His Word ... a prophetic perspective

Home

God Created Man ... Male And Female Created He Them

The Genuine Biblical Wedding

        The biblical text reveals that “Adam” was created male and female simultaneously. God later “built” a woman, separate from the man, whom the man Adam later renamed “Eve.”
        This human entity was created in the image and likeness of God Himself. They were given dominion over the earth. They were to be fruitful and multiply and earn their living from the earth.
        When God put the man Adam to sleep and built a woman for Adam from part of Adam’s flank, God then brought the woman to the man Adam.
        Note that Adam immediately recognized that the woman was “... now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” It wasn’t until Genesis 4:1, however, that Adam “knew” Eve, which word “knew” is a euphemism for sexual intercourse, as is the phrase “become one flesh.”
        That is a biblical description of the first “wedding” ceremony which makes a man a “husband” and a woman a “wife.”
        Traditions and social approval of those traditions have added ceremonial procedures and terminology to this Godly instituted practice.

Genesis 1:26-31:
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Genesis 5:1-2:
1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

Genesis 2:7-15:
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
9 And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. 10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. 11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.
15 And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

Genesis 2:21-25:
21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

        A foundational truth expressed in these scriptures is that God created male and female for each other. And they were created equally, but complementary as Adam and Eve, not Adam and Adam. (It was not until after the fall that God instituted a new order for them.) They were given a command by God to: “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” Being fruitful and multiplying can only be accomplished by sexual union of a man and a woman, male and female. Any other combination man’s fanciful imagination can think of simply does not qualify. Do they?

        OK, now stop your brain. And listen. This article is not about “gay-bashing” or “politically incorrect” or about hatred. This article is about biblical correctness and if you feel condemned or unjustly accused, then that’s your problem because I’m only stating Bible truth as best I can. It is condemning and accusing to those to whom it applies, and who don’t intend to do anything about it. That includes not only homosexuals, but also heterosexuals who have sexual intercourse with someone who is not their spouse, and/or commit incest, adultery or sex with animals.
        I have no agenda, no axe to grind, nor do I feel anything but empathy (sometimes sympathy) for those who have been caught up in the passions of this day and hour.
        I am simply attempting to present the Bible facts about this marvelous thing we call “sex.” The Bible is your judge. Its pages speak to your conscience. If you hear it speaking to you, pay attention. What I have to say is, ultimately, unimportant if you fail to listen to and obey the Bible. Only God can judge you. And God will speak to you through your conscience. Unless you turn Him off.

A Progression

        Verse 24 reveals a progressive pattern for man and woman: First, all dependency must be re-prioritized. The man must become self-supporting in material and non-material things of life. This includes emotional feelings and ties previously held. Specifically mentioned in the text are a man’s ties to his father and mother. This would indicate a mature person who has the capability of making a pro-active decision to “cut the umbilical cord” and step out on his own and assume the responsibility for his own future. A mature “man” (not an immature “boy”) able to plan for family and finances.
        Although not specifically stated in Genesis 2:24, it’s obvious the woman would have the same mature mind-set.
        Once a man is in a position to provide for himself and is prepared to re-focus his emotional feelings and ties to a woman, then, when he meets her, he must be prepared to “cleave” to the one that he chooses. Note that there is no specific word for “wife” in the Hebrew. That it is translated as such is simply a tacit acknowledgment of the fact that those men and women who “cleave” unto each other and make a public announcement of their intention to be committed to each other and then engage in sexual intercourse are “married.” They were and are so called by contemporary societies.
        The word “cleave” in the Hebrew is “dabaq.” According to Strong’s definition it is:

        dabaq: “a primitive root; properly, to impinge, i.e. cling or adhere; figuratively, to catch by pursuit.” It’s variously translated in the King James Version of the Bible as “abide fast, cleave (fast together), follow close (hard after), be joined (together), keep (fast), overtake, pursue hard, stick, take.”

        Vine’s Expository Dictionary definition:

        “Cleave, Clingdabaq “to cling, cleave, keep close.” Used in modern Hebrew in the sense of “to stick to, adhere to,” dabaq yields the noun form for “glue” and also the more abstract ideas of “loyalty, devotion.” Occurring just over 60 times in the Hebrew Old Testament, this term is found very early in the text, in (Gen. 2:24): “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” This usage reflects the basic meaning of one object’s (person’s) being joined to another. In this sense, Eleazar’s hand “cleaved” to the sword as he struck down the Philistines (2 Sam. 23:10). Jeremiah’s linen waistcloth “clung” to his loins, symbolic of Israel’s “clinging” to God (Jer. 13:11). In time of war and siege, the resulting thirst and famine caused the tongue “to cleave” to the roof of the mouth of those who had been so afflicted.
        The literal statement, “My soul cleaveth unto the dust” (Ps. 119:25); RSV, “cleaves”, is better understood as one consults the other English versions: “I lie prone in the dust” (NEB); “Down in the dust I lie prostrate” (JB); “I lie prostrate in the dust” (NAB); “I lie defeated in the dust” (TEV).
        The figurative use of dabaq in the sense of “loyalty” and “affection” is based on the physical closeness of the persons involved, such as a husband’s closeness to his wife (Gen. 2:24), Shechem’s affection for Dinah (Gen. 34:3), or Ruth’s staying with Naomi (Ruth 1:14). “Cleaving” to God is equivalent to “loving” God (Deut. 30:20).”
        It’s important to understand the word dabaq conveys a sense of permanent closeness, loyalty and devotion. As such it is best understood in a covenant sense. It is totally void of any suggestion of sexual connotation. Instead, the “cleave ” time is the time that people invest in developing an emotional bond between them.
        In the phrase “... and they shall be one flesh ...” the word “flesh” is basar. Strong’s Concordance defines it as:
        basar “... flesh (from its freshness); by extension, body, person; also (by euphem.) the pudenda of a man.” It’s variously translated in the King James Version as “body, [fat, lean] flesh [-ed], kin, [man-] kind, + nakednessself, skin.”
        Vine’s Dictionary definition:
        basar—“flesh; meat; male sex organ.” Cognates of this word appear in Ugaritic, Arabic, and Aramaic. Biblical Hebrew attests it about 270 times and in all periods.”
        (The word in the New Testament for “flesh” is sarx which has a wider range of meaning in the New Testament than in the Old Testament.)
        The progression in Genesis 2:24 involves adjusting one’s economic and emotional priorities, focusing upon the woman to where one has a sense of closeness, loyalty and devotion towards her, and then, lastly, a sexual union with the woman.
        In the progression of values in Genesis 2:24, first it’s necessary for a man to re-prioritize his position in society by becoming self-supporting and emotionally mature enough to consider taking a woman of his choice as a mate, then here, in the word dabaq, it’s his feelings of permanent closeness, loyalty and devotion which must be focused upon the woman.
        OK, question: To what region, country or nation was this command given?
        Say what? There were only two people on earth at that time—Adam and Eve. There were no regions, countries, nations or cultures—just newly created mankind, consisting of Adam and Eve.
        OK, what does that mean?
        Uh ... well it must apply to the whole human race, just as the punishment for rebelling against God also applies to the whole human race.
        OK, what does that mean?
        Well ... I guess it means that it applies to all of humanity—to all of the regions, countries, nations and cultures that were delineated in later history.
        So ... does it apply to you, today?
        Ah ... well, since it can be considered a universal rule for mankind, I have to say “yes,” don’t I?
        How many people have failed in their attempts to “cleave” to one another? They have found that such a commitment is not really their hearts desire and have subsequently abandoned the relationship. We humans learn by trial and error, and this process of “cleaving” may succeed or fail, just as any other of our endeavors.
        The issue of sexuality comes in the last of the progression, i.e., “they shall be one flesh.”
        Why is that?

A Logical Fallacy

        It’s necessary to recognize a contemporary logical fallacy, i.e., that sexual intercourse is the most intimate act possible between two consenting heterosexual adults.
        In fact, sexual intercourse is not the source of intimacy. Marital sexual intercourse is an expression of true intimacy of a husband and wife. Intimacy that has developed over a period of time by communication with each other in exchanging dialog on all the subjects of discussion that arise because of their genuine friendship with one another. This is another progression in relationships between a mature man and a mature woman that has come to be ignored in today’s contemporary society.
        Many men and women may simply be a “buddy” to one another: A person regularly frequenting the company of another, an associate, a colleague, a compatriot with whom one has a common interest, office or profession. You may prefer the term “an associate.”
        Being a “buddy” or an “associate” with each other is not “cleaving.” When men and women “buddies” or “associates” have sexual intercourse with other they have bypassed the natural sequence of relational growth, mistaking sexual intercourse as another source of “intimacy.”
        The “office” where men and women work together is one source of this type of promiscuity. Isn’t it?
        The “buddy” relationship progresses to the “companion” phase, if “cleaving” is to come about. This goes beyond being buddies or associates in that there are mutual activities as the man and woman begin to do things together and go to different places together.
        The natural outworking of the companion phase of relationships is that the man and woman become “friends” with one another.
        Yes, friendship starts here. Before that it was simply “buddies” or “associates” and “companions.”
        A friend is a person you know well, and with whom you have intimate association as a close companion, confidant and ally, supporter, sympathizer and are fond of. There is mutual kindness, helpfulness, peace, goodwill, sentiment and action and a conciliatory tone in the relationship.
        This time of being friends allows the man and the woman to see each other in different situations, circumstances and environments and how they act and react to real life. If instead, the majority of their time is being spent having sexual intercourse, there is no real intimacy, nor is their any “cleaving” being accomplished. As they will find out, a constant “feel good” physical activity is pathetic preparation for a life full of problems, challenges and disappointments. Isn’t it?
        As the “cleaving” process binds the man and woman together and long-range plans and commitments are developing, this man and woman become “sweethearts,” and are recognized as such by those with whom they have to do.
        The next logical step is for the man and woman to become what society recognizes as husband and wife. The sweethearts are now committed to sharing a mutual life with each other.
        After public recognition of their being married to each other as husband and wife, they become lovers, sharing a mutual romantic and sexual union.
        For those who name the name of Christ, they now also become co-“ministers” as the sweetheart, wife and lover shares a life of service to the saints in the fullness of God alongside her husband. This service to God is expressed in their 24 hour a day, seven day a week lifestyle of being salt and light to a dying world around them. “Being” disciples of Christ by learning of Christ, following Him and supporting Him. Not “doing” institutional church humanly devised traditions and practices.
        To restate the sequence:
        (1) Buddy (associate, colleague, compatriot) in company with those of mutual interest.
        (2) Companion, doing things and going places together, mutual activities.
        (3) Friend, a close companion, confidant and ally, supporter and sympathizer with whom there is a mutual fondness.
        (4) Sweethearts, your closest friend with whom there is mutual love.
        (5) Husband and Wife, your sweetheart with whom you share a mutual life.
        (6) Lovers, your sexual partner, with whom you share a mutual romantic and sexual union.
        (7) Co-Minister, sweethearts, husbands and wives and lovers, with whom you share a life of service to the saints in the fullness of God which is reflected in your lifestyle.

Marriage To Be Exclusive And Permanent

        When Jesus said: “Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” He was stating that the sexual union of a man and wife was a covenant that was not to be dissolved.
        That the sexual union of a man and wife was to be exclusive is brought out in Deuteronomy:

Deuteronomy 22:13-21:
13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
16 And the damsel’s father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

        The phrase “the tokens of virginity” in verses 17 and 20 are italicized, meaning they are not in the original text and were inserted by the translators. This was probably done because of the use of the word “cloth” in verse 17, the assumption being it was the bed sheet which would be blood-stained because of the woman’s broken hymen.
        We, of course, know that this is not proof positive of virginity because of many variables. Some have provided alternative meanings to this passage, all of which I have read fail to be satisfactory. Probably the most intelligent thing to be said is that we, today, don’t fully understand what this passage means in the original language or how to correctly understand it.
        However, in the “then” of yesterday, apparently it was understood by the hearers of that time and whatever forensic method was utilized, that it was satisfactory to them all.
        If the woman was determined by those parties involved in the “then” scene to not be a virgin, whether it was evidenced by blood upon the marriage sheet, or some other method, she was to be killed.
        This has many ramifications. One is that any man who had sexual relationships with a single woman jeopardized her very life when she married. The woman knew this and would certainly exercise restraints upon herself.
        Another thing to be seen here is that the breaking of a single woman’s hymen by a man’s penis was considered to be a token of her virginity, which was not necessarily the sum total of all methods used at that time to determine her virginity. Hymen’s are found only in a woman’s vagina. And yes, I understand that “proof of the girl’s virginity” may not rest exclusively with blood on the marriage sheet, but the principle is clear.
        This completely dispels any notion that people of the same sex can be “married” doesn’t it? A man doesn’t have a hymen and a woman doesn’t have a penis. (As the anecdotal Frenchman is reported to have said: “Vive la difference!”)
        This also adds a new element to the act of sexual intercourse: it is a blood covenant. While not specifically developed by scripture, this fact can’t be ignored.
        We have to expand our description of the progression in Genesis 2:24 to involving a man adjusting his economic and emotional priorities to focus upon the woman to where he has a sense of closeness, loyalty and devotion towards the woman, and then, lastly, a sexual union with the woman, which, in essence is a blood covenant with her.
        God’s priority on sexual purity in regard to preserving the family line and name is seen in the instructions concerning a man having to marry his brothers widow, so that the deceased brothers name was preserved in Israel through their child: “And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.”

Genesis 38:6-10:
6 And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, whose name was Tamar.
7 And Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord; and the Lord slew him.
8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother’s wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.
9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.
10 And the thing which he did displeased the Lord: wherefore he slew him also.

        Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary on verse 8:

        8. Judah said unto Onan . . . marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother—The first instance of a custom, which was afterwards incorporated among the laws of Moses, that when a husband died leaving a widow, his brother next of age was to marry her, and the issue, if any, was to be served heir to the deceased (compare De 25:5).
Deuteronomy 25:5-10:
5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her.
6 And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.
7 And if the man like not to take his brother’s wife, then let his brother’s wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband’s brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband’s brother.
8 Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her;
9 Then shall his brother’s wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother’s house.
10 And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.

        Jamieson, Fausett and Brown Commentary on Deuteronomy 25:5-10:

        5-10. the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother . . . shall take her to him to wife—This usage existed before the age of Moses (Ge 38:8). But the Mosaic law rendered the custom obligatory (Mt 22:25) on younger brothers, or the nearest kinsman, to marry the widow (Ru 4:4), by associating the natural desire of perpetuating a brother’s name with the preservation of property in the Hebrew families and tribes. If the younger brother declined to comply with the law, the widow brought her claim before the authorities of the place at a public assembly (the gate of the city); and he having declared his refusal, she was ordered to loose the thong of his shoe—a sign of degradation—following up that act by spitting on the ground— the strongest expression of ignominy and contempt among Eastern people. The shoe was kept by the magistrate as an evidence of the transaction, and the parties separated.

The Prescriptive And The Descriptive

        The Bible is extensive in what God says to do and not to do in this matter of marriage and sex. The Bible is also extensive in how humanity ignores what God says and does what people want to do instead.
        God’s prescriptive:

Genesis 2:24: Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

        We discussed that verse and the ramifications and impact upon sexual relationships between husbands and wives.
        God’s descriptive: The Bible records that:

Multiple wives and concubines:

Genesis 4:19:
19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.

        Eventually humankind ignored all of God’s instructions on such a wide-scale basis that God destroyed His creature:

Genesis 6:5-8:
5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.

        Apparently this didn’t deter mankind from disobedience on the subject of multiple wives and concubines:

Genesis 25:1-6:
1 Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah.
2 And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah.
3 And Jokshan begat Sheba, and Dedan. And the sons of Dedan were Asshurim, and Letushim, and Leummim.
4 And the sons of Midian; Ephah, and Epher, and Hanoch, and Abidah, and Eldaah. All these were the children of Keturah.
5 And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac.
6 But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country.

1 Chronicles 1:32:
32 Now the sons of Keturah, Abraham’s concubine: she bare Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah. And the sons of Jokshan; Sheba, and Dedan.

        Jamieson, Fausett and Brown Commentary on this passage:

        1. Abraham took a wife—rather, “had taken”; for Keturah is called Abraham’s concubine, or secondary wife (1Ch 1:32); and as, from her bearing six sons to him, it is improbable that he married after Sarah’s death; and also as he sent them all out to seek their own independence, during his lifetime, it is clear that this marriage is related here out of its chronological order, merely to form a proper winding up of the patriarch’s history.
        5, 6. Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac . . . unto the sons of the concubines . . . Abraham gave gifts—While the chief part of the inheritance went to Isaac; the other sons (Ishmael included) migrated to “the East country,” that is, Arabia, but received each a portion of the patrimony, perhaps in cattle and other things; and this settlement of Abraham’s must have given satisfaction, since it is still the rule followed among the pastoral tribes.
Genesis 26:34:
34 And Esau was forty years old when he took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite:

Genesis 28:9:
9 Then went Esau unto Ishmael, and took unto the wives which he had Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael Abraham’s son, the sister of Nebajoth, to be his wife.

Genesis 29:26-28:
26 And Laban said, It must not be so done in our country, to give the younger before the firstborn.
27 Fulfil her week, and we will give thee this also for the service which thou shalt serve with me yet seven other years.
28 And Jacob did so, and fulfilled her week: and he gave him Rachel his daughter to wife also.

Genesis 36:2-3:
2 Esau took his wives of the daughters of Canaan; Adah the daughter of Elon the Hittite, and Aholibamah the daughter of Anah the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite;
3 And Bashemath Ishmael’s daughter, sister of Nebajoth.

Exodus 21:10:
10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

Judges 8:30-31:
30 And Gideon had threescore and ten sons of his body begotten: for he had many wives.
31 And his concubine that was in Shechem, she also bare him a son, whose name he called Abimelech.

1 Samuel 1:1-2:
1 Now there was a certain man of Ramatha’im-zophim, of mount Ephraim, and his name was Elkanah, the son of Jeroham, the son of Elihu, the son of Tohu, the son of Zuph, an Ephrathite:
2 And he had two wives; the name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other Peninnah: and Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children.

1 Samuel 25:43:
43 David also took Ahinoam of Jezreel; and they were also both of them his wives.

2 Samuel 5:13:
13 And David took him more concubines and wives out of Jerusalem, after he was come from Hebron: and there were yet sons and daughters born to David.

1 Chronicles 14:3:
3 And David took more wives at Jerusalem: and David begat more sons and daughters.

1 Kings 11:1-3:
1 But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;
2 Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love.
3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.

1 Chronicles 4:5:
5 And Ashur the father of Tekoa had two wives, Helah and Naarah.

1 Chronicles 8:8:
8 And Shaharaim begat children in the country of Moab, after he had sent them away; Hushim and Baara were his wives.

2 Chronicles 11:21:
21 And Rehoboam loved Maachah the daughter of Absalom above all his wives and his concubines: (for he took eighteen wives, and threescore concubines; and begat twenty and eight sons, and threescore daughters.)

2 Chronicles 13:21:
21 But Abijah waxed mighty, and married fourteen wives, and begat twenty and two sons, and sixteen daughters.

2 Chronicles 24:3:
3 And Jehoiada took for him two wives; and he begat sons and daughters.

Daniel 5:2:
2 Belshazzar, whiles he tasted the wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem; that the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, might drink therein.

No leaving and cleaving, men simply “took” women as their “wives” with the restrictions given in Exodus 22:16,17, Leviticus, chapters 18 through 22; and Deuteronomy 22.

Genesis 6:1-2:
1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Deuteronomy 21:10-14:
10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,
11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

        Jamieson, Fausett and Brown Commentary on this passage:

        10-14. When thou goest to war . . . and seest among the captives a beautiful woman . . . that thou wouldest have her to thy wife—According to the war customs of all ancient nations, a female captive became the slave of the victor, who had the sole and unchallengeable control of right to her person. Moses improved this existing usage by special regulations on the subject. He enacted that, in the event that her master was captivated by her beauty and contemplated a marriage with her, a month should be allowed to elapse, during which her perturbed feelings might be calmed, her mind reconciled to her altered condition, and she might bewail the loss of her parents, now to her the same as dead. A month was the usual period of mourning with the Jews, and the circumstances mentioned here were the signs of grief—the shaving of the head, the allowing the nails to grow uncut, the putting off her gorgeous dress in which ladies, on the eve of being captured, arrayed themselves to be the more attractive to their captors. The delay was full of humanity and kindness to the female slave, as well as a prudential measure to try the strength of her master’s affections. If his love should afterwards cool and he become indifferent to her person, he was not to lord it over her, neither to sell her in the slave market, nor retain her in a subordinate condition in his house; but she was to be free to go where her inclinations led her.

Sons did not “leave”and “cleave;” the fathers selected “wives” for their sons themselves:

Genesis 24:1-4:
1 And Abraham was old, and well stricken in age: and the Lord had blessed Abraham in all things.
2 And Abraham said unto his eldest servant of his house, that ruled over all that he had, Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh:
3 And I will make thee swear by the Lord, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell:
4 But thou shalt go unto my country, and to my kindred, and take a wife unto my son Isaac.

        The Jamieson, Fausett and Brown Commentary on this passage:

        1. And Abraham was old . . . take a wife—His anxiety to see his son married was natural to his position as a pastoral chief interested in preserving the honor of his tribe, and still more as a patriarch who had regard to the divine promise of a numerous posterity.
        2. said unto his eldest servant—Abraham being too old, and as the heir of the promise not being at liberty to make even a temporary visit to his native land, was obliged to intrust this delicate mission to Eliezer, whom, although putting entire confidence in him, he on this occasion bound by a solemn oath. A pastoral chief in the present day would follow the same course if he could not go himself.
        3. thou shalt not take a wife, &c.—Among pastoral tribes the matrimonial arrangements are made by the parents, and a youth must marry, not among strangers, but in his own tribe—custom giving him a claim, which is seldom or never resisted, to the hand of his first cousin. But Abraham had a far higher motive—a fear lest, if his son married into a Canaanitish family, he might be gradually led away from the true God.
Joshua 15:16:
16 And Caleb said, He that smiteth Kirjath-sepher, and taketh it, to him will I give Achsah my daughter to wife.

Judges 1:12:
12 And Caleb said, He that smiteth Kirjath-sepher, and taketh it, to him will I give Achsah my daughter to wife.

Judges 12:7-9:
7 And Jephthah judged Israel six years. Then died Jephthah the Gileadite, and was buried in one of the cities of Gilead.
8 And after him Ibzan of Bethlehem judged Israel.
9 And he had thirty sons, and thirty daughters, whom he sent abroad, and took in thirty daughters from abroad for his sons. And he judged Israel seven years.

Judges 21:1:
1 Now the men of Israel had sworn in Mizpeh, saying, There shall not any of us give his daughter unto Benjamin to wife.

1 Samuel 17:25:
25 And the men of Israel said, Have ye seen this man that is come up? surely to defy Israel is he come up: and it shall be, that the man who killeth him, the king will enrich him with great riches, and will give him his daughter, and make his father’s house free in Israel.

1 Kings 2:19-21:
19 Bathsheba therefore went unto king Solomon, to speak unto him for Adonijah. And the king rose up to meet her, and bowed himself unto her, and sat down on his throne, and caused a seat to be set for the king’s mother; and she sat on his right hand.
20 Then she said, I desire one small petition of thee; I pray thee, say me not nay. And the king said unto her, Ask on, my mother: for I will not say thee nay.
21 And she said, Let Abishag the Shunammite be given to Adonijah thy brother to wife.

1 Chronicles 2:34-35:
34 Now Sheshan had no sons, but daughters. And Sheshan had a servant, an Egyptian, whose name was Jarha.
35 And Sheshan gave his daughter to Jarha his servant to wife; and she bare him Attai.

Jeremiah 29:6:
6 Take ye wives, and beget sons and daughters; and take wives for your sons, and give your daughters to husbands, that they may bear sons and daughters; that ye may be increased there, and not diminished.

Daniel 11:15-17:
15 So the king of the north shall come, and cast up a mount, and take the most fenced cities: and the arms of the south shall not withstand, neither his chosen people, neither shall there be any strength to withstand.
16 But he that cometh against him shall do according to his own will, and none shall stand before him: and he shall stand in the glorious land, which by his hand shall be consumed.
17 He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom, and upright ones with him; thus shall he do: and he shall give him the daughter of women, corrupting her: but she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him.

Women were property of fathers and husbands:

Exodus 22:16-17:
16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

Deuteronomy 22:13-21:
13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
16 And the damsel’s father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

Those Who Married Young Remained Under The Authority Of Their Parents

        There is yet another problem perpetuated by Israel. Because marriages took place when the sons and daughters were very young, they had to remain under the authority of their parents, which is clearly in opposition to the command that “... a man leave his father and his mother ...”
        Nelson’s Bible Dictionary tells us in this excerpt:
        Marriages between Israelites were directed by law, and all incestuous relationships were outlawed (Lev. 18:6-8; 20:19-21). In addition, priests were forbidden to marry prostitutes and divorced women (Lev. 21:7,13-14). Daughters who inherited their father’s possessions had to marry within their tribe or lose their inheritance (Num. 27:8; 36:2-4).
        Choosing the Bride. In Old Testament times, the parents chose the mate for their son. The primary reason for this was that the bride became part of the clan. Although they were married and became “one flesh,” the couple remained under the authority of the bridegroom’s father. The parents chose someone who would best fit into their clan and work harmoniously with her mother-in-law and sisters-in-law.
        Sometimes the parents consulted with their children to see if they approved of the choice of mates being made for them. For example, Rebekah was asked if she wanted to marry Isaac (Gen. 24:58). Samson demanded that a certain girl be acquired for him. Although his parents protested, they completed the marriage contract for Samson (Judg. 14:1-4).
        Frequently people married at a young age, a fact which made the parents’ choice a practical matter. By New Testament times, the Jewish leaders had decided to establish minimum ages for which a marriage contract could be drawn up. The age was set at 13 for boys and 12 for girls.
        Even if the young wife lost her husband in war or accident, she remained within the clan and was wed to her brother-in-law or next of kin. This arrangement is known as LEVIRATE MARRIAGE. It is the basis for the story of Ruth and Boaz (Deut. 25:5-10; Ruth 3:13; 4:1-12).
        Apparently it’s difficult for some to differentiate between the prescriptives of God and the descriptives of humans and their nature. Most, if not all, of the teachings about “weddings” and “marriage” and etc., within the Christian community originated in the Talmud and/or in somebody’s imagination. However, as you read the biblical text, you will find that no mention is made of most of the fanciful “stories” being taught as fact by alleged “teachers” of the Bible.
        The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary makes this comment:
        Temporary Reactions. At an early period the original law, as made known to Adam, was violated through the degeneracy of his descendants, and concubinage and polygamy became common. The patriarchs themselves took more than one wife. Abraham, at the instigation of Sarah, took her maid as his subordinate wife. Jacob was tricked, through the duplicity of Laban, into taking Leah first, and then Rachel, to whom he had been betrothed. Afterward, through the rivalry of the sisters, he took both their handmaids. From these facts it has been inferred that polygamy was not wrong in ancient times, nor at all opposed to the divine law as revealed to the Jews. But this is an unwarranted conclusion. It is indeed true (respect being had to the state of religious knowledge, the rude condition of society, and the views prevalent in the world) that the practice could not infer, in the case of individuals, the same amount of criminality as would necessarily adhere to it now, amid the clear light of gospel times. But still, all along it was a departure from the divine law.
        For the reasons given above it was tolerated but never with God’s approval. Jesus told the Jews, “Because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way” (Matt. 19:3-8). The Mosaic law aimed at mitigating, rather than removing, evils that were inseparable from the state of society in that day. Its enactments were directed to the discouragement of polygamy; to prevent the injustice frequently consequent upon the exercise of the rights of a father or a master; to bring divorce under some restriction; and to enforce purity of life during the maintenance of the matrimonial bond.
        So try to determine what God says and what people do by way of traditions, customs, practices and institutions. There is a difference and unless you have some private agenda you will see, recognize and understand the difference. If you have a private agenda you are pushing, you will make some very strong statements and attempt to convince yourself and others that you are right and everybody else is wrong.

On Looking Back ...

        The people of Israel were greatly influenced by the law codes and practices of adjacent nations. 400 years in Egypt left its mark on their culture. By comparison look at the United States of America. We are now only 300 years old, but the difference in our society as compared to 300 years ago are phenomenal. And what will we be like in another 100 years?
        Yes, God told them His Own laws, orders, statutes, commandment and precepts. Just as He has all of mankind by giving us the Bible. But Israel continued to fall back upon the dictates of the culture of Egypt. When they arrived at Canaan, again, they simply absorbed that culture into theirs.
        To put it simpler, Israel synergized the cultural and religious practices they already knew, with the laws that God gave them.
        Israel knew the power and witnessed the miracles of God. The ten plagues upon Pharaoh, the parting of the Red Sea, the provisions of food and water in their wanderings, and etc. But when they arrived in Canaan, and (mis-)understood that the gods worshipped there were responsible for the fertility necessary for an agricultural society, they simply incorporated those gods into their worship, along with the true and living God.
        The Bible has come under heavy criticism by some, who state that all of the religious rituals and practices implemented by God were already in place by other nations and God simply copied them.
        However, looking at the matter a little more closely, and examining all the facts we discover a very good reason for that.
        God made a covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, which essentially was with the nation that came to be known as Israel. God stated preliminary laws, which as stated, Israel later compromised by also incorporating the laws of other nations. That included social, cultural and religious laws and practices.
        So—Israel synergized their religious practices—and worshipped God according to what He said and also worshipped other gods according to how others were worshipping them.
        To put it simply, God fought synergy with synergy simplified.
        OK, you guys and gals want to worship Baal—for example—well, guess what? I Am not only Baal, but I Am also any other god you manufacture in your little pea brains.
        Invent a god, folks, go ahead. Got a name? Great, I Am that god.
        We find throughout scripture that the true and living God is described by the attributes of many of the false, pagan gods.
        Well, guess what, again? God’s fighting synergy with synergy simplified works, huh?
        But the folks who want to discredit the Bible, don’t understand the wisdom of God in all of this and instead insist that the true and living God of the Bible is a single manufactured deity derived from a multiplicity of false pagan Gods.
        Well, I’ll leave them to their devices and they can present their ideas to God when they are face to face with Him on that day ...
        OK, back to descriptives of humans and their behavior and what people do by way of traditions, customs, practices and institutions.
        Let’s take a closer look:
        1. Men took unto themselves multiple wives, and in addition to that, multiple concubines.

        Multiple wives was a common practice under a law-code in certain societies where the first wife was unable to have children.
        God did not come down from heaven and destroy mankind because of their disobedience for this. He could have, as He had previously demonstrated by the flood. (Lest we forget!)
        But God created mankind with free will and as a creative person, just as God Himself is. After having dealt harshly with mankind for their wickedness and imaginative evil by destroying all of mankind except for Noah and his family, the point was made that God had the authority and power to destroy that which He had created. (Again, lest we forget!)
        So God let mankind exercise their free will and attempt to create solutions to problems in the real world. Just as He continues to do so today.
        2. Instead of leaving and cleaving, men simply “took” women as their “wives” with certain restrictions as given in Exodus 22:16,17, Leviticus, chapters 18 through 22; and Deuteronomy 22.

        God brought some correction to this problem, as noted in Deuteronomy 21:10-14 and injected a parenthesis in the process and “The delay was full of humanity and kindness to the female slave, as well as a prudential measure to try the strength of her master’s affections.”
        3. Instead of allowing their sons to “leave” so they could “cleave” the patriarchs short-circuited the process and selected “wives” for their sons themselves.

        Were parents over zealous in selecting a spouse for their offspring from among their own tribe? Maybe, but again, mankind was exercising their free will and attempting to create a solution to real world problems. This relates to the young marriages in that parents made the selection of their in-laws, because they would be in the same household for years.
        4. Women were considered to be property. First, her fathers property and then, when she married, her husbands property.

        Women are often viewed with ambivalent perspectives, both in Bible times and in contemporary society.
        This excerpt from the Holman Bible Dictionary contrasts two different views in scripture:
        The Old Testament clearly subjected woman to the will and protection of her husband. She was extolled for performing her important roles as wife and mother. On occasion she rose above those roles and led the Jewish nation in times of crisis.
        The New Testament brings a different picture of woman into focus. Jesus, and later Paul, elevated the status of woman so that she could be a full participant in the kingdom of God. However, she is urged to use her responsibility as well as her freedom to find her place in the body of Christ. The spirit of freedom and love in Christ is woman’s as well as man’s.
        Mankind continues to exercise free will in attempts to continually redefine how men and women relate to each other.
        5. Those who married young remained under the authority of their parents.

        Because marriages were arranged by the parents and “... the couple remained under the authority of the bridegroom’s father. The parents chose someone who would best fit into their clan and work harmoniously with her mother-in-law and sisters-in-law ...”
        Mankind still attempting to find real-life solutions.

On Looking Around At Ourselves Today

        So ... how are we doing today, in our contemporary society, in exercising our free will and attempting creative solutions to real life problems?
        We now have “affairs” instead of multiple wives and concubines. Maybe a little wife-swapping or three-somes, or four-somes, or ... well you get the idea. And it all has absolutely nothing to do with the legal wife not being able to have children, does it?
        No “leaving and cleaving” today, for the most part, just go straight to the “one flesh” sexual intercourse. And then attempt to straighten out the mess as evidenced by an approximate 50% divorce rate. Among those who name the name of Christ, and among those who don’t.
        OK, how does a guy select a wife today? There are too many variations on this to comment. However, where are the safeguards, i.e., restrictions for the women so selected?

Exodus 22:16, 17 (Amplified Bible):
16 If a man seduces a virgin not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay a dowry for her to become his wife.
17 If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equivalent to the dowry of virgins.

        Where are the restrictive safeguards of Leviticus, chapter 18?
        Where are the restrictive safeguards of Deuteronomy 22?
        Why, today, do some still think a married woman is her husband’s “property?” This idea was done away with by Jesus and the New Testament writers. A woman, married, or unmarried, is a “... full participant in the kingdom of God ...” free and responsible “.. to find her place in the body of Christ ...”
        Young people today get married and opt out of any personal responsibility for emotional maturity and/or financial planning. Neither do they remain “... under the authority of their parents.” Instead they go for the sexual intercourse until they begin to understand that they don’t even like each other and then they run away from the situation (and any children born of their sexual union) and dump all their problems upon society. So government agencies attempt to pick up whatever pieces are still alive and bring some type of justice to the situation. Some such attempts are successful, but most are not. However, successful or not, society pays the bill. Don’t we?
        By comparison, Israel may have implemented some things contrary to God’s stated laws, but at least they made a pro-active attempt to exercise their free will and create solutions to real life problems. Didn’t they?

Yes, But ... Isn’t There A Way Out Of This Binding Restriction Of God’s Prescriptives?

        There has been considerable effort by some to redefine the word “fornication” as not applying to sexual relationships between those who are single, i.e., not married to another or to each other.
        Volumes upon volumes have been written, published, posted and preached in order to “liberate” those who name the name of Christ from the restrictions God has placed upon the exercise of their sexual abilities according to their whims of lust and passion.
        This opens up to those so inclined swinging singles, orgies, and ultimately instant gratification of their God-given sexual desires.
        The teachings of the Old Testament, Jesus and Paul (and others) are rationalized away as having been misinterpreted for centuries by those old-fashioned prudes who simply think that sex is “dirty” and to be avoided by all who desire the righteousness of God.
        These are people with an agenda they are pushing. A very human one that attempts to give license to have sexual intercourse with anything that moves.
        A casual perusal, however, of basic statements by Jesus and Paul quickly dispel that libertine attitude and remind us the fact that God says what He means, and means what He says in the Bible that He has given us.

Matthew 5:27-28:
27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

        There are those pseudo-theological “experts” who state that Jesus quoted a certain Rabbi Hillel, not only on the Matthew 5:28 verse, but also many other Hillel quotes. Hillel, however, quoted oral tradition as authoritative. Jesus quoted the Torah as authoritative. Jesus also interpreted biblical texts, Hillel was not known for this although his later disciples attempt to exalt him as an interpreter of scripture. There are many other reasons why this isn’t so, however, the only reason needed to negate that argument is a simple and historical one. All of the quotes of Jesus were made within 50 years after His ministry. The Babylonian Talmud, which quotes Hillel, however, was edited and revised some 500 years after the death of Rabbi Hillel. Question: Who “quoted” who?
        The point of all this is to simply reiterate that Jesus confirms and explains the biblical text, not oral tradition.
        In the Greek, “adultery” moicheuo is sexual relationships with the spouse of another. “Fornications” porneia is sexual relationships with someone who is not a spouse, but sometimes includes adulteries. “Looketh” blepo, implies special contemplation, not a casual look or glance.
        Since the Greek word for “woman” and “wife” is one and the same, then, it could be argued that since “adultery” refers to married persons, that Jesus was saying that if anyone looked upon a married woman that they committed adultery with her in their heart and the word is mistranslated “woman” rather than “wife.”
        Jamieson, Fausett and Brown Commentary on Matthew 5:27,28:

        27. Ye have heard that it was said—The words “by,” or “to them of old time,” in this verse are insufficiently supported, and probably were not in the original text.
        Thou shall not commit adultery—Interpreting this seventh, as they did the sixth commandment, the traditional perverters of the law restricted the breach of it to acts of criminal intercourse between, or with, married persons exclusively. Our Lord now dissipates such delusions.
        28. But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her—with the intent to do so, as the same expression is used in Mt 6:1; or, with the full consent of his will, to feed thereby his unholy desires.
        hath committed adultery with her already in his heart—We are not to suppose, from the word here used—“adultery”—that our Lord means to restrict the breach of this commandment to married persons, or to criminal intercourse with such. The expressions, “whosoever looketh,” and “looketh upon a woman,” seem clearly to extend the range of this commandment to all forms of impurity, and the counsels which follow—as they most certainly were intended for all, whether married or unmarried—seem to confirm this. As in dealing with the sixth commandment our Lord first expounds it, and then in the four following verses applies His exposition (Mt 5:21-25), so here He first expounds the seventh commandment, and then in the four following verses applies His exposition (Mt 5:28-32).
        Question: If a person, a “whosoever,” looks upon two women, one who is married, and one who is not married and lusts after the single woman but not the married one, are they then not committing adultery in their heart? Then their gaze shifts to the married woman and aha! they are now committing adultery in their heart?
        In Exodus 20:14, the seventh commandment states: “You shall not commit adultery.” Exodus 20:14 uses the Hebrew word naaph for adultery, and Matthew 5:27 quotes it with the Greek word moicheuo. Since the New Testament passage is a direct reference to the Old Testament passage, we can conclude that both words are equivalent in their meaning.
        Vine’s Expository Dictionary on adultery and related words:
        ADULTERER (-ESS), ADULTEROUS, ADULTERY
        A. Nouns.
        1. moichos denotes one “who has unlawful intercourse with the spouse of another,” (Luke 18:11; 1 Cor. 6:9; Heb. 13:4). As to (Jas. 4:4), see below.
        2. moichalis, “an adulteress,” is used (a) in the natural sense, (2 Pet. 2:14; Rom. 7:3); (b) in the spiritual sense, (Jas. 4:4); here the RV rightly omits the word “adulterers.” It was added by a copyist. As in Israel the breach of their relationship with God through their idolatry, was described as “adultery” or “harlotry” (e. g., (Ezek. 16:15), etc.; (23:43)), so believers who cultivate friendship with the world, thus breaking their spiritual union with Christ, are spiritual “adulteresses,” having been spiritually united to Him as wife to husband, (Rom. 7:4). It is used adjectivally to describe the Jewish people in transferring their affections from God, (Matt. 12:39; 16:4; Mark 8:38). In (2 Pet. 2:14), the lit. translation is “full of an adulteress” (RV, marg.).
        3. moicheia, “adultery,” is found in (Matt. 15:19; Mark 7:21; John 8:3) (KJV only).
        B. Verbs.
        1. moichao, used in the middle voice in the NT, is said of men in (Matt. 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10:11); of women in (Mark 10:12).
        2. moicheuo is used in (Matt. 5:27-28,32) (in (v. 32) some texts have No. 1); (19:18; Mark 10:19; Luke 16:18; 18:20; John 8:4; Rom. 2:22; 13:9; Jas. 2:11); in (Rev. 2:22), metaphorically, of those who are by a Jezebel’s solicitations drawn away to idolatry.
        (Mentioned in the above excerpt from Vine’s Expository Dictionary):

Mark 10:12:
12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

        After leaving Egypt, in Exodus God gave Moses the Ten Commandments, which includes Exodus 20:14, the seventh commandment which states: “You shall not commit adultery.”
        In Leviticus God continued to gave His instructions as to what Israel was not to do relative to sexual activities, among many other things. He also included the punishment for doing those things He told Israel not to do.
        In Deuteronomy, after forty years in the wilderness and prior to entering Canaan, God expanded and restated what He had told the Israelites forty years previously, for the benefit of the younger generation who had grown up in the wilderness because all of the original adults had died.
        These were different forbidden practices, in different places, at different times.
        Before the Israelites entered Canaan, God’s warning to them in Leviticus included a list of sexual behaviors they were forbidden to practice. Included in this list was a warning not to practice homosexuality. Forty years later, after the Israelites had entered Canaan, God then warned them not to practice cult, or temple, prostitution in Deuteronomy 23:17.
        To attempt to relate the two as both meaning the same thing is a ridiculous attempt at stretching logic.
        This eliminates any attempt by the homosexual community to declare that only homosexual cult prostitute activity was condemned by God in the Bible. It’s a manufactured straw man built up as “fact” and then torn down in a futile attempt to prove how homosexuality is acceptable to God.
        The perpetrators of the illicit sexual activities listed are all acts for which the individuals, themselves, are responsible.
        From what Jesus says in the New Testament about adultery, while quoting the Old Testament with the same word, we must realize that the adultery spoken of involves every sexual relationship that occurs outside of heterosexual marriage, in both the Old Testament and the New Testament.
        This is why, in Deuteronomy, God doesn’t repeat all that is stated in Leviticus. The meaning of the term “adultery” was clearly understood by all.

The Law, Love And Lust

        Jesus said, in Matthew:

Matthew 22:37-40:
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

        Since all the law and the prophets hang on those two commandments Jesus mentioned, and the Seventh Commandment to not commit adultery is part of that same law, then we must look to see how not committing adultery expresses our love of and for God, and of our neighbor.
        I said elsewhere that love is a strong, complex feeling or emotion, causing a person to delight in, crave and appreciate the presence of another, and to please them and promote their welfare. Jesus expanded love to include laying down your life for another.
        If we truly love God and truly love our neighbor, there are certain things that we will do, and certain things that we won’t do.
        God insists upon sexual purity. Which means that there are some things we won’t do simply because we love God and love our neighbor. That includes not having heterosexual sexual intercourse with a member of the opposite sex outside of a heterosexual marriage. Homosexuality never was and still is not an option.
        When we commit adultery or homosexual “intercourse” we are bringing down a God mandated death penalty, under the law, not only upon ourselves, but also on our partner.
        Today, we are no longer under the law, but under grace. The response of Jesus in the New Testament to those guilty of adultery is far, far different that the Old Testament response.
        The law was given to Israel to reflect God’s attributes to Israel. The law reflects God’s character of love, His compassion, demonstrated by His grace and mercy, and His conscience, seen by His wisdom, judgment and justice. Above all is the will of God for humanity to be holy, as God is holy.
        Jesus came to fulfill the law, i.e., expand the law to its fullest meaning and intent.
        Paul, the apostle, says:

Romans 7:6:
6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

Romans 10:4:
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Galatians 5:1:
1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

Galatians 5:18:
18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

Galatians 6:2:
2 Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

Colossians 2:13-14:
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

        What Paul is emphasizing is that we are not under the written law, but must incorporate the essence of that law into our spirits to enjoy a new liberty that comes from our freedom in Christ, Who has expanded the fullness of the law for us by His Spirit, rather than by written ordinances.
        We must understand then that Jesus, by “fulfilling” the law, continues to reflect God’s attributes to not only Israel, but to all of mankind. In the same way the law did, Jesus now reflects God’s character of love, His compassion, demonstrated by His grace and mercy, and His conscience, seen by His wisdom, judgment and justice. And in Jesus we continue to see the will of God for humanity to be holy,
        Within the protecting confines of heterosexual marriage of those we commit to, there is no fear, no censure and no penalties for our sexual activities with our partner.
        We will please them and promote their welfare. And in a very real sense, we are laying down part of our life for another.
        God did not create two Adams of the same sex. He created Adam as male and female, for men and women to complement each other. In this “leaving, cleaving and becoming one flesh” mandate and forbidding sexual intercourse outside of this relationship which we know today as heterosexual “marriage” God has established a pattern and a procedure in human relationships. This matrix mirrors His relationship with a humanity who obeys His laws, orders, statutes, commandments and precepts.
        All other sexual activities outside of this committed relationship of a man and a woman fail to reflect God’s intents and purposes for the humanity which He created and are an obvious sham, an ineffective pretense, and a direct insult to the God Who created us.
        Within the heterosexual marriage, we humans express our love for God and love for each the other. We also express our love for neighbor. We perpetuate this God-created matrix by becoming parents in having children and giving them a home where the entire family is included in this Godly expression of love.
        If we would but follow our Creator’s intents and purposes we would eliminate many emotional pains and abuses brought about by adultery, abortion, divorce, sexually transmitted diseases, ad infinitum. But like Israel of old, we humans much prefer to follow our own desires. Don’t we?
        Anybody reading this agree with that logic?
        How can we underestimate the wisdom of God? He has designed us to desire a person of the opposite sex, part of which desire constitutes a desire for sexual union. We are so created, aren’t we?
        A telephone is designed to ring when it’s number is dialed by a caller, isn’t it? Is there condemnation for the telephone because it rings? Of course not.
        However, the telephone is not designed to go around looking for dialers to dial its number so it can ring, i.e., respond, is it?
        If that goes over your head then get somebody to explain it to you ...
        With this understanding of the expansion of the meaning of the word “adultery” the statement by Paul in 1 Corinthians focuses upon the intent of his statement:

1 Corinthians 7:1-3:
1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.

        In verse 1 note that Paul says “ ...the things whereof ye wrote unto me ...” not “ ...the things wherof ye asked me ...”
        Most probably, the Corinthians were asking for Paul’s approval concerning the practice of some married people in the assembly withholding sexual intercourse from each other, except to have children.
        Notice Paul’s reply: First, Paul throws out an empathy cushion: Oh, yeah, guys, it’s good not to have sex with a woman (the interpretation of not getting married is an incorrect one—sexual intercourse is the subject, not marriage). Having agreed with them, he now expands into a discussion of the subject to present a totally opposite view. “Nevertheless ...” Nevertheless in order to keep from fornicating with somebody than your spouse, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. The discussion continues: and let the husband and the wife make themselves sexually available each to the other when the other wants to have sexual intercourse. Paul then goes on to clinch his argument.
        In verses 2 and 3, the Greek words for “wife” is gune (a woman, or wife) and for “husband” is aner (a male, or husband).
        Clearly and plainly, Paul is emphasizing yet another aspect of God’s mandate concerning marriage as stated in Genesis 2:24:

Genesis 2:24:
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

        There is no male to male or female to female pairing in these biblical texts.
        In Hebrews 13:4, the contrast between the two words”whoremongers” and “adulterers” and the word “marriage” is confirmed (“whoremongers” is pornos in the Greek.)

Hebrews 13:4:
4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

        Vine’s Expository Dictionary says this about the word pornos:

        “fornication, fornicator: pornos denotes “a man who indulges in fornication, a fornicator,” (1 Cor. 5:9,10,11; 6:9; Eph. 5:5), RV; (1 Tim. 1:10), RV; (Heb. 12:16; 13:4), RV; (Rev. 21:8) and (22:15), RV (KJV, “whoremonger”).”
        An excerpt from Nelson’s Bible Dictionary states:
        In order to understand the Old Testament view of woman, one must turn to the Book of Genesis. When God created mankind, He created both “male and female” (Gen. 1:27; 5:2). Both were created in God’s image and both were given the responsibility of exercising authority over God’s creation. The man was created before the woman. Because the man needed companionship and a helper, God caused the man to sleep. From him He created a woman, “a helper comparable to him” (Gen. 2:18,20). Man is incomplete without woman. Because she is called a “helper” does not imply that she is inferior to man. The same Hebrew word translated as helper is used of God in His relationship to Israel (Ps. 33:20; 70:5).
        The culture that developed around the Israelites in ancient times did not always have this perspective of woman. Certain Old Testament passages tend to reflect an attitude that woman was little more than a thing and that a woman should be entirely subordinate to man. This tendency became pronounced before the coming of Christ. One of the Jewish prayers that dated from that era declared, “I thank Thee that I am not a woman.”
        Jesus lived and taught a better way—the way of love. He allowed women to accompany Him and His disciples on their journeys (Luke 8:1-3). He talked with the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s Well and led her to a conversion experience (John 4). Jesus did not think it strange that Mary sat at His feet, assuming the role of a disciple; in fact, He suggested to Martha that she should do likewise (Luke 10:38-42). Although the Jews segregated the women in both Temple and synagogue, the early church did not separate the congregation by sex (Acts 12:1-17; 1 Cor. 11:2-16).
        The apostle Paul wrote, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). Within the writings of Paul, however, other statements restrict women from participating in church leadership as freely as men. Women were to keep silent in church; they were to be submissive to the male leaders (1 Cor. 14:34-35; 1 Tim. 2:11-12).
        How does one reconcile these two seemingly opposing views? In Galatians Paul was stating a general principle that men and women were equal, just as the slave is equal to his master in the sight of God. However, Paul did not require or teach that the slaveholder had to release his slaves. In the same manner, Paul requested the women to be submissive to their husbands—to preserve order within the church and to be a witness to outsiders.

Variations Of The ... “Way Out Of This Binding Restriction”

        In reading Genesis, we find that God’s intention for mankind, i.e., men and women was to have many children, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,” and that because of the Fall, the co-equality of men and women was changed and the male (husband) was to take the ascendency in the relationship with the woman (wife):

Genesis 3:16:
16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

        There are arguments—by both heterosexuals and homosexuals—attempting to advance private agendas. Typically, they not only take scriptural verses out of their contextual settings, they also take specific words within those verses and attempt to nit-pick their invalid point while totally and completely ignoring the basic, broad, clearly understood principles God has given us humans. Relative to the verse stating humankind is to “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth ...” is the claim that “Well, some married couples can’t have children so it’s OK for us guys to marry each other, too.”
        Does it take much common sense to understand the general principle that “... be fruitful and multiply ...” very pointedly and forcefully excludes homosexuality?
        Does it take much common sense to understand the general principle that “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee ...” and “... as he lieth with a woman ...” very pointedly and forcefully excludes a male ruling over a male in the same sense that a husband “... shall rule over thee ...” (his wife)?
        In attempting to justify homosexuality, there are also some who try to imply that “cleave” dabaq means a sexual union. They then attempt to apply that meaning to Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan and Daniel and Ashpenaz as the word dabaq is used in describing their relationship.
        I covered the term dabaq previously.

Leviticus 18:22:
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Leviticus 20:13:
13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

        There is also semantical nit-picking of the word “abomination” in the above passages. The claim is made that the word refers only to religious idolatry, not homosexuality in general.
        If we attempt to apply that understanding to verse 22, then it would also apply to the whole of Leviticus, chapter 18. If that were so, then all of the practices prohibited therein would be permissible as long as they weren’t part of one’s religious idolatry. The same would hold true with verse 13 of Leviticus, chapter 20, wouldn’t it?
        Anybody reading this agree with that logic?
        The definition of the word “abomination” according to Strong’s Concordance:

        tow` ebah or to` ebah; feminine active participle of ta` ab; properly, something disgusting (morally), i.e. (as noun) an abhorrence; especially idolatry or (concretely) an idol. It is variously translated in the King James Version of the Bible as abominable (custom, thing), abomination.
        Vine’s Expository Dictionary says this about the word:
        Abomination:
        A. Noun.
        to`ebah “abomination; loathsome, detestable thing.” Cognates of this word appear only in Phoenician and Targumic Aramaic. The word appears 117 times and in all periods.
        First, to`ebah defines something or someone as essentially unique in the sense of being “dangerous,” “sinister,” and “repulsive” to another individual. This meaning appears in (Gen. 43:32) (the first occurrence): “...the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination unto the Egyptians.” To the Egyptians, eating bread with foreigners was repulsive because of their cultural or social differences (cf. (Gen. 46:34; Ps. 88:8)). Another clear illustration of this essential clash of disposition appears in (Prov. 29:27): “An unjust man is an abomination to the just: and he that is upright in the way is abomination to the wicked.” When used with reference to God, this nuance of the word describes people, things, acts, relationships, and characteristics that are “detestable” to Him because they are contrary to His nature. Things related to death and idolatry are loathsome to God: “Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing” (Deut. 14:3). People with habits loathsome to God are themselves detestable to Him: “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God” (Deut. 22:5). Directly opposed to to`ebah are such reactions as “delight” and “loveth” (Prov. 15:8-9).
        Second, to`ebah is used in some contexts to describe pagan practices and objects: “The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire; thou shalt not desire the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therein: for it is an abomination to the Lord thy God. Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house...” (Deut. 7:25-26). In other contexts, to`ebah describes the repeated failures to observe divine regulations: “Because ye multiplied more than the nations that are round about you, and have not walked in my statutes, neither have kept my judgments, neither have done according to the judgments of the nations that are round about you;... because of all thine abominations” (Ezek. 5:7, 9). To`ebah may represent the pagan cultic practices themselves, as in (Deut. 12:31), or the people who perpetrate such practices: “For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord: and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee” (Deut. 18:12). If Israelites are guilty of such idolatry, however, their fate will be worse than exile: death by stoning (Deut. 17:2-5).
        Third, to`ebah is used in the sphere of jurisprudence and of family or tribal relationships. Certain acts or characteristics are destructive of societal and familial harmony; both such things and the people who do them are described by to`ebah: “These six things doth the Lord hate; yea, seven are an abomination unto him:... a proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that deviseth wicked imaginations,... and he that soweth discord among brethren” (Prov. 6:16-19). God says, “The scorner is an abomination to men” (Prov. 24:9) because he spreads his bitterness among God’s people, disrupting unity and harmony.
        If a man lies (read: has sexual intercourse) with another man, as he would have sexual intercourse with a woman, it is disgusting, dangerous, sinister, and repulsive to God and to other individuals. In addition it is destructive of societal and familial harmony. This applies whether or not this homosexual act is done in conjunction with pagan practices and objects.
        OK, this is crystal clear in its meaning. But in addition note in Leviticus, chapter 18, in verses 23, 24, 25, 27, 28 and 30 the word “defiled” is used to describe these things which are an “abomination:”

Leviticus 18:1-30:
1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the Lord your God.
3 After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.
4 Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the Lord your God.
5 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the Lord.
6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the Lord.
7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
8 The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s nakedness.
9 The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.
10 The nakedness of thy son’s daughter, or of thy daughter’s daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness.
11 The nakedness of thy father’s wife’s daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
12 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s sister: she is thy father’s near kinswoman.
13 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother’s sister: for she is thy mother’s near kinswoman.
14 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt.
15 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy son’s wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother’s wife: it is thy brother’s nakedness.
17 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son’s daughter, or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness.
18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.
19 Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness.
20 Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour’s wife, to defile thyself with her.
21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the Lord.
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.
24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
25 And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.
26 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you:
27 (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;)
28 That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you.
29 For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.
30 Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the Lord your God.

        In the first five verses God states very clearly that Israel is not to adopt the “doings” of Egypt (which they had left) or Canaan (which is where they were going to), or to “walk in their ordinances.” God then states that Israel is to do His judgments and ordinances “to walk therein,” and His statutes, and then repeats “my judgments.” God then makes it clear that if a man (person) obeys Him, then that person will live by them.
        Strong’s Concordance defines the word “defiled:”

        Defile, tame’; a primitive root; to be foul, especially in a ceremonial or moral sense (contaminated.
        The King James Version of the Bible variously translates it as: defile (self), pollute (self), be (make, makeself, pronounce) unclean, X utterly.
        Vine’s Expository Dictionary definition of “defiled”:
        Unclean:
        A. Verb.
        tame’, “to be unclean.” This root is limited to Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic. The verb occurs 160 times in biblical Hebrew and mainly in Leviticus, as in (Lev. 11:26): “The carcases of every beast which divideth the hoof, and is not clovenfooted, nor cheweth the cud, are unclean unto you: every one that toucheth them shall be unclean.” Tame’ is the opposite of taher, “to be pure.”
        B. Noun.
        tum’ah, “uncleanness.” This noun is derived from tame’. Tum’ah occurs 37 times in biblical Hebrew. The word occurs in (Num. 5:19): “And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanliness with another instead of thine husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse.” Here the word refers to sexual “uncleanness.” Tum’ah occurs twice in (Lev. 16:16) and refers to ethical and religious “uncleanness.”
        C. Adjective.
        tame’, “unclean.” This adjective occurs 89 times in the Old Testament. The frequency of the word is high in Leviticus. Its first occurrence is also in Leviticus: “Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcase of an unclean beast, or a carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and guilty” (5:2).
        The usage of tame’ in the Old Testament resembles that of tahor, “pure.” First, uncleanness is a state of being. The leper was compelled to announce his uncleanness wherever he went (Lev. 13:45); however, even here there is a religious overtone, in that his uncleanness was ritual. Hence, it is more appropriate to recognize that the second usage is most basic. Tame’ in the religio-cultic sense is a technical term denoting a state of being ceremonially unfit. Animals, carcases, unclean people, and objects conveyed the impurity to those who touched them: “And whatsoever the unclean person toucheth shall be unclean; and the soul that toucheth it shall lie unclean until even” (Num. 19:22). The impurity could also be brought about by a seminal issue (Lev. 15:2) or a menstrual period (Lev. 15:25), and whatever the unclean touched was also rendered “unclean.”
        The Septuagint translations are: akathartos (“impure; unclean”) and miaino (“stain; defile”). The KJV gives these translations: “unclean; defiled; polluted.”
        In verses 6 through 23, God gives clear instructions on how not to do disgusting and unclean things. Some of them so disgusting and so unclean that he mandated the death penalty for them.
        Homosexual “intercourse” between two men is an abomination and defiles those persons. Any arguments that those words apply only to idolatrous sexual intercourse, i.e., sexual intercourse done by temple prostitutes or other religious rituals fails to grasp the clear message conveyed in the text.

Leviticus 20:13:
13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

        The word “man” in the text is ish. An excerpt from Vine’s Expository Dictionary reads:

        Man—ish: “man; husband; mate; human being; human; somebody; each; every.” Cognates of this word appear in Phoenician, Punic, old Aramaic, and old South Arabic. This noun occurs about 2,183 times and in all periods of biblical Hebrew. The plural of this noun is usually ‘anashim, but 3 times it is ‘ishim (Ps. 53:3).
        Basically, this word signifies “man” in correspondence to woman; a “man” is a person who is distinguished by maleness. ...
        The word “mankind” is zakar, defined in this excerpt from Vine’s Expository Dictionary:
        Man—zakar: “male.” Cognates of this word appear in Akkadian, Aramaic, and Arabic. It occurs 82 times and usually in early prose (Genesis through Deuteronomy), only 5 times in the biblical prophets, and never in biblical wisdom or poetical literature.
        Zakar emphasizes “maleness” as over against “femaleness”; this word focuses on the sex of the one so named. Thus, “God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (Gen. 1:27).
        The word “woman” is ishshah, explained in this excerpt from Vine’s Expository Dictionary.
        Woman—ishshah; “woman; wife; betrothed one; bride; each.” This word has cognates in Akkadian, Ugaritic, Aramaic, Arabic, and Ethiopic. It appears about 781 times in biblical Hebrew and in all periods of the language.
        This noun connotes one who is a female human being regardless of her age or virginity. Therefore, it appears in correlation to “man” (ish): “...she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man” (Gen. 2:23). This is its meaning in its first biblical usage: “And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man [‘adam], made he a woman, and brought her unto the man” (Gen. 2:22). The stress here is on identification of womanhood rather than a family role.
        Note the clear distinction here explicitly stating “man” and “woman,” plain and simple. If God had intended to limit His instructions to “temple prostitutes” (as He did in Deuteronomy 23:17 and other Bible verses) he would have used the words qadash and qedeshah, mistranslated in the King James and other Bible translations as “sodomite” or “unclean” and “harlot” or “whore.”
        The meaning of the words qadash and qedeshah is “holy one.” It applies to the male and female prostitutes who engaged in sexual intercourse as a part of their ritualistic pagan religious fertility rites and within that practice considered to be “holy” or “sacred” by the participants in this pagan practice.
        The words “harlot(s),” “whore,” “sodomite(s),” and “unclean” in the following verses are either qadash (male) or qedeshah (female). The literal translation is “holy one,” however, its meaning is that of a male or female temple or cult prostitute.

Genesis 38:21,22:
21 Then he asked the men of that place, saying, Where is the harlot, that was openly by the way side? And they said, There was no harlot in this place.
22 And he returned to Judah, and said, I cannot find her; and also the men of the place said, that there was no harlot in this place.

Deuteronomy 23:17:
17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

1 Kings 14:24:
24 And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the Lord cast out before the children of Israel.

1 Kings 15:12:
12 And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.

1 Kings 22:46:
46 And the remnant of the sodomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land.

2 Kings 23:7:
7 And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the Lord, where the women wove hangings for the grove.

Job 36:14:
14 They die in youth, and their life is among the unclean.

Hosea 4:14:
14 I will not punish your daughters when they commit whoredom, nor your spouses when they commit adultery: for themselves are separated with whores, and they sacrifice with harlots: therefore the people that doth not understand shall fall.

        Apparently it was assumed by the earlier Bible translators that the male qadash temple priests “holy ones” were homosexual and engaged in sex with each other and/or other males (and the female qedeshah temple priestess) as part of a fertility rite.
        Research about the religious practices of Canaan will reveal the absolute conviction of the people of that culture of the existence of their “gods” which blessed them agriculturally. And the practice of heterosexual sexual intercourse as a ritual which imitated and honored their “gods.”
        However, the pattern for sexual intercourse was established by what was known as the anointing of the sacred king. The queen-priestess had to unite in sexual intercourse with the king-priest to transmit her “goddess” power to him, thus causing him to become the official divine king in the sacred marriage ceremony, or hieros gamos. This sacred marriage routine officially made both the male and the female “gods.” This had implications of reproductive powers that extended to the land, through rain, as a type of semen, and included crops and livestock, etc.
        This was the model for the temple prostitution. The female qedeshah thus worshipped the female goddess through the fertility of her womb, while the male qadash was the instrument that utilized her reception of his penile penetration to bring about the desired fertility. In some magical way, this physical act was considered to be holy and somehow influenced the spiritual atmosphere to bring the blessing of fertile land, crops and livestock.
        Fertility, then, was the theme and thrust of their pagan practices.
        Baal worship was performed as an imitation of Baal himself as a god of fertility who controlled the rain, which increased their crops and maintained their livestock. Regular practice of sexual intercourse between the men and women who were temple prostitutes, as a fertility rite, not only pleased Baal, but they were also believed to provoke and arouse Baal, who would bring rain (symbolic of sperm in their minds).
        Droughts and lack of rain signified to these people that the gods were displeased and unhappy. By practicing the pagan religious rituals of heterosexual sex, they demonstrated their thanks and adoration and stimulated the passions of the gods so that the rain would enhance the productivity of crops and livestock.
        The significance of the phrase “their blood shall be upon them ...” is explained in this excerpt from Vine’s Expository Dictionary:

        Blood—dam “blood.” This is a common Semitic word with cognates in all the Semitic languages. Biblical Hebrew attests it about 360 times and in all periods. ...
        The phrase, “his blood be on his head,” signifies that the guilt and punishment for a violent act shall be on the perpetrator: “For everyone that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood [guiltiness] shall be upon him” (Lev. 20:9). This phrase bears the added overtone that those who execute the punishment by killing the guilty party are not guilty of murder. So here “blood” means responsibility for one’s dead ...

Prohibition, Progression and Prophecy

        In Leviticus, chapter 18, we see in verses 6-18 God’s prohibition of sexual relations with close relatives. In verses 19-20 God states a prohibition within the sexual relations of a married husband and wife, and also a prohibition outside of their relationship. Verses 21-23 state the prohibitions that God says are unnatural sexual relations, as I will explain.

Leviticus 18:21-23:
21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the Lord.
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.

        Excerpted from the Holman Bible Dictionary:

        MOLECH (Mole; king) Transliteration of Hebrew word related to word for “king” but describing a foreign god or a practice related to foreign worship. The meaning of “Molech” is debated. Two views generally are proposed. One suggestion is that “Molech” denotes a particular type of offering—a votive sacrifice made to confirm or fulfill a vow. This viewpoint is supported by the fact that some Carthaginian-Phoenician (Punic) inscriptions from the period 400-150 B.C. imply that the word mlk is a general form for “sacrifice” or “offering.” Such a meaning is possible in some passages (Lev. 18:21; 20:3-5; 2 Kings 23:10; Jer. 32:35).
        A second suggestion is that “Molech” is the name of a pagan deity to whom human sacrifices were made. This deity often is associated with Ammon (compare 1 Kings 11:7—) “the abomination of the children of Ammon.” Leviticus 20:5 condemns those who “commit whoredom with Molech” (see also Lev. 18:21; 20:3-5; 2 Kings 23:10; Jer. 32:35). Some recent archaeological evidence points to child sacrifice in ancient Ammon. Many scholars contend that all the biblical texts referring to Molech can be understood by interpreting it as a divine name.
        The etymology of the term “Molech” is interesting. Scholars suggest that it is a deliberate misvocalization of the Hebrew word for king or for the related participle (molek), “ruler.” They propose that the consonants for the Hebrew word for king (mlk) were combined with the vowels from the word for shame (boshet). Thus, this title was a divine epithet expressing contempt for the pagan god.
        In times of apostasy some Israelites, apparently in desperation, made their children “go through the fire to Molech” (Lev. 18:21; 20:2-5; 2 Kings 23:10; compare 2 Kings 17:31; Jer. 7:31; 19:5; 32:35). It generally is assumed that references like these are to the sacrifices of children in the Valley of Hinnom at a site known as Topheth (“Topheth” probably means “firepit” in Syriac). ... Precisely how this was done is unknown. Some contend that the children were thrown into a raging fire. Certain rabbinic writers describe a hollow bronze statute in the form of a human but with the head of an ox. According to the rabbis, children were placed in the structure which was then heated from below. Drums were pounded to drown out the cries of the children.
        An alternate view contends that the expression “passed through Molech” refers not to human sacrifices but that parents gave up their children to grow up as temple prostitutes. Such a view appeals to Leviticus 18 where throughout the chapter the writer is concerned with sexual intercourse (especially vv. 19-23). Another view sees an original fire ceremony dedicating, but not harming children, that later was transformed into a burnt-offering ceremony.
        The practice of offering children as human sacrifice was condemned in ancient Israel, but the implication is clear in the Old Testament that child-sacrifice was practiced by some in Israel (2 Kings 21:6; 23:10; 2 Chron. 28:3; Ps. 106:38; Jer. 7:31; 19:4-5; Ezek. 16:21; 23:37,39). The Exile seems to have put an end to this type of worship in Israel. However, it lingered on in North Africa and among the Carthaginian Phoenicians into the Christian era.
        Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary on Leviticus 18:21:
        21. thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, &c.—Molech, or Moloch, which signifies “king,” was the idol of the Ammonites. His statue was of brass, and rested on a pedestal or throne of the same metal. His head, resembling that of a calf, was adorned with a crown, and his arms were extended in the attitude of embracing those who approached him. His devotees dedicated their children to him; and when this was to be done, they heated the statue to a high pitch of intensity by a fire within, and then the infants were either shaken over the flames, or passed through the ignited arms, by way of lustration [read: purifying by ceremonial cleansing] to ensure the favor of the pretended deity. The fire-worshippers asserted that all children who did not undergo this purifying process would die in infancy; and the influence of this Zabian superstition was still so extensively prevalent in the days of Moses, that the divine lawgiver judged it necessary to prohibit it by an express statute.
        neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God—by giving it to false or pretended divinities; or, perhaps, from this precept standing in close connection with the worship of Molech, the meaning rather is, Do not, by devoting your children to him, give foreigners occasion to blaspheme the name of your God as a cruel and sanguinary deity, who demands the sacrifice of human victims, and who encourages cruelty in his votaries.
        Comment on Leviticus 18:21 from the Net Bible First Edition:
        Heb “And from your seed you shall not give to cause to pass over to Molech.” Smr (cf. also the LXX) has “to cause to serve” rather than “to cause to pass over.” For detailed remarks on Molech and Molech worship see N. H. Snaith, Leviticus and Numbers (NCBC), 87-88; P. J. Budd, Leviticus (NCBC), 259-60; and J. E. Hartley, Leviticus (WBC), 333-37, and the literature cited there. It could refer to either human sacrifice or a devotion of children to some sort of service of Molech, perhaps of a sexual sort (cf. Lev 20:2-5; 2 Kgs 23:10, etc.). The inclusion of this prohibition against Molech worship here may be due to some sexual connection of this kind, or perhaps simply to the lexical link between zera meaning “seed, semen” in v. 20 but “offspring” in v. 21.
        The commentaries and conjectural theories of “Molech” are very confusing and inconclusive. In verse 21 in the King James Version of the Bible, the phrase “the fire” is italicized, meaning it is not in the original and was inserted by the translators. There were many false “gods” in the biblical record. That the translators and commentators mis-identified their applicability in the biblical accounts of them is not due to lack of scholarship. It’s due to a lack of factual data concerning those gods.
        The above comments suggesting a sexual connotation to Leviticus 18:21 make much more sense than the many varied and imaginative stories that abound. Other commentators have suggested the word “seed,” alternatively understood or translated as “semen” would have expressed the idea that dedication of the child born from that semen would be in mind. Yet other commentators suggest that the actual semen itself should not be used to “serve” a pagan god. This is based upon the idea that semen was equated with rain as a fertilizing source and offering one’s semen to their pagan god was an act of worship.
        Whether verse 21 means actual child sacrifice, or dedication of a child to the god as a temple prostitute, or as a “baptismal” procedure to please the gods, or refers to actual semen itself, is not clear.
        However, in the “Literal Translation of the Holy Bible translated by Jay P. Green Sr.” he translates those verses as:

Leviticus 18:19-23 (Literal Translation of the Holy Bible translated by Jay P. Green Sr):
19 And you shall not draw near to uncover the nakedness of a woman in her menstrual impurity.
20 And you shall not give your semen to your neighbor’s wife by lying with her, for uncleanness with her.
21 And you shall not give your seed to pass them through to Molech, nor shall you pollute the name of your God; I am Jehovah.
22 And you shall not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is a perversion.
23 And you shall not give your semen with any animal, for uncleanness with it. And a woman shall not stand before an animal to lie down with it; it is a shameful mixing.

        Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible translates those verses as:

Leviticus 18:19-23 (Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible):
19 And unto a woman in the separation of her uncleanness thou dost not draw near to uncover her nakedness.
20 And unto the wife of thy fellow thou dost not give thy seed of copulation, for uncleanness with her.
21 And of thy seed thou dost not give to pass over to the Molech; nor dost thou pollute the name of thy God; I am Jehovah.
22 And with a male thou dost not lie as one lieth with a woman; abomination it is.
23 And with any beast thou dost not give thy copulation, for uncleanness with it; and a woman doth not stand before a beast to lie down with it; confusion it is.

        The emphasis on semen in those literal interpretations of those verses indicates that a broad overview of all the prohibited sexual practices appear to have a common denominator in that they all prohibit, ultimately, the deposit of semen in particular places, or in the case of a menstruating woman, a particular time.
        Verses 21-23 can then be seen as continuing the theme of prohibited sexual practices under the sub-theme of prohibited unnatural sexual relations.
        [A note on the “uncleanness” of women during their menstruation: While this is difficult to comprehend and appears to be an “impurity” charge heavily biased against women, for a natural function, the same “bias” is found elsewhere in Leviticus against men:

Leviticus 15:31-33 (Amplified Bible):
31 Thus you shall separate the Israelites from their uncleanness, lest they die in their uncleanness by defiling My tabernacle that is in the midst of them.
32. This is the law for him who has a discharge and for him who has emissions of sperm, being made unclean by it;
33. And for her who is sick with her impurity, and for any person who has a discharge, whether man or woman, and for him who lies with her who is unclean.]

        In my opinion, there is also a prophetic aspect to be seen in these verses.

Leviticus 18:19-20:
19 Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness.
20 Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour’s wife, to defile thyself with her.

        The words “also” in verse 19, and “moreover” in verse 20 are the same word in the Hebrew, 'el.
        Strong’s Concordance Definition:

        'el; (but only used in the shortened constructive form 'el (el)); a primitive particle; properly, denoting motion towards, but occasionally used of a quiescent position, i.e. near, with or among; often in general, to.
        Variously translated in the KJV—about, according to after, against, among, as for, at, because (-fore, -side), both ... and, by, concerning, for, from, X hath, in (-to), near, (out) of, over, through, to (-ward), under, unto, upon, whether, with (-in).
        Brown-Driver-Briggs’ Definition:
        'el (but only used in the shortened constructive form 'el
        1) to, toward, unto (used of motion)
        2) into (limit is actually entered); in among
        3) toward (of direction, not necessarily physical motion)
        4) against (motion or direction of a hostile character)
        5) in addition to, to
        6) concerning, in regard to, in reference to, on account of
        7) according to (rule or standard)
        8) at, by, against (of one’s presence)
        9) in between, in within, to within, unto (idea of motion to)
        Verses 19 and 20 obviously lead us to verses 21-23.

Leviticus 18:21-23 (Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible):
21 And of thy seed thou dost not give to pass over to the Molech; nor dost thou pollute the name of thy God; I am Jehovah.
22 And with a male thou dost not lie as one lieth with a woman; abomination it is.
23 And with any beast thou dost not give thy copulation, for uncleanness with it; and a woman doth not stand before a beast to lie down with it; confusion it is.

        With the incorporation of 'el they may indicate a motion towards, or used in the sense of a latent, or potential (“quiescent”) position. A position made worse with continued violations of the prohibitions preceding those.
        God prohibited sexual relations with close relatives and also prohibitions between a married man and wife, and a prohibition outside of their relationship. These negatives were stated to establish a positive and affirming standard of sexual conduct. It may be that the unnatural sexual relations of verses 21 through 23 are the penalties for failing to adhere to God’s positive standard of sexual conduct.
        In other words, violations of these prohibited practices would bring about a worsening of the unnatural sexual relations in the same way that “God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves ...” and “God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature ...” and “God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient ...” in Roman, chapter one, verses 24, 26 and 28.
        Failure to avoid the negatively stated practices in Leviticus, chapter 18, would then bring about the practice of purposefully killing your own seed, or dedication, or a “baptismal” procedure of your children by demonic powers, or giving of your semen to pagan practices (verse 21). Next would be the acceptance of homosexuality (verse 22) and next the accepted practice of humans having sexual intercourse with animals (verse 23).
        In fact, these things are already among us. Abortion (killing) of babies is legal, fatherless children from illicit sexual unions and divorces, are “baptized” into criminality as noted by rising crime statistics, and semen is being offered up in pagan practices of selfish and lustful sexual activities of every sort. The homosexuals have come out of the closet and are demanding extra-special rights for themselves, cleverly calling those “rights” civil rights. And if you take the time to research it out, you will find that every sexual act possible between humans and humans and humans and animals is being committed. Everything in Leviticus, chapter 18 prohibited by God has been embraced by our contemporary society.
        The repercussions for these activities is clear. The following excerpt from the Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary speaks to us today.
        Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary on Leviticus 18:24-30:

        24. Defile not yourselves in any of these things—In the preceding verses seventeen express cases of incest are enumerated; comprehending eleven of affinity [Le 18:7-16], and six of consanguinity [Le 18:17-20], together with some criminal enormities of an aggravated and unnatural character. In such prohibitions it was necessary for the instruction of a people low in the scale of moral perception, that the enumeration should be very specific as well as minute; and then, on completing it, the divine lawgiver announces his own views of these crimes, without any exception or modification, in the remarkable terms employed in this verse.
        in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you
, &c.—Ancient history gives many appalling proofs that the enormous vices described in this chapter were very prevalent, nay, were regularly practised from religious motives in the temples of Egypt and the groves of Canaan; and it was these gigantic social disorders that occasioned the expulsion, of which the Israelites were, in the hands of a righteous and retributive Providence, the appointed instruments (Ge 15:16). The strongly figurative language of “the land itself vomiting out her inhabitants” [Le 18:25], shows the hopeless depth of their moral corruption.
        25. therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it; and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants—The Canaanites, as enormous and incorrigible sinners, were to be exterminated; and this extermination was manifestly a judicial punishment inflicted by a ruler whose laws had been grossly and perseveringly outraged. But before a law can be disobeyed, it must have been previously in existence; and hence a law, prohibiting all the horrid crimes enumerated above—a law obligatory upon the Canaanites as well as other nations—was already known and in force before the Levitical law of incest was promulgated. Some general law, then, prohibiting these crimes must have been published to mankind at a very early period of the world’s history; and that law must either have been the moral law, originally written on the human heart, or a law on the institution of marriage revealed to Adam and known to the Canaanites and others by tradition or otherwise.
        29. the souls that commit them shall be cut off—This strong denunciatory language is applied to all the crimes specified in the chapter without distinction: to incest as truly as to bestiality, and to the eleven cases of affinity [Le 18:7-16], as fully as to the six of consanguinity [Le 18:17-20]. Death is the punishment sternly denounced against all of them. No language could be more explicit or universal; none could more strongly indicate intense loathing and abhorrence.
        30. Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs—In giving the Israelites these particular institutions, God was only re-delivering the law imprinted on the natural heart of man; for there is every reason to believe that the incestuous alliances and unnatural crimes prohibited in this chapter were forbidden to all men by a law expressed or understood from the beginning of the world, or at least from the era of the flood, since God threatens to condemn and punish, in a manner so sternly severe, these atrocities in the practice of the Canaanites and their neighbors, who were not subject to the laws of the Hebrew nation.
        We also, in today’s world, are not subject to the laws of the Hebrew nation. However, since the mandate in Genesis 2:24 “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh ...” is a universal one for mankind, so are the admonitions to refrain from certain sexual activity. The repercussions, i.e., the penalty for not obeying God are clearly stated in the closing lines of Leviticus, chapter 18:

        Leviticus 18:29-30:
        29 For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.
        30 Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the Lord your God.

        This certainly appears to have eternal consequences, doesn’t it?

New Testament Confirmation Of Old Testament Sexual Purity Laws

        The New Testament also condemns same sex sexual activity (can one really call it “intercourse?”)

Romans 1:26-27:
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

        Again, the author (Paul, the apostle) uses words that emphasize gender. In verse 26, the word women is thelus, about which Vine’s Expository Dictionary says:

        thelus, an adjective (from thele, “a breast”), is used in the form thelu (grammatically neuter) as a noun, “female,” in (Matt. 19:4; Mark 10:6; Gal. 3:28); in the feminine form theleia, in (Rom. 1:26), “women”; (v. 27) “woman.”
        And, in verse 27 Vine’s Expository Dictionary defines the word “men:”
        arsen or arren is translated “men” in (Rom. 1:27) (three times); “man child” in (Rev. 12:5) (v. 13) in some mss.; “male” in (Matt. 19:4; Mark 10:6; Luke 2:23; Gal. 3:28), “(there can be no) male (and female),” RV, i. e. sex distinction does not obtain in Christ; sex is no barrier either to salvation or the development of Christian graces.
        Here again, there is a false argument that Paul is speaking of those whose “natural use” is that of the practice of homosexuality! Therefore, those heterosexuals who go “against nature,” i.e., their nature of heterosexuality, and practice homosexual acts are the subject of Paul’s discussion!
        Incredible, huh?
        Instead of recognizing that the “natural use” of a male and of a female is that of being attracted to each other and having heterosexual sex (within marriage), the attempt is made to incorporate homosexuality (and lesbianism) into the natural heterosexual biological function of men and women as some sort of apparently uncontrollable “quirk”!
        So where are those heterosexual people “burning in lust” for people of the same sex! What happened to make heterosexually oriented people suddenly begin to burn in lust “men with men” and by implication “women with women?” Yet another deep dark proclivity within men and women that is apparently being repressed and one day will just suddenly burst forth on its own, captivating us unsuspecting humans!
        But ... do grapes produce thorns? Do figs produce thistles?
        Jesus indicates “Ye shall know them by their fruits,” doesn’t He?

Matthew 7:16:
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

        And if we read the preceding verse, we find we have a name for people who say and do stuff like that:

Matthew 7:15:
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

        Again, we have the same problem in that if we attempt to apply that understanding to verses 26 and 27, then it would indicate that those verses apply only to those men and women to whom homosexuality did not come “naturally?”
        Are you confused by this transparently illogical fallacy yet?
        So ... the activities outlined in the rest of the chapter would not apply to those who are homosexuals “by nature” but only to those who practiced homosexuality against their nature.
        Say what? You should be confused by now!

Romans 1:28-32:
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

        God will give those “unnatural” practitioners of homosexuality a reprobate mind, they will be filled with unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit and malignity. They will be whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful. And they’ll keep on doing so, knowing they deserve death and encouraging and commending those who do likewise.
        But the “natural” practitioners of homosexuality are exempt from God’s death penalty!
        Do you hear the pseudo-logic here? “Hey, I didn’t change the truth of God into a lie, and I don’t worship and serve created things more than my Creator—and I continue to bless God.”

Romans 1:25:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

        Homosexuality is not defined by its motive, or the reasons for it. It’s defined by the sexual acts of an individual. Isn’t it?
        It’s little Johnny caught with his hand in the cookie jar, proclaiming that he didn’t try to eat any cookies, he just thought the jar was a glove and he was trying to see if it fit his hand.
        Anybody reading this agree with that logic?
        Paul, the apostle, also mentioned homosexuality in several of his other letters:

1 Corinthians 6:9:
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

1 Timothy 1:10:
10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

        In both these verses the phrases “abusers of themselves with mankind” and “for them that defile themselves with mankind” is the same Greek word, arsenokoites.
        Strong’s Definition:

        arsenokoites; from 730 (arrhen) and 2845 (koite); a sodomite:
        Thayer’s Definition:
        arsenokoites-one who lies with a male as with a female, a sodomite, a homosexual
        Strong’s Definition of arrhen:
        arrhen or arsen probably from 142; male (as stronger for lifting).
        Vine’s Definition of koite:
        BED—koite; primarily “a place for lying down” (connected with keimai, “to lie”), denotes a “bed,” (Luke 11:7); the marriage “bed,” (Heb. 13:4); in (Rom. 13:13), it is used of sexual intercourse. By metonymy, the cause standing for the effect, it denotes conception, (Rom. 9:10).
        There is a lot of discussion about the word arsenokoites, ascribing to it several different meanings according to one’s agenda. Attempts to define this word from the Bible or from secular sources have been unsuccessful. However, the only valid point of reference is in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Bible from the Hebrew. There we will find the terms arsen and koites used in both Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 in describing how homosexual activity is an abomination to God:

Leviticus 18:22:
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13:
13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

        These verses, as discussed above, clearly refer to homosexual activity and I made the statements:

        In verses 6 through 23, (of Leviticus, chapter 18) God gives clear instructions on how not to do disgusting and unclean things. Some of them so disgusting and so unclean that he mandated the death penalty for them.
        Homosexual “intercourse” between two men is an abomination and defiles those persons. Any arguments that those words apply only to idolatrous sexual intercourse, i.e., sexual intercourse done by temple prostitutes or other religious rituals fails to grasp the clear message conveyed in the text.
        Note the clear distinction here (in Leviticus 20:13) explicitly stating “man” and “woman,” plain and simple. If God had intended to limit His instructions to “temple prostitutes” he would have used the words qadash and qedeshah, mistranslated in the King James and other Bible translations as “sodomite” or “unclean” and “harlot” or “whore.”
        It should be clear to anyone who can count to one that Paul is speaking of homosexuals, borrowing language used in the Septuagint version for that term. Attempts to assign another meaning are many and varied, but the translation from the Hebrew to the Greek in the Septuagint must be our guide.

Old Testament Sexual Death Penalty Sins

        In the Old Testament, under the Law of Moses, recorded in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, the following sexual sins were punished by the death of those so involved. Lesser penalties for other sexual transgressions were also established:         Excerpted from the Holman Bible Dictionary:
        In the garden, Adam and Eve were created equal (Gen. 1:27-28; 2:18-23). The New Testament teaches that in Christ this Edenic complementariness is restored (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 3:28; Eph. 5:21-33). Mates are equal in possessing one another (1 Cor. 7:4) and are interdependent (1 Cor. 11:11-12). The new creation in Christ makes this possible.
        Yet the Fall ruptured God’s plan for male/female equality. Sin produced male dominance and female submissiveness (Gen. 3:16). Many scholars believe that this is descriptive rather than prescriptive for all time. Much of the remainder of Scripture, therefore, describes a double standard of male superiority and female inferiority, a kind of “chain of command” of the husband ruling his wife and children. Various passages set forth women being subordinated to men (Num. 30:3-15; 1 Tim 2:11-15). Different standards of fidelity in marriage are found (Num. 5:11-31; Deut. 22:22-29) where unfaithful wives are more severely dealt with than husbands. The New Testament response to this was that of mutual equality and servanthood toward each other with the servanthood of Jesus as the basic criterion (Eph. 5:21-33). Some passages deal with specific problems that appear to be limited to the time and culture of the first-century place (1 Cor. 14:34-35; 1 Tim. 2:11-15; 1 Pet. 3:1-7), though some Bible students see such passages as establishing social orders for all times.
        Sexual Deviations. Several deviations of sexual behavior are condemned in the biblical teachings: homosexuality (Lev. 18:22; Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9-10); bestiality (Ex. 22:19; Lev. 18:23); incest (Lev. 18:6-18; 1 Cor. 5); rape (Ex. 22:16-17; Deut. 22:23-29); adultery (Ex. 20:14; Deut. 22:22); prostitution (Prov. 7:1-27; 29:3); fornication (1 Cor. 6:9-10; compare Matt. 19:9). These are all declared to be outside of the will of God for man and woman who are called to live together in monogamous fidelity within the covenant of marriage. The only other option is the giftedness of celibacy (Matt. 19:12b; 1 Cor. 7:7). Incidentally, the Bible is silent on the subject of masturbation (compare Lev. 15:16). It is silent on physical techniques of sexual intercourse, referring only to marital rights or enjoyment (Ex. 21:10), erotic caresses (Song of Sol. 2:6; 7:1-9), fondling (Gen. 26:8), and pleasure in conceiving (Gen. 18:12). Yet these are set forth in the context of the behavior of married couples. Intimate sexual behavior outside of marriage is considered sexual immorality in the biblical perspective.
        Theology of sex. The Bible reveals an ethical God who gives humans the gift of sexuality whereby they image God when they join together to complement each other as “one flesh” (Gen. 2:24). All nonmarital sex is outside the boundaries of the will of this ethical God (see Amos 2:6-8 where Israel was to reject sex at the pagan shrines). God’s people are expected to exercise self-control, not by asceticism (Col. 2:23; 1 Tim. 4:1-5), but by the power of the Holy Spirit overcoming sexual impulses (Gal. 5:16-25). For the noncelibate, marriage is the only approved outlet for sexual expression (1 Cor. 7:9; Titus 2:5-6). This view equates human wholeness with holiness of life (1 Thess. 4:3-5). One’s sexuality is a vital part of Christian holiness and not a necessary evil to be rejected. Within the limits of marriage, sex is for procreation of children, the enhancement of the one-flesh relationship, and the pleasure of the married couple whose love can be nourished thereby. Outside of the limits established by God, sex becomes an evil and destructive force in human life, calling for God’s redemptive power to deliver humans trapped therein. Marital sexual love is both a gift and a responsibility from God to be consecrated by the Word and prayer.
        Excerpted from Nelson’s Bible Dictionary:
        Commandments, Ten
        7. “You shall not commit adultery” (Ex. 20:14). Technically, this commandment refers to being sexually involved with a married person; but it is traditionally used to prohibit all sexual relationships outside of marriage. Again, this commandment involves a right relationship with God and with others. Adultery is possible only if people are prepared to hurt others, to enjoy themselves at the expense of other people. A right attitude toward keeping God first and not harming others is tied together in these commandments. A person who does not steal will not take another’s mate. And he does not allow covetous thoughts to grow in his mind. He wants God to have his total allegiance.
        There are many other death penalty sins in the Bible. Note that of the nine sexual death penalty sins, one of them is homosexuality.

        OK, church, why are you ignoring the other eight Old Testament sexual death penalty sins?

        Where are the protest groups, organizations, activities, rallies, books, articles and movements against those who commit adultery?
        Where are the protest groups, organizations, activities, rallies, books, articles and movements against those who have sex with an animal?
        Where are the protest groups, organizations, activities, rallies, books, articles and movements against those women who have failed to maintain their virginity before marriage?
        Where are the protest groups, organizations, activities, rallies, books, articles and movements against those who have sexual intercourse with both a woman and her mother?
        Where are the protest groups, organizations, activities, rallies, books, articles and movements against those who have sexual intercourse while engaged to another?
        Where are the protest groups, organizations, activities, rallies, books, articles and movements against those who rape a woman engaged to another?
        OK, you are exempt from protesting against prostitution by a daughter of a priest because there is no longer a Levitical system under a theocracy.
        As a matter of fact, we are not Israelites, we don’t live in Israel under a theocracy, and we don’t have the particular problems that Israel had when those commands were written, do we?
        Question: Why do we ignore the eight commands that warrant the death penalty for sexual misconduct—but we demand that the sexual misconduct of homosexuality be dealt with as God prescribed in the Old Testament?
        Under the law, all who were guilty of sexual death sins were killed. Weren’t they?
        Under grace, all who are guilty of sexual death sins of the Old Testament are not killed. Are they?
        Nowhere in the Bible does God focus exclusively on homosexuality. Much less as a “worse” sin that any other death penalty sin. It’s simply grouped in with other death penalty sins and dealt with in the same manner as those sins.
        What did Paul, the apostle continue to say about the subject:

1 Corinthians 6:11-20:
11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.
14 And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.
15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.
18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.

What Is Your Message Or Whose Report Will You Believe?

Isaiah 53:1: 1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?

        The clear message from the Bible is a simple one, huh? Heterosexual marriage, i.e. marriage between a man and a woman, is the place to have beautiful, bountiful and blessed sexual experiences.
        OK, then does that mean that this process of being mature, seeking to bond to a woman of your choice and then having sexual intercourse with her constitutes a “marriage?”
        Essentially, yes. However, because of our societal culture, as mentioned before, there is the necessity and desirability to publicly declare your intentions and have a civil ceremony that makes it official. This is more of a societal responsibility because of the laws which civil government has legislated.
        Yeah ... but ... today’s society has another totally different set of cultural values. Basically, it’s one of “recreational sex.” And since everybody’s doing it, having sex with one another whenever and however they feel like it, then what’s wrong with that?
        OK, I’ll explain it this way: when a person(s), skips the biblical progression of maturity, bonding and, lastly sexual intercourse, they have in God’s eyes become “one flesh” and have simply postponed the maturity and bonding processes that should have preceded that sexual intercourse. If you believe what God said, then by your act of “recreational sex” you two are now one. So you now have to drop back and punt, so to speak, and learn to mature to a responsible position in planning for a family and finances to support it. Especially if the “recreational sex” results in a new life, i.e., a child. You are also “stuck” with one another and will have to learn to bond to the other person, whether or not you “like” them. You put the horse before the cart and now have to make some very drastic changes to be obedient to God. Don’t you?
        The Bible makes it clear you are “one flesh” and are to be such for your entire lifetime.
        You may want to call your immature, non-bonded sexual intercourse “pre-marital sex.” However, in biblical reality there is no such thing. When you engaged in sexual intercourse, you were “one flesh,” i.e., married.
        The Bible says:

        Genesis 2:24:
        24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

        Matthew 19:5,6:
        5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

        Mark 10:8:
        8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

        1 Corinthians 6:16:
        16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

        Ephesians 5:31:
        31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

        Even if you have sexual intercourse with a harlot, a whore, you are one flesh for as long as you are on this earth. There is no marriage in heaven:

        Matthew 22:30:
        30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

        Another thing, in the Old Testament, if a man died, his brother was to marry his widow:

        Deuteronomy 25:5:
        5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her.

        So, biblically, whether you marry a whore, or marry your dead brothers wife, you are married. Emotional involvement or “bonding” has nothing to do with it. So make certain you’ve followed the “maturity,” and “bonding” steps of the process before committing to sexual intercourse with a member of the opposite sex. Skipping them simply means that you’ll have to go through those steps in a painful rearrangement of your life, and the life of your sexual partner.
        Or, you can just walk away from your situation, thus proving your immaturity and lack of ability to emotionally bond to the member of the opposite sex you found attractive enough to have sexual intercourse with. And incur the wrath and penalty for disobedience as stated in the biblical record.
        Is that what you really want for your life?
        Of course, it’s a lot easier to ignore what God has told us humans and give in to our sexual desires, calling it “situational ethics” or whatever you want to. In fact, our entire contemporary culture has done just that. However, there is a penalty involved for not obeying God.
        What the eternal consequences of that penalty are for those who continue to persist in their disobedience of God’s laws, ordinances, statutes and commandments, I can’t say.
        For those who name the name of Christ, who are already in trouble with God by understanding what you have read here so far, just realize that there is available to you repentance and the forgiveness of sins. And you have the ability to walk in what you now know.
        Today’s societal values are totally at odds with what God says for us to do and not to do. With the desirability of sexual activities with no restrictions roaring at us from every possible source, it’s very difficult to compare what we’ve known all of our short lives with the eternal perspective of God. However, our Creator has our best interests in mind and puts limitations on certain things for our own safety and protection. So while it may be difficult to see God’s eternal point of view, for those who truly love God and are disciples of Jesus Christ, it’s not impossible.
        Those who seek to discredit the Bible don’t care what it says. Those who don’t truly love God and are not disciples of Jesus Christ—but continue to protest violently that they really, really are more holy than God Himself—these people don’t really care what the Bible says. They will continue to reinterpret the Bible according to their own agendas. “Their Jesus” would do this and this and this and “their Jesus” would not do this and this and this. But “their Jesus” is not the Jesus of the Bible. Is He?

What To Do Now?

        This whole issue really separates those who “talk the talk” and those who “walk the walk.” While we can understand what God has said about sexual intercourse and marriage, when we look around us, it just doesn’t match, does it?
        Every day, in every possible circumstance in our lives today, the message of “recreational (heterosexual) sex” is beamed into our minds. The idea of having as much sexual activity, with as many different members of the opposite sex, as we possibly can, appeals greatly to our flesh. That includes every type of activity we can think of which we attempt to redefine as “not really sex”—which includes oral sex, anal sex, mutual masturbation, “phone sex” and whatever else we can think of with a member of the opposite sex who is not our spouse.
        And, like it or not, every human being on earth, has a problem with this desire for sexual activity. Some people, of course, have physiological, psychological or drug related problems that kills or greatly weakens their sexual desire. But for those who don’t have those problems, sexual desire is a problem that we haven’t learned to handle very well. Some will, of course, persistently deny that is not so for them, but they do what everybody else does and lie about it.
        What it boils down to is a difficult choice, a very difficult choice. That choice is: do we obey God or do we obey the impulses of our flesh—impulses God put there.
        Obviously, as a societal whole, we have failed, and failed miserably to utilize our free will and attempt to create workable solutions to, not only this sexual issue, but other areas of human life. Haven’t we?
        For those who name the name of Christ, and recognize the problem, the solutions that Israel implemented are not workable for us in today’s societal structure. We cannot marry off our sons and daughters the minute they sprout pubic hair. Nor are we prepared to support them in our household (and their children) until they mature and become self-supporting adults.
        So they struggle with their newly developing hormones and bodies and struggle with the dynamism of increasing sexual desire while being firmly instructed that to engage in the sexual activity that would bring instant release of their mounting tensions is a no-no.
        We all know the results of that strategy, don’t we?
        Somewhere, somehow, in their life experiences, they will find a more than willing member of the opposite sex looking for the same release. At that moment in time, in their minds, they will “leave” their father and their mother (if they have one of each at home, which is doubtful today) and “cleave” to this gorgeously attractive member of the opposite sex with a false sense of bonding based upon their common desire to have some type of sexual activity that will bring the desired release from the explosive sexual desire within each of them.
        If somehow, they can experience a series of such sexual encounters until they have, hopefully, gotten themselves an education and are self-supporting without having brought another child, or children, into the world, then they can consider getting “married.”
        (If, however, there are children born of one or more of these unions, then it brings a whole new and different set of problems into society. Yet another set of problems that we are also ill-prepared to creatively solve.)
        Having established this self-centered pathological pattern of sexual behavior, a totally false concept of “intimacy” has been established in the mind of the individual(s) who consider marrying.
        Sexual relationships, in themselves, are really not that satisfying, which is why people go from one to another, to another, to another, ad infinitum. These two self-centered persons continue their cycles of sexual intercourse in a vain attempt to find a sense of satisfaction to this problem of male and female heterosexual relationships. However, there is no real relationship, rather it’s an activity engaged in to bring about self-satisfaction, not relationship satisfaction.
        Everything was great and “bonding” the night before, but the morning-after exposes the lie, doesn’t it? It was great fun while doing it, but the after effect is to let us know, deep down inside, that’s not really what we need.
        As I said earlier, it’s a logical fallacy that sexual intercourse is the most intimate act possible between two consenting heterosexual adults. I had also said:
        In fact, sexual intercourse is not the source of intimacy. Marital sexual intercourse is an expression of true intimacy of a husband and wife. Intimacy that has developed over a period of time by communication with each other in exchanging dialog on all the subjects of discussion that arise because of their genuine friendship with one another. This is another progression in relationships between a mature man and a mature woman that has come to be ignored in today’s contemporary society.
        So ... back to square one ... no “leaving” in mature growth and no “cleaving” for mature and responsible bonding, leaves us with an animal act that, ultimately, doesn’t satisfy.
        So, as I said, it boils down to a difficult choice, a very difficult choice. That choice is: do we obey God or do we obey the impulses of our flesh—impulses God put there.
        On the one hand, we can indulge our flesh by having sexual intercourse, at will, so to speak, thus obeying our sheer animal desires. On the other hand we can utilize our free will and attempt to create a solution to this enigma and hope to obey God.
        Corporately, we humans have failed in this and other areas.
        So it comes down to each of us individually, doesn’t it?
        So what can you do, you who name the name of Christ?
        As pleasant as it may be to have sexual relationships with members of the opposite sex who we are not married to and who we consider to be attractive to us, whether they are not married, or married to another, or engaged to another, or relatives, or virgins, or a mother and daughter, you must make a choice. Do I need to mention sexual relationships between homosexuals and lesbians, and humans and animals and rape?
        The choice is between those types of sexual relationships or between obeying God. Which means that you must choose, by your free will and by attempts at creative solutions, how to obey God.
        Society cannot make your choice for you. Neither can those within society, regardless of what titles and with what supposed “authority” they assume for themselves.
        It’s just you and God.
        For people who aren’t married to each other, or homosexuals or lesbians, or humans and animals, or sexual intercourse with a woman and her mother, or sexual intercourse to someone who is engaged to somebody else, or rape, or close blood relatives, sexual activity with each other is not within God’s stated purpose for sex. Is it?
        And that is the message we need to convey to those who are involved in homosexuality and lesbianism. And to those who are involved in adultery, incest, animal sex, pre-marital sex, sexual intercourse with a woman and her mother, sexual intercourse while engaged to another and rapists.
        Anybody reading this agree with that logic?

        Related articles:
“Divorce-husband and wife marriage covenant broken by adultery” Divorce-husband and wife marriage covenant broken by adultery-law of God, Jesus, Paul give other legal biblical reasons spouse put away by divorcement
“Women Keep Silence, or Don't Lose Your Head, Please!” God says women and men are equal in the Lord, but the spiritual headship principle of a husband is the biblical basis for family authority in the home and ekklesia for husband and wife. Just as God and Christ are equal, but God is the head of Christ:
   1 Corinthians 11:3: “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.”
   This is better interpreted as “the head of the wife is the husband.” This article discusses biblical types and antitypes, examples and clear scriptural instructions for scriptural spiritual headship of a husband, why Paul the apostle insisted upon it, and the dangers of irresponsibility by the husbands of the ekklesia.
   This spiritual headship must follow the biblical pattern of sacrifice for equality, surrender for uniting and servanthood for anointing. Paul reprimands Corinthian husbands in their ekklesias for their lack of understanding and practice of the male spiritual headship principle. This has historically been misunderstood and those verses pertaining to husbands and wives have been incorrectly interpreted as Paul admonishing the wives of their assemblies. This article attempts to demonstrate how the priorities of the biblical spiritual headship principle affect every area of the kingdom of God and His Christ.
“Homosexual community, gay marriage, sexual and family values” The homosexual community, gay marriage, and their sexual and family values are different in societal values from heterosexual couples in society and their lifestyle relationships.

Home