BERG’S "VISIONS" OF CHRIST
Berg asserted that while on earth, Christ had "free sex" sex with at least three different unmarried women, Mary and Martha (the sisters of Lazarus), and Mary Magdalene. And so far as Berg could see, that was just fine. In "Houris of Heaven!", letter 1237, para.46, Berg argued:
"Why should Jesus have been considered sinful to have enjoyed sex with Mary & Martha? He loved them, so why not?"
In "More on Feedin’ the Fish!," letter 548, paras.45,47,48, Berg again insisted it was no sin for Christ to fornicate:
"Well why not? It was no sin for Him! There was no sin, no offense, no reason why He should not enjoy the sexual fellowship of Mary and Martha! And He did!
Berg claimed that all laws against sexual immorality in the Old Testament were done away with when the era of grace was ushered in. He wilfully ignored the fact that fornication is just as clearly forbidden in the New Testament as it was in the Old. Since this class deals with Berg’s claim that Christ indulged in fornication, please note the strong wording in the following Bible passages. 1Thessalonians 4:1-8 says:
"For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you should abstain from fornication. For God did not call us to uncleanness, but in holiness. Therefore he who rejects this does not reject man, but God."
Ephesians 5:3-6 warns even more clearly:
"But fornication...let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints. For this you know, that no fornicator...has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no man deceive you with empty words."
Jesus Himself expressed His clear views about fornication in Matthew 15:19: "Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts...adulteries, fornications...things which defile a man."
Now, Berg said repeatedly that adultery and fornication were no longer sins under the New Testament dispensation of grace, yet here we have Jesus saying that both adultery and fornication defile a man! Who are you going to believe?
Now, either Jesus Christ meant what He said and followed His own advice, or—if we are to believe Berg—Jesus was a hypocrite who taught one thing but practised another, who warned against fornication, yet indulged in sex with every woman He could get His sweaty hands on.
Berg was the hypocrite.—Not Jesus! Jesus meant what He said and lived what He spoke. And this was not the only incident where He spoke strongly against fornication. Even Berg points out that the Book of Revelation is "the revelation of Jesus Christ," so let’s have a look at what Jesus is quoted as saying in the book of Revelation.
When the Thyatirans followed a false prophetess who taught God’s servants to commit fornication, Jesus rebuked them in Revelation 2:19-24, saying:
"I have a few things against you, because you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce My servants to commit sexual immorality (fornication)".
Jesus Christ finished by declaring that this doctrine was—
"...the depths of Satan..."
Let’s see now: Jezebel taught Christians that it was OK to commit fornication and Jesus Christ called her teaching "the depths of Satan." David Berg taught Christians that it was OK to commit fornication, and Jesus calls his teaching . . .
David Berg called his own immoral teaching the Law of Love. But it is certain that that is not what Jesus Christ called. He would call it the Depths of Satan. Another title would be the Doctrine of Baalim.
In Revelations 2:14-16, Christ warned the believers in nearby Pergamos who were indulging in this same so-called "liberty" as Jezebel back in Thyratira. Jesus said:
"I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the doctrine of Baalim, who taught Balak to cast a stumbling block before the children of Israel...to commit fornication. Repent! Or else I will come to you quickly and will fight against them!"
These are Jesus Christ’s clear teachings on the subject of fornication and "free love," so it would have been impossible for Him to have indulged in those very sins He so strongly spoke against. Berg, however, taught differently, ignoring what the Bible said. How could he make a claim that was totally contrary to the very words of Jesus? Well, he received divine "visions" that convinced him. Let’s have a look at these so-called visions.
BERG’S "VISIONS" OF CHRIST
Berg asserts that Christ repeatedly fornicated with His female followers, and in particular, had sex with two unwed women, Mary and Martha. Berg taught this heresy as far back as 1971, where he hinted that he had received a "special revelation." On February 9, 1971, in "Second Epistle to Pastors", letter 48, para.10, he said:
"For example, Elijah was obviously living with this gal, for some time, like Elisha with the Shunemite woman, who built him a cozy little room on her house, and like Jesus, with Mary and Martha, whom He often visited! But just how far you take this is anybody’s guess, and makes highly controversial, if not dangerous, speculation—unless you’ve got it by special revelation, as I have."
What was this "special revelation" Berg claimed he had received? He explained in "Houris of Heaven!", letter 1237, paras. 30,46,47:
"That’s the only time I ever had a vision of Christ, the only time I ever saw Him that I ever recall. I can remember that little roadside park & the Cruiser where Maria & I were making love. I exploded in the Spirit speaking loudly in tongues with a message that would shock most of the world about Jesus & Mary & Martha, with whom I saw Him in that moment...You say, `But He was sinless!’ Well, since when is sex a sin?
"Why should Jesus have been considered sinful to have enjoyed sex with Mary & Martha?—Which He did according to what I saw in my vision that time & I’ve believed ever since! He was in their company a great deal of the time, He stayed in their home a lot, they loved Him & He loved them, so why not?
"He was in a body & He was human, He was physical, He had needs, He had to eat & sleep & go to the bathroom just like you & I do, & I’m sure He needed sex!—So why shouldn’t He have had it?
Berg states that he knows that Christ fornicated with Mary because he "had a vision" of it from God. In "More on Feedin’ the Fish!", letter 548, paras.44-48, he said:
"He was obviously trying to teach His disciples how to do it, and did some very strange and peculiar things in the process!—Including sleeping with Mary and Martha!—Which was rather revolutionary, considering they were two unmarried sisters, and I don’t know that they ever had any ceremony!
"But I know He made love to Mary because I had a vision of it! I always suspected that situation, as He was always staying at these two pretty single girls’ house! Well why not? It was no sin for Him! It was one of His normal, natural legitimate physical needs, just like eating or going to the bathroom! Maybe that’s a very unromantic way to look at it, but sexual love is a necessity too, and He was a man, human, and tempted in all points like as we, the Scripture say so, and yet without sin! (Heb.4:15)
"Sex is God-created so it’s no sin, unless it hurts or offends somebody. So there was no offense. That’s probably why they kept it quiet, so as not to offend some weak narrow-minded people. But there was no sin, no offense, no reason why He should not enjoy the sexual fellowship of Mary and Martha! And He did, because I saw Mary making love to Him in a vision I had once right in the middle of a climax!"
This teaching is not mere speculation which the Family is free to dismiss as Berg’s guesswork. This is not something they can sweep under the rug as one of Berg’s "ex cathedra" teachings. Berg repeatedly insists that this was a vision from God, indeed, that it was a "special revelation."
What about Berg’s claim that Jesus also had sex with Mary Magdalene, believed to have once been a harlot? Remember, Berg has already claimed to have one vision of Jesus Christ fornicating. Now he describes "the other picture" he had long ago. In "Little Nuggets!", letter 651, paras.45-47, he said:
"Jesus and Mary were enjoying sex without sin! He was so rugged and brown with such black curly hair and brown-eyed, lying there flat on His back with His arms over His head, and Mary was lying beside Him jacking Him up. That was the other picture I had long ago. He was so dark and she was so fair, a buxom bosomy blue-eyed blonde!"
Berg not only insisted that Jesus and Mary Magdalene fornicated, but that He contracted a venereal disease from her and that part of Christ’s agony on the cross was due to the fact that He was suffering from VD. In "Afflictions!", letter 569, paras. 28,34,38,39,41,48,51,52,55,61, 74,117,183,184, Berg expounded:
"Now I’m going to tell you something that’s going to be hard for you to believe, but...I think it’s a direct revelation of God—and I believe the Scriptures confirm it from one end to the other! All I can see is that sometime in His life Jesus Himself suffered sickness to know what it was like to be sick, so that He could be a perfect High Priest ‘touched with the feeling of our infirmities’ because He Himself went through it! But not only that, He ‘Himself bare our sins in His own body on the tree’.
"(Maria: What does that mean? Does it mean physically?) Well, on the cross—on the cross He of course bore everything. (Maria: But as you said, if He made love with women, evidently it happened...right?) It must be. (Maria: He may have even contracted some diseases from those women.)
"How could He possibly have been tempted in all points like as we are unless at some time He suffered diseases? They must have blotted that out, the church or the Jews, somewhere along the way, like they did about His relationship with Mary and Martha, because that was just too much for them to stomach!
"He may even have contracted a disease from Mary Magdalene, who had been a known prostitute, and several other women that were prostitutes that followed Him, or Mary and Martha. If so, then He was certainly tempted in all points like as we are, and He bore it for their sakes because they needed His love!
"That’s a shocking doctrine, isn’t it! One of these days they’re probably going to say, "Well, they even believe that Jesus had venereal disease!" Whew! Well, if He suffered every other human frailty...why not? If He’d never suffered their sexual diseases, He could never really have full compassion on their sufferings, could He?—To be willing to even contract their diseases!
"(‘Himself took our infirmities and bare our sicknesses’. ‘Surely He hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows.’ See, ‘Yet we did esteem Him stricken of God and afflicted!’—In other words they claimed it was because He’d sinned!) Yes, they were accusing Him that He was sick because of His sins, but instead He was sick because of our sins!
"What a doctrine! Oh my God, what a doctrine! Wait’ll they hear this one! If they thought the others were strong, wait till they hear this one! For at the same time Christ was crucified He was also not only just suffering in the flesh but bearing our sins and our iniquities and our diseases and all of that!
"I already told you that the Lord showed me that the Lord had sex with Mary and Martha and probably Mary Magdalene the harlot! Who knows but what he caught something from her? When I got this answer, Maria said, ‘Well you know, maybe He caught something from those women, so He knows what it’s like, because they needed His love and He ministered to them."
It’s time to draw a few conclusions: first of all, just because David Berg had visions of Christ having sex with different women, doesn’t mean that these were visions from God. The Bible repeatedly warns against false visions.—Visions which originate in the corrupt hearts and minds of the prophets, not the Spirit of God.
Jeremiah 14:14 says, "The prophets prophesy lies in My name. I have not sent them, commanded them, nor spoken to them; they prophesy to you a false vision, divination, a worthless thing, and the deceit of their heart."
Was Berg’s vision a deceit of his own heart? Obviously. Berg even lets us know how it happened. He states that since Jesus "was always staying at these two pretty single girls’ house" that he, Berg, "always suspected that situation." It figures he would. Berg filled his mind with those lewd thoughts for so long that surprise, surprise!—One day he has a "vision" of it!
Jeremiah 23:16 also warns, "Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you. They make you worthless; they speak a vision of their own heart, not from the mouth of the Lord." And in Lamentations 2:14, Jeremiah said, "Your prophets have seen for you false and deceptive visions."
There can be little doubt but that David Berg’s visions were false and deceptive visions, visions of his own heart.
In recent days, Family spokespersons have tried to downplay the importance of such teachings. They either argue that such things are minor peripheral issues, saying, "that is not a part of our fundamental beliefs", or try to weasel out of it by denying it: "I don’t necessarily believe that."
While the Family feels free to deny (in public, at least) certain of Berg’s teachings as "ex-cathedra" speculations, they are obliged to believe "revelations" and "prophecies" Berg says he received from God. They must treat his "visions" and "special revelations"—such as his vision of Christ fornicating—as the very Word of God, on a par with the Bible itself. In "More Precious Pearls!", letter 540, para.4, Berg defined the difference:
"I would say that the business Letters and teaching letters are certainly not on the level of the Bible! But I will take those inspired and supernatural and divinely inspired Letters and put them on the same level as the rest of the Word of God!"
It would be wonderful if the Family would renounce Berg’s vision as not being of God—literally put it in writing that they renounce it as heresy—but you have to admit, it’s not likely that they’ll confess that. Especially since Maria has built upon that foundation to construct her own sad "Loving Jesus" revelations. So it’s time to "let the dead bury the dead" and break free of a dying, corrupt religious system, the Family, to follow Jesus personally yourself! And may God bless you as you do so!