The Meaning of the Work of Christ on the Cross

The significance of the work that Christ had accomplished on the Cross is eternal in its scope.

The Serious Matter about Sin!

"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned."

(Romans 5: 12, NASB)

 

 

We are living in a time when the Church is so worldly that it no longer treats sin as a serious matter that needs to be repented of and forsaken; instead, sin is often trivialized to the point that it is no longer considered a big deal. No longer does the believer in Christ understand the dreadfulness of sin. Yet, today's Scripture text says the consequences of sin is death! Sin is never to be taken lightly.



The Wisdom of a Little Child...

"And a little child shall lead them."

(?)

 

By: Teresa Haskett (Facebook)

An atheist was seated next to a little girl on an airplane and he turned

to her and said, "Do you want to talk? Flights go quicker if you strike

up a conversation with your fellow passenger."

 The little girl, who had just started to read her book, replied to the total

stranger, "What would you want to talk about?"

 "Oh, I don't know," said the atheist. "How about why there is no God,

or no Heaven or Hell, or no life after death?" as he smiled smugly. 

 "Okay," she said. "Those could be interesting topics but let me ask

you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same

stuff - grass. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns

out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is?"

 The atheist, visibly surprised by the little girl's intelligence,

thinks about it and says, "Hmmm, I have no idea." To which

the little girl replies, "Do you really feel qualified to discuss

God, Heaven and Hell, or life after death, when you don't know shit?" 

 And then she went back to reading her book.



Who Does Jesus Forgive: The Sinful Woman or the Pharisee?

"I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

(Mark 2: 17, KJV)

 

In the portion of Scripture before us in Luke 7: 36-50 we learn about two people. Simon the Pharisee and the sinful woman. Both approached Jesus with a different attitude of heart. Simon was the host, while the woman was a guest along with Jesus. We see a sequence being played out between these two characters throughout this passage of God's Word. Back and forth we see Simon's attitude in the presence of the Lord Jesus and we see the sinful woman's attitude in the presence of Jesus. What a contrast we see between the two characters and what lessons can be drawn from this Scripture passage for our learning and profit. With that said, let's dive into this devotional study with listening ears and a ready and receptive heart to what the Lord will say. 

1. Simon the Self Righteous Pharisee (see Luke 7: 36, 39, 43). 

Here in this passage we learn a few things about Simon. We see him invite Jesus  to be a guest to eat at his house. This is both interesting and amazing to see, because the Pharisees were bitter enemies of the Lord Jesus Christ. No doubt, he heard and perhaps seen some of the miracles and heard the teaching of Jesus, which peeked his intellectual curiosity and spiritual interest in wanting to learn a bit more about Him. Simon being a good moral religious person was quite content and smug in his self righteousness. He fails to see his own sin and need for forgiveness that was readily available to him in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. Simon failed to understand that "We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment" (Isa. 64: 6, ESV). The Apostle Paul adds, "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one" (Rom. 3: 10-12, ESV). He was seeking to earn favor with God by his good works, while criticizing others, like the sinful woman, who do not measure up to his standard of outward show of righteousness. He was even surprised to see Jesus' acceptance of the sinful woman (see 7: 39).  

2. The Sinful Woman Seeking Forgiveness (see Luke 7: 37-38). 

Next, we see the sinful woman from the city who had learned of Jesus lodging as a guest at Simon's house, who had made a special trip to visit him their. She knew she was looked down upon by the Pharisee and not welcomed there; but that did not deter her from the purpose in coming to Jesus. The only one she knew who could forgive her of her many sins. The portion of Scripture we are looking at does not give us any details of her many sins other than saying "who was a sinner" (7: 37). Perhaps she was a notorious prostitute, or perhaps the town gossip who meddled in the affairs of others, or perhaps she was like the woman of Samaria at the well, who had five husbands (see John 4: 16-18). Who knows. Whatever sins she was guilty of. She recognized Jesus as the one who could forgive her of her many sins.  

She saw Him as the long awaited Messiah who was to come into the world and deliver man from their sin, whereas, Simon the Pharisee, though educated in the Old Testament Scriptures failed to recognize Jesus as the prophesied Messiah. She had a appreciation of what Jesus could do in forgiving her of her sins that Simon did not have. There are four distinct things she did that proved her recognition and appreciation in who Jesus was. 

(1.) First, we see her tears--this revealed her love and devotion to the Lord Jesus. Take note of the intensity of her heartfelt appreciation of His Work (see 7: 38a). 

(2.) Second, we see her hair--this shows her willingness to lay her glory at the feet of the One she was glorifying (see 1 Cor. 11: 15). She appreciated His Wisdom (see 7: 38b). 

(3.) Third, we see her kisses--this teaches us about her great affection she had for Jesus (see Col. 3: 2). Notice it was His feet she was kissing. Her willingness to stoop to kiss His feet shows both humility and appreciation of His Walk (see 7: 38c). 

(4.) Finally, we see her perfume--this unfolds to us her sacrificial cost in worshipping the Lord Jesus (see 2 Sam. 24: 24; Heb. 13: 15-16). She appreciated His Worth (see 7: 38d).

 

3. The Seeking Saviour who came to Forgive (see Luke 7: 40-48, 50). 

The Lord Jesus reclining at Simon's table, observe the scene before Him of the Pharisee and the sinful woman. The Lord Jesus was not fooled by Simon's shallow display of hospitality to Him. He knew the heart of Simon all too well, as He did the sinful woman. The Lord Jesus knowing the condescending thoughts the Pharisee had towards the sinful woman, used this opportunity to share a parable with Simon about forgiveness. The parable Jesus told him was about two debtors. "A moneylender had two debtors: one owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. When they were unable to repay, he graciously forgave them both. So which of them will love him more?" (Luke 7: 41-42, NASB). Simon wisely responded, "The debtor who was forgiven more." Jesus commended Him for his correct answer (v. 43). Then the Lord Jesus rebuked Simon for his lack of hospitality and praised the woman for her attending to His needs. She provided the hospitality that the Pharisee in his home should have given to Jesus. Then He contrasted the actions between Simon and the sinful woman.

 

SIMON'S LACK OF ACTION	SINFUL WOMAN'S ACTION
"You gave Me no water for My feet"	"But she has wet My feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair." Luke 7:44
"You gave Me no kiss;"	"But she, since the time I came in, has not ceased to kiss My feet." Luke 7:45
"You did not anoint My head with oil,"	"But she anointed My feet with perfume." Luke 7:46

 

Simon the Pharisee's lack of action as the host in attending to Jesus' needs can be outlined as follows. 

(1.) First, we see he gave no water--this tells us that Simon never provided the civil respect that was expected of the host to the guest. This ancient custom is that a basin of water was to be given to the guest to wash his feet (see 7: 44). "Verse 44.  Thou gavest me no water] In this respect Simon was sadly deficient in civil respect, whether this proceeded from forgetfulness or contempt. The custom of giving water to wash the guest's feet was very ancient. See instances in Ge 18:4; 24:32; Jg 19:21; 1Sa 25:41. In Hindoostan it is the custom, that when a superior enters the house of an inferior, the latter washes his feet, and gives him water to rinse his mouth before he eats. See AYEEN AKBERY, vol. iii. p. 226."[1]  

(2.) Second, we see he gave no kiss--this shows us that Simon never gave the Jewish custom of the host to either kiss their guest's cheeks or lips (see 7: 45). "Verse 45.  Thou gavest me no kiss. The kiss was a token of affection or a common mode of salutation, and Simon had even neglected this mark or welcoming him to his house. It was often used among men as a sign of salutation. Comp. Ge 33:4; Ex 18:7; Mt 26:49."[2] 

(3.) Finally, we see he gave no anointing oil--this reveals to us Simon's failure to practice the custom of anointing the head of the guest as a sign of receiving and entertaining him or her (see 7: 46).  "Verse 46.  My head with oil thou didst not anoint] Anointing the head with oil was as common among the Jews as washing the face with water is among us. See Ru 3:3; 2Sa 12:20; 14:2; 2Ki 4:2; and Ps 23:5, where the author alludes to the Jewish manner of receiving and entertaining a guest. Thou preparest a table for me; anointest my head with oil; givest me an overflowing cup. See Mt 5:17."[3] 

As seen in the three points above, Simon violated the custom that was required of him in treating his guests with respect, such as Jesus who he invited into his home. It is the sinful woman who attended to the customary needs of the Lord Jesus, when it was Simon's responsibilty. The contrast seen between these two characters are summed up simply but nicely by devotional writer John Kuperus: 

"Luke shares a story of two people who want to meet with Jesus. One is Simon the Pharisee, who is spiritually interested and wants to learn more about Jesus. The other is a woman who weeps at Jesus' feet, wipes his feet with her hair, kisses them and pours perfume on them. Simon is a good moral citizen, and the woman is someone who has "lived a sinful life." Simon approaches Jesus in an intellectual way over a meal; the woman expresses the deepest cry of her heart as she seeks freedom from her sin. 

Simon is surprised that Jesus would accept this treatment from a sinner, yet we find that Jesus honors the woman. She receives forgiveness of sins, but we hear of no change in the spiritual condition of Simon."[4] 

This of course is the reason why Jesus made this sobering statement to Simon: "For this reason I say to you, her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little" (Luke 7: 47, NASB). Then we see in verses 48 and 50 that the Lord Jesus forgave her sins and told her that faith had saved her, go in peace. She went away experiencing the peace that comes with knowing her sins forgiven; whereas, Simon never embraced and experienced Jesus' forgiveness and peace. 

Friend, if you are burdened and weighed down by the heavy load of your sin. There is hope. Like the wise sinful woman in today's text, in faith turn to the Lord Jesus for forgiveness and He will impart to you the peace you so long for. Don't follow in the steps of the foolish Pharisee, Simon who was too self righteous and proud to see his need for Jesus' forgiveness. Be wise and turn to the Lord for forgiveness. For the Lord Jesus Christ says in today's theme text, "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." (Mark 2: 17).

---

[1] Adam Clarke, Adam Clarke's Commentary, (Power BibleCD 5.2).

[2] Albert Barnes, Albert Barnes' NT Commentary, (Power BibleCD 5.2).

[3] Adam Clarke, Adam Clarke's Commentary, (Power BibleCD 5.2).

[4] John Kuperus, Today: Refresh, Refocus, Renew, (ReFrame Media Publishers, Palos Heights, IL, Vol. 63, Num. 3; May/June 2013), Wed., May 22, 2013.

Does God Show Favoritism?

"For God does not show favoritism."

(Romans 2: 11, NIV)

 

There are times in my Christian experience where I really wonder if God does show favoritism towards some of His children more than others. Yet God's Word assures us that He doesn't. "For God does not show favoritism" (Rom. 2: 11).



Marriage: Leading or Controlling?

"Wives submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them."

(Colossians 3: 18-19, NIV)

There is a difference between the terms "lead" and "control" as follows. To lead is "to direct or guide the operations, activity, or performance of." To control is "to have the power to restrain one self, someone, or something; to reserve, control the outcome of a situation." The difference between a man leading his family correctly and incorrectly can be seen in: (1.) those men who lead to influence and guide their families for God's glory, and (2.) those men who lead in a forceful and controlling manner their families for their own selfish means. Because man had brought sin into the world, there will always be a measure of conflict in a marital relationship between a man and a woman. When it comes to where the battle of the sexes began. I believe this Scripture passage says it best. "Your desire shall be for[or against] your husband, and he shall rule over you" (Gen. 3: 16, ESV). As you can see, the words "or against" are written in the margin by the translators of the ESV Bible. I personally find the word "for" adds confusion to the text, whereas the word "against" better expresses the meaning and intent of the judgment God was pronouncing upon Eve. I am uncertain as to the original author of the blog article entitled: "How is a Woman's Desire for her Husband a Curse (Genesis 3:16)?" However, I enjoyed what he had to say about Genesis 3:16. His quote is as follows:

"As God pronounces judgment on Eve for her part of the transgression in Eden, He says, “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you” (Genesis 3:16). This verse causes some puzzlement. It would seem that a woman desiring her husband would be a good thing, and not a curse.

The Hebrew phrase in question does not include a verb and is literally translated “toward your husband your desire.” Since this judgment is predictive, the future tense verb “will be” is added for clarity: “Your desire will be for your husband.” The most basic and straightforward understanding of this verse is that woman and man would now have ongoing conflict. In contrast to the ideal conditions in the Garden of Eden and the harmony between Adam and Eve, their relationship, from that point on, would include a power struggle. The NLT translation makes it more evident: “You will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.”

God is saying that Eve would desire to rule over her husband, but her husband would instead rule over her. Replacing the mutually interdependent relationship the Lord had created was a desire for one spouse to lead the other. Sin had wrought discord. The battle of the sexes had begun. Both man and woman would now seek the upper hand in marriage. The man who was to lovingly care for and nurture his wife would now seek to rule her, and the wife would desire to wrest control from her husband.

It is important to note that this judgment only states what will take place. God says that man and woman will live in conflict and their relationship will become problematic. The statement “he shall rule over you” is not a biblical command for men to dominate women."

Over the past couple decades there has been much misunderstanding in today's society in regards to the role of leadership in a family. There has been much debate about the role of men and women in the home. The traditional role of a man is to lead his family. Unfortunately feminism equate this to suppressing a woman's equal rights. They see this as a form of a man's way of having power and control over a woman in the family, while the woman is to be subservient to the man. In other words, feminists see this as men exerting their superiority over women. They fail to see the distinct difference between a man fulfilling his responsibility in "leading" his family as opposed to him "controlling" his family with an iron fist, as some would say.

However, a man's role as a leader in the home is not about "control," but rather about guiding, protecting, providing, and leading by example. It is sad that some men have used "control" in the context of forcing his family to submit to his will. Even using mental, verbal, and physical abuse to make his family fall in line with what he wants, instead of properly leading them in a loving and sacrificial way. Concerning the marital relationship, Paul tells the Christian men at Ephesus,"Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband" (Eph. 5: 33, KJV). This kind of "love" the man was to demonstrate to his wife is a patient and kind love, a love that is not jealous, nor does it brag and is not arrogant, an unselfish love, a love not easily provoked, and does not hold grudges when wronged, and does no evil, etc. In essence it is an unconditional kind of love that a man is required to show his wife (see 1 Cor. 13: 4-5). In other words, the husband does not love his wife based on conditions or convenience, but loves his wife just like Christ loved the Church (see Eph. 5: 25). Now as for the wife, she is to "respect" her husband as is good and right in the eyes of the Lord. That means she is not required to cater to his every whim.

Women who are feminists need to understand that the role of "leadership" has been given to men not to suppress, control, abuse, degrade, or to show superiority over women; no, it is the God ordained responsibility that God has given strictly to the man at the beginning of creation to be the head of the woman (see 1 Cor. 11: 3). Let is consider a list I have borrowed extensively from Mr. Alexander Strauch of what the Scriptures say about how the man and woman are equal, yet different in their roles:

(1.) The Lord created Adam as the central character in His creation. This central role was not given to the woman; just as Christ is the central figure as the bridegroom, while men and women make up the bride of Christ, the Church.(see Eph. 5: 31-32). "Jack Cottrell, professor of theology at Cincinnati Bible Seminary, correctly states, "All the action and events revolve around the man....he occupies center stage. Everything else, including the woman, has a supporting role." Cottrell goes on to demonstrate this critical point:

“The male, not the female, is given the name--the generic name--borne by the human race as a whole: Adam, or Man (2:5; see 1:26 and 5:2). The male is the one to whom God speaks in the narrative (2:16); he is the first to receive divine revelation and instruction. The animals are brought for naming to the male, not the female (2:19, 20). The woman is made from the man, not the man from the woman (2:22). The woman is also made for the man and brought to him, not vice versa (2:18, 22). Afterward it is the man who speaks and makes a theological comment upon the woman's creation, not vice versa (2:23). It is the male who names the female, not vice versa (2:23).

Thus viewed from every possible angle, the whole narrative in Genesis 2 is the story of how God created the man and provided in every way for his well-being.... The other activities recorded in Genesis 2 are all relative to the man's existence, nature, and needs. This includes the creation of the woman. This chapter simply cannot be read in any other way."[1]

(2.) The Lord our Creator made Adam first, not the woman (Gen. 2:15-20). "God created the man before He created the woman. Before Eve was formed, God placed Adam in the garden to take care of it (2:15). Before Eve was formed, God brought the animals to Adam to be named (2:19). Before Eve was formed, God commanded Adam not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil lest he die (2:16, 17; most likely Adam taught Eve about Goid's command not to eat from the forbidden tree).

Adam was lord of the earth. Indeed, Adam was the human race, the first human. He represented the human race and it was embodied in him. The creation priority of the man is not an incidental fact. Adam's prior creation has fundamental significance. WE don't have to guess at this significance because the New Testament provides a divinely inspired commentary of Genesis 2. According to the principles of Bible interpretation, the Bible is its own best commentary. Scripture interprets Scripture. Thus, the same God who breathed out the words of Genesis 2 inspired Paul to comment on the true meaning of the words. Inspired by the Holy Spirit, Paul commented on Genesis 2 by writing, "I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created" (1 Tim. 2:12, 13a; italics added).

Thus, the New Testament uses the fact of Adam's prior creation to demonstrate that God designed the man to be the primary leader and teacher of the family of God. The leadership model provided in both the Old and New Testaments is that men primarily lead the people of God.

The same model is demonstrated historically on the worldwide level as well. Since the dawn of human civilization men, not women, have primarily ruled society. Is this by chance? Or is it by design? Why are women seeking liberation and not vice versa? Genesis 2 provides the answer: from the beginning the Creator shaped the human clay in patriarchal form, not matriarchal or egalitarian form. Adam was the first patriarch."[2]

(3.) The man does not originate from the woman, but the woman originated from the man (see Gen. 2: 21-22; 1 Cor. 11: 8). "According to the New Testament use of Genesis 2:22, the woman's origin from the man demonstrates the legitimacy of maintaining role differences between Christian men and women. In 1 Corinthians 11:8, Paul, citing Genesis 2:22, writes, "For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man." The points he seeks to prove from Genesis 2:22are that the man "is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man," and also that "the man is the head of a woman" (1 Cor. 11:7, 3). The doctrine of headship and submission is rooted in the Genesis 2 story. The role distinctions Paul insists upon in his letters are based on Genesis 2."[3]Since man originated from God's hand, this same truth applies to all mankind.

(4.) The woman was created for the man to be his "helpmate" [a partner who compliments him], the man was not created for the woman (see Gen. 2: 18; 1 Cor. 11: 9). "If the first three points offend the modern sensibilities of equality, point four is totally unacceptable. Verse 18 reads: "Then the Lord God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.'"God declared that Adam's singleness was not good. So God rectified the situation. He hand made "a helper suitable for him." Eve was not another male; she was not a clone of Adam nor was she a twin. She was similar but different. She had her own biology, physiology, and psychology. She was made to complement the man, to help him populate and rule the earth, and to unite with him as a loving companion-partner. This is the first statement in the Bible concerning the woman's role; she is to be a help to the man.

The New Testament commentary on Genesis 2:18 is 1 Corinthians 11:9: "for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake." Again Paul uses Genesis 2to maintain sexual role distinctions. The fact that the woman was made for the sake of the man is proof that the man "is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man," and also that "the man is the head of a woman" (1 Cor. 11:7, 3)."[4]

(5.) God gave man the right and authority to name the woman, whereas the woman was not given this authority (see Gen. 2: 23; 3: 20). "Before the Fall, Adam named his new companion. When Adam saw her, he said, "she shall be called woman" (Gen. 2:23). This is a generic name, not a personal name. After the Fall, Adam "called" his wife "Eve," a personal name (Gen. 3:20).

The one who names a thing or person has the authority and power to name (Gen. 1:5, 8, 10, 2:19, 20). For example, parents have the authority to name their children. The fact that Adam names the woman further suggests Adam's special authority role within the first couple's relationship."[5]This of course was never repeated, for when a man enters into the bonds of marriage with a woman, she already has a name given to her by her parents.

(6.) The Lord God made the man and woman equal in nature. Neither the man is superior over the woman, nor the woman over the man (see Gen. 1:27; 2:23; 29: 14; Eph. 5: 28-29). God created the woman out of the rib of Adam. This in every sense shows their equality in nature. Adam recognize the woman shared his same nature. So he proclaimed, "bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh" (2: 23). This same truth is echoed again in Laban's words to Jacob, "Surely you are my bone and my flesh" (see 29: 14, NASB). Then lastly in Paul's words, "So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church" (Eph. 5: 28-29, NASB). As you can see from the above verses that the woman was never considered inferior to the man. She was never to be placed on the lower level with animals that Adam named (2: 19, 20). The woman also bears the image of God with man (1: 27).

As you can see from the six points above that the Scriptures argues for the truth that the man is to fulfill the role as the leader in the home. The man’s role in the marital relationship is more about leading than about controlling in the negative context. It in no way implies that the woman is inferior to the man, but rather confirms that she both shares the same nature as the man as well as bears the image of God with the man as well. They are equal, yet different. Their roles are different as well, while at the same time complementing each other. In closing, consider some of these Scriptures (See 1 Cor. 7: 2-4; 11: 3-14; Eph. 5: 25, 33; 1 Tim. 2: 11-15; 1 Pet. 3: 7).

---

[1]Alexander Strauch, Men and Women Equal Yet Different, (Lewis & Roth Publishers, Littleton, CO. Ninth Printing 2010), pg. 20-21.

[2]Alexander Strauch, Men and Women Equal Yet Different, Ibid., pg. 21-22.

[3]Alexander Strauch, Men and Women Equal Yet Different, Ibid., pg. 22.

[4]Alexander Strauch, Men and Women Equal Yet Different, Ibid., pgs. 22-23.

[5]Alexander Strauch, Men and Women Equal Yet Different, Ibid., pgs. 23-24.

"Selling One's Virginity?"

"Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness."

(Leviticus 19: 29, KJV)

 

Recently I had read an article online at "The Huffington Post" that bothered me. It was posted on the Huffington Post website last year on October 25, 2012. So I know this is old news. I thought it worth mentioning here on my blog, because of the moral implications associated with the article.  It related a story about a 20 year old Brazilian woman who was auctioning off her virginity. Her name is Catarina Migliorini a physical education student.

 

When the online auction closed down, a man from Japan known as "Natsu" beat out five other bidders with the whopping price of $780, 000 for Migliorini's virginity. At the same auction, Alex Stepanov didn't do as well as Catarina, for his virginity only sold for $3, 000. His virginity was sold to a woman from Brazil named "Nene B."

 

According to the Huffington Post article, the young woman was selling her virtue for a worthy cause. The article made this statement:

 

"Although Migliorini, a physical education student, has claimed to the media that she planned to donate as much as 90 percent of the auction price to charities that will build homes in the Brazilian state of Santa Catarina, even auction organizer Justin Sisely, who devised the plan for a proposed documentary, was skeptical.

 

"I was surprised she said that because in all my dealings with her, she made it clear that it was a business decision for her," Australian filmmaker Justin Sisely told The Huffington Post recently. "Now, given how big this story is in Brazil, she's trapped. If she doesn't give any money to charity, she's going to look bad."[1]

 

This of course puts into question her motive for selling her virginity to the highest bidder "Natsu." It is obvious to the observer that her motive seems to be one of greed. It is also a moral issue as well. Now that the price has been established for her virginity, "Natsu" will be tested for any STD's before having sex with Migliorini "aboard a plane flying between Australia and the US" to avoid prostitution laws. Migliorini will also be tested to prove she is a virgin as she claims to be.

 

There has been much controversy surrounding the issue of Catarina selling her virtue. Although having sex in exchange for money pretty much defines prostitution, Migliorini doesn't see it that way. For she told the Folha newspaper:

 

"I saw this as a business. I have the opportunity to travel, to be part of a movie and get a bonus with it. If you only do it once in your life then you are not a prostitute, just like if you take one amazing photograph it does not automatically make you a photographer. The auction is just business, I'm a romantic girl at heart and believe in love. But this will make a big difference to my area."[2]

However, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a prostitute as "one who engages in sexual activities for money." (pg. 579). So whether Miss Migliorini argues that selling her virginity is not prostitution, because it is only a once in a life time thing. It doesn't matter if it is a one time event or many times. It is still prostitution due to the fact that she is exchanging sex for money. Now as for her comparing her one time sex act for money does not make her a prostitute, just like if you take one great picture does not make you a photographer is bogus. There is a world of difference between taking one photograph and selling your body for sex. Exchanging sex for money is a moral issue, whereas taking one great picture is not.

 

God has designed sex strictly for the marital relationship between the husband and wife (see Heb. 13: 4). Sex outside the bonds of marriage is the sin of fornication and adultery (see Ex. 20: 14). Now as for exchanging sexual favors for money is not only a direct violation of God's law, it is both adulterous and fornication (see Lev. 19: 29; Deut. 23: 17). We read in the Book of Genesis of one of the sons of Jacob, named Judah who consorted with his daughter in law who had prostituted herself to him (see Gen. 38: 13-26); then in the Book of Joshua, we read about Rahab the harlot (prostitute) who was saved  when she received the spies in faith (see Joshua 2: 1-24; 6: 17; Heb. 11: 31).

 

Even more troubling is the fact that two months later Catarina is still a virgin due to the fact she had her first time sexual encounter with "Natsu" postponed. Which in one sense is a good thing, but the troubling thing is now she is posing for playboy. David Moye writes:

" Now, she's selling nude pictures to Playboy, and there's no further talk that she's doing it for charity. Migliorini, the 20-year-old Brazilian woman who allegedly auctioned off her virginity online for $780,000, has parlayed her notoriety into a photo spread for Playboy, according to the Brazilian news website Entretenimento.r7.com. The pictorial will appear in the January issue of the magazine's Brazilian edition, but there is no word on whether it will appear in the U.S. version of the mag as well."[3]

Even though this is old news, it has many people concerned that this form of online prostitution may start a whole new trend among young women to sell sex for big money. There is no question about it sex sells. Indeed, morality has hit an all time low world wide. I believe in the future we are sadly going to hear more stories of this nature posted on the Internet. May God rescue our young people from such a life of immorality.

---

[1] Dave Moye, Catarina Migliorini Sells Virginity for $780, 000; Male Virgin Alex Stepanov Gets $3, 000, (The Huffington Post, 10/25/2012, 1:25pm).

[2] Lee Moran,  Brazilian student, 20, agrees to sell her virginity for $780, 000 after putting it up for auction online, (Mail Online, October 25, 2012).

[3] David Moye, Catarina Migliorini: Still A Virgin, But Now A Playmate? (NSFW PHOTOS), (The Huffington Post, 12/26/2012, 10:13am).