This is one of the places where the framework supports both sides honestly, and I’ll present them both.
The case for: Genesis 9:6 is pre-law, pre-Sinai, given to Noah: “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” Romans 13:4 says the government “beareth not the sword in vain.” The sword is authorized. The state has a role in punishing evil. These verses are real and they say what they say.
The case against: The wheat and tares grow together. “Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest” (Matthew 13:29-30). You can’t know who is elect. If you execute someone whose firmware hasn’t been flashed yet — someone the Spirit was going to reach next year, next decade — you’ve cut short a thought God was still rendering. Man playing Author. Interfering with God’s timeline. And the rendering increased: “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil” (Matthew 5:38-39). The old rendering included capital punishment. The new rendering moves toward grace.
Where the framework lands: It doesn’t force a position. Both sides have scriptural weight. The framework derives the principles — the sanctity of life, the authority of government, the wheat and tares, the progressive rendering of ethics — but the application is a matter of conscience where believers may differ. And if your brother lands on the other side and is resting in Christ, that’s enough (Chapter 30).
For further study: Gen. 9:5-6; Ex. 21:12; Lev. 24:17; Num. 35:30-31; Deut. 19:11-13; Matt. 5:21-22; Matt. 5:38-39; Matt. 13:29-30; John 8:7; Rom. 12:17-19; Rom. 13:1-4; 1 Pet. 2:13-14.
The framework doesn’t produce pacifism. God authored war. He commanded it (Joshua). He used it (Babylon against Israel). He works through it (the Roman empire that spread the gospel). War is part of the rendering.
But the framework also doesn’t produce militarism. The saints are not called to conquer by the sword. “The weapons of our warfare are not carnal” (2 Corinthians 10:4). The kingdom advances through the Spirit, not through armies.
The framework says: governments wield the sword by God’s appointment (Romans 13:1-4). Individual believers extend grace, not violence. Both coexist in the same rendering. The government punishes evil. The believer loves enemies. Both are authored. Both are right for their sphere.
For further study: Ex. 15:3; Deut. 20:1-4; Josh. 6:2; Judges 3:1-2; 1 Sam. 17:47; 2 Chron. 20:15; Ps. 144:1; Eccl. 3:8; Isa. 2:4; Matt. 5:9; Matt. 5:44; Matt. 26:52; Luke 3:14; John 18:36; Eph. 6:10-12.
“The powers that be are ordained of God” (Romans 13:1).
Every government is authored. Democracies, monarchies, dictatorships, theocracies — all thoughts in the mind of God, rendering His purposes in the political sphere. No government is righteous. No government is permanent. All governments serve the one comprehensive thought until the rendering upgrades and Christ reigns directly.
The believer’s relationship to government is submission with conscience. Submit to the authorities (Romans 13). But not beyond conscience. “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). When the government commands what God forbids, or forbids what God commands, conscience overrides submission.
The framework doesn’t produce a political party. It produces a posture: submit, serve, pray for leaders (1 Timothy 2:1-2), and hold every earthly authority as temporary. The kingdom is not a democracy. The kingdom is a reign. And the Ruler has already been chosen.
For further study: Prov. 8:15-16; Prov. 21:1; Isa. 10:5-7; Isa. 45:1; Jer. 27:5-6; Dan. 2:21; Dan. 4:17; Dan. 4:25; Matt. 22:21; John 19:11; 1 Tim. 2:1-2; Titus 3:1; 1 Pet. 2:13-17; 1 Pet. 2:17.
“The Lord maketh poor, and maketh rich” (1 Samuel 2:7).
Both are authored. Wealth is not a sign of God’s blessing on the righteous, and poverty is not a sign of His curse. Job was rich before God stripped him, righteous through both states, and restored in the end. The prosperity gospel is the Pharisee in Luke 18 with a bank account.
The framework says: stewardship, not ownership. Everything is a thought in God’s mind. You don’t own anything. You hold what the Author placed in the story for the duration of your scene. Hold it loosely. Give generously. Not because giving earns favor. Because the Spirit in a generous heart produces generosity — fruit, not duty.
For further study: Deut. 8:17-18; Job 1:21; Ps. 24:1; Ps. 50:10-12; Prov. 11:24-25; Prov. 30:8-9; Eccl. 5:10; Matt. 6:19-21; Matt. 6:24; Matt. 6:33; Luke 12:15-21; Luke 16:13; 1 Tim. 6:6-10; 1 Tim. 6:17-19; James 2:5.
Tithing was part of the Sinai covenant — the law of works (Chapter 8). Christ is the end of the law (Chapter 20). Tithing is not required.
“Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver” (2 Corinthians 9:7).
As he purposeth in his heart. Not ten percent. Not a mandated formula. Purposeful, cheerful, voluntary giving, directed by the Spirit, not by a percentage. The church that demands a tithe has reimposed the law that Christ fulfilled. Give freely. Give generously. Give as the Spirit leads. But give because you want to, not because someone told you God requires exactly ten percent.
For further study: Gen. 14:20; Gen. 28:22; Lev. 27:30; Num. 18:21; Deut. 14:22-29; Mal. 3:8-10; Matt. 23:23; Luke 6:38; Luke 21:1-4; Acts 2:44-45; Acts 4:32-35; Rom. 12:8; 1 Cor. 16:2; 2 Cor. 8:1-5; 2 Cor. 9:6-8.
The covenant precedes the ceremony (Chapter 10). Marriage is the invisible reality — mutual commitment and union. The ceremony announces it. The legal document records it. But what makes a marriage is the covenant, and what breaks a marriage is the breaking of the covenant.
Christ said: “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery” (Matthew 19:9). The exception is there. Fornication breaks the covenant. Not just legally. Actually. The invisible reality is damaged.
Paul added: “But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases” (1 Corinthians 7:15). Abandonment releases the bond.
The framework doesn’t produce a rigid legalism about divorce. It produces compassion with honesty. Marriage is sacred because it renders the union between Christ and His church (Ephesians 5:31-32). Divorce is sin because it tears what God joined. But the elect who divorce are not beyond grace. The blood covers this sin the same as every other. And the grace that forgives the divorce is the same grace that can bless a new beginning.
For further study: Gen. 2:24; Deut. 24:1-4; Mal. 2:14-16; Matt. 5:31-32; Matt. 19:3-12; Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18; Rom. 7:2-3; 1 Cor. 7:10-16; 1 Cor. 7:27-28; 1 Cor. 7:39; Eph. 5:22-33; Heb. 13:4.
The “rod” in Proverbs is the most misapplied word in Christian parenting. “He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes” (Proverbs 13:24). Most Christians read that and hear: hit your children. I read it and hear: guide them.
A shepherd’s rod was not a weapon for beating sheep into submission. It was an instrument for guiding, directing, and protecting them. David didn’t say the rod terrified him. He said it comforted him. “Thy rod and thy staff they comfort me” (Psalm 23:4). If the rod is a beating stick, that verse makes no sense. If the rod is a guide, it makes perfect sense.
And here’s the question nobody asks: has God ever spanked you? I’ve been chastised. I’ve been corrected. I’ve been brought low by the Lord’s hand in ways that hurt deeply. But God’s correction is not violence. It’s guidance. It’s the Shepherd’s rod redirecting the wandering sheep. “For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth” (Hebrews 12:6). The chastening is real. But the model is a Father who disciplines through instruction and consequence, not a Father who hits.
If our parenting should reflect God’s parenting, and if God corrects His children through guidance, conviction, and consequence rather than physical violence, then the Proverbs passages about the rod may not mean what the tradition has told us they mean. The word “rod” in Hebrew can mean authority, guidance, or correction, not exclusively a stick for striking. And the God who shepherds His sheep with tenderness is the model for how we shepherd our children.
I raise this as a matter of conscience, not as a rule. Each parent stands before the Lord. But I raised my son without ever striking him, and he confessed Christ and was baptized as a young man. The rod guided him. It never needed to hit him.
For further study: Deut. 6:6-7; Prov. 3:11-12; Prov. 19:18; Prov. 22:6; Prov. 22:15; Prov. 23:13-14; Prov. 29:15; Prov. 29:17; Eph. 6:4; Col. 3:21; Heb. 12:7-11; 1 Thess. 2:7-8; 1 Thess. 2:11-12.
God loves homosexuals. He also hates homosexuals. The difference is not the sin. The difference is the seed.
Homosexuality is sin. Paul said what he said (Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6:9). It is an abomination. But it is not so great a sin that it can cause God to stop loving one of His elect children. If an unregenerate elect child of God is caught up in the sin of homosexuality, they will be called out of that lifestyle. The Spirit will bring the Gospel to that individual, cause them to look to Christ, and put within them a new heart.
The Westboro theology — “God hates fags” — fails because it refuses to distinguish between the seeds. It treats all homosexuals as reprobate. But God has elect people in every category of sin. The elect homosexual is loved with an everlasting love (Jeremiah 31:3), even while living in a sin that God calls an abomination. And the self-righteous Pharisee who thanks God he is not like the publican (Luke 18:9-14) may be in worse shape than the sinner he despises.
In the framework: absolute predestination means the orientation was authored. It is not a “choice.” It is not a “lifestyle decision.” God creates each person with a sin nature according to His sovereign purpose (Chapter 11). The homosexual’s nature was ordained the same way every person’s nature was ordained. This position is too honest for most conservatives and too traditional for most progressives. But the framework doesn’t flinch for either audience.
The answer is not condemnation. The answer is not celebration. The answer is Christ. “We drink iniquity like water” (Job 15:16). Every sin is the same distance from grace (Chapter 14). And the sharpest doctrine produces the widest arms (Chapter 30).
For further study: Gen. 19:1-13; Lev. 18:22; Lev. 20:13; Rom. 1:26-28; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; 1 Tim. 1:9-10; Jude 7; Matt. 9:10-13; Mark 2:17; Luke 7:36-50; Luke 15:1-2; John 3:16-17; Gal. 5:19-21; Rev. 21:8.
The church has historically treated sex as a concession — something tolerated within marriage but never celebrated. This is the law of Plato applied to the body. If the spirit is higher than the flesh (Plato), then sexual union is a lesser activity, permitted but not honored. The framework rejects this entirely.
In Chapter 10, we established that the physical union between husband and wife IS the theological statement about Christ and the church. “The two shall become one flesh. This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church” (Ephesians 5:31-32). Paul calls it a mystery — the physical and the spiritual are one thing, not two. The body is not lesser than the soul. The union is not lesser than the worship. The Song of Solomon is not an embarrassment tucked into the canon by accident. It is God’s celebration of what He designed.
If everything that exists is a thought in the mind of God, then sexual union within marriage is a thought God is actively thinking. He designed the bodies. He designed the pleasure. He designed the vulnerability, the tenderness, the loss of control, the moment when the glass comes down and two people stand in the same space with nothing between them. That is not a concession. That is a sacrament without a priest.
“Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled” (Hebrews 13:4). The bed is undefiled. Not merely permitted. Not grudgingly tolerated. Undefiled. Clean. Holy. The writer of Hebrews does not qualify this statement. He does not add “within certain boundaries” or “for procreation only.” The bed is undefiled. Period.
The Song of Solomon celebrates oral intimacy explicitly, and the church has spent centuries pretending it doesn’t. Let the text speak for itself.
The beloved (the woman) describes her desire for her husband: “Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine” (Song of Solomon 1:2). This is not a peck on the cheek. This is a woman asking for the fullness of her husband’s mouth. And she wants it more than wine.
She continues: “As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste” (Song of Solomon 2:3). His fruit. Sweet to her taste. The imagery is unmistakable. She is describing oral intimacy and she is describing it with delight, not shame.
The husband responds in kind. “Thy lips, O my spouse, drop as the honeycomb: honey and milk are under thy tongue” (Song of Solomon 4:11). Under her tongue. Honey and milk. The man is describing the sweetness of his wife’s mouth on his body, and God put this verse in the Bible.
Then the invitation: “Awake, O north wind; and come, thou south; blow upon my garden, that the spices thereof may flow out. Let my beloved come into his garden, and eat his pleasant fruits” (Song of Solomon 4:16). She calls her body a garden. She invites him to eat. This is not metaphor that accidentally sounds sexual. This is sexual language deliberately chosen by the Holy Spirit to describe what the marriage bed looks like when the glass comes down.
And God’s response to all of it: “I am come into my garden, my sister, my spouse: I have gathered my myrrh with my spice; I have eaten my honeycomb with my honey; I have drunk my wine with my milk: eat, O friends; drink, yea, drink abundantly, O beloved” (Song of Solomon 5:1). The voice in this verse is God’s. The church fathers recognized it as such. And God says eat. Drink abundantly. He does not say “enough.” He does not say “be careful.” He says drink abundantly. God is celebrating what the couple just did. And He is inviting all married lovers to do the same.
The husband describes his wife’s body: “Thy navel is like a round goblet, which wanteth not liquor: thy belly is like an heap of wheat set about with lilies” (Song of Solomon 7:2). The word translated “navel” may refer to her lower anatomy. Scholars have debated this, but the surrounding language leaves little room for sanitizing it. He is admiring her body from her thighs upward, slowly, worshipfully.
And then: “I said, I will go up to the palm tree, I will take hold of the boughs thereof: now also thy breasts shall be as clusters of the vine, and the smell of thy nose like apples; And the roof of thy mouth like the best wine” (Song of Solomon 7:8-9). He climbs the palm tree. He takes hold. Her breasts are like clusters. And the roof of her mouth is like the best wine. This is a man describing the full range of physical intimacy with his wife, including her mouth on his body, and God chose to preserve every word of it in holy Scripture.
This is what God celebrates. Not tolerates. Celebrates. The church that teaches shame about oral intimacy within marriage is teaching against the Song of Solomon. The pastor who won’t address this topic from the pulpit is refusing to preach a book that God put in the canon. And the young couple who enters marriage believing that certain acts of love are “dirty” has been catechized by Plato, not by the Holy Spirit.
God is not embarrassed by sex. He designed it. He described it. He celebrated it. And He told us to drink abundantly.
So if God Himself celebrates the full range of marital intimacy, what does the framework say about boundaries?
What is permitted within the marriage bed? The framework’s answer is simple: whatever both partners freely and lovingly choose together. The bed is undefiled. There is no Levitical code for marital intimacy. There is no list of approved positions or acts. There is one rule: love. “The love of Christ constraineth us” (2 Corinthians 5:14). What love constrains, love also frees. If both partners give freely and receive gratefully, the bed is undefiled. If either partner is coerced, manipulated, or shamed, the bed is defiled — not by the act, but by the absence of love.
The church’s silence on this topic has done more damage than its preaching on any other. Generations of believers have entered marriage with guilt, shame, and confusion about something God designed to be the most intimate rendering of covenant love available to human beings. The man who feels guilty for desiring his wife has been poisoned by Plato, not convicted by the Spirit. The woman who feels shame for enjoying her husband has been taught by the culture, not by the Song of Solomon. And the marriage that treats sex as an obligation rather than a celebration has lost the substance while keeping the ceremony.
The covenant precedes the ceremony. The love precedes the act. And the act, when it flows from the love, is worship in the truest sense — two image-bearers rendering the covenant in flesh, the glass coming down, the invisible becoming visible, the mystery of Christ and the church collapsed into a moment between a man and a woman who chose each other.
The bed is undefiled. Let the church say so.
For further study: Gen. 2:24-25; Gen. 26:8; Prov. 5:15-19; Song 1:2; Song 1:13; Song 2:3; Song 2:6; Song 4:1-7; Song 4:11; Song 4:16; Song 5:1; Song 5:4; Song 7:1-9; Song 7:10-12; Song 8:6-7; 1 Cor. 7:3-5; 1 Cor. 7:9; Eph. 5:28-32; Heb. 13:4; 1 Tim. 4:1-5.
Copyright © 2026 by Brandan Kraft. All rights reserved.
Published by Pristine Grace Publishing · pristinegrace.org
ISBN: 979-8-234-05049-6 · First Edition, 2026
Read A Thought in the Mind of God offline in your preferred format.
Commentary