This is a book review of "Divine Sex" by Darwin Chandler (writing as "Philo Thelos").
Summary:
DO NOT READ THIS BOOK! The blurb makes it sound like this is a good, honest study of exactly what the Bible does and does not say about sex. Parts of it are excellent. However the author makes very fundamental errors about the nature of marriage in scripture, and ends up promoting a view that absolutely everything is ok. The author promotes the secular idea of "open monogamous marriage", that both husbands and wives should have the freedom to have sex with others, and tries to justify it from scripture. The author does not even believe that having sex with a married woman constitutes adultery. Some reviews of this book elsewhere are by people who claim they initially believed this book, followed it, and it caused massive damage in their lives. This book is a classic example of Satan mixing a good dose of truth with a lie to make the lie stronger. It should not be read by anyone seeking to learn what the Bible says about sex. For someone who already understands the scripture on this subject well, and can recognise when a verse is taken out of context or where relevant verses that completely contradict the authors statements have been ignored, this book could be a good challenge, to stretch their biblical understanding as they sift the truth from the falsehood. But it should not be recommended for most readers.
I am hesitant to post this review as I do not wish to raise awareness of this book. However it is a book that sounds like it would be very good based on the blurb, and could be very attractive to people who are interested in understanding Biblical marriage. So there needs to be a solid Biblical refutation of it on the internet for people searching for information on it. Most Christian readers would simply refute it by stating that it doesn't support the classic monogamous view of the church so must be evil, a position that will be instantly rejected by someone who already realises there are flaws in the church's monogamous teaching. So a more scriptural refutation is needed.
Summary of teaching presented in the book (my rewording):
In the Old Testament, men were allowed to have sex with lots of women (loads of examples: David, Solomon etc) with no refutation from God. There were no laws against it. God never changes, so this still applies: Men can have sex with many women. Following Christ's death and resurrection, we have been freed from the old laws, and there is now no difference between men and women (Gal 3:28), so women can now have sex with many men also. Wives were their husband's property in the Old Testament as a result of the fall, but this has now been abolished, and their husband has no more claim on their body than they do on their husbands. Adultery is breaking a marriage, and has nothing to do with sex, so sleeping with a married women without intending to take her from her husband is not adultery, but seeking to steal her even if you didn't sleep with her would be. A husband is bound to continue to highly honour the wife of his youth, but may have lesser sexual relationships outside this, and the wife must also behave similarly. "Open marriage" is promoted, and is said to be monogamous, with extras.
The book also covers nudity, homosexuality, prostitution, masturbation, oral sex and other matters, with varying degrees of accuracy. However all topics are tainted by the fundamental errors in the teaching above, so this review focusses on the erroneous teaching around adultery and polygamy. Fundamentally, although he acknowledges the existance of loving polygamy, the author really believes in monogamy and takes all examples of multiple wives in the Old Testament to be examples of men being allowed to have sex with others in addition to their first wife, rather than seeing these as multiple equal wives.
Fundamental error:
Rejection of patriarchy. The author rightly recognises that in the Old Testament law, a man could have multiple wives but a woman could not have multiple husbands because of patriarchy - the man had exclusive rights to his wife's sexuality but she did not have exclusive rights to his. However he believes that patriarchy was not God's original plan, but was a result of the fall. He believes that Christ's sacrifice frees women from patriarchy, returning them to the position they had in Eden - with no difference between them and man. He believes that were there more people than just Adam and Eve in Eden, they would have all been free to have sex with each other, and that is the situation we have now been returned to.
In reality, patriarchy was God's original plan, established at the time of creation, and not caused by the fall. Paul outlines very clearly that God established patriarchy when He created the woman from the man (1 Cor 11:8), for the man (1 Cor 11:9), and after the man (1 Tim 2:13). Remember also that despite Eve eating the fruit first, their eyes were not opened until Adam ate, and it is Adam who is blamed for bringing sin into the world, not Eve (1 Cor 15:21-22) - because he was her patriarchal head before the fall (making patriarchy fundamental to the Gospel itself). This is a teaching that is very controversial, but it is clearly stated in multiple places, so it is God's truth. Given that the author's entire subject manner is highly controversial, the controversy of patriarchy is no reason to reject it! We must accept God's word on the matter even if it clashes with modern society. For a more detailed exposition of patriarchy before the Fall, read "Man and Woman in Biblical Law" by Tom Shipley.
If patriarchy existed before the Fall, even assuming Christ's sacrifice abolishes every single word written after that date and returns us to the pure and simple state of Adam and Eve, we are returned to a state where the wife is very clearly under the authority of her husband! Patriarchy is not a matter of Old Testament law, but an underlying reality of life that predates all law, and even predates the knowledge of good and evil!
This book claims that all sexual ethics come back to personal property rights. Each person has ownership of their own body, and can choose to do what they like with it, but not harm anyone else's body. So all consensual sex is ok, between virtually anybody, but rape is wrong. Coincidentally this is exactly what the secular world says about sex... It is a simplistic view about sex that has been taken from the secular world and imposed on scripture, not read out of scripture and applied to life.
If patriarchy remains, the wife belongs to the husband, and he has an exclusive right to her sexuality, but she does not have an exclusive right to his. This is why in the Old Testament a man could have multiple wives, but a married woman who had sex with another man was an adultress. If this has not been changed by Christ's sacrifice, it still applies.
If patriarchy was abolished by Christ, this book could be correct. If patriarchy was not, this book is a very dangerous erroneous teaching that encourages grave sin. It all comes back to how we understand the nature of marriage as established by God before the Fall.
Good points in the book:
Only God's word can define sin, if something isn't banned there it isn't sin.
We must obey God's law not Man's.
Fairly good treatment of lust.
Good appendices on principles of biblical interpretation.
Miscellaneous issues with the book:
Takes Old Testament examples of polygyny as examples of extra-maritial sex, rather than multiple marriages. Interprets levirate marriage as a licence for a man to sleep with his sister-in-law outside of his first marriage and despite the incest laws prohibiting this, rather than recognising that the man is actually marrying his sister-in-law and having sex with her within marriage.
Claims a man must "give priority" to his first wife based on Proverbs 5:18. Claims that many Old Testament figures will not have loved their additional wives, just had them for pleasure and procreation. In many places it comes across like he's trying to persuade his wife that he should be able to sleep with other women by repeatedly reinforcing that she is the first and most important and nobody else really matters to him, they're just a fun fling...
Claims the only reason for female fidelity in the Old Testament law was to preserve a clear lineage to the Messiah, so the parentage of all children was known, and following His birth there is no longer any need for women to be faithful to their husbands. So laws against women having sex with men other than their husband were given just to Israel and do not apply to us today. Offers no evidence for this view.
Makes extravagent claims about the Song of Solomon - for instance that the couple described are unmarried while having sex - while offering no justification for these views.
Inconsistent biblical interpretation. For instance, much of the Old Testament laws on sex are rejected. But the author maintains that bestiality and incest are sinful. Why, if the other laws are to be rejected? The author appears to pick and choose laws to retain based on what he personally believes to be good or bad, rather than using consistent logic.
Pushes the boundaries of what is technically permissible. The reader must remember that just because something might be permissible it is not necessarily a good idea to do it - and the author does mention this occasionally. But the author finishes with a strong encouragement for people to embrace and actually practice their Christian liberty, as erroneously defined in this book, which could cause great damage in people's lives.
Claims laws against homosexuality only relate to instances involving humiliation or rape of another, so consensual homosexuality ok. Offers no evidence.
Frequently equates animal and human sex, saying for instance that if animals are happy to have sex in public we should be too. Sounds like he's actually getting his theology from this song... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xat1GVnl8-k&feature=youtube_gdata_player :shock:
Finally, the book is very, very long and highly repetitive - as if the author is uncomfortable with what he is saying and has to keep saying it over and over again to try and persuade himself.
Summary:
DO NOT READ THIS BOOK! The blurb makes it sound like this is a good, honest study of exactly what the Bible does and does not say about sex. Parts of it are excellent. However the author makes very fundamental errors about the nature of marriage in scripture, and ends up promoting a view that absolutely everything is ok. The author promotes the secular idea of "open monogamous marriage", that both husbands and wives should have the freedom to have sex with others, and tries to justify it from scripture. The author does not even believe that having sex with a married woman constitutes adultery. Some reviews of this book elsewhere are by people who claim they initially believed this book, followed it, and it caused massive damage in their lives. This book is a classic example of Satan mixing a good dose of truth with a lie to make the lie stronger. It should not be read by anyone seeking to learn what the Bible says about sex. For someone who already understands the scripture on this subject well, and can recognise when a verse is taken out of context or where relevant verses that completely contradict the authors statements have been ignored, this book could be a good challenge, to stretch their biblical understanding as they sift the truth from the falsehood. But it should not be recommended for most readers.
I am hesitant to post this review as I do not wish to raise awareness of this book. However it is a book that sounds like it would be very good based on the blurb, and could be very attractive to people who are interested in understanding Biblical marriage. So there needs to be a solid Biblical refutation of it on the internet for people searching for information on it. Most Christian readers would simply refute it by stating that it doesn't support the classic monogamous view of the church so must be evil, a position that will be instantly rejected by someone who already realises there are flaws in the church's monogamous teaching. So a more scriptural refutation is needed.
Summary of teaching presented in the book (my rewording):
In the Old Testament, men were allowed to have sex with lots of women (loads of examples: David, Solomon etc) with no refutation from God. There were no laws against it. God never changes, so this still applies: Men can have sex with many women. Following Christ's death and resurrection, we have been freed from the old laws, and there is now no difference between men and women (Gal 3:28), so women can now have sex with many men also. Wives were their husband's property in the Old Testament as a result of the fall, but this has now been abolished, and their husband has no more claim on their body than they do on their husbands. Adultery is breaking a marriage, and has nothing to do with sex, so sleeping with a married women without intending to take her from her husband is not adultery, but seeking to steal her even if you didn't sleep with her would be. A husband is bound to continue to highly honour the wife of his youth, but may have lesser sexual relationships outside this, and the wife must also behave similarly. "Open marriage" is promoted, and is said to be monogamous, with extras.
The book also covers nudity, homosexuality, prostitution, masturbation, oral sex and other matters, with varying degrees of accuracy. However all topics are tainted by the fundamental errors in the teaching above, so this review focusses on the erroneous teaching around adultery and polygamy. Fundamentally, although he acknowledges the existance of loving polygamy, the author really believes in monogamy and takes all examples of multiple wives in the Old Testament to be examples of men being allowed to have sex with others in addition to their first wife, rather than seeing these as multiple equal wives.
Fundamental error:
Rejection of patriarchy. The author rightly recognises that in the Old Testament law, a man could have multiple wives but a woman could not have multiple husbands because of patriarchy - the man had exclusive rights to his wife's sexuality but she did not have exclusive rights to his. However he believes that patriarchy was not God's original plan, but was a result of the fall. He believes that Christ's sacrifice frees women from patriarchy, returning them to the position they had in Eden - with no difference between them and man. He believes that were there more people than just Adam and Eve in Eden, they would have all been free to have sex with each other, and that is the situation we have now been returned to.
In reality, patriarchy was God's original plan, established at the time of creation, and not caused by the fall. Paul outlines very clearly that God established patriarchy when He created the woman from the man (1 Cor 11:8), for the man (1 Cor 11:9), and after the man (1 Tim 2:13). Remember also that despite Eve eating the fruit first, their eyes were not opened until Adam ate, and it is Adam who is blamed for bringing sin into the world, not Eve (1 Cor 15:21-22) - because he was her patriarchal head before the fall (making patriarchy fundamental to the Gospel itself). This is a teaching that is very controversial, but it is clearly stated in multiple places, so it is God's truth. Given that the author's entire subject manner is highly controversial, the controversy of patriarchy is no reason to reject it! We must accept God's word on the matter even if it clashes with modern society. For a more detailed exposition of patriarchy before the Fall, read "Man and Woman in Biblical Law" by Tom Shipley.
If patriarchy existed before the Fall, even assuming Christ's sacrifice abolishes every single word written after that date and returns us to the pure and simple state of Adam and Eve, we are returned to a state where the wife is very clearly under the authority of her husband! Patriarchy is not a matter of Old Testament law, but an underlying reality of life that predates all law, and even predates the knowledge of good and evil!
This book claims that all sexual ethics come back to personal property rights. Each person has ownership of their own body, and can choose to do what they like with it, but not harm anyone else's body. So all consensual sex is ok, between virtually anybody, but rape is wrong. Coincidentally this is exactly what the secular world says about sex... It is a simplistic view about sex that has been taken from the secular world and imposed on scripture, not read out of scripture and applied to life.
If patriarchy remains, the wife belongs to the husband, and he has an exclusive right to her sexuality, but she does not have an exclusive right to his. This is why in the Old Testament a man could have multiple wives, but a married woman who had sex with another man was an adultress. If this has not been changed by Christ's sacrifice, it still applies.
If patriarchy was abolished by Christ, this book could be correct. If patriarchy was not, this book is a very dangerous erroneous teaching that encourages grave sin. It all comes back to how we understand the nature of marriage as established by God before the Fall.
Good points in the book:
Only God's word can define sin, if something isn't banned there it isn't sin.
We must obey God's law not Man's.
Fairly good treatment of lust.
Good appendices on principles of biblical interpretation.
Miscellaneous issues with the book:
Takes Old Testament examples of polygyny as examples of extra-maritial sex, rather than multiple marriages. Interprets levirate marriage as a licence for a man to sleep with his sister-in-law outside of his first marriage and despite the incest laws prohibiting this, rather than recognising that the man is actually marrying his sister-in-law and having sex with her within marriage.
Claims a man must "give priority" to his first wife based on Proverbs 5:18. Claims that many Old Testament figures will not have loved their additional wives, just had them for pleasure and procreation. In many places it comes across like he's trying to persuade his wife that he should be able to sleep with other women by repeatedly reinforcing that she is the first and most important and nobody else really matters to him, they're just a fun fling...
Claims the only reason for female fidelity in the Old Testament law was to preserve a clear lineage to the Messiah, so the parentage of all children was known, and following His birth there is no longer any need for women to be faithful to their husbands. So laws against women having sex with men other than their husband were given just to Israel and do not apply to us today. Offers no evidence for this view.
Makes extravagent claims about the Song of Solomon - for instance that the couple described are unmarried while having sex - while offering no justification for these views.
Inconsistent biblical interpretation. For instance, much of the Old Testament laws on sex are rejected. But the author maintains that bestiality and incest are sinful. Why, if the other laws are to be rejected? The author appears to pick and choose laws to retain based on what he personally believes to be good or bad, rather than using consistent logic.
Pushes the boundaries of what is technically permissible. The reader must remember that just because something might be permissible it is not necessarily a good idea to do it - and the author does mention this occasionally. But the author finishes with a strong encouragement for people to embrace and actually practice their Christian liberty, as erroneously defined in this book, which could cause great damage in people's lives.
Claims laws against homosexuality only relate to instances involving humiliation or rape of another, so consensual homosexuality ok. Offers no evidence.
Frequently equates animal and human sex, saying for instance that if animals are happy to have sex in public we should be too. Sounds like he's actually getting his theology from this song... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xat1GVnl8-k&feature=youtube_gdata_player :shock:
Finally, the book is very, very long and highly repetitive - as if the author is uncomfortable with what he is saying and has to keep saying it over and over again to try and persuade himself.
