. & J.B. Young, 1881).
“In such circumstances, where the unbeliever was unwilling for cohabitation, the believing partner did not need to feel bound to persist in seeking reconciliation since God’s calling was to peace, not discord …” (M. J. Harris, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Colin Brown, Ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971, III, p. 535).
“Many have supposed that this means that they would be at liberty to marry again when the unbelieving wife or husband had gone away; … But this is contrary to the strain of the argument of the apostle” (Albert Barnes, First Corinthians, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1956, p. 119).
“We cannot safely argue with Luther that ou dedoulotai implies that the Christian partner, when divorced by a heathen partner, may marry again … All that ou dedoulotai clearly means is that he or she is not so bound by Christ’s prohibition of divorce as to be afraid to depart when the heathen partner insists on separation” (Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, I Corinthians, International Critical Commentary, Edinburgh, T.&T. Clark 1958, p. 143).
“Paul has not said in that verse (7:15) or anywhere else that a Christian partner deserted by a heathen may be married to someone else. All he said is: ‘If the unbeliever departeth, let him depart: the brother or the sister is not under bondage (dedoulotai) in such cases: but God hath called us in peace.’ To say that a deserted person ‘hath not been enslaved’ is not to say that he or she may be remarried. What is meant is easily inferred from the spirit that dominates the whole chapter, and that is that everyone shall accept the situation in which God has called him just as he is … If an unbelieving partner deserts, let him or her desert. So remain” (C. Caverno, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, James Orr, Ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1939, II, p. 866).
“… What does ‘not in bondage’ mean? The fathers, at least to some extent, the Catholic and older Protestant interpreters, understood it to mean not in bondage to keep up the marriage connection, and hence, at liberty to contract a new one. The interpretation has had wide effects. In the canonical law a believing partner was allowed, if thrust away by an infidel one, to marry again; and as the early Protestant theologians extended the rule, by analogy, to malicious desertion in Christian lands, an entrance-wedge was here driven into the older ecclesiastical laws, and much of the shocking facility of divorce in some Protestant countries has flowed from this source. But we reject the interpretation. We hold … that the apostle means ‘not under bondage’ to keep company with the unbeliever at all events, without having the thought of remarriage in mind. This must be regarded, we think, as settled by the soundest modern exegesis” (McClintock, John & Strong, James, Eds., Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological & Ecclesiastical Literature, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968, II, p. 841).

What Is the “Gift” of Celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7:7?

Occasionally, when one of some years and experience believes he has heard about every devious manipulation of scripture that is possible, he must pause and confess that he has not. There is always a new, bizarre twist to some text. Let me introduce you to one of the latest that engaged my attention, resulting in an uncommon degree of dismay. It involves the “gift” of celibacy (1 Corinthians 7:7). Exactly what is this? And how does it relate to one’s sexual conduct?

God’s Law of Divorce and Remarriage

The New Testament teaches that there is but one cause for a divinely sanctioned divorce, with the option to remarry. The cause is fornication (sexual infidelity), and the license to divorce is for the innocent victim whose marriage has been violated by an adulterous spouse. According to Matthew 19:9, the innocent party has the right of divorce and subsequent remarriage, should he/she so choose at some subsequent point in time. Here is what the Lord said:

“Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, and shall marry another, is committing adultery: and he who marries her who has been put away is [also] committing adultery” (Matthew 19:9; cf. 5:32).

Incidentally, the parallel text in Mark’s Gospel provides the same privilege for the woman as Matthew’s account does for the man (cf. Mark 10:12). The rare view that only men have a scriptural right of divorce/remarriage is utterly void of divine sanction.

A New Method of Evasion

A recent writer has adopted a most novel position; one certainly deserving of refutation.
A philanderer adulterated his marriage, and was divorced by his faithful Christian wife. Initially he correctly concluded that he was not free to enter a new marital union. However, a friend ultimately persuaded him that he could remarry — with absolute impunity. What was the argument that convinced him of this option? It was a strange twist to 1 Corinthians 7:7. First, let us reflect upon the background to the text that is being employed to justify the position under review.

The Corinthian Context

First Corinthians, chapter 7, begins Paul’s response to certain questions submitted to him by the saints in Corinth (7:1). In this chapter, the issue revolved around various aspects of marriage. Though the questions are not stated explicitly, they may be deduced somewhat by the advice/answers supplied by the apostle.
For example, if a man is unmarried, but has strong sexual urges, how may he satisfy this legitimate inclination of his body? Might he simply find some woman, perhaps a prostitute, with whom to gratify his desire? Paul’s answer is an unequivocal, “No.” Such, the apostle suggests, would be “fornication” (v. 2) — a sin that will condemn the offender (6:9-10; cf. Galatians 5:19-21, etc.). Paul’s solution is: let him find a wife.
But what if he cannot find an appropriate wife? What should he do? He could keep looking; in the interim, he must remain celibate until he finds one. In the meantime he can work on developing character traits — like “self-control.”
It has long been acknowledged that there are a variety of issues addressed by Paul in this segment of his epistle. Some are binding as law (as in vv. 1-2); on the other hand, at times the apostle offers seasoned, apostolic advice.
In several instances he counsels against marriage. This was not a mere exaltation of celibacy as a life-style of superior merit; rather, it was on account of some very difficult times that lay ahead for these Christians. Note the following.
Paul speaks of a “distress” (persecution) that already was underway (v. 26). There would be a “tribulation in the flesh” (v. 28). These days would be characterized by “cares” or anxieties (v. 32). The hardships would create a “distraction” for those attempting to maintain their fidelity to Jesus (v. 35). Hence, it could be “better” not to be involved in marital unions under such circumstances (v. 38). One certainly might be “happier” if he did not have to witness a precious companion suffering persecution (v. 40). Such could test his faith severely.

Self-Control

Within this discussion is a consideration of the matter of “incontinency” (vv. 5-7). The Greek word is akrasia, literally “not controlled.” Its opposite is enkrateia, self-controlled (later cataloged as one of the qualifications of an elder — Titus 1:8). These terms distinguish the person who has his desires/emotions under control, versus the one who does not. Vile persons who make no attempt to exercise “self-control” are to be avoided by Christian people (2 Timothy 3:3). The Greeks considered the control of one’s passions “an essential virtue for the honest person” (C. Spicq, Theological Lexicon of the New Testament, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, Vol. 1, p. 60).
As a part of the discussion, apparently some of the Corinthian Christians wanted to know if it was permissible for a husband and wife to remain apart sexually for a period of time. The apostle replied that such would be allowed, provided there is the mutual agreement of both parties. The goal was that they might be focused more upon spiritual concerns. He advised (v. 5), however, that their celibacy not be protracted too long, lest in their “incontinency,” they should be tempted to engage in some sexually immoral act.
Out of this background Paul expresses the wish that all Christians were as he was, i.e., able to live the celibate life in view of the tribulations that were descending upon them. He recognized, however, “that each man has his own gift from God, one of one kind, and one of another” (v. 7).

The Perverted Argument

Now we are down to the main point. Some suggest that while the divorced fornicator generally is not authorized to marry, if he/she does not possess God’s “gift” of self-control, then he/she is permitted to go forward and enter a new “marital” arrangement.
Let us carefully analyze the logic employed in this specious argument.

1. Who is to say otherwise if the divorced fornicator simply says: “God did not give me the ‘gift’ of self-control; thus I am free to seek a new companion”? The claim becomes the authority for the act.
2. If the divorced fornicator decides to enter an “adulterous” relationship, is not God to blame for the sin, since supposedly he did not provide the “gift” of self-control to the fornicating person — either during the marriage, or after the divorce?
3. What if a single person decides that he/she has not been given the “gift” of self-control, but cannot find a suitable marriage partner? Can he/she, under the rationale cited above, find someone to assist with the intemperance “problem,” until a proper marriage partner comes along?

The Nature of the “Gift”

The truth of the matter is, God frequently is said to be the “giver” of certain qualities, simply because he has provided the means and motivation for the cultivation of the desirable traits. Such does not mean, however, that he drops some “gift” from heaven unconditionally, i.e., irrespective of one’s personal volitional exercise.
Salvation is God’s gift (Romans 6:23), but redemption is accessed by one’s obedience to Christ (Hebrews 5:9), not simply as an unconditional bestowal. Repentance is said to be a gift from God (Acts 11:18), but repentance (i.e., sorrow for sin and a resolution to abandon one’s evil conduct) must be an act of response on man’s part (Luke 13:3; Acts 2:38; 17:30), and such is a difficult, on-going effort.
Several “gifts” are said bestowed upon some Christians, one is that of “generously contributing” to the Lord’s cause (Romans 12:6-8). There seems to be a considerable number of church members who are convinced they have never been bequeathed the “gift” of being generous contributors to the advancement of the gospel. Does one suppose that they are exempt from the demands of 1 Corinthians 16:2 for lack of the “gift”? Why didn’t Ananias and Sapphira think of that (Acts 5:1ff)?
The argument under consideration constitutes a twisting of scripture of the worst sort (cf. 2 Peter 3:16), and those attempting to justify sinful conduct thereby ought to abandon the disposition immediately and seek Heaven’s pardon.

Should a Christian Marry Outside the Faith?

By Wayne Jackson

Is it wrong for a Christian to marry outside the faith? If so, how does he or she repent?

This is a multifaceted question and it would not do it justice to answer it hastily. A preliminary foundation must be laid. We would offer the following thoughts for careful study.
First of all, we must observe that marriage is a sacred relationship which was initiated by the Creator for the benefit of humanity as a whole (Genesis 2:18ff). Any two eligible people (male and female, unfettered by a previous marital tie) may enter into this divine relationship with the assurance that the union is recognized by God. This is a universal circumstance, and has been since the beginning of time (though a lower marriage standard was tolerated in the pre-Christian ages [cf. Matthew 19:8]).
Paul acknowledged that some of the Corinthian saints had been guilty of the sin of adultery prior to the time of their conversion (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). Since adultery is the violation of a marriage covenant, this clearly implies that these folks were married—even during their pagan days. The New Testament nowhere suggests, even remotely, that marriage pertains to Christians only (cf. Hebrews 13:4). The marriage relationship, therefore, is not a “church sacrament,” as alleged in Roman Catholic theology.
In view of this, it is clear that a marriage between a Christian and a non-Christian is a union that is not to be severed strictly on that basis. To the contrary, if one finds himself in a relationship of that nature, he or she should work very hard to convert that unbelieving companion to the Lord (1 Corinthians 7:12ff; 1 Peter 3:1ff).
Having noted the above, however, there are additional factors that must be taken into consideration. Let us preview some of these:
Every knowledgeable Bible student is aware that the general tone of Scripture, from the beginning of its composition till completion, has been to discourage believers from entering into marriage bonds with those who do not share the true faith—though biblical history provides us with many examples of those who did not respect this sacred ideal (cf. Genesis 6:2; 24:3; 26:34-35; 28:1; Exodus 34:11-16; Deuteronomy 7:1-5; Judges 14:1-3; 1 Kings 11, etc.). The purpose behind such divine instruction clearly had a spiritual thrust—rather than that of maintaining a pure blood line, as is contended occasionally.
In the post-Babylonian captivity period, 113 Hebrew men were required to put away the pagan women they had married while in that heathen land (Ezra 10:10-11). This is a relatively small number when one considers the fact that the whole population contained approximately forty thousand adult males. This procedure, which clearly was more restrictive than the New Testament instruction for today (as mentioned above [1 Corinthians 7:12ff; 1 Peter 3:1ff]), was possibly an emergency measure required in a time of great danger—a danger during a critical period of history when the Messianic plan was ever closer to reaching fruition (Galatians 4:4).
There was, under the Mosaic law, a provision for how a foreign, captive woman could be taken by a Hebrew for a wife (Deuteronomy 21:10-14), though this procedure did not represent the highest spiritual plateau in the divine plan.
Every divinely designed institution of human history was intended, ultimately, for the implementation of Heaven’s plan for human salvation. This certainly was true with reference to the home. If such was the case regarding marriage as an institution, is the principle any less valid for the spiritual welfare of the individual Christian?
There are several New Testament passages which lend their support to the proposition that Christians ought to marry only those of like precious faith:
(1) In the sermon on the mount, Jesus admonished his disciples to put the kingdom of Christ “first” (proton) in their lives. The adverb suggests that the interests of the Lord should be “above all” else (Bromiley 1985, 966). Can anyone honestly contend that the child of God who unites himself with the unbeliever in the most intimate of all human relationships is granting the reign of Christ the most exalted place in his or her life?
Numerous Christians can testify to the fact that their spiritual lives have been made infinitely more difficult since yoking themselves with those who do not share a commitment to God, to say nothing of bringing children into an environment where there are divergent spiritual influences. The fact that some Christians have converted their unbelieving mates eventually is wonderful indeed; that circumstance, however, hardly stacks up against the many more instances of disciples who have weakened under such a strain, ultimately abandoning their devotion to the Savior.
(2) In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul says that the Christian widow should marry “in the Lord” (1 Corinthians 7:39). Some have suggested that the language, grammatically speaking, is adverbial, thus modifying the verb “marry,” rather than being adjectival, i.e., identifying the status of the marriage partner. The meaning of the phrase, then, is supposed to be that she is to marry in harmony with the Lord’s will, i.e., in such a way as to not surrender her faith.
Such a grammatical distinction hardly dissolves the difficulty. Is it the Lord’s will that his people form intimate unions with those who have little, if any, sympathy for his redemptive purpose? Is the Savior pleased when his follower subordinates the highest of spiritual interests to those that primarily are physical and emotional?
I have never encountered the gospel preacher who will encourage the Christian to marry an unbeliever. Why is that? Such entanglements generally are characterized as unwise, foolish, dangerous, etc.; yet apologists for these mismatches sometimes contend that there is no spiritual deficiency at all in making such foolish choices. Such a view, in my judgment, has a focus that is much too narrow, i.e., it looks only at the validity of the union itself and does not consider a broader range of issues (e.g., motive and eternal aspiration).
Most scholars, it would appear to me, are either unaware of or unpersuaded by the adverbial argument. The phrase monon en kurio (“only in [the] Lord”) is generally viewed as signifying that she is to seek a Christian companion.

• Arndt and Gingrich suggested that “marry in the Lord = marry a Christian” (1967, 259).
• Harold Mare asserts that the phrase means “the woman should marry only a Christian” (1976, 237).
• Marion Soards writes that these women “are to marry Christian men” (1999, 165).
• Ellicott notes that Paul’s phrase “distinctly implies that it is to be a marriage with a Christian” (1887, 139).
• Fitzmyer contends that “only in the Lord” means “marry a Christian” (Horst Balz & Gerhard Schneider, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, 1991, 2:442).

This clearly is the prevailing view among Greek authorities and Bible expositors. (For further study Woods 1976, 91.)
A study of Paul’s use of “in the Lord” (or an equivalent expression) elsewhere is very illuminating. For instance, “in the Lord” is parallel to being a “saint” in Romans 16:2.
We might add this thought: if such was Paul’s instruction with reference to the experienced widow, would a more relaxed view have been entertained regarding the marriage of the even more vulnerable young virgin?
(6) Later in 1 Corinthians, Paul argues the case for supporting gospel preachers and their families. In connection therewith, he asks:

Do we [Paul and Barnabas] not have a right to lead about a wife who is a sister, as do also the other apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? (9:5).

The apostle could have made his point about family support without the inclusion of the word adelphen (“sister”); there obviously is a subtle suggestion in the employment of that term.
(7) In his second Corinthian letter, the inspired apostle charged: “Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers” (6:14). Some have attempted to exclude marriage from this warning. They argue that since the Greek construction “be not” carries the force of “stop,” and since Paul had forbade the believer to leave an unbelieving companion simply on that basis (1 Corinthians 7:12ff), the context cannot be applied to marriage (Thompson 1970, 94).
But the use of the negative particle here does not demand the interpretation so ascribed. If the apostle had heard the report that some of the Corinthian saints were entering into unions with pagans, he might well have written a caution, “Stop this practice,” without suggesting that once the union is formed it must be dissolved. A. T. Robertson renders the phrase “Stop becoming . . . unequally yoked.” He says: “Marriage is certainly included, but other unions may be in mind” (Word Pictures, 1931, IV:236). Many expositors suggest that this context involves a warning against spiritually mixed marriages. In fact, this is the most common view of this passage.
Finally, then, there is this question: what should one do when he realizes that, in marrying out of Christ, the primary interests of the Lord’s kingdom were not pursued?
The answer is simple: repent of the disposition that led to that decision, and then set your mind toward the goal of making seek-the-kingdom-first choices henceforth in your life. There are many circumstances in our lives which are irreversible. Is it not possible that one could realize that he did not approach some of his earlier decisions with the highest of ideals?
There is nothing wrong with asking God’s forgiveness for such superficial choices, resolving to make more spiritually responsible determinations in the future and working then to make the very best of one’s present situation.
This, we believe, is a balanced view of this subject, which takes into consideration a broader variety of factors than some may have considered previously.