Biblical interpretation in part connects its meaning to inspiration and authority of the text for people of faith. Many clergy believe the Bible to be inspired by God on some level. Of the many perspectives on inspiration, I hold to the verbal plenary view of inspiration (Roat, 2021). In this context, ‘verbal’ means that the words in the original manuscripts were, ‘breathed into’ by God and therefore have authority and integrity for the reader. The verbal plenary view recognizes that edits and errors made by translators are neither inspired by God nor authoritative. Textual variants, i.e. differences between ancient manuscripts, number three quarters of a million for the New Testament alone. Ehrman (2005) reported from 200,000 to 400,000 variants based on 5,700 Greek and 10,000 Latin manuscripts, with numerous other ancient translations and quotes by Church Fathers. Epp (2014) raised the number of textual variants to 750,000. Although thousands of ancient texts differ in spelling, syntax, and grammar, no variant impacts the big picture of sexual health or theological content of the New Testament. 

Textual variants and translator edits underlie adding, ‘plenary’ (meaning the whole story or big picture of the Bible has integrity and authority for the reader) to a healthy view of inspiration. Verbal plenary inspiration embraces original manuscripts with sensitivity to literary devices, personality and style of individual authors, culture, natural revelation, and textual variants. The verbal plenary view of inspiration supports the entirety of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, communicating intimacy with God and one another without error. Therefore, the Bible can be a person of faith’s infallible sexual health guide for little children.

Because the text finds meaning and authority for a person of faith, I take seriously the inspired mandates of Jesus and Paul the Apostle to abstain from condemning sexual health. Scripture specifically directs the reader to pronounce ‘no judgement’ for the sexuality of others. 

The Sermon on the Mount includes the first sexual health conversation of Jesus. Matthew 5 begins Christ’s premier sermon series. He cites ten statements of blessing called The Beatitudes. Jesus mirrors the Ten Commandments of Exodus 20 in this piece. The topics he addresses correspond word-for-word to the ancient Exodus sexual health mandates. 

You have heard that it was said, “You shall not commit adultery”…It has been said, “Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.” But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. (Matthew 5:27-31)  

Then in Matthew 7, Christ concludes the Sermon on the Mount with the directive, 

Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, “Let me take the speck out of your eye,” when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. (Matthew 7:1-4)

The following is not an edit of Scripture, but rather a reflection on context and meaning for sexual health conversation with little children. If the reader inserts sexual health language to the nonjudgment mandates, then the passage may look like, 

Do not judge the sexuality of others, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge the sexual health of others, you will be judged, the measure you use for others’ sexuality, it will be measured to you. Why do you assess the sexual mores of another and pay no attention to your own unhealthy sexuality? You hypocrite, first attend to your own sexual health and then you will see your brother clearly. (Matthew 7:1-4)

The orthodoxy of nonjudgement continues when Christ speaks specifically to intersexuality in Matthew 19:12. Jesus answers sexual health questions about the marriage covenant and divorce in this passage. His disciples remark singleness with celibacy may be better than the trauma of a broken marriage covenant. Jesus responds with a sexual health statement on celibacy and intersexuality-eunuchs, followed by a value statement about children. Jesus states, 

“Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.” Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” (Matthew 19:8-12)

Jesus speaks about eunuchs: at birth, due to external factors like surgery, and voluntary celibacy. An inclusio is a Biblical literary device assisting readers to conceptualize the beginning and ending of a literary piece. Because ancient documents contained no punctuation, identical words or images begin and conclude sections to help the reader understand the, ‘start and stop’ of specific content. This piece forms an inclusio beginning and ending with the same word “accept”, “Not everyone can accept this word…The one who can accept this should accept it” (Matthew 19:12). Jesus speaks about those in the church, “born” without ability for heterosexual intercourse. Christ mentions this intersexual community without shame or condemnation. He includes the “born” that way intersexual-eunuch, with eunuchs who are “made” or surgically castrated. Jesus then includes himself with those who choose singleness with celibacy for the sake of God’s reign. Christ appears reconciliatory for intersexuals rather than condemning.

Immediately following the intersex piece, Jesus connects to the intrinsic value of little children.

Then people brought little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked them. Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there. (Matthew 19:8-15)

The foundation of this work builds on Scriptural intent to teach children sexual health in age-appropriate ways. Christ not only affirms intersexuality and singleness within the church, he connects this piece to the value of children by blessing them. 

Jesus refuses to use shame with condemnation in the unhealthy sexuality snapshots of John 4 and John 8. In John 4, Christ meets a woman from Samaria with history of failed relationships. 

He told her, “Go, call your husband and come back.”“I have no husband,” she replied. Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband. The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband.” …Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman’s testimony, “He told me everything I ever did.” So when the Samaritans came to him, they urged him to stay with them, and he stayed two days. And because of his words many more became believers.” (John 4:16-41)

Christ’s truthful-compassionate counsel without judgment results in spiritual awakening for the woman with many more in her community. 

Jesus advocates for a woman traumatized by sexual abuse in John 8. In this sexual health snapshot, Christ clearly demonstrates his compassionate approach that does not shame and condemn those who seek his advice. Jesus neither judges the religious perpetrators nor the woman who survived clergy abuse.

At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”“No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.” (John 8:2-11)

Paul the Apostle mandates similar orthodox thinking about noncondemnation. Specifically Paul addresses unhealthy sexuality in Romans 1 and then immediately follows this conversation with a noncondemnation directive for the faith community of Rome in chapter 2:1. Paul uses the word “contempt” or “despise” for the practice of condemning the sexuality of others,

You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass [sexual health] judgment on another. For on whatever grounds you judge the [sexual health of the] other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same [sexually unhealthy] things.Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such [sexually unhealthy] things is based on truth. So when you, a mere human being, pass [sexual] judgment on them and yet do the same [sexually unhealthy] things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance? (Romans 2:1-4)

This statement tracks the directive of Jesus in Matthew 7 to refuse judgment of others, including sexual condemnation (Matthew 7:1-5, Romans 2:1). Perhaps Paul the Apostle makes a case for awareness of one’s own coercive sexual behaviors? Could it be that sexual judgment of others reflects personal pathogenesis or decline to unhealthy sexuality? The Gospel of first century Christianity spread through the Mediterranean without condemnation or sexual shame. Instead,“God’s kindness is intended to lead you to [a heart change of] repentance.” (Romans 2:4)

In Romans 7:1-6, Paul begins  a conversation regarding sexual health and marriage. 

Do you not know, brothers and sisters—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law has authority over someone only as long as that person lives? For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law that binds her to him. So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man. (Romans 7:1-3)  

The Apostle to the Romans then clarifies this conversation connects specifically to sexual health. 

So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. For when we were in the realm of the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. (Romans 7:4-6) 

Paul immediately in this sexual health context connects perhaps his own personal anxiety. 

We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. (Romans 7:14-20) 

The struggle with sin Paul speaks of seems to connect directly to the sexual health conversation of 7:4-6. 

Many books in the Bible contain the climax or main point of the work at the center of the literary piece. Paul too forms the climax of the Book of Romans in chapter 8. In this great chapter Paul affirms that God works all things for the good, nothing can separate a believing person from God, and the Apostle infuses hope for sexual health. The beginning of Romans 8 follows the nonjudgment mandate of Jesus in Matthew 7, and Paul’s directive for noncondemnation in chapter 2:1.

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the 

Spirit. (Romans 8:2-3)

In 1 Corinthians 10 and 11, Paul instructs the Corinthians regarding communion. The Apostle gives specific sexual health boundaries:

Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did. Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written: “The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry.” We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did—and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died. We should not test Christ, as some of them did—and were killed by snakes. And do not grumble, as some of them did—and were killed by the destroying angel. (1 Corinthians 10:6-11)

Chapter 11 then invites the Corinthian community to examine their individual sexual health. Paul gives no direction to judge the sexual health of others. “Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves” (1 Corinthians 11:28). 

Again, if sexual health examination formed part of Paul’s concern, the text might have read, “Everyone ought to examine one’s own sexual health before eating the bread and drinking the cup.”

The tradition of Christ and the Apostle Paul both forbid sexual judgement and by example mandate zero tolerance for condemning gender. Both authorities of the church clearly forbid judging the sexuality of others and condemning gender. Christ and Paul in Scripture agree judging the sexuality of others brings God’s similar condemnation to the critic who actually projects his own sexual sins onto others.