8 JWO_07_01_WhyDoesJesusMentionBalaaminRevelation2_14__0028

embed edited this page 2023-10-27 23:31:08 +00:00

Table of Contents

• Why Does Jesus Mention Balaam in Revelation 2:14
• How Jesus' Reference to Balaam Applies to Paul
• Is (Rev. 2:14) A Type of Parable?
• Balaam Was Changed to A True Prophet By A Vision on A Road
• How Balaam Fell: His Idol Meat and Fornication Teaching
• So Who is Balaam in the New Testament Era?
• What Does It all Mean?
• What About Permission to Commit Fornication?
• What About Paul s Anti-Fornication Statements?
• What About Paul's Anti-Fornication Statements?
• Paul Is Boldly Claimed To Teach Fornication Is Permissible
• Paul's Doctrine of Grace Means Fornication is Permissible
• The Sexually Immoral Man in 1Cor. 5 Was Never Lost

Parent: JesusWordsOnly

Why Does Jesus Mention Balaam in Revelation 2:14

How Jesus' Reference to Balaam Applies to Paul

If we dig a little deeper into the eating of idol-meat issue, we find Jesus mentions Balaam in (Rev. 2:14). 1 Jesus says the source of this heretical idol meat doctrine is a "teaching of Balaam." Jesus says Balaam taught one can eat meat sacrificed to idols, among other things. Why is Jesus mentioning Balaam, a figure from the era of Moses? Evidently because Balaam is a figure who resembles the one who in the New Testament era teaches eating meat sacrificed to idols is permissible.

What do we know about Balaam that would help us identify who was the Balaam-type figure in the New Testament church?

The Biblical story of Balaam in the book of Numbers does not reveal the precise nature of the teachings of Balaam. Jesus alone tells us that Balaam taught the Israelites they could eat meat sacrificed to idols and commit fornication. (Rev. 2:14). Thus, with these additional facts, let's make a synopsis of the story of Balaam. Then we can see whether anyone appears similar in the New Testament era.

• Balaam was a Prophet in the Hebrew Scriptures who was changed from an enemy to a friend by an angelic vision on a Road.

1. (Rev. 2:14:) "But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there some that hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit fornication." (ASV)

• Balaam, after properly serving the Lord for a time, changed back into being an enemy.

• This inspired prophet is deemed to be an enemy of God because he taught it was permissible to eat meat sacrificed to idols and to commit fornication. This part of the story was omitted in Moses' account. Jesus alone reveals this.

Who else is a prophet of God who was changed from an enemy to a friend by an angelic-type vision on a Road, but then later taught it was permissible to eat meat sacrificed to idols? Who likewise taught an act of fornication condemned by Jesus ( i.e ., remarriage after divorce if certain circumstances were lacking) was perfectly pennissible? (See page 138). Who likewise is interpreted by most Paulunists as saying fornication is no longer strictly prohibited and no longer leads to spiritual death but instead the propriety of fornication is examined solely based on its expediency? On those key points, we shall see in this chapter that Balaam identically matches Paul.

Jesus is putting a thin veil over the fact He is talking about Paul. Jesus reveals His purpose by referring to Balaam in (Rev. 2:14).

By citing the example of Balaam, Jesus reminds us that a true prophet who is turned from evil to good then could turn back and completely apostasize. Jesus' citation to Balaam in this context destroys our assumptions that Paul could never apostasize. By referencing Balaam, Jesus is telling us, at the very least, that Paul could turn and apostasize after his Road to Damascus experience. Paul could be just like Balaam who did so after his Road to Moab experience.

Is (Rev. 2:14) A Type of Parable?

Did Jesus mention the "teaching of Balaam" as a parable to identify Paul? It appears (Rev. 2:14) is a type of parable. Jesus identifies the false teaching as the "teaching of Balaam." Yet Balaam is dead. Someone in the apostolic era is like Balaam. To know whom Jesus meant, one has to find someone who matches Balaam's historically-known qualities.

Furthermore, we have a second reason to believe a parable is intended in (Rev. 2:14). At the end of Revelation chapter 2, Jesus says: "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches." (Rev. 2:29). This is Jesus' standard catch-phrase when He wanted you to know there are symbolic meanings in His words.

Let's next try to identify who was the Balaam-like figure in the New Testament apostolic era by studying the life of the original Balaam.

Balaam Was Changed to A True Prophet By A Vision on A Road

In the book of Numbers (written by Moses), Balaam begins as a soothsayer intent on accepting money from Moab's King Balak. He was offered payment to travel to Moab to curse Israel. As such, he begins as an enemy of the true God.

God then appeared to Balaam and told him not to curse Israel. ((Num. 22:5-12)). King Balak then called on Balaam again to come to Moab. However, God appeared to Balaam and allowed him to go on condition Balaam did only what the Lord told him to do. (Numbers 22:20). Apparently after starting on his trip, Balaam decided to still curse Israel. On route to Moab, Balaam (on a donkey) and his two companions are stopped on a road by an unseen angel of the Lord. (Some commentators think Numbers 22:35 proves this was actually Jesus, the "eternal" angel of His presence-Gill.) Then the famous incident takes place where Balaam's donkey talks back to him. The donkey complains that Balaam is goading him by smiting him with his staff: "What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?" ((Num. 22:28).) At first Balaam cannot see the angel which is blocking the donkey. (Num. 22:25-27). Balaam is in a sense blinded. However, then God "opened the eyes of Balaam" and he could see the angel. (Num. 22:31-33).

Balaam then confesses to the angel that he sinned. ((Num. 22:34).) He offers to go home. The angel tells Balaam to continue onto Moab, but repeats the command that Balaam must only bless the Israelites. (Num. 22:35). Then Balaam proceeded to Moab. (Num. 22:36).

Next when Balaam arrived in Moab, he warned King Balak that he could only do what the Lord allowed him to say. ((Num. 22:36-38).) Balaam's famous oracles of blessings over Israel then followed. (Num. 23:1-29).

While giving the blessing, God through Moses says Balaam was directly led by the Holy Spirit. Balaam simultaneously turned away from his prior practice of using omens. Moses writes in (Num. 24:1-2)

(1) And when Balaam saw that it pleased Jehovah to bless Israel,
he went not, as at the other times, to meet with enchantments, but he
set his face toward the wilderness.

(2) And Balaam lifted up his eyes, and he saw Israel dwelling
according to their tribes; and the Spirit of God came upon him.
[Then Balaam blesses Israel.]

Thus Balaam had become a true prophet whom Moses reveals was having true communications from Yahweh God. Balaam is indwelt by the Holy Spirit and repeats precisely what God wants him to say. God wants us to know through Moses that Balaam begins as a truly inspired prophet of God Almighty. The last we see of Balaam in action, he is acting as a good prophet. His words of blessings end up as part of standard synagogue services to this very day, known as the Mah Tovu.

How Balaam Fell: His Idol Meat and Fornication Teaching

Then something negative happens that Moses only cryptically revealed. In (Num. 31:16), Moses writes: "Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against Jehovah in the matter of Peor, and so the plague was among the congregation of Jehovah." Balaam had counseled the Israelites that they could sin in some unspecified manner. This cryptic statement is the only explanation why later in Numbers 31:8 that the Israelites, during their slaying of the Midianites, also kill Balaam.

Rabbinic tradition tries to fill in the missing information. It attributed to Balaam the lapse of Israel into the immorality we find in (Num. 25:1-9).

Jesus, however, gives us an inspired message on what was missing in the Biblical account. Jesus says Balaam misled the Israelites by teaching them they can eat meat sacrificed to idols and they can commit fornication. Jesus is the only inspired source of this infonnation. Jesus says:

But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there some
that hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a
stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things
sacrificed to idols, and to commit fornication. (Rev. 2:14, ASV.)

The Rabbinic tradition in Judaism supports what Jesus said, but only in general terms.

2. Morris Jastrow Jr., "Balaam," Encyclopedia of Judaism (online at http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=161&letter=B&search=balaam.) If we look at (Num. 25:2), we will see the Israelites were invited to the sacrifices to idols, and ate the idol meat. ((Num. 25:2), "for they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods; and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods.")

So Who is Balaam in the New Testament Era?

The prophet Balaam was a person whose life mirrors apostle Paul's life to an extraordinary degree. Absent Jesus telling us that Balaam taught it was permissible to eat meat sacrificed to idols, we would never have known how virtually identical are the two lives. Yet when Jesus filled in the missing detail, it made the parallel between Balaam and Paul become extraordinarily uncanny.

In particular, Balaam's Road to Moab experience has many striking parallels to Paul's Road to Damascus experience. In fact, how it affects both Paul and Balaam is identical. Balaam is on his road with the wrong intent to curse God's people. This is true for Paul too, aiming to imprison God's people. (Acts 22:5). Balaam is on the road with two companions. Paul likewise has companions with him. (Acts 22:9.)

Next, Balaam is given a message by the angel that converts his way to the true God. Gill even says this 'angel' is the "eternal angel" (non-created) of the Lord's presence- Jesus-because of the unique wording of (Num. 22:35). Likewise, Paul gets a message from Jesus that converts his way to the true God. (Acts 22:8). Both Balaam and Paul follow God/or a time. Both apostasize when they teach it is permissible to eat meat sacrificed to idols.

There is another odd parallel between Balaam and Paul. After Balaam strikes his donkey to make him move, Balaam's donkey asks: "What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?" ((Num. 22:28).) The donkey in effect asks Why are you persecuting me ? Balaam then learns that an angel of God was itself stopping the donkey from moving. Balaam learns it is hard for the donkey to keep on kicking (moving ahead) against the goads of God's angel. It is hard to keep on kicking against divine goads.

Now compare this to Paul and his vision. Paul is likewise confronted by Jesus with a similar question: "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?" (Acts 22:7). And most telling, Jesus adds in the "Hebrew" tongue: "it is hard for thee to kick against the goad." (Acts 26:14.)

When Jesus spoke to Paul on the road in the Book of Acts, He was speaking in a manner that would allow us to invoke the memory of the story of Balaam. In Acts, Jesus laid the seeds for us to later identify Paul as the apostolic era Balaam. To repeat, first Jesus asks Paul why Paul is persecuting Jesus. The donkey asked Balaam the same question. He asked why was Balaam persecuting him. Second, Jesus said to Paul that it is hard for Paul to keep moving forward against God's goads. Likewise, Balaam's donkey was up against the goads of God's angel. Jesus' words in the vision experience with Paul were well chosen to invoke a precise parallel to the story of Balaam. Thus, we could never miss the point in (Rev. 2:14). We thereby could identify the NT Balaam.

What Does It all Mean?

Paulunists apparently sense a problem if Balaam's story were ever told in detail. They always identify Balaam as merely a false teacher or someone who prophesied for money. But this misses Jesus' point.

Balaam is precisely the example, unique in Hebrew Scriptures, of an enemy converted by a vision on a road, turned into a true spokesperson of God, but who later apostasues by saying it is pennissible to eat meat sacrificed to idols. Balaam precisely matches Paul in an uncanny way despite millennia separating them.

Thus, in Paul's vision experience, God laid the groundwork for a comparison to events two millennia earlier. What an amazing God we have! Jesus specifically made sure the encounter with Paul would have all the earmarks of the Balaam encounter:

• It would be on a road.

• There would be a divine vision.

• Jesus would ask why is Paul persecuting Him.

• Jesus would let Paul know it is hard to go up against the goads of God.

• The experience would turn Paul around to be a true spokesperson of God for a time.

• Finally, Paul would fall like Balaam did by teaching it was permissible to eat meat sacrificed to idols.

Of course, to understand this, you have to have ears to hear. (Rev. 2:29.)

In other words, God set in motion what happened on the Road to Moab, just as He did on the Road to Damascus. Paul apparently indeed had the experience he claims. That's why Jesus could cite the teaching of Balaam as repeating itself in the apostolic era. Yet, to cement the similarity, Jesus had to give us a crucial new similarity between Balaam and Paul. By disclosing Balaam's idol meat teaching, Jesus in (Rev. 2:14) suddenly made appear an extraordinary parallel between Paul and Balaam that otherwise remained hidden.

Just as Jesus said Elijah was John the Baptist, "if you are willing to receive it" (Matt. 11:14), Jesus is saying the teaching of Balaam that deceives Christians is the teaching of Paul, "if you are willing to receive it."

What About Permission to Commit Fornication?

Jesus in (Rev. 2:14) says the Balaam of the apostolic era also taught Christians that it is permissible "to commit fornication."

In the Hebrew Scripture, the word fornication meant primarily adultery. In English, it has evolved into almost exclusively the meaning of unwed sexual intercourse. The reason for this change in meaning is because Paul used the synonym for this word in (1Cor. 7:2) apparently to mean unwed sexual intercourse. However, in the Hebrew, fornication's meaning differs from our own usage.

Brown-Driver-Brigg s Hebrew Dictionary defines the contexts for fornication (Hebrew zanah ) as:

lal) to be a harlot, act as a harlot.

Ia2) to commit adultery

la3) to be a cult prostitute

la4) to be unfaithful (to God)

Thus, fornication in Hebrew is synonymous with adultery. (Out of this arises metaphorical meanings such as lal, la3 and la4 above.) In turn, adultery was sex with another man's wife. (Lev. 20:10). There is no concept within zanah of 'to have sex among unwed partners.' One can also see in context of (Matt. 5:32) that the Greek word tox fornication, as Jesus intended it, had to have the underlying Hebrew meaning of only adultery. Jesus says you can only put your wife away if she committed zanah, translated in Greek as fornication but which must mean she committed adultery. Thus, because the word fornication in Hebrew here did not mean sexual relations among unwed people which meaning mismatches the context, we know Jesus' original spoken language only meant adultery. This then was innocently translated as fornication but is too broad in meaning.

3. The debate has raged whether the New Testament word porneia had the primary meaning of unwed sexual intercourse, or the more limited meaning of sexual intercourse with a cultic or commercial prostitute. It seems clear that Paul's usage was intended to mean unwed sexual intercourse. Jesus' usage in (Matt. 5:32) can only mean adultery. The word has many broad meanings in Greek, but the corresponding word in Hebrew {zanah) meant adultery' and metaphorically prostitution.

So if we rely upon the primary Hebrew meaning of the word fornication

• adultery, let's ask whether Paul ever pennitted an act of adultery which Jesus specifically prohibited? The answer is yes. It is a most disturbing contradiction.

This involves Paul's statement on remarriage. Paul says a wife whose "unbelieving [husband] leaves ( chorizo )" 4 her is "not under bondage." (1Cor. 7:15). No divorce certificate was issued, yet she is not under bondage to her departing husband. Almost every commentator agrees the context means she is free to remarry without committing adultery. (Calvin, Clarke, Gill, etc.) Yet, as Paul describes the situation, the Christian woman was not abandoned because she committed adultery. Nor had she received a certificate of divorce.

However, Jesus said in the Greek version of (Matt. 5:32) the husband who unjustifiably leaves the wife "causes her to commit adultery" if she remarries. In the Hebrew version of the same verse, Jesus says instead that a husband who leaves a wife without giving a certificate of divorce causes the wife, if she remarries, to commit adultery. 5

4. This was not the word used for divorce in the NT: apoluo. Chorizo means to place room between, depart, or separate. (Strong's # 5563.)

5. There is an apparent corruption of the Greek version of Matthew in this verse, in the Hebrew version, what Jesus is saying is when a man leaves a wife without a bill of divorcement, and the woman remarries, she commits adultery as does the one who marries her. In The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew by Howard, (Matt. 5:32) reads in part: "And I say to you that everyone who leaves his wife is to give her a bill of divorce." Then it goes on to treat the violation of this principle as the cause of adultery, both by the man leaving and the wife who remarries another. The Hebrew appears more correct because (Deut. 24:2) allows a woman who receives a certificate of divorce to remarry. However, even if the Greek version of 5:32 were correct, Jesus is merely saying that if the certificate were improperly delivered to the wife, without her being guilty of an unseemly thing as required by (Deut. 24:1), the divorce was invalid and the right of remarriage under (Deut. 24:2) does not exist. This makes sense even if Jesus never said it.

Whether you accept the Greek or Hebrew version of Matthew, Paul says the Christian woman who both was unjustifiably abandoned and abandoned without a divorce certificate does not commit adultery by remarrying. However, Jesus says she absolutely does commit adultery under either of those circumstances. Since adultery is synonymous with fornication in Jesus' original vernacular, Paul permits the very act of fornication which Jesus prohibits.

Incidentally, if the Greek text were correct, Jesus would be resolving a dispute under the divorce Law on what unseemly thing was necessary to justify a bill of divorce. 6 Yet, if the Hebrew version of (Matt. 5:32) were correct, Jesus was re-invigorating the requirement of using a bill of divorce, which apparently had fallen into disuse. Men apparently were abandoning their wives and simply remarrying with impunity. Whether the Greek or Hebrew text is correct, Jesus was reinvigorating the Law of Moses, and as Campenhausen explains, Jesus "reaffirmed" it. (For more on the fact that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew and then translated into Greek, see JWO/JWO_19_01_GreekIssues_0111.

Regardless, what remains the problem is that under either text tradition, Paul permits the very act of fornication/adultery that Jesus prohibits.

What About Paul s Anti-Fornication Statements?

If we ignore the prior example, could Paul ever possibly be faulted for permitting fornication? Didn't Paul oppose fornication, as he says in (Gal. 5:19) that those who "practice fornication" shall not "inherit the kingdom of God"? 8

6. The Bible required ''some unseemly thing" for divorce. (Deut. 24:1). Hillel thought any trivial reason qualified, while Shammai believed adultery alone justified divorce. ("Adultery," International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.) In the Greek version of (Matt. 5:32), Jesus would be siding with Shammai's view.

7. Hans van Campenhausen, The Formation of the Christian Bible (J. A. Baker, trans.) (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972) at 13. Yes, (Rev. 2:14) still could apply to Paul. First, most Paulunist commentators dispute Paul means to threaten Christians in (Gal. 5:19). (Clarke, Barnes, Gill.) Because of Paul's other teachings of eternal security, these commentators claim (Gal. 5:19) means only unsaved persons who engage in fornication are threatened with exclusion. Thus, they contend Galatians 5:19 is not a message to Christians. Hence this verse does not prove what Paul taught Christians about the consequences of fornication.

8. This is Paul's strongest anti-fornication statement. His other negative statements are weaker. For example, Paul in 1Cor. 6:18 says "Flee fornication...he that commits fornication sins against his own body." This is not very strong because Paul did not say you sin against God; you sin against yourself. This means it affects only yourself, giving you room to permit it. Again Paul in 1Cor. 7:1 says it is "good for a man not to touch a woman." In context, the concern is it can lead to fornication. Yet, again, Paul is not strong. He does not make the prohibition direct or threaten a serious loss. Again in (1 Thess. 4:3) ASV, Paul says "the will of God" is that "you abstain from fornication." Paul goes on to say that if you "reject this" (i.e., 'annul this'), you "reject God who gives His Holy Spirit to you." (1Thess. 4:8). This appears strong-to threaten loss of salvation for fornication by a Christian. However, the Pauline commentators explain the context does not justify this is talking about fornication in its broad sense. The New American Standard (Protestant-Lockman Foundation) commentary in the footnotes says that the word translated "fornication" or "immorality" here really only means "unlawful marriage." It explains "many [incorrectly] think that this passage deals with a variety of moral regulations (fornication, adultery...)." It then explains this passage deals in this context instead with "a specific problem, namely marriage within degrees of consanguinity...." (See reprint of this commentary at http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/lthessalonians/lthessalonians4.htm). Furthermore, most Paulunists find Paul's doctrine of eternal security trumps this verse. Because this verse threatens God will deny you for the sin of "fornication" (as translated), this must be directed at a nonbeliever. It does not say the person has received the Holy Spirit yet. Otherwise, Paul would be contradicting himself that salvation does not depend on what you do. ((Rom. 4:4).) Thus, this is read to be a warning to a non-believer, not a believer. As a result, while 1 Thess. 4:3, 8 at first appears strongly against fornication, Paulunists interpret it so it does not apply to anything but to a very specific consanguinity issue or not to a Christian at all.

What About Paul's Anti-Fornication Statements?

However, this view is unsatisfactory because clearly Paul's warning in (Gal. 5:19) is intended for Christians. The Book of Galatians is addressed to genuine believers (Gal 1:8-9). In Galatians 5:13, Paul refers to those addressed in (Gal. 5:13-26) as brethren. Furthermore, in (Gal. 6:1), Paul again refers to those being warned as brethren.

This has led other Paulunists to admit that Paul is warning Christians in (Gal. 5:19-21). However, they still have a response that permits a Christian to commit fornication without losing their inheritance in heaven. They claim Paul means that fornicating Christians (a) only are at risk if they practice fornication and (b) if so, they only risk losing a reward (i.e., sharing ruling authority in heaven.)

They point to Paul's use of the term "practice" in (Gal. 5:21). They insist Paul means that occasional fornication by a Christian is permissible. 9 Paul's words are "they who practice such things [ e.g ., fornication] shall not inherit the kingdom of God." Paul's threat does not intend to warn a Christian who engages in occasional fornication that they should fear the loss of salvation. 10

John MacArthur is a major voice of modern evangelical Christianity. His position reflects this.

9. James, by contrast, says a single act breaks all the law. ((Jas. 2:13).)

10. Paul's occasional-practice distinction is at variance to the Hebrew Scriptures. The Law says it only takes one act of adultery or murder to be deemed worthy of death. (Lev. 20:10, (Num. 35:16); (Ezek. 33:18).)

Some people wonder if that verse means a Christian can lose his salvation if he has ever done any of those things. Although the Authorized Version says 'they who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God,' the Greek word for do is prasso, which means 'to practice.' It is a verb that speaks of habitual practice rather than occasional doing. Thus, the verse refers to those who habitually practice such things as an expression of their characters. The word of God bases its evaluation of a person's character not on his infrequent actions, but on his habitual actions, for they demonstrate his true character. The people who habitually perform the works of the flesh will not inherit the Kingdom because they are not God's people.

Some Christians may do some of those things infrequently, but that doesn't mean they will forfeit the full salvation of the Kingdom of God. Rather they will receive divine discipline now and forfeit some of their heavenly rewards. 11

MacArthur thus concedes Paul's threat in (Gal. 5:19) is only for a person who practices fornication. MacArthur says a true Christian will never practice this, and thus is never threatened actually with loss of salvation. A true Christian at most will occasionally commit fornication. The Christian who does so has an eternal destiny as safe and secure as the Christian who resists all acts of fornication.

In the quote above, MacArthur then adds to Paul's words to make Paul appear to say fornication is not entirely permissible for a Christian. Paul does not ever say anything anywhere about Christian fornicators receiving divine disciple. That is John MacArthur's hopeful addition.

11.John MacArthur, Liberty in Christ, reprinted at http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg 1669.htm .

Putting this unfounded addition to one side, what is still clear is MacArthur admits Paul does not intend to alarm Christians who "infrequently" commit fornication that they have anything serious to concern themselves about. Paul's warning in (Gal. 5:19) does not apply to warn a Christian who occasionally fornicates. Thus, MacArthur can reassure such Christians that heaven awaits them despite committing unrepentant occasional fornication. MacArthur says God would never condemn you for occasional fornication, citing Paul's words in (Gal. 5:21).

Furthermore, Dillow insists that even if a Christian practices fornication, Paul does not mean to threaten anything more than loss of rewards. Dillow argues that (Gal. 5:19) and the comparable (1Cor. 6:9) mean by threatening the loss of an inheritance of the kingdom to threaten only a loss of rewards. The argument is a forced-one, stretching over chapters 3-5 of Dillow, Reign of the Servant Kings. Yet, if this is how Paulunists construe Paul to keep him squared with his faith-alone doctrine, then I can rely upon Dillow to conclude Paul never puts a serious threat over the Christian who practices fornication. And when I combine MacArthur's distinction with Dillow's views, I can say Paul never threatens at all a Christian who occasionally commits fornication.

Paul Is Boldly Claimed To Teach Fornication Is Permissible

Now that we see how Paulunists dismiss the threats in (Gal. 5:19-21), it should come as no surprise that mainstream Christians declare Paul says a Christian can commit fornication, not repent, and expect to be saved. Galatians 5:19-21 never enters their analysis.

They argue strenuously that Paul permits fornication, apparently to make their point more blatant about Paul's doctrine of grace. To prove Paul permits fornication, they rely upon three independent proofs.

1. Paul's Says Fornication is Permissible But It Might Be Unprofitable

First, Paulunists say Paul declared the Law abolished, and that in its place the new criteria is: "all things are lawful but not all things are expedient" (1Cor. 6:12). Paul thereby implied it was permissible you could commit fornication. The test is expediency; it is no longer whether it is absolutely prohibited.

This reasoning is bluntly stated by Bob George. Mr. George is an author of numerous mainstream theological books on eternal security. Over the past several years, he has been a national radio talk host whose daily topic is often eternal security. You have been able to hear him on the radio in Los Angeles every week day. He bluntly said in a 1993 broadcast that Paul says it is permissible to commit fornication:

And as Paul said, All things are permissible, but not all things
are profitable.' So is committing fornication permissible? YES. Is
it profitable? No, it isn't. 12

George is not alone. John Mac Arthur, a giant of modem evangelical Christianity, says the same thing. In addressing whether fornication is permissible in the article quoted on page 143, Mac Arthur never once cites any absolute prohibition on acts of fornication from the Hebrew Scriptures. Instead, he quotes Paul's axiom "all things are lawful...." Then MacArthur tries to prove fornication is not expedient. Fornication hanns you, it enslaves you, etc. He tries to squeeze out a negative answer using Paul's principle, "All things are permissible, but not all things are profitable."

Thus, the starting point is that fornication is not wrong per se. You have to look at its expediency, i. e. , its costs versus its benefits. Then if the costs outweigh the benefits, it is wrong.

12. Bob George, People to People (Radio Talk Show), 11/16/93.

13. John MacArthur, Back to Basics: The Presentation of My Life: Sacrifice at http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/1390.htm (last accessed 2005).

Thus, George and MacArthur reflect Paul's paradigm shift. The Law is gone. In its place a new analysis is applied. Under it, fornication is permissible but not necessarily profitable. A strong case can be made about its unhealthy results, etc. Therefore George and MacArthur say 'don't do it.' This is an antinomian (anti-Law) shift away from simply knowing that the Law says it is wrong. In its place, we now have a cost-benefit analysis whether fornication works for you.

Under Paul's balancing test, we can see the result just as easily could be that fornication is more beneficial for me. As long as the guilt from violating the Law is erased, then I do no wrong if I think "fornication" works for me. As long as I applied a cost-benefit analysis of what is more expedient, and I reasonably justify it, it is no sin. For example, if I love someone and commit "fornication" with her, and it suits our mutual needs to ignore the legalities of the situation, then in a very cogent way, I have justified fornication in a manner that passes the cost-benefit analysis Paul offers. "All things are lawful" and in this scenario it is more "expedient" to not be hyper-technical about our behavior.

This example raises the dilemma the church faces today: it desperately wants to give a cost-benefit analysis for this scenario to steer people away from such fornication because Paul removed the ability to cite the Law itself as reason enough. Consequently, the modern Pauline-Christian analysis of right-and-wrong starts from "all things are permissible," including fornication. Then by applying the costs versus the benefits test, their analysis tries to steer people to an outcome parallel to the Law.

Thus, clearly Paul's saying all things are pennissible includes fornication. It is only to be abandoned if the costs outweigh the benefits. However, there are going to be times where the benefits of fornication will outweigh the costs.

That is why Paul is still the leading candidate to be the Balaam figure of the New Testament era mentioned in (Rev. 2:14).

Paul's Doctrine of Grace Means Fornication is Permissible

Other Paulunists defend that Paul teaches fornication is permissible with no significant penalty for a Christian on another ground. This is Paul's doctrine of grace. All your future acts of fornication are already forgiven when you became a Christian, they insist. Such a sin might cause the loss of rewards, but there is no loss of something you cannot afford to lose. Luther defends this idea:

No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day. 14

Zane Hodges, a leading evangelical writer, similarly says:

Paul does not say...his readers should question their salvation if
they become involved in sexual impurity . 15

Unless these mainstream writers are wrong, Paul is teaching a grace that pennits sexual immorality with no serious loss. At least there is no penalty.

14. Martin Luther, Luther Works, I Letters (American Ed.) Vol. 48 at 282.

15. Zane Hodges, Absolutely Free! (Dallas, TX: Redencion Viva, 1989) at 94.

What about loss of rewards? Paul never says expressly you lose a reward for fornication. But assuming he did say this, if anyone loses a reward that does not affect salvation, it is certainly not a penalty. It is not even a set back. You simply do not move ahead. In fact, you will have eternity to overcome the loss of initial rewards. It is no problem at all. How many would not trade a few lost rewards you can live without to take today the delectable pleasures of fornication? In sum, Paul's grace doctrines are read to pennit fornication with no serious consequence or penalties. This second proof reconfirms that (Rev. 2:14) is Jesus' direct identification of Paul as the one bringing the "teaching of Balaam."

The Sexually Immoral Man in 1Cor. 5 Was Never Lost

As the third and final proof that Paul says fornication is permissible, Paulunists actually cite (1Cor. 5:5). They insist this passage proves that a sexually immoral Christian is never at risk of losing salvation.

In that passage, Paul deals with a sexually immoral member of the Corinthian church who lives with his father's wife, his step-mother. If the father is alive, this is incest. Paul decrees: "deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." (1Cor. 5:5.)

Dillow contends Paul ordered the man was to be expelled and then killed. Paul's wording therefore proves that if the man were killed in his unrepentant state that Paul meant this carnal Christian was still saved. Dillow, whose book is now treated as required reading at many evangelical seminaries, explains:

An extreme example of the 'consistently carnal Christian' seems to
be found in (1Cor. 5:5) .... Paul hands this carnal Christian over
to physical death, but he notes that he will be saved at the day
of the Lord Jesus. 16

16.Dillow, Reign of the Servant Kings (1993) at 321.

Thus, Dillow means that Paul wants the man killed immediately. (Paul's conduct shows disregard for the civil rights protected in the Law of the accused.) Dillow understands Paul's other words as assuring us that the man's death in this situation means the man will enjoy salvation despite his unrepentant and consistent sin. Thus, this verse proves eternal security, Dillow claims.

Dillow is not an aberrant view of this passage. The mainstream idea of once saved always saved boldly proclaims this passage teaches a Christian is free to commit repetitive unrepentant fornication without the slightest threat to their salvation.

The man who had 'his father's wife'-a terrible sin-didn't lose his salvation thereby. (Dave Hunt.) 18