CHAPTER TWO: Prohibitions

One of the most surprising things that will come up in any biblical study of sex will be the limited nature of the prohibitions. For while there are a number of verses that detail the different forms of prohibited sex, they all fall into a very limited number of general categories. Nor can anyone, Pope or Politician or People, just let his imagination run, and pronounce to be evil what his own blind prejudices may think. God’s view of what is sin is clearly limited by such texts as follows. “Sin is the transgression of the Law,” I John 3:4f. “The law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression,” Rom. 4:15. “Sin is not imputed when there is no law,” Rom. 5:13.

Therefore it is totally irrelevant what either writer or reader thinks is sin. The only standard is the Law of God—what God says about it in Holy Scripture. This is why this study will take no cognizance of what is believed to be sin by either religion or society, or government for people will not be accountable to any of these in the Day of Judgment, but only to what God’s Word says. One of the most comprehensive statements regarding sex is found in Heb. 13:4. “Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.”

To understand the comprehensiveness of this text, not only must we note that marriage is honorable in all, showing that there is no sin in the relationship, but that it is more than just permitted. It is honorable, and so, is something that is to be sought. Also the statement that the bed is “undefiled” shows that this is dealing specifically with the sexual side of marriage. “Bed” is a figure of speech in which a part is taken for the whole, or where a word is used which suggests some other associated idea. “Bed” is an euphemism for what takes place on the bed, or what is associated with the bed. That this has to do with sexual activity is to be seen in that the Greek word so translated—koite—has been carried over into English as coitus, meaning sexual intercourse. In the marriage relation this is said to be “undefiled,” a word appearing only four times in the New Testament, but used significantly in the other places of: (1) The Savior Himself, Heb. 7:26. (2) Pure religion, James 1:27. (3) The Christian’s heavenly inheritance, I Pet. 1:4. These are all good company for marital sex to be classed with, and the person that would consider sex in the marriage relation dirty, wrong or unholy immediately casts reflections on that which is defined by this same word in these other places.

At the same time that Heb. 13:4 shows the honorableness and purity of sex in marriage, it just as strongly declares that sexual activity outside the marriage relation is evil, for God will judge the fornicator and the adulterer. Judgment implies condemnation for wrongdoing. But this brings up a fact that needs to be noted, namely, that for something to be wrong there must be an objective standard of right and wrong. “Objective” refers to that which is outside the individual. Objective standards are the Bible, civil laws and community standards. A subjective standard is one that is within the person, such as one’s mind or conscience, but this will be wrong if a person has the wrong standard. We live in a degenerate age when the world generally believes that there are no absolute standards of right and wrong, but that everyone is free to live according to his or her own subjective standards. Everywhere about us we see this in people who have their own very low standards of what is wrong, so that they consider themselves to be guiltless even while they are violating God’s holy standards.

It is also more common than many people think that people make up their minds that something is wrong with sex in the marital relation when God’s Word declares it to be honorable, undefiled, and even a duty, I Cor. 7:2-4. As noted above sin is the transgression of the Law of God, and if there is no Divine law forbidding something, then it is not wrong, even if a person may feel guilty about it because he has been mistaught. Sin is not imputed—charged against a person—where there is no Law prohibiting something. Thus the clear Bible teaching is that there is no transgression, nor is sin charged against a person except as he has violated some clearly declared Law.

It is for this reason that before getting to the privileges of the marital relation we need to consider from the Bible Forbidden Sexual Practices, for in doing so, we will find that all that is not forbidden in Scripture is permitted, and, in many instances is actually commanded. In His great love for His creation, God has provided for man’s greatest happiness and contentment, and it is only when His will is not considered that unhappiness and discontentment enters. Many “ultra-puritans” misrepresent God, and make it appear that, so far from Him desiring the fullest happiness and joy for man, He is doing His best to make everyone as miserable as He can. But this is a caricature of God, not a true representation of Him. It is the devil that desires to make people miserable, not God, and he will lie in order to deceive people about God’s goodness. However God does require that happiness be sought in a proper way and failure to do so is sin.

In God’s original commission to mankind in Gen. 1:28, there was the command to “be fruitful, and replenish the earth,” which, in the very nature of the case, requires sexual activity. This was before man’s fall into sin, so that obviously there is sexual activity that is not only not sinful, but which is according to God’s will. Yea, indeed, it is “very good,” for this was God’s own diagnosis of all that was done and commanded at the end of the creation, Gen. 1:31.

Sinful sexual practices are always sexual acts that are taken out of the sphere in which God ordained them, or the perversion of them to a wrong purpose, or practices that are hurtful to one or both parties. Or practices that involve false worship (Many ancient false religions incorporated sexual orgies in their religious activities). It is because of these sinful misuses of this good and wonderful gift of God that it became necessary for God to enact many laws regulating sex. In the “Law”—the first five Books of the Bible, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy—there are well over one hundred verses dealing with various forms of sexual activity, most of them condemning the wrong practice of sex.

The first and most common of the forbidden sex acts is FORNICATION which is a general term for sexual activity outside of the marriage relation. Adultery, to be considered more in detail later, is a specialized form of this sin. Fornication is not of such frequent usage in the Old Testament as it is in the New Testament, appearing only five times in the English version. However, the more common Hebrew words so translated (zanah and taznooth), which are more commonly translated “harlot,” “whore,” “whoredom,” “to play the whore,” etc., appear respectively 105 and 20 times.

A rarer Hebrew word (k’dehshah) appears five times in Gen. 38:21, 22; Dent. 23:17-18; and Hosea 4:14, all in the ordinary sense. Of the 20 appearances of taznooth all of them are in Ezek. 16 (9 times) and 23 (11 times) and all in the sense of spiritual adultery—idolatry. Of zanah of the over 100 appearances of the word 59 of them are also used in the sense of spiritual adultery, not physical adultery. Some of the remaining may be used in a dual sense of both physical and spiritual adultery.

The first appearance of zanah is in Gen. 34:31, where Simeon and Levi ask their father concerning Shechem’s rape of their sister Dinah, “Should we deal with our sister as with an harlot?” That is, should we treat her as if she were a common immoral woman? The second usage of the word is a case more in point, for it dealt with the incestuous sexual relationship of Judah, who was a widower, and his widowed daughter-in-law, Tamar, Gen. 38:12-26. Judah did not know that it was his daughter­in-law, but she was well aware that it was her father-in-law, but both acted immorally.

The first appearance of “fornication” (Greek porneia) in the New Testament is in Matt. 5:32 where it is given as an excuse for divorce, for if a woman had been guilty of this before marriage, her husband, when he found out about it, could divorce her for not being pure at the time of marriage. Fornication is listed as one of the works of the flesh, Gal. 5:19, and is one of the unrighteous practices, the continual doing of which will keep one out of the kingdom of God, I Cor. 6:9, but from which many of the saints have been cleansed, I Cor. 6:11. It is something that should never be once practiced by a saint, Eph. 5:3. Some professed Christians seem to think that an occasional transgression is all right if one just doesn’t make a practice of it. How tragically deceived such people are!

We have listed the first appearances of these words in Scripture because the first mention of a word or doctrine in Scripture is almost always significant in some way. Often the first mention is the most definitive mention of it, or at least is of greater significance than subsequent mentions. Fornication is defined as the consensual sexual intercourse between persons that are not married to one another. When the act is not consensual or when one or both parties are married to others, or when certain other factors enter into the act, other words are used to define the act.

Until recent times almost all civilized nations on earth had laws against fornication since it was rightly recognized that this act was always, without exception, a crime against society and good order. Human beings have always been utterly selfish creatures and consequently self-seeking and self-gratifying, but never before in human history have they been so open in their selfishness and so generally godless in their lifestyles. This explains the modern day animalistic philosophy of “if it feels good, do it,” and “whoever is handy will do.” But God has not abdicated His throne, and He will ultimately hold all people accountable for their selfish actions, Heb. 13:4.

Fornication is a sin against one’s own body, for it is a violation of the “one flesh” principle of the marriage relation, I Cor. 6:15-20, as indeed, is every one of the forbidden sexual practices. The duty of abstaining from fornication is the will of God in every instance since it is also contrary to the principle of sanctification, I Thes. 4:3-8, without which no one will see the Lord, Heb. 12:14 (“holiness” here is the same Greek word rendered “sanctification” in I Thes. 4:3). So, contrary to the thinking of the world this is not a matter of insignificance. Fornication is a practice that has always been prevalent among unsaved people who don’t even want to think about God, Ps. 10:4, much less about duty to Him. But it will be especially widespread at the time of the Lord’s return to earth in judgment. And it will be, not only widely practiced, Rev. 9:2 1, but even justified as right and proper by the great world church of that day, Rev. 14:8; 17:2, 4; 18:3; 19:2. (Some interpreters understand these latter references in a spiritual sense of false worship, and probably rightly so, but these may have both meanings.)

However, does not all this sound very familiar to what we read in the newspapers, listen to on the radio and television, see continually in the entertainment media and hear in much of music? The world has adopted an animalistic philosophy regarding sex without regard to religion or morality. Such is an attack on the Divine institutions of marriage and the home, and cannot escape the judgment of God.

Enticement of a maid to commit fornication required that a man marry her, Exod. 22:16, because they had thereby entered into a “one flesh” relationship in God’s sight. See I Cor. 6:15-16 and Deut. 22:28-29. One of the evils of fornication is that such casual sex prevents the “bonding” of a man and woman into a permanent relation. Recent studies have found that where persons engaged in premarital sex, it was hard to later make a permanent commitment to one person, and this was more so with the increased number of partners before marriage. This is a mystery, yet doubtless the explanation lies in that God has intended marriage to be of one man and one woman, and that to be permanent until death. And when a man or woman violates God’s standards, God does not bless with the bonding when marriage is entered into. God’s will is for men and women to enter into marriage in purity, and if this is not done, then it works a detriment to the bonding process of marriage.

In the New Testament the references to fornication and fornicators are as follows: the noun porneia appears 26 times, viz. Matt. 5:32; 15:19; 19:9; Mark 7:2 1; John 8:41; Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25; Rom. 1:29; I Cor 5:1 (bis); 6:13, 18; 7:2; II Cor. 12:21; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:3; Col. 3:5; IThes. 4:3; Rev. 2:21; 9:21; 14:8; 17:2,4; 18:3; 19:2. The verb form of this word {porneuo) appears eight times, viz. I Cor. 6:18; 10:8 (bis); Rev. 2:14, 20; 17:2; 18:3, 9. The feminine noun porne appears twelve times, eight of which are rendered “harlot” and four of which are rendered “whore,” viz. Matt. 2 1:31, 32; Luke 15:30; I Cor. 6:15, 16; Heb. 11:31; James 2:25; Rev. 17:1, 5, 15, 16; 19:2. And finally the noun Pornos appears ten times, viz. I Cor. 5:9, 10, 11; 6:9; Eph. 5:5; I Tim. 1:10; Heb. 12:16; 13:4; Rev. 21:8; 22:15, being equally rendered “fornicator” and “whoremonger.” These are all the New Testament reverences to this word.

ADULTERY is a specialized form of fornication, for adultery involves at least one partner that is married to someone other than the person with whom the act is committed. It is interesting to note that fornication and adultery are the two things warned against in Heb. 13:4 where the honor of marriage is extolled. For these are the two most common sexual sins, and they are both violations of the institution of marriage, the one being committed before the fact, and the other after the fact of marriage. But both of them are sins against God’s institution, and so, against Him.

The first mention of a word in Scripture is often the most significant, and the first appearance of the Hebrew so translated (nuaph) is in Exod. 20:14: “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” It is one of the Ten Commandments. This is another of the works of the flesh, Gal. 5:19, but it has come to have both a disreputable and a respectable form. For it is possible to legally commit adultery by divorce and remarriage, this being considered a respectable thing by most people even though the Bible still denominates it adultery, Matt. 5:31-32. Until quite recently despite the endeavor to justify adulterous relationships apart from divorce and remarriage by calling them “love affairs” most people still had enough morality to realize that these were wrong, and beyond justification. Yea, the Savior Himself shows that it is possible to commit adultery in attitude though not in act, for the desire is equivalent to the deed, Matt. 5:27-28. Coveting another’s wife was one of the things forbidden in Exod. 20:17.

Adultery is such a heinous sin because, as we have before noted, it involves a treachery toward the companion of the marriage covenant, Mal. 2:14-16, where it is again emphasized that this is a violation of the “one flesh” principle. It is because of this unity of the relationship that adultery is used as a picture of the unfaithfulness of man when he turns away from God and worships idols, or is otherwise faithless toward the Lord, Ezek. 16:30-38. Nor is it just with physical idols that a person is guilty of spiritual adultery, for Israel had long since been weaned from the worship of physical idols, yet she continued to be adulterous in that she rejected the Lord for her own traditions, Mark 7:3-9. In a spiritual sense there is a unity like the marriage unity when a person is joined to the Lord in faith, I Cor.. 6:15-17, so that literal adultery is both a physical and a spiritual sin.

In the first century the Jews had so perverted marriage that they would permit divorce for the most trivial of reasons. Therefore the Savior, in an exposition of the more respectable form of adultery—divorce and remarriage—shows that there is but one excuse for divorce—fornication, Mart. 19:3-9. He shows that divorce is a violation of the original institution of marriage, and the “one flesh” principle, and therefore can be permitted only when that principle has been violated by fornication, either before the fact or after the fact. In the only other Biblical excuse for divorce—desertions principle is likewise violated, for in deserting one’s mate, this “one flesh” principle no longer exists, I Cor. 7:15. In most instances, this also includes the deserting partner’s entering into an adulterous relationship with someone else either before or after the desertion. But even if there is no physical union with another, the very desertion constitutes a rending of the “one flesh” relationship. However, this sin, like most other sins, is forgivable, as the following suggests.

The following information about the Hebrew and Greek words rendered “adultery” may be profitable for further study on this subject. The common Hebrew word for “woman” or “wife” (ishshah) is a few times rendered “adulteress” or “whore,” Prov. 6:26; Jer. 3:3, but this is more an interpretation than a translation.

The most common Hebrew word (naaph) appears 31 times in its different forms as follows. Exod. 20:14; Lev. 20:10 (4 times); Deut. 5:18; Job 24:15; Ps. 50:18; Prov. 6:32; 30:20; Isa. 57:3; Jer. 3:8, 9; 5:7; 7:9; 9:2; 23:10, 14; 29:23; Ezek. 16:32, 38; 23:37 (bis), 45 (bis); Hosea 3:1; 4:2, 13, 14; 7:4; Mal. 3:5. These are used of both literal and figurative adultery. Two other less common words appear three times (naaphu­phiin) in Hosea 2:2 (in a literal sense) and (niuphim) in Jer. 13:27 and Ezek. 23:43, in a spiritual sense of idolatry.

When we come to the New Testament the different forms of the same Greek word appear 35 times as follows. The word moichalis appears in Matt. 12:39; 16:4; Mark 8:38; Rom. 7:3 (bis); James 4:4; II Pet. 2:14. Moichaomai appears in Malt 5:32 (bis); 19:9 (bis); Mark 10:11, 12. Moicheia appears in Matt. 15:19; Mark 7:21; John 8:3; Gal. 5:19. The verb moicheuo appears fourteen times in Matt. 5:27, 28; 19:18; Mark10:19; Luke 16:18 (bis) 18:20; John 8:4; Rom. 2:22 (bis); 13:9; James 2:11 (bis); Rev. 2:22. These are used in both senses, literally and figuratively of false worship.

Another forbidden sexual practice, which is not so much distinct from the two foregoing as it is a form of one or the other, is INCEST, about which considerably is said in the Old Testament. This sin is defined as sexual intercourse between persons too closely related to marry legally. We have several bad examples of this in Scripture. Lot and his two daughters (instigated by the daughters while he was drunk), Gen. 19:30-38. Reuben with his father’s concubine, Gen. 35:22. Judah with his daughter-in-law Tamar, Gen. 38:1 1ff. Absalom’s incest with his father David’s concubines, H Sam. 16:21-22. And the church member at Corinth, who had sexual relations with his step­mother, I Cor. 5:1.

Lev. 18:6-17 deals extensively with incest, and lists over a dozen different relationships that are forbidden. This is further dealt with in Lev. 20:14, 17, 19-21; Deut. 22:30. So serious was this sin that the people were required to pronounce a curse on all that committed it, Deut. 27:20, 22-23. Curiously, however, there were exceptions to this, especially in the early days of human history, for the Sons of Adam and Eve married their sisters, which is the only Biblical explanation to the old time-worn question of “Where did Cain get his wife?” Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters after Cain, Abel and Seth were born, Gen. 5:4. It is an evidence of human depravity that man often ignores this logical explanation and chooses rather to believe, contrary to Scripture teachings, that there were other human being existing besides Adam, Eve and their descendents, and that Cain got his wile from these. This is but another evidence of man preferring to follow his imagination -rather -than Scripture.

And Abraham and Sarah were hail-brother and hall-sister, Gen. 20:12, yet we read no word of rebuke because of this. Another exception, and one that was actually commanded by God, was that if a man’s brother died without having children, he was to marry his sister-in-law and give her children which would be accounted the dead brother’s so that his lineage would not cease, Deut. 25:5-10; Matt. 22:23ff. This would technically be both incest and adultery yet it was a Divinely declared duty in Israel, and it was counted a shame unto a man that would not perform this duty.

Disobedience of this duty was the sin of Onan who chose to pretend to obey this, yet without actually doing so, Gen. 38:7-10, and he was slain by the Lord for disobeying this Divine Commandment. This has nothing to do with masturbation, which some people incorrectly call Onanism, but about which Scripture has nothing to say. In no way can Onan’s sin be masturbation, for Scripture is clear that he engaged in regular sexual intercourse with his sister-in-law, but just before climax, he withdrew so that there could be no conception. He was willing to enjoy the act, but did not want the responsibility of raising a child for his brother, and so, it was for his violation of this Divine Law in Deut. 25:5-10, that God slew him. This was the only Divine Law that he violated, and for which he could be charged. See Rom. 5:13.

Incest is forbidden among other reasons because there is a tendency for inter­course with near relatives to produce defective children. However, this was permitted in the infancy of the race because there had not been the deterioration of the human body because of sin to the extent that there now is. And so these intermarriages with relatives would not be so apt to result in mentally retarded and otherwise defective children. Today, with the earth teeming with billions of inhabitants, there are plenty of potential mates without anyone needing to marry a near kinsman. Most governments forbid marriage with anyone nearer of kin than second or third cousins.

The punishment for the sin of incest was to be cut off from one’s people, Lev. 18:24-30, because such sins deified the land, being a violation of good order. The meaning of being cut off from one’s people may be suggested in Lev. 20:1 1-12, 14, where the death penalty is decreed for incest with especially close relatives. However, in V 19-21, the violators of less close relationships only suffer childlessness, which was considered a great calamity in Israel. In I Cor. 5:111, the incestuous man was to be excluded from the church, and thereby delivered unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh (death), which is the guilty part of the Christian. The soul of a born again person cannot sin, but it is a spiritual law that if a Christian gives his flesh control, it will eventuate in death, Rom. 8:6; Gal. 6:8. The death penalty in some of these cases was decreed because they also fell into the category of adultery, for which the death penalty was decreed in ancient times, Deut. 22:22.

The next form of forbidden sex to be considered is that of HOMOSEXUALITY, which is not “an alternate lifestyle” as it is often termed in our degenerate day by those that would try to justify this rebellion against God’s permitted lifestyle. This is the sin for which God destroyed whole cities as recorded in Gen. 18: 16ff; 19: 1ff; Judges 19:14-30; 20: 1ff. This sin is not known in the Bible by the modern term “homosexuality” as it is in our day, but it has been known from the days of Gen. 19 as “sodomy” because of its extensive practice in that ancient city and its four neighboring cities. It is forbidden in Lev. 18:22 and Deut. 23:17; and the death penalty was decreed for it in Lev. 20:13. The statement “their blood shall be upon them,” shows that they alone were to bear the guilt, i. e., there was no guilt accruing to the ones that executed the death penalty on them. This is a common Biblical expression for showing where guilt deserving of capital punishment is to apply, as in Acts 20:26-27 where Paul disclaimed any such guilt because he had faithfully preached all the truth. In the New Testament there is a reference both to the female and male practice of homosexuality in Rom. 1:26-28, where there is the suggestion that this results from an unwillingness to honor God, and leads to subsequent involvement in false religion.

 It is observable that today no conservative, fundamental, Bible-believing church will knowingly tolerate practicing homosexuals in its membership, but many false churches will not only tolerate, but will extenuate and even justify this sin. And it is even common for some such churches to have pastors that are openly practicing homosexuals. Indeed there are some openly acknowledged homosexual “churches.” It is declared in I Cor. 6:9 that the “abusers of themselves with mankind” (homosexuals) are among those that shall not inherit the kingdom of God. How then could anyone think that such as justify this could be a House of God when they are practicing what is an abomination before God? That sounds like what a Satanist church would do.

This is the same Greek word rendered “defile themselves with mankind” in I Tim. 1:10. It is a compound word made up of arsen, male, and koite, a bed, and so, being a masculine word, means a male that lies with another male sexually. Cf. the original prohibition in Lev. 18:22 where it is termed an abomination—a biblical term that expresses the awfulness of something in the sight of God.

Transvestitism is a form of homosexuality. This refers to a person being sexually excited by dressing in the clothes of the opposite sex. This is what is forbidden in Deut. 22:5, for it is in the midst of a portion of Scripture that deals with other forms of forbidden sexual practices. See 21:11-17; 22:13-30. This text has nothing whatsoever to do with clothing fashions, for God has never in Scripture commanded the form of dress fashion to be followed. He has only commanded that in whatsoever society the believer is, he is to dress modestly according to the standards of that culture, I Tim. 2:9-10. Indeed there is an amazing silence in the Bible as to any sort of dress code, the emphasis being put more on attitudes and actions than on attire. This is because the Bible is a Book for all people, yet clothing fashions differ radically from nation to nation and from region to region, and from age to age, so that what is normal and modest in one place and time might be strange and immodest in another. It is sad how often legalistic preachers will beat Christian women over the head with Deut. 22:5 when it has no relevance to them.

Homosexuality is a particularly revolting form of sexual perversion in God’s sight, and according to Rom. 1 is the result of God giving the individual over to his own lusts. And though it often results in him being further given over to a reprobate mind, yet the homosexual is not beyond salvation, for some of the members of the Corinthian church had once been homosexuals, but they had been saved, justified and, cleansed, I Cor. 6:11. However there can be no encouragement given to the individual so long as he continues in the practice of this sin, for he is probably still a lost man.

Homosexuality, like all the other forms of perverted sex, is a transgression of God’s original law of marriage for God ordained that “the two shall be one.” And this “one flesh” principle was to involve one male and one female, not two males, nor two females, as Jesus taught in Matt. 19:4-5. As has been facetiously said, originally God brought together Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, or Ann and Eve. And it matters not that some homosexuals may try to legitimize their relationship by “marrying,” for they have already forfeited God’s blessings by their attempt to alter the fundamental structure of the Divinely ordained marriage relation from its male-female constitution. Their very act is a rebellion against God’s revealed will as to a family relationship.

Nor will it do to try to excuse this sin on the plea that, “I was born this way.” For whether it be true that some have a congenital inclination to homosexuality or not, the Scripture is clear that everyone by nature is a congenital sinner and has a natural inclination to sin, yet this in no way justifies their sinful acts. It only proves what the Word of God so consistently teaches—that man needs a Savior, and can do nothing to change his sinfulness by himself, John 15:5f. His innate sinfulness will ultimately take him to perdition unless he repents of sin and trusts in Jesus Christ to graciously cleanse him from his hereditary depravity. The claim that one is born homosexual is simply an attempt to justify his sinful acts by claiming that it is someone else’s fault that he does what he does. That excuse is as old as original sin, for both Adam and Eve tried to use this excuse for their sins, yet it didn’t work for them, and it won’t work now. See Gen. 3:9-13.

BESTIALITY refers to having sexual relations with an animal, and though it is probably a rarer form of forbidden sexual activity than any of the previous ones, yet it is still an activity forbidden in Scripture, Exod. 22:19; Lev. 18:23; 20:15-16; Deut. 27:21. It is to be noted that the death penalty was decreed for this sin in two of these texts, and a third one pronounced a curse upon the practitioner of this sin.

Here as before this sin is a violation of the “one flesh” principle, involving a human and an animal instead of the Divinely ordained one man and one woman relationship. God did not bring Adam and Ewe together in the relation, for there was no help, meet for him found among the animals. It is to be observed that in every one of these forbidden sexual practices, there is a refusal to submit to God’s revealed will as to the way of sexual pleasure, and there is the substitution instead of some act that contradicts God’s way. This is simply a manifestation of man’s congenital depravity that always goes contrary to the declared will of God until the person is saved from sin.

Another perversion of the original right sexual order that needs to be considered is POLYGAMY. It is not as the little boy ignorantly defined the marriage of one man and one woman as “monotony.” God’s ordained way is always the best, and does not have the far-reaching deleterious effects that man’s rebellion has. And while it is true that there have been a number of great men that violated God’s original decree that one man and one woman marry, yet in every instance where they did so the result was sorrow and heartbreak. The word “polygamy,” which means the state of having more than one mate at a time, is not found in the Bible, but the practice of this is found there numerous times. The first instance of this in the Bible is found in Gen. 4:19. “And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.” It is significant that: (1) Lamech’s name means “Overthrower” or “wild man” (Young’s Analytical Concordance). (2) He was a descendent of Cain, not of the faith line of Seth. (3) He was a man of violence, and sought to shelter himself under the example of Cain, Gen. 4:23-24. All of which indicates that this first instance of polygamy was not the result of Lamech’s spirituality.

It is true that the Bible records that some of the Old Testament saints had more than one wife. Perhaps the most outstanding example of this was David, who had eight wives specifically named viz. (1) Michal, (2) Abigail, (3) Ahinoam, (4) Maacah, (5) Haggith, (6) Abital, (7) Eglah, and (8) Bathsheba. Then II Sam. 5:13 declares that he also took more concubines and wives, so that we do not know exactly how many wives he actually had. However, the multiplication of wives did not correspondingly multiply David’s happiness, for there was a continual jealousy and competition between the wives and their children, with the result that David had continual heartbreak as a direct result of these marriages. Children are often made the means of chastisement of a man that violates God’s will, and this was certainly the case with David.

And David’s son Solomon went much beyond his father in taking wives, having taken seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines, I Kings 11:3. Many of these were no doubt politically motivated marriages, as some of David’s possibly were. But this in no way justifies the practice. And Solomon’s wives led him into idolatry in his latter years, I Kings 11:4-6.

Little is said of polygamy in the New Testament except that it was a disqualification for a man to be a bishop (pastor) or deacon, I Tim. 3:2, 12. Throughout the Bible there is a silence concerning any form of express or implied approval of more than one mate at a time in a marriage. The one exception to this was when a man was to take his dead brother’s childless widow as his wife and raise up seed unto him, Deut. 25:5-10. This was to insure that each family was perpetuated in Israel, and so, was a national and a cultural practice that has no application beyond that nation.

The reason why there could be no approval of polygamy is that it was, like all other wrong forms of sex, a violation of the original “one flesh” concept of the marriage relation. And practically there could be no approval because polygamous marriages always were and always will be fraught with jealousy and envy and their attendant problems. In such an intimate relation as sex, there must be a total committal to each other by both partners, such as is not possible where more than one partner of either gender is involved. Such would involve, at best, a half-hearted response to one or the other of the partners of the same gender, as is always seen toward the betrayed mate in adulterous relations.

PETTING, though a wrong sexual activity of lesser degree, needs to be warned against. According to I Cor. 7:1 this question had come up in the church at Corinth, and they wrote to Paul to find out the extent to which male and female touching was sinful. That this does not deal with mere physical contact in such ordinary activities as handshaking, giving a kiss of charity, etc., nor even sexual contact in the marital relation, is made clear in the context. But this refers to what is known in modern English as petting. Petting may be defined as fondling, caressing or other forms of handling of the human body by members of the opposite sex for the purpose of stimulating or exciting sexually. That this does not apply to sexual relations within the marital union will be seen more clearly when we come to consider the conjugal rights proper. This refers to activities between persons not married to one another in which they fondle or caress the private parts of the body. The danger in this is that it has a stimulating and exciting effect that very easily leads to actual fornication. For though many couples declare that they will not go beyond just petting, they often do not realize that the excitement generated by petting can easily override reason, resolutions and morals. Humans are intentionally created to be sexual beings, and petting is the ordained precursor to sexual intercourse in the marriage relation. To engage in petting outside of marriage is like looking for thrills by racing a car up to a cliff and then throwing on the brakes at the last moment. There may come a time when the brakes are thrown on too late, or they do not work, and disaster is the result.

Sexual desire is normal, but it must be controlled and kept within legitimate channels. Hence the Biblical admonitions to “Flee fornication,” I Cor. 6:18; “Flee youthful lusts,” II Tim. 2:22. In young Joseph we see an excellent example of obedience to these admonitions, Gen. 39:7-12. For though he might have tried to make his circum­stances and sufferings an excuse to gratify himself when he had the opportunity, yet his spirituality moved him to flee and to suffer reproach, slander, and even jail rather than to do wrong.

Three times in the only inspired “Marriage Manual”—the Song of Solomon—a command is given to “stir not up, nor awake love until he please,” 2:7; 3:5; 8:4. A number of Biblical commentators believe that this is a warning against stirring up the passions before one enters the marriage union. Hence, it would be a warning against petting. There is a proper time for unrestrained petting and all that it leads to, but this is after marriage. Any premarital petting tends to damage the relation irreparably even if marriage follows.

Another perversion of a good thing that is frequently spoken of in the Bible is NAKEDNESS. “Naked” and “Nakedness” appears in the Bible over 100 times, and is used in a variety of ways. (1) In a literal, physical sense, Gen. 2:25. (2) In a spiritual sense of a lack of righteousness in the sight of God, Nahum 3:4-5. (3) In a metaphorical sense in several ways, as of the destitution of physical needs, James 2:15; Gen. 42:9, 12. Of being a naked spirit when one dies and the spirit is separated from the body, II Cor. 5:1-3. Or of having no way to conceal the truth, Heb. 4:13.

The first appearance of “naked” in the Bible is in Gen. 2:25 where we are shown that in the marriage relation there is no shame to nakedness. It is a normal and natural part of that God-given intimacy, and the person that feels shame at nakedness in the marital relation gives evidence of having been wrongly taught concerning God’s gift of marital privileges in marriage, and of the unity of the man and woman therein. But outside the pale of marriage, nakedness, whether total or partial, presents a strong temptation to others, for humans are sexual creatures, and one of the three main avenues of temptation is through the eye. Though not limited to sex, “the lust of the eyes,” I John 2:16, certainly includes it, as does the “lust of the flesh.”

No less than thirty times in Leviticus chapters 18 and 20 reference is made to uncovering the nakedness of someone whom the perpetrator has no right to see naked. Doubtless in several instances this phrase is used as a synonym for having intercourse with that person, for this is frequently the consequence of looking upon naked human bodies. But in other instances it is used simply of looking upon a person’s unclothed body. The modern fashions of our day are frequently a violation of this prohibition, for many fashions seem to try to come as near as possible to being arrested for immodesty without actually being arrested. It is to be feared that sometimes women are deliber­ately provocative in their dress because they like the power that this gives them over men. Yet they would be highly insulted if a man treated them like a prostitute, which they sometimes act like by the provocative clothes that they wear. Scripture talks about “the attire of a harlot,” Prov. 7:10, and some fashions may be just that, and it is to be feared that sometimes otherwise decent women wear that which is more characteristic of harlots than of decent women. But it is not only women that can be guilty of dressing provocatively, for men often think nothing of going about naked from the waist up in public. A sixty-five year old Christian woman once honestly confessed that half-dressed men could be provocative to women.

The prohibitions in Lev. 18 and 20 all have to do with adults. There is no reference to the nakedness of children there. Some “ultra-puritans” refuse to allow their children to see another, especially of the opposite sex, except when fully dressed, as if they believed that they could keep secret from them the fact that boys and girls are physically different from one another. Such an attitude creates a mystique about the sexual differences between boys and girls that often produces “peepers” by the time the child is ten or twelve years of age. Many of the more primitive cultures allow children to go totally naked until they are almost to the pre-puberty age, yet without doing any psychological harm to them. And in the most enlightened nations, and often even in Christian homes, boys and girls bathe together and see one another unclothed until they are well beyond the toddler stage. Yet these never seem to be any the worse for it, and often are better adjusted than those that come from the “ultra-puritan” homes. Indeed, some of the most maladjusted adults come from homes where parents acted as if sex did not exist, or, if it existed, it was totally bad. This is not Biblical, for the

Scriptures have a great deal to say about proper sex, as well as improper sex. The important thing is to be able to distinguish between the two.

One other topic needs to be dealt with since there are so many misconceptions and false teachings about it, and, consequently, much guilt about it, and that is the act of MASTURBATION. This is defined as “Genital self-excitation, usually by manipulat­ion; auto-erotism.”—Webster’s New World Dictionary. It was once taught that it resulted in insanity, bodily debilitation and a host of other serious maladies. It is now known that none of these things are true. Masturbation has sometimes been decried as the greatest of evils for a single person, yet the fact of the matter is, no one has ever been able to produce a single Scripture that unquestionably refers to this. How did God overlook this horrible sin, if it is as bad as some would have us believe? In the light of I John 3:4f; Rom. 4: 15f and 5: 13f then, it is presumptuous for anyone to pronounce that to be a terrible evil about which Scripture is totally silent.

Since humans are created to be sexual beings, and since the sex drive generally develops some years before one marries, perhaps this was meant to be the normal outlet until marriage. Certainly it would be better to engage in that about which the Scripture is totally silent, than to seek for release through fornication or adultery, about which the Scripture is so clear in its prohibitions.

Some have tried to indict masturbation by accounting it to be homosexuality, but homosexuality cannot be a solitary act as masturbation is, for the very word requires two people of the same gender—homo—same—sexual—gender. Yea, even the Biblical definitions make the same requirement: “women” (plural), Rom. 1:26, and “men with men,” Rom. 1:27, “abusers of themselves with mankind,” I Cor. 6:9, “them that defile themselves with mankind,” I Tim. 1:10. Homosexuality is always the preference for sexual pleasure with another of the same gender. It may involve masturbation, but the wrong does not lie in having sexual pleasure, but in engaging in wrong relations to attain it; i. e., with another of the same gender. Sexual intercourse between a man and a woman is how fornicators and adulterers achieve their pleasures, yet no one indicts all sexual intercourse because of this. Masturbation is not homosexuality. It is auto-sexuality, or simple self-gratification and where there is no Divine prohibition, and if no other person is harmed thereby, it is hard to keep from equating it with other natural needs of the body. Beginning in adolescence the male body starts producing and storing semen, and this causes discomfort in varying degrees in different men unless this is expelled periodically. There are several parallels between this and a woman’s need to menstruate every month or so, except that the build up in men is much more frequent. In some ways this is no different than the need in both men and women to frequently empty the bladder of urine or the bowels of feces, yet no one feels guilty for seeking relief from these latter two natural build-ups.

Since this is a solitary act there is no violation here of the “one flesh” principle since in youth or widowhood there is no “twain” that would be deprived of pleasure. Of course, if this is practiced by a married person to the loss of pleasure by the other partner there will be a robbing of the marital partner thereby and that is wrong. Sad to say, however, in some marriages one or the other partner may selfishly refuse to obey the duty set forth in I Cor. 7 of regularly contributing to the partner’s pleasure, leaving the deprived one with no relief except in this way. In which case, the defrauder is guilty before God, and can in no way justify himself or herself.

Having said all this, it must also be added that masturbation can become wrong, just as anything can be put to a wrong use. It would be wrong if the desire for this pleasure so dominates a person’s life that he neglects other duties, or if it prevents him or her from seeking for marriage and a family social life. Again, it would be wrong for a married person if he or she indulged in this to the neglect of the duty to the marital partner. Just as a man had no right to diminish his duty to his first wife if he took a second one, Exod. 21:10, so it would be wrong for a man or a woman to diminish the pleasure of the mate because auto-sexuality was preferred. I Cor. 7:2-5 shows that neither partner has a right to deny his or her body to the other partner except by mutual agreement, and then only temporarily. To do so is classified as “defrauding” the  marital partner, and is a violation of one of the Ten Commandments, Mark 10:19, where the same Greek word is used to designate one of the Ten Commandments.

We have now considered all of the forbidden sexual acts mentioned in Scripture. And we have found that so far from this being a very broad, almost all-inclusive prohibition of sexual activity it is a very limited prohibition, involving only four things, but with one having a number of variations. These prohibitions are fornication (including adultery and polygamy), or sexual intercourse outside the marital relation with one mate, homosexuality, or sexual pleasure with another of the same gender, bestiality, or sexual pleasure with animals, and exhibitionism, or public nudity.

These are forbidden mainly because they violate God’s original provision for the pleasure of His human creatures within the realm of His decreed relationship that “the twain (two—consisting of one male and one female) shall be one flesh? If an individual is incapable of finding satisfaction in this arrangement it is because he is mentally or psychologically disturbed, in which case he has no business being in a marriage relationship until he has gotten this problem resolved.

Within this area of the marital relation there is a very broad permissiveness that is almost without limits except as suggested in Eph. 5:28-29. “So (i. e., in like manner as Christ loves His church, V25ff) ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church? The limitation suggested is that of not doing anything hurtful, for as no one except a seriously disturbed person harms his own body, so neither is anything permitted between husbands and wives that would physically or mentally hurt one. Otherwise, whatever is pleasing to both is permitted, yea, it is even commanded to be an on-going part of the unified relationship.