Response to Steve Wallace - NPUC Adventist Leaders



Report

of the Seminary committee called at the request of the

North Pacific Union Conference to evaluate certain views of Steve Wallace

December 26, 2006

Committee: Richard Davidson (chair), Merlin Burt (secretary), Gerard Damsteegt, Jo Ann Davidson, Roy Gane, Miroslav Kis, Larry Lichtenwalter, Jerry Moon, Dan Serns.

On November 6, 2006, beginning about 9:00 a.m., Steve Wallace presented to the committee at the Seminary on the campus of Andrews University in Berrien Springs, Michigan, two papers titled, “It is good for a man not to touch a woman [1 Cor 7:1],” and “As though they had none [1 Cor 7:29].” His presentations were followed by several hours of dialogue. The same evening and during the following day, committee members spent many hours, both individually and together, preparing a response presented to Steve on November 8. In the following weeks some additions and modifications were made. The rationale for the meeting was Ellen White’s statement in Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, 293: “There are a thousand temptations in disguise prepared for those who have the light of truth; and the only safety for any of us is in receiving no new doctrine, no new interpretation of the Scriptures, without first submitting it to the brethren of experience. Lay it before them in a humble teachable spirit, with earnest prayer; and if they see no light in it, yield to their judgment; for ‘in the multitude of counselors there is safety.’”

This report covers the following areas:

1. The Divine Design for Marriage and Sexuality

2. Sexuality and Procreation

3. Sexuality, Holiness, and Impurity in Ancient Israel

4. Sexuality in 1 Corinthians 7

5. Ellen G. White’s Position on Marriage and Sexuality

6. Personal Appeal

The Divine Design for Marriage and Sexuality

Gen 1-2 sets forth God’s original design for human sexuality, and these first two chapters of Scripture constitute the foundation for the rest of the biblical treatment of the subject. Genesis 2:24 presents a succinct theology of marriage and sexuality: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.” The introductory "therefore" indicates that the relationship of Adam and Eve is upheld as the pattern for all future human sexual relationships. Significant insights into the nature of the divine ideal for sexual relationships emerge from this verse.

First, man leaves (Hebrew ‘azab). The “leaving” of Gen 2:24 indicates the necessity of absolute freedom from outside interferences that would encroach upon the independence of the sexual relationship. Just as the protection of boundaries around the relationship was essential in the Garden, so it is crucial in all succeeding sexual relationships to form a distinct family unit publicly recognized and respected by the couple’s families, the community of faith, and the society at large.

Second, man cleaves (Hebrew dabaq). The original imagery of the Hebrew word is that of “clinging, sticking, remaining physically close, as girdle to loin, as skin to flesh and flesh to bone.” In the OT it is often used as a technical covenant term for the permanent bond of Israel to the Lord (See, e.g., Deut 10:20; 11:22; 13:4; Josh 22:5; 23:8). As applied to the relationship between the sexes in Gen 2:24, it clearly indicates a covenant context, i.e., a mutual commitment of the couple expressed in a formal marriage covenant, paralleling the oath of solidarity and language of covenant partnership expressed by Adam to Eve (v. 23). But as was true with Adam, more is involved here than a formal covenant. The word dabaq also emphasizes the inward attitudinal dimensions of the covenant bond, a devotion and unshakable faith between the marriage partners, mutual steadfast love, goodwill, fidelity, and commitment to permanence.

Third, man and woman “become one flesh.” Note that this “one-flesh” union follows the “cleaving” and thus comes within the context of the marriage covenant. The unitive purpose of sexuality is to find fulfillment inside the marital relationship. The “one-flesh” relationship certainly involves the sexual union, sexual intercourse. The physical act of coitus is the primary means of establishing the innermost mystery of oneness. Notice that according the “therefore” of this passage, the “one-flesh” experience designed for all marriages in the future was one which Adam and Even had experienced in the Garden of Eden, and thus sexual intercourse was clearly part of their unitive relationship before the Fall, as well as their relationship after leaving the Garden (Gen 4:1; the phrase “Adam knew Eve” is better translated as a pluperfect, “Adam had known Eve,” and does not necessarily refer to the first time one has intercourse [see 1 Sam 1:19 and Nahum Sarna’s JPS Torah Commentary on Genesis, 31]).

The “one flesh” experience is not limited to sexual intercourse. The term basar “flesh” in the Old Testament refers not only to one's physical body but is a term used to indicate human relationship and a person's whole existence in the world (e.g., Gen 29:14; 37:27; Lev 18:6; 25:49; Judg 9:2; 2 Sam 5:1; 19:13-14; 1 Chr 11:1; Isa 40:5). By “one flesh” is thus connoted not only sexual union, but mutual dependence and reciprocity in all areas of life, a unity that embraces the natural lives of two persons in their entirety. It indicates a oneness and intimacy in the total relationship of the whole person of the husband to the whole person of the wife. Gen 2:24c does not imply that the one-fleshness is an instantaneously achieved state. The phrase “they shall be one flesh” is better rendered “they shall become one flesh,” implying a process of growth in intimacy, unity and fulfillment in all aspects of their lives.

Sexuality and Procreation

It is clear from Gen 1:28 that one of the purposes of sexuality is procreation, as indicated in the words “Be fruitful and multiply.” But what is particularly noteworthy is that human procreativity is not presented as a manifestation of humanity’s creation in God's image. Rather, human procreative ability is removed from being directly linked to God's image and shifted to a special word of blessing. Procreation is thus shown to be part of the divine design for human sexuality, as a special added blessing to be taken seriously and acted upon freely and responsibly in the power that attends God's blessing. But at the same time the text makes clear that sexuality cannot be wholly subordinated to the intent to propagate children. Sexual differentiation has meaning apart from the procreative purpose. The procreative blessing is also pronounced upon the birds and fish on the fifth day (v. 22), but only humankind is made in the image of God. Gen 1 emphasizes that the sexual distinction in humankind is created by God particularly for fellowship, for relationship, between male and female.

The significance of the unitive purpose of sexuality is highlighted in Gen 2 by the complete absence of any reference to the propagation of children. This omission is not to deny the importance of procreation (as becomes apparent in later chapters of Scripture). But by the full-stop after “one-flesh” in v. 24 sexuality is given independent meaning and value. It does not need to be justified only as a means to a superior end, i.e., procreation. The statement developed by General Conference World Commission on Human Sexuality in 1997 highlights this biblical understanding: “The Scripture affirms sexual pleasure between husband and wife for its unitive purposes, apart from procreation” (quoted in Karen and Ron Flowers, Human Sexuality: Sharing the Wonder of God’s Good Gift with Your Children [Silver Spring, MD: General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists Department of Family Ministries, 2004], 5).

Far from denying “sex for pleasure” as a legitimate function of marriage, Scripture upholds this purpose in the most dynamic terms. For example, the inspired wise man is not ashamed to employ expressions of frank eroticism and ecstatic pleasure to describe the divinely-designed sexual relationship. He counsels without hesitation:

Be grateful for your own fountain,

and have your pleasure with the wife of your youth;

a lovable doe! A sweet little mountain goat!

May her breasts always intoxicate you!

May you ever find rapture in loving her! (Prov 5:18–19, AB)

Physical sensuousness—a husband’s joyous satisfaction (rawah, literally “drenching, saturation”) with his wife’s breasts, and exhilarating pleasure—his continuous (tamid) “staggering intoxication” (shagah) with her love—such is the portrait of wholesome, God-ordained sexuality, with no hint that this must be only experienced within the context of a procreative function.

This understanding of the unitive purpose of sexuality within marriage is underscored most conspicuously in the Song of Songs, which is widely recognized as an inspired commentary on Gen 1-2. The Song contains no reference to the procreative function of sexuality. As in the Creation account of Gen 2, the sexual experience within marriage is not linked with the utilitarian intent to propagate children. Love-making for the sake of love, not procreation, is the message of the Song. This is not to imply that Canticles is hostile to the procreative aspect of sexuality: the lovers allude to the beauty of their own conception (Cant 3:4; 8:2) and birth (Cant 6:9; 8:5). But in the Song sexual union, with its intense sensual pleasure, is given value on its own, without need to justify it as a means to some superior (procreative) end.

The New Testament, including the writings of Paul, continues to uphold this unitive function of sexuality as primary (see Matt 19:4-6; Eph 5:22-33; Heb 13:4), and does not make any distinction between “procreative sexual intercourse” and “non-procreative sexual intercourse,” proclaiming one as God’s will and the other as not.

Sexuality, Holiness, and Impurity in Ancient Israel

When the people of Israel were preparing to meet God at Mt. Sinai, God gave the command: “Do not come near your wives” (Exod 19:15). Similarly, various genital discharges described in Lev 12 and 15, including even normal sexual intercourse, rendered both sexual partners “unclean” (ame’) until evening. Why was this so, and what implications does this have for us today?

A verse in the concluding summary of Lev 15 gives an explicit answer (v. 31): “Thus you shall separate (hip‘il of nzr) the children of Israel from their uncleanness, lest they die in their uncleanness when they defile (pi‘el inf. const. of m’) My tabernacle that is among them.” The motifs of “separation” and “defilement of sanctuary” lead to the overarching rationale of holiness as “separation (from and to).” Thus even those perfectly normal and typical genital functions/activities connected with sexual activity or the birthing process were distanced from the sanctuary to signify a clear separation between sex and cult. This appears to be at the heart of the reason why abstinence from sexual intercourse was required for those entering into the holy presence of Yahweh at Mt. Sinai or in the midst of sanctuary (Exod 19:10–11, 14–15; cf. 1 Sam 21:4–7; 2 Sam 11:11). This also explains why even nocturnal emission rendered a soldier ritually unclean in the holy presence of Yahweh who “walks in the midst of your [war] camp, to deliver you and give your enemies over to you; therefore your camp shall be holy, that He may see no unclean thing among you, and turn away from you” (Deut 23:14; cf. vv. 10–13). As Frymer-Kensky puts it, “All hints of sexuality were kept far away from cultic life and religious experience.

The separation of sexuality and cult is also embedded in the impurity provisions of the sacral laws. Israel’s impurity rules were intended to keep intact the essential divisions of human existence: holy and profane, life and death” (Tikva Frymer-Kensky, “Law and Philosophy: The Case of Sex in the Bible,” Semeia 45 [1989]: 91).

Hyam Maccoby broadens the polemical restriction to include the whole birth-death cycle of mortality. His entire argument is worth quoting:

Everything that is a feature of the cycle of birth and death must be banished from the Temple of the God who does not die and was not born. Not that there is anything sinful about birth and death, which are the God-given lot of mankind. But the one place in the world which has been allotted for the resting of the Divine Presence must be protected from mortality. When entering the Temple, one is entering the domain of eternity.

[T]his cycle of birth and death . . . is the basis of chthonic [related to the underworld] religion, in which the deity himself/herself is subject to the cycle of birth and death, thereby providing salvation to worshipers, who thereby become divinized. By bringing God down into the world of birth, death and rebirth, the worshiper hopes to escape the cycle, cross the barrier between the human and divine, and achieve immortality.

. . . Judaism divested the cycle of birth and death of divine significance and thereby released humans from the quest for divinity. They were released into humanity, accepting birth and death as their lot, but pursuing human aims as sanctified by the God of Heaven, who did not ask them to transcend humanity, but instead to worship Him as the sole transcendent Being.” (Hyam Maccoby, Ritual and Morality: The Ritual Purity System and its Place in Judaism [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999], 207).

In his paper titled, “as though they had none,” Steve Wallace argues that the impurity of seminal emissions, including that which occurs at sexual intercourse (Lev 15:16-18), applies today along with all the other impurities in Leviticus, which do not belong to the ceremonial law. The ceremonial law is restricted to “types” pointing to Christ and his sacrifice.

Wallace’s point does not accord with the biblical data. The fact that remedies for other physical impurities in the same chapter of Leviticus (Lev 15) and elsewhere in Leviticus and Numbers require animal sacrifices officiated by priests at the earthly sanctuary shows that such impurities functioned within that ancient context, when such remedies were available, which they are not now because there is no valid, functioning earthly sanctuary/temple. These impurities were not sins, as shown by the fact that those who received atonement/expiation for them needed only purification, not forgiveness (see, for example, Lev 12:6-8). The purpose of identifying and treating remediable physical ritual impurities in ancient Israel was to keep the holiness of the resident Shekinah/life-giver and everything that pertained to him separate from and undefiled by association with physical conditions that emphasized the birth-death cycle of mortality (compare Hyam Maccoby, Ritual and Morality).

The laws of Lev 12 –15—dealing with uncleanness from genital discharge (as well as the laws of leprosy and scale disease)—all involve temporary uncleanness, and are inextricably connected with divine prohibitions from entering the sanctuary till the uncleanness has been resolved. Thus this kind of uncleanness may correctly be called “ritual” (or ceremonial) uncleanness—uncleanness that prevents the participation in the rituals of the sanctuary services. Such a connection implies a built-in “statute of limitations” that rendered the laws inapplicable or obsolete when the sanctuary and the resident Shekinah was no longer present with His people. The NT call to “touch not the unclean” (2 Cor 6:17) has no reference to the ritual uncleanness of the OT which was part of the ceremonial law that came to an end with the death of Christ.

The ancient Israelite system of impurities and remedies for them was all part of the ceremonial/ritual law of ancient Israel, which is no longer necessary now that the earthly sanctuary/temple has been replaced by the heavenly temple as the focus of our worship (compare Heb 7-10, etc.). Today the marriage bed is not defiled by any ritual impurity; it can only be defiled by the moral evils of fornication and adultery (Heb 13:4).

Wallace also argues that self-denial like that which the Israelites were to practice on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:29, 31; 23:27-32, etc.) applies today because we are living in the end-time Day of Atonement. Since such self-denial includes abstinence from sex, this abstinence applies today.

It is true that self-denial probably could include abstinence from sex (compare Num 30:13 [Hebrew verse 14]), and it was interpreted this way by the Mishnah in the context of the Day of Atonement (Yoma 8). However, while the Christian life today undoubtedly calls for various kinds of sacrifice and self-denial, the specific requirements to abstain from all food and work on the Day of Atonement, along with other mourning activities implied by “self-denial,” involved participation in the ritual worship system of ancient Israel, which no longer exists.

In the antitypical Day of Atonement in which we now live, there is indeed a call for an attitude of self-denial, as depicted in Isa 58 (which is given in the context of the Day of Atonement; cf. the language of Day of Atonement in v. 3 “afflict your souls,” “day of your fast”). But note that this self-denial, as elucidated in Isa 58, is focused upon acts of unselfish humanitarian service, and has no reference to abstinence from sexual activity. The fasting and prayer called for in Joel 2 does refer to the bridegroom and bride going out of their wedding chamber (v. 16), but this is in the context of a call to all people, including “children and nursing babies” to appear at a “sacred assembly” at the sanctuary, and does not call for a cessation of sexual intercourse among married people in the last days.

Obviously modern Christians must eat, work, and procreate during an extended end-time Day of Atonement that lasts for many years. Rather than practicing self-denial and abstaining from work in the same way the ancient Israelites did, our end-time duty is to “keep the commandments of God and hold fast to the faith of Jesus” (Rev 14:12—third angel’s message). The commandments contain the Sabbath (abstaining from work), which is a sign that God sanctifies his people (Exod 31:13) by love, which is holiness (1 Thess 3:12-13), and God’s commandments are love (Matt 22:37-40) because they reflect God’s character of love (1 Jn 4:8), which he pours into our hearts through his Spirit (Rom 5:5), who gives us the Latter Rain (Joel 2) and empowers us to preach the Gospel in all the world (Matt 24:14) by giving us a miraculously powerful burden for souls that enables us to be “Elijah” instruments of reconciliation between family members (Mal 4:5-6).

If ever there were a time to “focus on the family” and for Seventh-day Adventist ministers of the Gospel to model truly healthy families, it is now. To do this requires the humble faith of Jesus, who humbled himself by denying himself on behalf of the whole human family (Philipp 2:8). This is, speaking generally, present truth!

For a lot more detail on these and other topics relating to Leviticus, sacrifices, impurities, the Day of Atonement, sexuality, etc., see books by Roy Gane: Altar Call (Berrien Springs, MI: Diadem, 1999), Leviticus, Numbers (NIV Application Commentary; Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 2004—on modern applicability of biblical laws, see pp. 305-314), and Cult and Character: Purification Offerings, Day of Atonement, and Theodicy (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005).

Sexuality in 1 Corinthians 7

In his papers titled, “It is good for a man not to touch a woman” and “as though they had none,” Steve Wallace attempts to build a case for interpreting 1 Corinthians 7 as teaching that God’s highest ideal for Christian marriage includes sexual abstinence between married partners except for procreation. He bases this on several points:

1. He takes the words in verse 1, “it is good for a man not to touch a woman,” as applying to married men because subsequent verses discuss marriage.

2. In verse 1 he takes the Greek word hapto, translated “touch,” to refer to non-procreative sex for the purpose of self-gratification (in contrast to “know” [Hebrew yada‘], which he sees as referring to procreative sex).

3. He takes verses 2-5 as a less-than-ideal concession to the spiritual/moral weakness of the Corinthian believers (verse 6—“But this I say by way of concession, not of command). The concession is introduced in verse 2: “each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.” Here Wallace interprets “have” like “touch” in verse 1 as referring to non-procreative sex. So even though the ideal excludes this activity (verse 1), Paul allows it as a concession to human weakness (verses 2-6).

4. Wallace interprets verse 29 (“But this I say, brethren, the time has been shortened, so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none”) to mean that now (2006 A.D.) married men should live with their wives as if they were not married, i.e., with sexual abstinence.

These points do not stand up to scrutiny. First, several exegetes suggest that the words in the second half of 1 Corinthians 7:1, “it is good for a man not to touch a woman,” are most likely not Paul’s expression of an ideal because they are likely not his words at all, but rather, a quotation from a written message to him by the Corinthian believers (see the first half of the same verse and punctuation of the second half of the verse in translations such as NRSV, NKJV, NIV, etc.). If they are Paul’s words, the contrast (Greek de, “but”) between verses 1 and 2 is between inappropriate, immoral sexual contact between any members of the opposite sex (verse 2—“because of immoralities…”) and legitimate sexual contact within marriage. So the ideal would be not to engage in sex outside marriage. In context, verse 1 does not indicate any constraint on married sex.

Second, the semantic ranges of Greek and Hebrew words cited by Wallace do not support a distinction between procreative versus non-procreative sex. Greek hapto, “touch,” is not limited to sexual contact within marriage (see the Septuagint of Gen 20:4, 6, 11; Prov 6:29 in contexts of adultery or contemplated adultery). Nor can it be limited to non-procreative sex, as shown by the fact that the Hebrew verb qarab, “approach (including sexual approach as a euphemism for sexual relations),” which is translated by hapto in the Septuagint of Gen 20:4, is used in Isaiah 8:3 of intercourse between Isaiah and his wife that results in her pregnancy. Nor is Hebrew yada’, “know (including sexually)” limited to procreative sex, as shown by Gen 19:5, where the Sodomites want to homosexually “know” the male guests of Lot.

Third, in the context of 1 Corinthians 7, Paul’s “concession” rather than “command” in verse 6 is to marry (verses 2-5) rather than to remain single as he has chosen to be (verses 7-8).

Paul’s counsel in 1 Cor 7 is consistent with counsel elsewhere in Scripture and his own writings. In the statement “It is good for a man not to touch a woman” (1 Cor 7:1), the verb “to touch” (haptesthai, pres. inf. middle of hapto) does not specify only “non-procreative sex” but is an inclusive euphemism for having sexual intercourse (see the use in Josephus, Antiquities, 1, 163, and the LXX usage in Gen 20:6 and Prov 6:29). Furthermore, the phrase “have his own wife” in v. 2 is not another euphemism for “non-procreative sex” but constitutes the normal terminology for marriage (see v. 29; Matt 14:4; 22:28; John 4:18; 1 Cor 5:1 likewise refers to marriage, or living together as married, in which a man lived with his stepmother as husband and wife). Paul’s intention in 1 Cor 7 is not to contrast “procreative sex” with “non-procreative sex”, but to recommend celibacy to those Corinthians who have the gift to receive it (v. 7), in a situation of impending crisis (v. 26), in contrast to the normal, God-given institution of marriage.

The word “good” in the context of v. 1 does not mean the “moral ideal” but rather that which is suggested by Paul as commendable in the specific case of the Corinthians because of their specific situation facing an impending crisis (see F. W. Grosheide, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICOT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976], 154). The “concession clause” in vv. 2-5 does not give temporary permission for immature Corinthians to engage in non-procreative sex-for-mere pleasure, even though it is not God’s ideal. It is rather intended to give permission for unmarried people who wish to marry, if they do not have the gift of celibacy, to go ahead and marry, in the specific context of the impending crisis that looms before them. Paul insists that if one is married, he/she is not to practice abstinence from sex in marriage, except by mutual consent on the part of both marriage partners, and then only for a brief, pre-determined period to give time for special fasting and prayer (v. 3-5). It is clear from the Greek grammar that some were engaged in permanent “continence” in marriage, and Paul emphatically denounces such a practice: “Do not continue to deprive one another” (v. 5)! Paul is clear that in the marriage relation “the husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights (Greek, opheile, literally “what is due”), and likewise the wife to her husband” (v. 3).

In response to Wallace’s fourth point, 1 Corinthians 7:29 must be read in continuation with verses 30 and 31a, which Wallace has omitted in his quotation of the passage in his “as though they had none” document. Verses 29-31 are:

29) But this I say, brethren, the time has been shortened, so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none;

30) and those who weep, as though they did not weep; and those who rejoice, as though they did not rejoice; and those who buy, as though they did not possess;

31) and those who use the world, as though they did not make full use of it; for the form of this world is passing away. (NASB ’95 update here and below).

These verses poetically describe chaotic times associated with the very end of the age. If we now take literally the words in verse 29, “those who have wives should be as though they had none,” with Wallace as a command to abandon marital functionality at the present time, what do the following verses mean if we interpret them in similar literal fashion in order to be consistent? Does this mean that the time for weeping, rejoicing, and possessing property is now past? Ellen G. White’s comment on this passage is illuminating:

“There is in itself no sin in eating and drinking, or in marrying and giving in marriage. It was lawful to marry in the time of Noah, and it is lawful to marry now, if that which is lawful is properly treated, and not carried to sinful excess. But in the days of Noah, men married without consulting God, or seeking his guidance and counsel. So it is at the present day; marriage ceremonies are made matters of display, extravagance, and self-indulgence. But if the contracting parties are agreed in religious belief and practice, and everything is consistent, and the ceremony be conducted without display and extravagance, marriage at this time need not be displeasing to God. “But this I say, brethren, the time is short; it remaineth that both they that have wives be as though they had none; and they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not; and they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.” {RH, September 25, 1888 par. 6}

“The fact that all the relations of life are of a transitory nature, should have a modifying influence on all we do and say. In Noah's day it was the inordinate, excessive love of that which in itself was lawful, when properly used, that made marriage sinful before God. There are many who are losing their souls in this age of the world, by becoming absorbed in the thoughts of marriage, and in the marriage relation itself. In the days of Noah the people indulged the appetite and the baser passions, until they were an abhorrence in the sight of the holy God. They became the slaves of that which was vile, and they made a god of this world. The inhabitants of the earth are doing the same thing today. Eating, drinking, and amusement are the supreme order of the time. Men do not manifest an interest in the things that pertain to their eternal welfare.

“God has placed men in the world, and it is their privilege to eat, to drink, to trade, to marry, and to be given in marriage; but it is safe to do these things only in the fear of God. We should live in this world with reference to the eternal world.”[1]

This brief critique shows that Wallace’s conclusion, namely, that 1 Corinthians 7 upholds an ideal of sexual abstinence between married partners except for procreation, does not hold up because it has not correctly taken into account all the data necessary for “rightly dividing” this “word of truth.” In fact, in this chapter the apostle Paul drives home precisely the opposite of Wallace’s conclusion:

3) The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband.

4) The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.

5) Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

According to these verses, the husband and wife are duty-bound to properly fulfill each other’s sexual/emotional/relational needs through sexual intercourse (not excluding orgasm) because they belong to each other and neither has the right to unilaterally withhold himself/herself from the other. Even temporary sexual abstinence for prayer is “by agreement.” This is in harmony with Num 30:13 (Hebrew verse 14), where a wife’s vow to practice self-denial is only valid if her husband agrees to it.

Ellen G. White’s Position on Marriage and Sexuality

It is necessary when interpreting both the Bible and Ellen White’s writings to follow proper hermeneutical principles. One principle in particular applies to Steve Wallace’s present views. It is necessary to first look at Ellen White’s published statements on a topic that are intended for broad distribution. Many times these writings are more general in their application and tend to be principle-based. We must be careful to consider the matters of time and place when examining Ellen White’s more particular counsels to individuals. Sometimes in private correspondence, she makes strong statements to make particular points that will help the one receiving the testimony. This is especially true in the area of marriage and sexuality. Her strong statements to certain individuals certainly remain as an inspired testimony but they must be balanced by other material that was written for the church in general. It is dangerous to universalize local counsel. One must understand some of the context of the letter and identify the underlying principle(s). It is necessary to look at all of what Ellen White wrote on a particular issue and let her more particular and personal statements to individuals be balanced by her more general counsels.

It needs to be noticed that the same hermeneutical principle applies to the New Testament epistles. In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul is addressing specific issues in Corinth. A careful reading of the text must be informed by the context in which it was written. Of course we must also examine the rest of scripture on the topic to maintain a proper balance and understanding.

Ellen White made a number of general statements that are quite specific regarding the enduring importance of marriage and family. First, she supported the divine origin and sacredness of marriage and the various aspects of married life and family relationships.

Though difficulties, perplexities, and discouragements may arise, let neither husband nor wife harbor the thought that their union is a mistake or a disappointment. Determine to be all that it is possible to be to each other. Continue the early attentions. In every way encourage each other in fighting the battles of life. Study to advance the happiness of each other. Let there be mutual love, mutual forbearance. Then marriage, instead of being the end of love, will be as it were the very beginning of love. The warmth of true friendship, the love that binds heart to heart, is a foretaste of the joys of heaven.[2]

He [Christ] referred them to the blessed days of Eden, when God pronounced all things “very good.” Then marriage and the Sabbath had their origin, twin institutions for the glory of God in the benefit of humanity. Then, as the Creator joined the hands of the holy pair in wedlock, saying, A man shall "leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one" (Genesis 2:24), He enunciated the law of marriage for all the children of Adam to the close of time. That which the Eternal Father Himself had pronounced good was the law of highest blessing and development for man. Like every other one of God's good gifts entrusted to the keeping of humanity, marriage has been perverted by sin; but it is the purpose of the gospel to restore its purity and beauty.[3]

Marriage has received Christ's blessing, and it is to be regarded as a sacred institution. True religion does not counterwork the Lord's plans. God ordained that man and woman should be united in holy wedlock, to raise up families that, crowned with honour, would be symbols of the family in heaven. And at the beginning of His public ministry Christ gave His decided sanction to the institution that had been sanctioned in Eden. Thus He declared to all that He will not refuse His presence on marriage occasions, and that marriage, when joined with purity and holiness, truth and righteousness, is one of the greatest blessings ever given to the human family. Priests and popes have made laws forbidding people to marry, and secluding them in monasteries. These laws and restrictions were devised by Satan to place men and women in unnatural positions. Thus Satan has tempted human beings to disregard the law of marriage as a thing unholy, but at the same time he has opened the door for the indulgence of human passion. Thus have come into existence some of the greatest evils which curse our world,--adultery, fornication, and the murder of innocent children born out of wedlock. Jesus came to our world to correct mistakes, to restore the moral image of God in man.[4]

Ellen White wrote generally of her view of Seventh-day Adventists and marriage: “In regard to marriage, I would say, read the Word of God. Even in this time, the last days of this world’s history, marriages take place among Seventh-day Adventists. We have, as a people, never forbidden marriage, except in cases where there were obvious reasons that marriage would be misery to both parties. And even then, we have only advised and counseled.”[5]

There are few direct statements by Ellen White in the area of marital sexuality. She most often addresses the issue when confronting various problems. These include:

1. Abuse of the wife by the husband, by making her simply a pawn for his sexual passion. She defended the right of the woman to maintain her individuality.[6]

2. A lack of temperance in marital sexuality.[7]

3. Forcing a woman to continue to have children when she is not able to maintain her health and personal development.[8]

4. A wife withholding her love from her husband.[9]

5. Missionary workers who were unwilling to forgo having children for the sake of their ministry.[10]

6. Those who refused to have children and needed the discipline of raising children.[11]

7. Because a couple could not have marital sex because of physical limitations was not a reason to separate or divorce.[12]

Nowhere do we find Ellen White generally instructing that married couples should engage in sex only for procreation or that they should as a general principle abstain from having children. She was fearful of those who made this topic a point of emphasis. This is the lesson we learn from the experience of Anna C. Rice, a young woman who was led to believe that she had the prophetic gift. Admonishing a couple that children should no longer be conceived, Anna Rice wrote:

God gave woman to man to be a help meet to him, and told them to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth. But the earth is about to pass away, only a few short years at most, a very few, and the Lord will come and the earth be destroyed. Then could you raise children to God’s glory now? No! for they would soon be laid away. The time is past when children can be brought into the world for the glory of God, and God did not create woman for man’s pleasure! Far from it. . . . Everything pertaining to this life must be given up, and God will test every man. . . . The time has come of which Paul spoke when he said, “But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth that both they that have wives be as though they had none.”[13]

When Ellen White wrote to A. T. Jones rebuking him for supporting Anna Rice, she addressed Rice’s views on sexuality. Ellen White wrote:

My dear brother, I wish to present before you some things concerning the dangers that threaten the work at the present time. The work of Anna Phillips [her birth name] does not bear the signature of heaven. I know what I am talking about. In our first experience in the infancy of this cause we had to meet similar manifestations. . . . Young, unmarried women would have a message for married men, and in no delicate words would tell them to their face of their abuse of the marriage privileges. Purity was the burden of the messages given, and for a while everything appeared to be reaching a high state of purity and holiness. But the inwardness of these matters was opened to me; I was shown what would be the outcome of this teaching. . . . I am afraid of those who feel so great a burden to labor in this direction. Satan works upon the imagination, so that impurity is the result, instead of purity. Now, Anna Phillips’ messages to Brother and Sister Rice and others pertaining to this subject, the Lord has never inspired her to give.[14]

In the context of the Anna Rice incident, Ellen White further elaborated on the danger of women focusing on the issue of “moral purity” and condemning men. Ellen White wrote:

This is my teaching of moral purity. The opening of the blackness of impurity will not be one-half as efficacious in uprooting sin as will the presentation of these grand and ennobling themes. The Lord has not given to women a message to assail men, and charge them with their impurity and incontinence. They create sensuality in place of uprooting it. The Bible; and the Bible alone has given the true lessons upon purity. Then preach the Word.

Finally in reference to the Anna Rice experience, Ellen White expressed concern about false positions that would push right counsel to an extreme.

With much that is truth there is mingled error that is accepted in its extreme meaning, and acted upon by persons of excitable temperament. Thus fanaticism will take the place of well-regulated, well-disciplined, heaven-ordained efforts to carry forward the work to its completion. . . . There is danger, even in reproof, of causing minds to dwell upon topics that lead to sensuality. Even the subject of moral purity may be so treated as to produce the very results it is designed to guard against.[15]

There are several principles that come from this story with present application.

1. Ellen White did not support Anna Rice’s general message that children should not be conceived because we are living at the end of time.

2. She did not support women who condemned men for wanting more frequent sex. She saw that addressing the issue in this way led to more “sensuality.” Instead she advocated a positive presentation of principles.

3. She interpreted Rice’s view on sexual abstinence as mixing truth with error with an extreme meaning. This led to moral impurity.

4. She connected what Rice was advocating in the area of sexuality as like the fanaticism she faced early in her experience.

Let us now look at some letters Steve uses to support his view of abstinence of sexual relations within marriage during the last days. The first one is a letter Ellen White addressed to a worker who had labored as an evangelist and conference president but whose work in the conference was sadly neglected as a result of his continual enlarging of his family with children and being preoccupied with their care, accumulating domestic duties.[16] She pointed out that Satan was trying to destroy the usefulness of this ministerial family from working unitedly for the Lord by diverting the attention of both husband and wife from the nearness of the judgment and their responsibility to win souls. She mentioned that God has called some to a special work and for these ministers to so live that “if they have wives, should be as though they had none.” (1 Cor 7:29).

The principle of this counsel is that families that have been called to do a special work for the Lord should not be preoccupied with raising children but devote their time and energy to soul winning and enlarging the Lord’s work with raising up spiritual children. On the assumption that families in Ellen White’s time only engaged in procreative sex, Steve concluded that this counsel was a call for total abstinence among all married persons in the last days. However, this is an unsubstantiated conclusion. She could have simply stated not to have any sexual intimacy within marriage, but she did not. Instead, she quoted 1Cor. 7:29 to stress the preoccupancy with domestic cares instead of the Lord’s work.

In a similar sense in this letter she pointed to Matthew 19:12, that some “have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.” Here she meant that in a spiritual sense these persons should not focus on raising family but direct their attention on the expansion of God’s kingdom. It is therefore very important to keep the context of Ellen White’s counsel in mind.

Some persons may indeed decide to practice total abstinence in the family, others not. But to conclude that abstinence is the only way to live as a married couple is a conclusion that is not a part of her counsel. Furthermore, if a couple indeed decides on total abstinence it should always be done by mutual consent (1 Cor. 7:5), unless one of the partners behaves like a beast, gratifying the sexual passions intemperately on the altar of lust.

In the second letter Ellen White points to the excessive indulgence of the lower passions that are gratified at the expense of health and religion and life.[17] By contrast believers should live with the awareness that we are living in the last days on the verge of eternity, so that those who are married need to live as though they are not married, in the sense of being not fully consumed with sexual passions which have a destructive affect on their health, religion and the Lord’s work (1 Cor 7:29). Again it is clear that the warning is not against normal healthy sexuality in the marriage relationship, but a warning against sexual excesses or abuse committed under the cover of marriage.

In the last document Steve uses Ellen White’s expression of her concern about the inconsistency of missionaries going to distant fields while at the same time bringing into the world many children so their labor for souls is greatly hampered.[18] Some worked so diligently, she wrote, as if the salvation depended on the number of children they brought into the world. This attitude seriously affected the usefulness of these workers for God’s kingdom. Again White’s use of 1 Cor 7:29 is in the context of the excesses among some workers. Instead of being preoccupied with raising many children and growing domestic cares, she advises them not to mass-produce children. She points also to the dangers in raising large families and the difficulties in educating children in the fear of the Lord in a society polluted by Satan. Again she does not call for total sexual abstinence among married couples. Only if you assume that, in Ellen White’s time, the only sexual relation husband and wife had was for procreation, can one come to the conclusion that she objected to any sexual relationship within marriage until the Second Advent. Arthur White recollected talking with a minister from Michigan during the 1890s who later became a General Conference vice-president. This man and his wife remembered that at one point there were more than 60 families in the Battle Creek area that had broken up because of extreme teaching concerning the marriage relation.

Since Ellen White lived during the Victorian era, there are less direct references to matters of her personal sexuality. She did though write to her husband as she was approaching 50 years-of-age “I prize my [being] all to myself unless graced with your presence. I want to share my bed only with you.”[19]

There are some recollections or stories that have come down to our day that complement what has just been presented from her pen.

Daniel T. Bourdeau (1835-1905) became an Adventist in 1856, was ordained in 1858, and in 1861 was engaged to be married to Marion J. Saxby in Bakersfield, Vermont. Since James and Ellen White were in the area, James agreed to conduct the ceremony, and Ellen would offer a prayer of benediction. As the wedding took place late in the day, the newlyweds accepted the invitation of their hosts to spend their first night as husband and wife in the same home where the ceremony had been conducted, and where the Whites were also overnight guests. About 9:00 p.m., as Ellen went upstairs to her room, she met an extremely nervous bridegroom pacing in the hallway outside a closed bedroom door. Taking in the situation at a glance, Ellen motioned toward the closed door and said gently, “Daniel, inside that room there is a young woman petrified with fear. Now you go in to her right now, and you love her, and you comfort her. And, Daniel, you treat her gently, and you treat her tenderly, and you treat her lovingly. It will do her good. And then, with just a trace of a smile on her face, Ellen added, “And Daniel, it will do you good, too!” Ellen White was a large-hearted woman who understood instinctively and sympathetically the nervousness and fears of the newlyweds and acted to relieve their distress—without the slightest trace of disapproval or reservation.[20]

Arthur White, a long-time close associate with his father, W. C. White, and a brother-in-law of D. E. Robinson, remembered an experience Robinson related to him. A wife of a Seventh-day Adventist physician concluded that she would no longer have sexual relations with her husband. The marriage eventually ended though most people did not know the cause. One day as Robinson was driving with Ellen White by the home where the wife lived, “Ellen White stated casually that the break which had come in that family need not have come had the wife not adopted unreasonable and extreme attitudes in the matter of sexual relationships with her husband.” If these recollections are accurate they would be a fulfillment of Ellen White’s warning of what happens when extreme positions are taken in the area of marital sexual abstinence.[21]

J. N. Loughborough wrote to a brother in Pittsburgh, PA on April 21, 1907, with the following words:

I refer you to the following scriptures: Prov. 5:18-20, ‘Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love. . . .’ You will note in these texts that other intercourse is intimated besides the conception of children. . . . I never saw anything in any testimony that sexual indulgence should only be for the raising of children. And I know Sr. White was given no sanction to those who have advocated that position.[22]

The forgoing material demonstrates that the subjects of marital sex only for procreation and avoiding having children in the last days are not new ideas in Seventh-day Adventist history. They circulated at various times and in various places during Ellen White’s lifetime. Though there is more limited data on the details of these stories, there is enough information to show that Ellen White and the leadership of the Seventh-day Adventist Church did not support these views. They were never adopted as a teaching of the church and Ellen White seems to have consistently resisted the idea on the principle that it would lead to the breaking up of marriages and would lead to sexual obsession.

In light of this information, it is our opinion that Steve has adopted an old idea that was already confronted at various times and in various ways by both Ellen White and the Church during the nineteenth century. To use the various specific counsels that Ellen White gave for particular problem situations in marriages as a general principle for all people at the end of time is erroneous. Like those in the past who accepted these ideas, they will harm his own marriage and family and if shared will multiply the harm to others. We appeal to Steve to accept the proper Biblical and Spirit of Prophecy teaching on this topic and learn from the history of God’s leading in the past.

Personal Appeal

Dear Brother Steve

We sense that you are at a very important crossroads in your ministry, your family, your marriage and your life. What you decide will, to a great degree, determine the outcome in each of these inter-related areas.

It’s true that we live in a morally degenerate world, and that moral corruption has made inroads even into the Seventh-day Adventist Church. But the antidote to this is not “no sex for pleasure within the marriage relationship” but a healthy Biblical view of the marriage, the home and family, and Christian sexuality.

In an effort to be “in the center of God’s will” you have misplaced what the center of God’s will is, and reinterpreted the Bible and Ellen White’s writings to fit your interpretation.

When you read “pleasure” in the Bible, you interpret it as “sex for pleasure within the marriage relationship.” When you read “lust”, “gratify own selfish desires”, “wrong habits”, “sinful indulgence”, “base passions”, “sensual indulgence”, “unlawful intimacy”, “beastly passions”, etc. in Ellen White, you include with this the idea of bringing sexual pleasure to your mate in the marriage relationship.

As a result it appears that you are losing the love and trust of your children and your wife. As concerned believers we hope to see a restoration of your marriage relationship and a strengthening of your relationship with your children. This work of carrying out home duties and re-building relationships is much harder work than traveling and making presentations, but in God’s order of priorities it should come first.

-----------------------

[1]Ellen G. White, “Marrying and Giving in Marriage,” Review and Herald, September 25, 1888, 609, 610.

[2]Ellen G. White, Ministry of Healing, 360.

[3]Ellen G. White, Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing, 63, 64.

[4]Ellen G. White, “The Marriage in Galilee,” Bible Echo, August 28, 1899.

[5]Ellen G. White, Letter 60, 1900.

[6]Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church, vol. 2, 474, 476; idem, Review and Herald, September 26, 1899.

[7]Ibid; Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church, vol. 2, 349-353.

[8]Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church, vol. 2, 380, 381; idem, Review and Herald, September 19, 1899; Ellen G. White to Brother and Sister Knight, January 18, 1888, Letter 6, 1888.

[9]Ellen G. White to Sister Rousseau, January 1894, Letter 72, 1894.

[10]Ellen G. White to Brother and Sister Van Horn, Circ. 1878, Letter 51a, 1878; Ellen G. White, “Extracts from a Testimony,” Manuscript 34a, 1885.

[11]Ellen G. White Testimonies for the Church, vol. 2, 328-329, 647;

[12]Ellen G. White to Brother and Sister Knight, January 18, 1888, Letter 6, 1888.

[13]Anna C. Rice to “My Dear Brother,” August 4, 1892, White Estate, Silver Spring, MD, Document File 363a.

[14]Ellen G. White to A. T. Jones, March 15, 1894, Letter 103, 1894.

[15]Ellen G. White to “Dear Brethren and Sisters,” March 16, 1894, Letter 6a, 1894.

[16]Ellen G. White to “Brother and Sister Van Horn,” n.d., Letter 51a, 1878.

[17]Ellen G. White to “Brother and Sister Knight,” January 18, 1888, Letter 6, 1888.

[18]Ellen G. White, Manuscript 34b, 1885.

[19]Ellen G. White to “My Dear Husband,” April 13, 1876, Letter 6, 1876.

[20]Adapted from Roger W. Coon, “Counsel to a Nervous Bridegroom,” Adventist Heritage, Summer 1990, 17-23. Marion Saxby-Bourdeau, the frightened bride, related the story to her granddaughter, Marguerite Bourdeau Gilbert Fields, on the eve of Margeurite’s wedding in 1925, and Marguerite related it to Roger Coon.

[21]Arthur L. White, “Ellen G. White and Marriage Relations,” |‰”š›* + C D L l "

#

%

@

C

N

P

”

Ñ

ë

¶

·

¸

á

(

Ministry, April 1969, 20.

[22]J. N. Loughborough to Mr. Chas. ______, April 21, 1907, DF 360, Ellen G. White Estate Branch Office, Andrews University.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download