…This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. (Genesis 2:23-24)
*YHWH, most often pronounced Yahweh, is the English transliteration of the Tetragrammaton, the principal Hebrew name of the God of the Bible.1
When this “one flesh” relationship between a husband and his wife is approached and experienced as Yahweh intends it, sexual intercourse is one of the most intimate and beautiful acts shared by a man and a woman. However, when it is perverted or adulterated, it becomes one of mankind’s most debased, obscene, and repugnant acts. When man turns away from Yahweh’s created order, he makes what is beautiful ugly, what is wholesome obscene, and what is lovely vulgar. In short, man makes what is good evil, what is light dark, and what is sweet bitter – Isaiah 5:20.
Without Yahweh and His laws, man is capable of devising, participating in, and justifying the vilest behavior. The Seventh Commandment – the antithesis of mankind’s decadent sexual conduct – brings Yahweh’s condemnation upon the sin of adultery.
Adultery is sexual relations with anyone besides one’s husband or wife. However, this limited application does not encompass the full scope of the Seventh Commandment. Adultery is not merely having extra-marital relations. All sexual transgressions, as defined by the Bible, fall under the Seventh Commandment. Adultery is any sexual violation that defiles the marriage bed. Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) corroborates this broader definition:
1. Violation of the marriage bed; a crime, or a civil injury, which introduces, or may introduce, into a family, a spurious offspring. In common usage, adultery means the unfaithfulness of any married person to the marriage bed…. 2. In a scriptural sense, all manner of lewdness or unchastity, as in the seventh commandment.2
Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines “adulterate”:
…To corrupt, debase, or make impure by the addition of a foreign or inferior substance … spurious.3
Infidelity, miscegenation, sodomy, bestiality, incest, and other immoral sexual relations satisfy this definition because they all corrupt, debase, and make impure by the addition of a foreign or inferior substance.
Hebrews 13:4, which is probably the best commentary on the Seventh Commandment, associates not only moichous, the Greek word translated “adulterers,” with defiling the marriage bed, but also pornous, the Greek word translated “whoremongers” or “fornicators.”
Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge. (Hebrews 13:4, NASV)
Hebrews 13:4 in the New American Standard Version (NASV), is very similar to The Bible in Basic English’s translation of Exodus 20:14: “Do not be false to the married relation.”
Pornous, a form of porneia from which our English word “pornography” is derived, is usually translated “fornication” in the New Testament. Pornous or porneia are much more inclusive than most Christians* realize. While fornication is nearly always portrayed as the sexual misconduct between an unmarried couple, this is only one form of porneia.
*Not everyone claiming to be a Christian has been properly instructed in the Biblical plan of salvation. Mark 16:15-16, Acts 2:36-41, 22:1-16, Romans 6:3-4, Galatians 3:26-27, Colossians 2:11-13, and 1 Peter 3:21 should be studied to understand what is required to be covered by the blood of Yeshua (Jesus’ given Hebrew name) and forgiven of your sins.4
Incest is described as porneia in 1 Corinthians 5:
It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication … that one should have his father’s wife. (1 Corinthians 5:1)
Harlotry is identified as porneia in 1 Corinthians 6:
…The body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body…. Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot?... (1 Corinthians 6:13-15)
Esau’s forbidden-lineage relationships with Canaanite women are described as pornos in Hebrews 12:
Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God … lest there be any fornicator … as Esau…. (Hebrews 12:15-16)
Sodomy or homosexuality is defined by ekporneusasai, a Greek word closely related to porneia, in Jude 1:
…As Sodom and Gomorrha … giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh [women with women and men with men – Romans 1:26-27]…. (Jude 1:7)
These four acts of sexual immorality – incest, harlotry, forbidden-lineage relationships, and sodomy – are identified in the New Testament as porneia or fornication. Miscegenation and bestiality, although not identified as porneia in the New Testament, also constitute porneia and can be placed under the broader heading of adultery. Because Yahweh’s design for sexual intimacy is exclusive to the marital relationship between a husband and his wife, sexual sins committed prior to the wedding also defile the marriage bed.
In short, adultery is any sexual impropriety that is false to the marriage covenant.
None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am YHWH.* (Leviticus 18:6)
*Where the Tetragrammaton YHWH – the four Hebrew characters that represent the personal name of God – has been incorrectly rendered the LORD or GOD in English translations, I have taken the liberty to correct this error by inserting YHWH.5
Verse 6 condemns all incestuous relationships. The twelve verses that follow expand upon this statute by prohibiting sexual relationships between parents and children, siblings or half-siblings, grandparents and grandchildren, uncles or aunts and nephews or nieces, and in-laws.
Leviticus 18:7-8 uses the idiom “uncovering your father’s nakedness” to describe incest with a person’s mother or stepmother:
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. The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s nakedness. (Leviticus 18:7-8)
The phrase “discover his father’s skirt” in Deuteronomy 22:30 and the phrase “uncovereth his father’s skirt” in Deuteronomy 27:20 are also euphemistic descriptions of incest with a person’s mother or stepmother.
The proper understanding of these phrases is crucial to understanding Yahweh’s judgment upon Noah’s grandson Canaan. Many Bible readers are bewildered as to why Canaan was cursed for his father Ham’s sin in Genesis 9:
…Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without…. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son [Ham] had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren…. (Genesis 9:22-27)
The Biblical interpretation of the phrase “the nakedness of his father” reveals why the curse was upon Canaan and his descendants, and not any of Ham’s other sons and their descendants. When you permit the Bible – specifically Leviticus 18:7-8, Deuteronomy 22:30 and 27:20 – to be its own commentary, it is apparent that Canaan was cursed because he was the offspring of Ham’s incestuous relationship with his own mother.
Some people may still question why Canaan was cursed instead of Ham, but Yahweh in His omniscience knew that the progeny from this incestuous relationship would prove to be morally reprobate. This was also true of the Moabites and the Ammonites, who came from the incestuous relationships of Lot and his two daughters, described in Genesis 19:30-38. In Ezra 9:1-12, the Moabites and the Ammonites were placed under the same curse as the Canaanites, and the Israelites were forbidden to marry them.*
*Ezra 9:1 lists Egyptians [Hamites – Psalm 78:50-51, 105:23-27, and 106:21-22] among the peoples from whom the Israelites were to separate themselves. The Hamites, as a whole, were not forbidden for the Israelites to marry, which would seem to indicate that the Hamites in this instance had intermingled with the Canaanites.
The gravity of incest is also demonstrated in the New Testament. Mark 6:14-28 relates how John the Baptist was imprisoned and later beheaded because he dared preach against King Herod’s incest with his brother’s wife. The Apostle Paul condemned incest in 1 Corinthians 5:1-5.
Physical Consequences of Incest
Although the Israelites of Moses’ day may not have recognized the spiritual and physical consequences of these close genetic relationships,* we are now able to see the destructive consequences of incest.
*Incest is usually defined as forbidden sexual relations between near-blood kinsmen. However, Leviticus 18:8 and 16 and Deuteronomy 27:23 expand the term “near of kin” to include stepmothers, sister-in-laws, and mother-in-laws.
Arthur C. Custance expounded upon the physical consequences of incestuous relationships. He studied thirteen children who were born from either father and daughter or brother and sister relationships. Eight out of thirteen were born with severe mental or physical deficiencies. Three of the children were dead before they reached their eighth birthday.6
Although early man may not yet have known about these potential abnormalities, Yahweh had already established the consequences of these adulterous relationships long before He commanded Moses to ban them.
And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation … also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean. And whosoever toucheth her bed … whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even…. And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers [menstrual impurity, NASV] be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean. (Leviticus 15:19-24)
Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness [menstrual impurity, NASV]. (Leviticus 18:19)
These passages address an area of privacy seldom spoken of or written about. This statute is principally speaking of menstruation, the monthly cycle that follows a woman’s ovulation. Because many people are unaware that the Bible addresses this area of intimacy, many Christians transgress this Seventh Commandment statute.
A man’s wife, especially a prudent wife, is a gift of Yahweh. But Yahweh has not given man license to do whatever he wishes with his wife. The gift comes with certain conditions, as do all of Yahweh’s gifts.
Even though Adam and his progeny were given the earth to inhabit, cultivate, and subdue, the Bible contains many agricultural statutes that dictate how the land is to be farmed. Included in those laws is a stipulation that the land is to be rested every seven years. For at least seven days every month, a similar standard applies to a man’s wife. Menstruation is a time when women are to be set apart and protected.
Just as the land suffers when Yahweh’s agricultural laws are abandoned, so does a woman’s health when the statutes regulating sexual relations are ignored. It is a medical fact that a woman’s health, specifically the environment of the womb, is compromised when Yahweh’s statutes concerning sexual abstinence are ignored.
Couples should abstain from conjugal relations for seven days, from the beginning of the woman’s menstrual cycle, provided the cycle is normal. Although, opinions differ as to whether this passage requires total separation, there is no question that Yahweh demands sexual abstinence during this cleansing cycle. The law applies so long as the blood flow continues:
And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days out of the time of her separation, or if it run beyond the time of her separation; all the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation: she shall be unclean…. But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean. (Leviticus 15:25-28)
Leviticus 12:2-5 mandates sexual abstinence following childbirth. The duration differs depending upon the gender of the child – forty days for a male child and eighty days for a female child.
The Bible does not disclose why sexual abstinence is to be twice as long following the birth of a female child as it is for a male child, neither has medical science determined the reason for this stipulation. Perhaps the difference may relate to hormonal variations. Regardless, unquestioning obedience is required. At the best, it is an inconsiderate and selfish husband who would demand or do otherwise.
The judgment for transgressing Leviticus 18:19 depends upon whether defilement during menstruation is inadvertent or deliberate. According to Leviticus 15, inadvertent contamination results only in physical uncleanness, requiring purification by a self-imposed separation or quarantine. A deliberate offence, however, is much more serious in Yahweh’s sight:
And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness [menstruous woman, NASV], and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people. (Leviticus 20:18)
The phrase “cut off from among their people” is used in the Old Testament for both capital punishment and excommunication. Most likely it is the latter that is the intended punishment in this instance, but no matter how this phrase is interpreted, it is obvious that deliberate transgression of this statute is a serious infraction in Yahweh’s sight.
Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour’s wife, to defile thyself with her. (Leviticus 18:20)
With the limited definition that most Christians assign to the Commandment “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” many people think that this verse is nothing more than a reiteration of the Seventh Commandment. Leviticus 18:20, however, is one of many statutes that falls under and helps to explain the Seventh Commandment.
The Bible contains many warnings against marital infidelity and its consequences:
…Wisdom … knowledge … discretion … [and] understanding shall … deliver thee from the strange woman, even from the stranger which flattereth with her words…. For her house inclineth unto death, and her paths unto the dead. None that go unto her return again, neither take they hold of the paths of life. (Proverbs 2:10-19)
Within marriage, sexual relations are meant to produce life. Outside of marriage, they can lead to death, both physically and spiritually.
The last statement of in Proverbs 2:10 is intentionally hyperbolic for the sake of emphasis. King David, among others, returned to the paths of life after repenting of their sexual unfaithfulness. The Apostle Paul commented about such people:
Know ye not that … neither fornicators… nor adulterers … shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Yeshua, and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)
*Yeshua is the English transliteration of our Savior’s Hebrew name.7
The number of people who escape the addictive nature of this sin are far fewer than those who, once entrapped, are unable to flee its dire consequences. King Solomon devoted a good portion of four chapters in Proverbs to warning his sons about the dangers of marital infidelity and whoremongering:
…The lips of a strange woman drop as an honeycomb, and her mouth is smoother than oil: But her end is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a twoedged sword. Her feet go down to death; her steps take hold on hell [sheol]…. Remove thy way far from her, and come not nigh the door of her house: Lest thou give thine honour unto others, and thy years unto the cruel: Lest strangers be filled with thy wealth … and thou mourn at the last, when thy flesh and thy body are consumed…. Lust not after her beauty in thine heart; neither let her take thee with her eyelids. For by means of a whorish woman a man is brought to a piece of bread…. Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned? Can one go upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned? So he that goeth in to his neighbour’s wife; whosoever toucheth her shall not be innocent. …whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul…. Keep my commandments, and live; and my law as the apple of thine eye. Bind them upon thy fingers, write them upon the table of thine heart…. That they may keep thee from the strange woman, from the stranger which flattereth with her words. For at the window of my house I looked through my casement, and beheld among the simple ones ... a young man void of understanding…. And, behold, there met him … an harlot … subtil of heart…. So she caught him, and kissed him, and with an impudent face said unto him, … Come, let us take our fill of love until the morning…. With her much fair speech she caused him to yield, with the flattering of her lips she forced him. He goeth after her straightway, as an ox goeth to the slaughter, or as a fool to the correction of the stocks; till a dart strike through his liver; as a bird hasteth to the snare, and knoweth not that it is for his life…. Let not thine heart decline to her ways, go not astray in her paths. For she hath cast down many wounded: yea, many strong men have been slain by her. Her house is the way to hell [sheol], going down to the chambers of death. (Proverbs 5:3 - 7:27)
Forbidden-Lineage and Interracial Relationships
Sandwiched between statutes against marital infidelity (verse 20) and sodomy (verse 22), is a prohibition that at first appears to be entirely out of context:
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 YHWH. (Leviticus 18:21)
This verse is typically interpreted as a prohibition against idolatry. But why would a statement about idolatry (specifically child sacrifice) be included in a chapter devoted to sexual interdictions? Perhaps this prohibition is not out of place after all, provided it is translated and interpreted correctly.
The words “the fire” in verse 21 are in italics, indicating that there are no corresponding words in the Hebrew manuscripts and that these two words were added by the translators and do not belong in this verse. Molech worship did sometimes include the offering of children as burnt sacrifices, as indicated in other passages but this is not what is being addressed in Leviticus 18.
The judgment for passing seed to Molech is found in Leviticus 20:
…Whosoever … giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. (Leviticus 20:1-2)
The translators did not add “the fire” in the judgment for this sin; its absence, along with some other factors, demonstrates that there is more than one way to offer or sacrifice seed to Molech.
It should not be overlooked that neither Leviticus 18:21 nor Leviticus 20:1-2 uses the Hebrew word ben, translated “children.” Instead, the word zera`, meaning “sperm” or “future progeny” was used.
Leviticus 18:21 forbids letting one’s seed pass through to Molech. The phrase “pass through” is translated from the Hebrew word `abiyr. Strong’s Concordance and The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon define `abiyr:
…A primitive root; to cross over … specifically, to cover (in copulation).8
…Prop. causeth to pass over, sc. semen….9
The latter lexicon also quotes Job 21 in which the Hebrew word `abiyr is translated “gendereth”:
Their bull gendereth, and faileth not; their cow calveth, and casteth not her calf. (Job 21:10)
Other versions of Job 21:10 translate `abiyr as “mates” and “breeds.” It may not yet be evident what specific sexual sin is condemned in Leviticus 18:21, but it should be apparent that this prohibition does indeed agree with the context and is consonant with the other Seventh Commandment statutes found in Leviticus 18.
The statute in Leviticus 18 and the judgment in Leviticus 20 are obviously not meant to be understood as prohibitions against sexual participation with the god Molech itself. Therefore, Molech must represent something or someone else. The fact that Molech was the national deity of the Ammonites – one of several lineages with whom the Israelites were forbidden to intermarry – is the final clue in discovering the correct interpretation of this prohibition. Passing one’s seed to Molech is a Hebrew idiom prohibiting forbidden-lineage and, by extension, interracial relationships.
The Syriac Translation
Peake’s Commentary on the Bible questions the customary interpretation of Leviticus 18:21 and then provides alternate analyses and translations:
21 is generally interpreted as referring to a ceremony whereby children were passed through fire, possibly burning them as whole-offerings. But it is curious that the prohibition here occurs among sexual matters. The ancient versions have ‘cause to serve’ (Sam.), ‘serve,’ (LXX), ‘cause to lie down for sexual intercourse’ (Syr.), whilst other Greek Versions have ‘compel by force’.10
In his book Old Testament Light: The Indispensable Guide to the Customs, Manners, & Idioms of Biblical Times, George Lamsa provides Leviticus 18:21 from the Syriac translation of the Old Testament:
“Seed,” in this instance, means “semen.” The Eastern text reads: “You shall not let any of your semen be cast into a strange woman to cause her to be pregnant….” …This ordinance is against cohabiting with pagan women….11
At the time that Leviticus 18:21 was written “pagan women” referred not only to non-believers, and more specifically to non-Israelites. During the Old Covenant dispensation, only lineages closely related to Israel worshiped Yahweh; everyone else was considered pagan. Leviticus 18:21 applies to both forbidden lineage and interracial relationships because both results in Israelites marrying pagans.
Lamsa also points out that the word “‘Molech’ … [in] the Aramaic reads ‘a strange woman’; that is, a woman of another race or religion.”12
The Book of Jubilees
Both the Encyclopedia Judaica and The Jewish Encyclopedia reference the book of Jubilees* while commenting upon the meaning of this idiom in Leviticus 18 and 20:
The book of Jubilees 30:7ff. connects intermarriage or rather the marrying off of one’s children to pagans with the sin of Moloch. …The prohibition of Moloch … the impregnation of a pagan woman, an interpretation lying behind the Syriac translation in Leviticus 18 and 20. The common denominator of all these traditions is the understanding of Moloch worship as the transfer of Jewish [Israelite] children to paganism either by delivering them directly to pagan priests or by procreation through intercourse with a pagan woman. This tradition, which could hardly be an invention, is now corroborated by the evidence in the Assyrian documents.13
In the book of Jubilees intermarriage with all Gentiles** is prohibited, no allowance being made for proselytes (Jubilees, xx. 4, xxii. 20, xxx. 11; comp. Targ. Yer. To Lev. xviii. 21, “Thou shalt not give any of thy seed to make them pass through the fire of Moloch,” which is translated: “Thou shalt not give a child in marriage to a Gentile by which the offspring is turned over to idolatry….)”14
*Jubilees is a pseudepigraphic work, containing the views and religious practices of the most rigid Hasdaen school at the time of John Hycanus, during whose reign over the house of Judah (135 and 105 B.C.) it was written.
**“The word ‘Gentile’ corresponds to the late Hebrew ‘goi,’ … signifying ‘stranger,’ ‘non-Jew [non-Israelites].’… In its most comprehensive sense ‘goi’ corresponds to the other late term, ‘ummot ha-‘olam’ (the peoples of the world).” “Gentile,” The Jewish Encyclopedia (New York & London: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1904) Volume V, p. 615.
A portion of the passage from the book of Jubilees follows:
…If there is any man in Israel who desires to give his daughter or his sister to any man who is of the seed of the Gentiles, he shall surely die … for he has committed a sin and a shame in Israel…. And to this law there is no limit of days and no ceasing and no forgiveness, but he shall be rooted out who defiles his daughter, among all Israel, because he has given of his seed to Moloch…. And thou, Moses, command the children of Israel and testify over them that they shall not give any of their daughters to the Gentiles and that they shall not take any of the daughters of the Gentiles; for this is accursed before the Lord…. And it is disgraceful to Israel to those that give and to those that receive from any Gentiles any daughters, for it is unclean and accursed to Israel; and Israel will not be clean of this uncleanness of him who has of the daughters of the Gentiles for a wife, or who has given of his daughters to a man who is of any of the seed of the Gentiles…. (Jubilees 30:6-12)
Except for a few rare exceptions, Yahweh was the exclusive God of the Israelites. Therefore to Old Covenant Israelites, both the forbidden lineages and people from other races were considered pagans and gentiles. In Leviticus 18:21, Molech represents not only the Ammonites, but all forbidden lineages and other races of mankind. All such unions polluted Israel’s genes and inevitably led to idolatry.
Only peoples of other races and the forbidden lineages of Canaan, Moab, and Ammon are included in the prohibition in Leviticus 18:21. Israelites were permitted to marry other racially alike non-Israelites. The Midianites, for example, were not Israelites, but because they were descendants of Abraham, they were not included in the Leviticus 18:21 prohibition.
Leviticus 18:21 addresses this sin in an idiomatic fashion; the priest Ezra is more direct:
The people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, doing according to their abominations, even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians,* and the Amorites. For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands…. Now therefore give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons … that ye may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever. (Ezra 9:1-12)
*Ezra 9:1 lists Egyptians [Hamites – Psalm 78:50-51, 105:23-27, and 106:21-22] among the peoples from whom the Israelites were to separate themselves. The Hamites, as a whole, were not forbidden for the Israelites to marry, which would seem to indicate that the Hamites in this instance had intermingled with the Canaanites.
We have trespassed against our God, and have taken strange wives of the people of the land…. Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law. (Ezra 10:2-3)
With these witnesses in mind, and because Deuteronomy 20 associates Leviticus 18:21’s sin with whoredom; and because the phrase “pass through” can have sexual implications; and because zera, meaning “sperm,” was used instead of ben, meaning “children”; and because Leviticus 18 is a chapter devoted to sexual perversions and not to idolatry, it should be apparent that verse 21 fits the chapter’s context. This verse prohibits forbidden-lineage and, by extension, interracial relationships – also known as miscegenation – both of which pollute Israel’s genes and often lead to the worship of false gods.
The fact that Israelites were commanded to live separate from all other peoples and that, for the most part, they have remained unmixed for the last several millennia, demonstrates that Yahweh does not want the Israelites* mixing with people from other races.
*The term “Israelites” is not meant to indicate today’s Jews, but instead today’s Celtic, Scandinavian, Germanic, Anglo Saxon, and kindred peoples.15
Deuteronomy 7:6, 14:2, 32:8-9, 1 Kings 8:51-52, 1 Chronicles 17:21-22, and Amos 3:1-2 all affirm that Yahweh chose Israel out of all the peoples of the earth to be His inheritance:
…O children of Israel…. You only have I known of all the families of the earth…. (Amos 3:1-2)
Numerous prophecies reveal that this special marital relationship was to continue between Yahweh and a remnant of Christian Israelites under the New Covenant as well:
Behold, the days come, saith YHWH, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah…. Thus saith YHWH, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night…. If those ordinances depart from before me, saith YHWH, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever. Thus saith YHWH; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith YHWH.
…the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea … and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God. Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head…. And it shall be at that day, saith YHWH, that thou shalt call me Ishi [husband]…. And I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in lovingkindness, and in mercies. (Hosea 1:10-11 and 2:16, 1916)
If the Israelites had mixed with the other races, eventually they would have been indistinguishable from everyone else, and the fulfillment of these prophecies would have been impossible.
Yahweh’s desire for racial purity can be witnessed in His design for His creation. Ten times in Genesis 1, Yahweh declared how He made His creation to produce after their own kind. This idea was expanded upon in the apocryphal books of Ecclesiasticus and Tobit:
Every beast loveth his like…. All flesh consorteth according to kind, and a man will cleave to his like. (Ecclesiasticus 13:15-16)
Beware of all whoredom, my son, and chiefly take a wife of the seed of thy fathers, and take not a strange woman to wife, which is not of thy father’s tribe: for we are the children of the prophets, Noe [Noah], Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: remember, my son, that our fathers from the beginning, even that they all married wives of their own kindred, and were blessed in their children, and their seed shall inherit the land. Now therefore, my son, love thy brethren, and despise not in thy heart thy brethren, the sons and daughters of thy people, in not taking a wife of them…. (Tobit 4:12-13)
Consider also the following prohibitions:
…Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee. (Leviticus 19:19)
Was Yahweh only concerned with livestock, produce, and clothing? Or did he also intend for us to refrain from gendering diverse kinds? The answer to this question is found in Deuteronomy 23:
A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of YHWH; even to his tenth generation* shall he not enter into the congregation of YHWH. (Deuteronomy 23:2)
*Nehemiah 13:1 demonstrates that the phrase “to his tenth generation” is in Deuteronomy 23:2 is a Hebrew idiom meaning forever.
The Hebrew word mamzeer, translated “bastard” and “illegitimate birth” in the King James and New American Standard versions, respectively, is defined in Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary:
…To alienate; a mongrel, i.e. born of a Jewish [Israelite] father and a heathen mother.17
Because of what “bastard” and “illegitimate birth” represent today, it is a poor translation of mamzeer. The prohibition against entering the congregation of Yahweh only applies to a child of mixed heritage.
Along with other Old Testament passages, Nehemiah’s inspired commentary (Nehemiah 13:1-3) on Deuteronomy 23:3 reveals that the reference to the congregation or assembly of Yahweh is, in fact, referring to Israel as a people. The Bible dictates geographical and, therefore, racial segregation for the Israelites in Exodus 33:16, Leviticus 20:24-26, Numbers 23:9, Deuteronomy 32:8, 1 Kings 8:51-53, Acts 17:26, etc. Deuteronomy 23:2 requires that Israelites segregate themselves from the offspring of forbidden-lineage or interracial relationships as well.
The judgment upon the offspring of forbidden-lineage or interracial relationships, as described in Deuteronomy 23, may seem harsh, especially because the offspring was not responsible for the initial sin. However, the Bible provides precedent for this kind of judgment. Canaan, Moab, and Ammon were the consequence of incest, and Yahweh judged them and their respective lineages by forbidding Israel to intermarry with or live among them, even though they were racially alike.
Why would Yahweh be so harsh upon innocent victims of the parents’ transgressions? Yahweh knows the beginning from the end and His judgments are remedial in nature for the overall good of His people. Yahweh’s judgment upon the mamzeer or mongrel was meant to deter the perpetuation of the same sin, thereby retaining purity in the bloodlines and preventing the weaknesses that result from genetic interbreeding.
Ezra and other leaders of the house of Judah understood the importance of keeping Israel’s bloodline pure:
…The princes came to me, saying, The people of Israel … have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, doing according to their abominations…. For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands…. Now therefore give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons, nor seek their peace or their wealth for ever: that ye may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever…. Should we again break thy commandments, and join in affinity with the people of these abominations? Wouldest not thou be angry with us till thou hadst consumed us, so that there should be no remnant nor escaping? O YHWH God of Israel, thou art righteous … behold, we are before thee in our trespasses: for we cannot stand before thee because of this. (Ezra 9:1-15)
This passage is addressing Canaan, Moab, Ammon, and people with whom they had mixed. These were the people in and near the land of Judah in Ezra’s day. The same would have applied to other races if they had been in the land at that time. Nehemiah expanded and applied the prohibition of Deuteronomy 23:3 to preclude all forbidden foreigners:
…In the book of Moses … therein [Deuteronomy 23:3] was found written, that the Ammonite and the Moabite should not come into the congregation of God for ever…. Now it came to pass, when they had heard the law, that they separated from Israel all the mixed multitude…. And I [Nehemiah] contended with them … and made them swear by God, saying, Ye shall not give your daughters unto their sons, nor take their daughters unto your sons, or for yourselves. Did not Solomon king of Israel sin by these things? …Shall we then hearken unto you to do all this great evil, to transgress against our God in marrying strange wives? …Thus cleansed I them from all strangers…. (Nehemiah 13:1-30)
The phrase “the mixed multitude” is translated from the Hebrew word `eereb. `Eereb is defined by James Strong:
…The web (or transverse threads of cloth); also a mixture, (or mongrel race).18
The Prophet Hosea rebuked the house of Israel for bearing strange children:
They have dealt treacherously against YHWH: for they have begotten strange children…. (Hosea 5:7)
Until very recently, miscegenation was almost unheard of – a historic anomaly. But in the last fifty years, like homosexuality, it has become more and more culturally acceptable. This alone should cause people to question it. If it had been Biblically acceptable all along, why has it taken nearly two millennia for Christians to get it correct?
Typical of people who have rejected their Biblical moorings and who, more often than not, call good evil and evil good (Isaiah 5:20), today’s multicultural society condemns segregation as racist and hateful and promotes miscegenation as something good. Man’s desire to integrate and miscegenate will ultimately destroy the different races and their cultures. In contrast, Yahweh’s Biblical design for man to segregate and remain pure protects and perpetuates the different races and their cultures.
Miscegenation adulterates the races, mixing two seeds that Yahweh never intended to be mixed.
Answering the Critics’ Objections
In an effort to counter the Scriptures’ prohibitions against miscegenation, people often provide supposed examples of race mixing in the Bible. Although Moses and Zipporah, Moses and Adoniah, Joseph and Asenath, Salmon and Rahab, and Boaz and Ruth are often exploited as Biblically sanctioned precedents for interracial relationships, none of these instances represent race mixing for the simple reason that in each of these five instances the husband and wife were from the same race.
Moses and Zipporah
…A man of the house of Levi … took to wife a daughter of Levi. And the woman conceived, and bare a son…. And she [Pharaoh’s daughter] called his name Moses…. (Exodus 2:1-10)
Now the priest of Midian … gave Moses Zipporah his daughter. (Exodus 2:16-21)
Only one race is represented in the marriage of Moses and Zipporah. Moses was a descendant of Abraham, an Israelite from the tribe of Levi. Zipporah was a Midianite, a descendant from Abraham through his wife Keturah’s fourth son Midian:
Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah. And she bare him … Midian…. (Genesis 25:1-2)
Moses and Adoniah
And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married…. (Numbers 12:1)
This woman was not Moses’ wife Zipporah as many people have supposed. She was a woman by the name of Adoniah (Jasher 73:31), who, according to some English versions of the Bible, is purported to be an Ethiopian. However, “Ethiopian,” as it has been rendered in the King James Version, is a poor translation of the Hebrew word Kuwshiyt. Strong’s Concordance defines Kuwshiyt:
…Patronymically from OT:3568; a Cushite, or descendant of Cush.19
The Cushites were descendants of Cush, Noah’s grandson by Ham:
And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan. (Genesis 10:6)
Cush’s father Ham was a brother of Noah’s firstborn son Shem, a progenitor of the Israelites. Therefore, Ham’s descendants, including Cush, were from the same race as Shem’s descendants through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
If Adoniah was a racial Cushite, she would have been of the same race as Moses. There is reason to believe, however, that she was not a Cushite but a Canaanite. Although it is not a part of the canonized Scripture, the book of Jasher, cited in Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18 and referenced in 2 Timothy 3:8, provides the following pertinent information concerning Moses and Adoniah’s relationship during Moses’ exile from Egypt after he had delivered the Cushites from the children of Aram:
…They [the Cushites] gave him [Moses] for a wife Adoniah the Cushite queen, wife of Kikianus [deceased king of the Cushites]. And Moses feared the Lord God of his fathers, so that he came not to her, nor did he turn eyes to her. For Moses remembered how Abraham had made his servant Eliezer swear, saying unto him, Thou shalt not take a woman from the daughters of Canaan [half brother of Cush] for my son Isaac. Also what Isaac did when Jacob had fled from his brother, when he commanded him, saying, Thou shalt not take a wife from the daughters of Canaan…. (Jasher 73:31-34)
Apparently Adoniah was of Canaanite descent, a Cushite only by citizenship. Although Moses accepted her as a gift from the Cushites, he never cohabited with her, knowing that by Yahweh’s law he was forbidden to do so. For those who would argue that Numbers 12:1 states that Moses married Adoniah, the Hebrew word laaqaach, translated “marriage,” simply means “took” and does not necessarily imply marriage.
Joseph and Asenath
And Pharaoh called Joseph’s name Zaphnath-paaneah; and he gave him to wife Asenath the daughter of Poti-pherah priest of On…. (Genesis 41:45)
Asenath, although not specifically identified as such, was most likely an Egyptian. Psalm 78:50-51, 105:23-27, and 106:21-22 affirm that the Egyptians of that day were Hamites.* Joseph was an Israelite, a descendant of Shem, the first-born son of Noah, and Asenath was a Hamite, a descendant of Ham, the second-born son of Noah. Only one race was represented in Joseph’s marriage to Asenath.
*The Israelites in Genesis 50:11, Moses in Exodus 2:19, and Paul in Acts 21:38 were all misidentified as Egyptians. The Egyptians, or Hamites, obviously, looked very similar in appearance to the Shemites, from whom the Israelites were descended. The Shemites and Hamites were both descended from Noah and his wife, through Noah’s sons, Shem and Ham. This destroys the hypothesis that Hamites were black. Because Hamites looked like Shemites, they had to have been white like the Israelites.
Salmon and Rahab
And Salmon [a Judahite] begat Booz [Boaz] of Rachab [Rahab]…. (Matthew 1:5)
Rahab is often alleged to be the Canaanite who helped the two Israelites spies escape from Jericho. There is no conclusive proof, however, that the Rahab who helped the Israelite spies in Joshua 2 is the same woman Salmon married, or that she was even of Canaanite descent. Rahab is never identified as a Canaanite. Although she lived in the Canaanite city of Jericho, it is speculation to identify her as a Canaanite from this fact alone. As an example, Moses, who was unquestionably an Israelite, was identified as an Egyptian by the daughters of Reuel:
And when they came to Reuel their father … they said, An Egyptian delivered us out of the hand of the shepherds…. (Exodus 2:18-19)
Moses was known as an Egyptian, not because he came from the loins of the Egyptians, but because he came from the land of Egypt.
Because Rahab is listed in the book of Hebrews – in the Hebrew hall of fame no less (Hebrews 11:31) – she was very possibly an Israelite slave who resided in Jericho (Numbers 21:1). This could perhaps explain why the two Israelite spies sought her out and also why the king of Jericho suspected her of harboring them (Joshua 2:1-3).
It makes no difference whether the Rahab from Jericho was a Canaanite. Even if Rahab were a racial Canaanite, two races were not represented in Salmon’s marriage to Rahab. As already established, the Canaanites, although a forbidden lineage, were descendants of Ham, the brother of Shem who was a progenitor of the Israelites. Rahab and Salmon were from the same race and, therefore, their marriage was not interracial.
Boaz and Ruth
…And Booz [a Judahite] begat Obed of Ruth. (Matthew 1:5)
Ruth, a resident of Moab, is identified five times as a Moabitess in Ruth 1:22, 2:2, 2:21, 4:5, and 4:10. Once again, even if Ruth were a racial Moabite, she was not from another race. The Moabites were descendants of Abraham’s nephew Lot (Genesis 12:5) through his incestuous relationship with his eldest daughter:
And Lot … dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him…. And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father…. And the firstborn bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites…. (Genesis 19:30-37)
Only one race is represented in Boaz and Ruth’s marriage. In fact, there is no reason to even conclude that Ruth was a racial Moabite. She could not have been a racial Moabite for the same reason that Rahab could not have been a racial Canaanite: the Israelites were forbidden to intermarry with the Moabites. It was for this very reason that Ezra commanded the Judahites to put away their Moabite companions:
…The people of Israel … have not separated themselves from the people of the lands … even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites…. For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands…. Now therefore give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons…. (Ezra 9:1-12)
Had Ruth been a racial Moabite, Boaz would have been required to put Ruth away, if he had even married her in the first place. Ruth must have been known as a Moabite because she had lived in the country of Moab, a possession of the Reubenites at that time.
Evidence that Ruth was a Moabite by residence rather than by physical descent was demonstrated when Boaz applied the levirate law to her. The levirate law requires Israelite men to raise up a male heir for a deceased kinsman, in order to preserve his name and estate:
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 [or “nigh of kin,” Leviticus 25:48-49] shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her. 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. (Deuteronomy 25:5-6)
And he [Boaz] said, Who art thou? And she answered, I am Ruth … thou art a near kinsman. And he said, … it is true that I am thy near kinsman: howbeit … will I do the part of a kinsman to thee…. (Ruth 3:9-13)
Had Ruth been from the forbidden lineage of Moab or from another race, the levirate law would not have applied because her previous relationship with Boaz’s kinsman Mahlon would have been unlawful and, therefore, adulterous. Had Ruth been a racial Moabite, the nearer kinsman (Ruth 3:12, 4:5-6) would have only needed to raise this objection to keep from having to redeem Ruth along with Mahlon’s land.
Ruth must have been an Israelite, or at least a descendant of a racially alike lineage with whom the Israelites were permitted to marry. Otherwise, Mahlon’s estate, in part or in whole, would have been lost to a non-Israelite descendant, which was one of the reasons that prompted Ezra to command the Judahites to put away their Moabite and other foreign wives in Ezra 9:1 – 10:3.
For the point under discussion, it does not make any difference whether Ruth was an Israelite or a Moabite. In either instance, she was of the same race as Boaz her husband.
The Idolatry Argument
People who condone miscegenation often argue that the Old Testament prohibitions were only to protect Israel from the idolatry that was being promoted by the non-Israelites at that time. This assertion is reflected in the following article published in the December 1995 installment of Home Life magazine’s “Ask Mike and Mary” column:
Q. What does the Bible teach about interracial relationships or mixed marriages? I am concerned my 13-year-old daughter may be headed in that direction. I have told her this is wrong and I do not approve. The Church doesn’t seem to address this problem. Could this be a sign of a more deep-rooted problem? Do you think I should worry?
A. Your question is one that concerns many parents. We would welcome a passage clearly instructing our children not to mix with other races when they date or marry. That would make our parenting assignment easier. The trouble is, I just don’t believe the Bible makes that statement. It does not support the idea of keeping race as a dividing line. True, in Deuteronomy 7:3 the Israelites were told specifically not to marry the members of the nations they would encounter when they would occupy the promised land. But the next verse clarifies this warning. It is not about race; it is about faith in the true God….20
Consider Deuteronomy 17:1-4 and its idolatry implications:
When YHWH thy God shall bring thee [the nation of Israel] into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites … thou shalt make no … marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of YHWH be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly. (Deuteronomy 7:1-4)
In Ecclesiastes 1:9, King Solomon declared “that which has been is that which will be, and that which has been done is that which will be done. So, there is nothing new under the sun.” Even if idolatry were the only reason for this prohibition, its consequences still remain. In 1776, approximately 2.5 million people lived in America. More than 99 percent of the population was white Christian Israelite21 Protestants. The remaining one percent was collectively represented by 20,000 Catholics, 3,000 non-Israelite Jews,21 and a few deists. In light of these figures and present-day demographics, it is a fact that the more non-Israelite immigrants allowed to enter and remain in the United States, the less Christian this nation becomes. The more racially mixed and multicultural America becomes, the more pluralistic she becomes, and the more pluralistic she becomes, the more heathen she becomes.
In her book The Official Guide to the American Marketplace, demographics specialist Cheryl Russell confirmed this paganizing of America:
Immigration will slowly change the nation’s [predominately Christian] religious affiliation…. Because most of the nation’s immigrants are from Mexico … the Roman Catholic church is likely to gain adherents. The influx of Asian immigrants should boost the share of Americans who are Buddhist or Hindu.22
Martin E. Marty, a nationally acclaimed demographics expert, also confirmed this inevitable consequence of mixing the races:
No one noticed it at the time, but the biggest event affecting pluralism [the increasing multi-religious composition of the United States] was in 1965, when immigration quotas that favored Europeans were altered.23
The Bible repeatedly declares that Yahweh is the God of the Israelites. In other words, Yahweh is the innate God of only the Israelites. Without the religious influence of the Israelites, non-Israelites naturally serve other gods. It is a sad commentary that when Israelites mix with other races, they usually turn to the gods of the people with whom they mix. Nothing has changed since Deuteronomy 7.
No Proselyte Exceptions
Faith in the true God is central to the Bible’s prohibitions against mixing with forbidden lineages, but it is not the only reason for racial segregation. If it were, the Bible would provide exceptions for believers among the forbidden nations. No exception clause for believers can be found in Deuteronomy 7 or anywhere else. Consider again Ezra’s instructions:
…The princes came to me, saying, The people of Israel … have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, doing according to their abominations…. For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves … O my God … we have forsaken thy commandments…. Now therefore give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons.… Should we again break thy commandments, and join in affinity with the people of these abominations? …Shechaniah … answered and said unto Ezra, We have trespassed against our God, and have taken strange wives of the people of the land…. Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them … let it be done according to the law. (Ezra 9:1 - 10:3)
Ezra and Shechaniah made no exceptions for foreign wives who had converted to Yahweh or for children who might have been spiritually influenced by their Israelite fathers. Most Christians completely overlook this important fact.
Additional Reasons for Racial Purity
In addition to idolatry, Ezra provided two more reasons for the Israelites to separate from the other nations listed in Ezra 9:
…They have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed [race, NASV] have mingled themselves with the people of those lands…. (Ezra 9:2)
Mixed relationships were condemned by Ezra not only because they polluted the religion of the Israelites, but because they also polluted or adulterated the genes of the Israelites.
Verse 12 provides another explanation for why the Israelites were commanded to separate from their foreign wives:
…Give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons, nor seek their peace or their wealth for ever: that ye may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever. (Ezra 9:12)
If these mixed relationships had been allowed to continue, Israel’s land inheritance would have been in jeopardy of being lost or turned over to the mixed progeny born to these relationships. This would have occurred even if both parents of these mixed-blood children or the children themselves were believers in Yahweh. Israel would have been dispossessed of her land.
Hosea addressed the same problem:
They have dealt treacherously against YHWH: for they have begotten strange children: now shall a month devour them with their portions. (Hosea 5:7)
Strangers have devoured his strength, and he knoweth it not…. (Hosea 7:9)
The same thing is occurring throughout the world today. Birthright, history, posterity, and future spurned through miscegenation can never be recovered. Once a child has been conceived and born from a mixed-race relationship, no one can go back and change it.
It is politically incorrect to teach that race-mixing is Biblically prohibited. This emotionally charged issue is a lightning rod for false accusations from non-Christians and Christians alike. People who believe that miscegenation is Biblically immoral and who promote the separation and purity of the different races are often accused of racism, hatred, and even white supremacy. The basis for such accusations is emotional rather than rational or Biblical.
People who promote integration and miscegenation of the different races are advancing a position that ultimately destroys the purity and distinct culture of each race. People who promote the separation and purity of the races are advancing a position that promotes the perpetuation and preservation of the races and their distinct cultures. It should be very obvious which position demonstrates less respect and concern for the people of other races.
Genocide, as defined by Random House Webster’s College Dictionary, is the inevitable outcome of miscegenation:
…The deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.24
The Winnipeg Free Press contained an article by Gwynne Dyer entitled “Tiger Wood’s description of himself says it all. The future is light brown”:
Just under three-quarters of the present American population (73.1 per cent) is classified as “non-Hispanic white” by the United States Census Bureau. But within 50 years, it predicts, white America will be barely half the population (52.8 percent)….
The U.S. Census Bureau is almost certainly wrong. The man who has it right is Tiger Woods … who … outraged practically everybody by announcing on the Oprah Winfrey show that he does not see himself as black, but a “Cablinasian” … a word that describes what may be the largest American “race” by 2050: A mixed-race group in various shades of light brown that combines the genetic heritage of most major groups on the planet. Canada promises to be an even more comprehensive mixture, and Australia and even Britain are moving in the same direction.
Woods made up the word “Cablinasian” because he had no word to describe himself. His father had one white, one native Indian and two black grandparents, and his mother was half Chinese, half Thai. “Growing up, I came up with this name - I’m a Cablinasian,” Woods explained - a mix of Caucasian, black, Indian, and Asian.25
Woods’ admission that there is no word to describe himself does indeed say it all. Dyer’s article pointed out that mixed marriages are not only increasing among Caucasians but also, to a much greater degree, among other races:
…In America, the racial walls are breaking down. Only four per cent of U.S. marriages are inter-racial, but that bald figure conceals a huge generational shift. In the ’40s and ’50s, less than two per cent of black men married white women. In the past decade, the figure has soared to nearly 10 per cent. And other non-white Americans, who do not suffer the special prejudice that weighs on African-American descendants of former slaves, are now  “marrying out” at a staggering rate.
Some 60 per cent of Asian-born Americans in their 20s marry somebody of another race, and nearly 70 per cent of native American Indians under the age of 25 are doing the same. “In recent years the proportion of both men and women from all racial groups who ‘marry out’ has increased,” concluded University of Michigan demographer Reynolds Farley in a study published last month.26
The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia defines miscegenation:
…Mixture or amalgamation of races: applied especially to sexual union between individuals of the black and white races. Individuals sometimes show a desperate desire for miscegenation, but they indulge in it always at the expense of a loss of the respect of both races.27
Not only is the white race being destroyed through miscegenation at a staggering rate, but so are the blacks, Asians, and other races. Racial segregation and purity benefit all, not just whites.
Dyer declared, “The ‘melting pot’ is finally working, even in the U.S.” The melting pot may well be working, but not to the betterment of everyone involved. What it is working toward is the genocide of all races and their distinct cultures.
The San Ramon Valley Times ran an article entitled “Working toward one race.” Author Stephen Magagnini wrote of the search for identity by those born from multi-racial relationships:
SACRAMENTO - On a recent night, the Madrone Room of Berkley’s MLK Student Center is overflowing with young people on a quest for identity, acceptance and a new way of looking at race. They are checking out the Hapa Issues Forum, a 5-year-old organization for people of mixed race.28
The fact that these young people of mixed race are on a “quest for identity” indicates a problem in itself. They have no identity, no race, and no culture with which to relate. Magagnini continued his observations:
There are now more than 1.5 million interracial couples in America and 2 million mixed-race children, according to the census…. More than 70 percent of American Indians, 60 percent of Japanese-Americans and many California Hispanics and Filipinos marry people of other races or ethnic groups. Their children are redefining California culture and religion.29
Children from interracial relationships have to redefine their culture and religion because the heritage that might have been theirs has been destroyed through miscegenation.
From 1960 to 1990, according to the U.S. Census, marriages between blacks and whites increased by 400 percent and marriages between whites and Asians increased nearly 1,000 percent. In 1970 there were 310,000 interracially married couples in the United States. By 1998 that number had increased to 1.6 million, according to a 1998 population survey. As staggering as this increase is, it has only gotten worse in the years since.
Everyone, no matter what his race, needs to take a stand on this issue and condemn this abomination that is quickly becoming an epidemic both here in the United States and abroad. Unless we turn the tide, miscegenation will destroy the races and their individual cultures.
Lack of respect for one’s own race and the uniqueness of the other races promotes integration, miscegenation, and the ultimate eradication of the different races. Those who would have us believe that this disrespect is actually love are perhaps best described by the Prophet Isaiah:
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! (Isaiah 5:20)
The brazen promotion and practice of miscegenation is a clear sign of our modern world’s rapid progression into depravity. If we are to change the direction that our nation is presently headed, we must determine to be true to our God, His laws, our ancestors, ourselves, our children, and our race.
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)
The fact that society has been more disposed to label homosexuality a perversion than they have other sexual iniquities has Biblical precedence. Leviticus 18:26-30 collectively identifies all the sexual sins listed therein as abominations, but only homosexuality is specifically singled out with the same designation. Genesis 13:13 describes sodomites as exceedingly wicked sinners, and Genesis 18:20 identifies their sin as very grievous to Yahweh, a description that, in the Bible, is used exclusively for homosexuality.
The New Testament uses the Greek word pornea, translated “fornication,” to identify incest, harlotry, and forbidden lineage relationships. But only sodomy, or homosexuality, is described by the even stronger Greek word ekporneusasai:
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha … giving themselves over to fornication [ekporneusasai], and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. (Jude 1:7)
Ekporneusasai is defined by James Strong and Joseph Thayer:
…To be utterly unchaste.30
Calling Evil Good and Good Evil
…the prefix ek seems to indicate a lust that gluts itself, satisfies itself completely….31
Without Yahweh’s law, we have no standard by which to determine right and wrong. Without this moral standard, nothing can be judged as being sinful because “sin is the transgression of the law [of Yahweh]” – 1 John 3:4. A society that rejects Yahweh’s laws will eventually fall into anarchy and chaos, a road upon which America finds herself today.
This moral deterioration is evidenced by the many politicians and citizens who invert nearly everything, calling good evil and evil good – Isaiah 5:20. Whereas society once identified sodomites as perverts and queers, it now labels them as gays and their perversion as an alternate lifestyle. Ann Landers went so far as to recommend psychiatric help for a devastated mother rather than for her homosexual son:
Confidential to Heartbroken Mother of a Boy With a Twisted Mind: – Yes, I recommend psychiatric help – not for him, but for you. Your son has learned to live with his homosexuality. In fact, he seems to have adjusted very well. Now you must learn to accept him as he is and stop torturing yourself.32
The National Education Association (NEA) – which has a virtual monopoly on public school curriculums – determines what children between the ages of five and eighteen are taught in the public school system. The NEA’s professional library in West Haven, Connecticut, contains a publication titled Homophobia and Education: How to Deal with Name Calling, designed for classroom use. A “fact sheet” in this publication says it is a myth that homosexuality is unnatural. It justifies sodomy, declaring that “this behavior is found in practically every culture throughout history.”33 It stands to reason that, on the same grounds, the NEA should also promote murder, rape, and robbery.
A Denver continuing-education course presented teachers with a guide entitled “Gay and Lesbian Youth Tools for Educators.” This teachers’ guide recommended that pamphlets such as “I Think I May Be Gay,” containing telephone numbers for homosexual support groups, be distributed to students. The following questions are from a questionnaire found in this guide:
…3. Is it possible your heterosexuality is just a phase you may outgrow? ...5. Is it possible that all you need is a good gay lover? ...7. If you have never slept with a person of the same sex, how do you know that you would not prefer to do so? ...14. How can you hope to become a whole person if you limit yourself to an exclusive heterosexual … choice and remain unwilling to explore and develop your normal, natural, healthy homosexual potential?34
Rejecting Yahweh’s Laws
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil…! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight! …Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of YHWH of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel. (Isaiah 5:20-24)
In 1 Kings 15:11-12 and 2 Kings 23:7, Yahweh commended Kings Asa and Josiah for purging the land of sodomites, as per His law. Unlike the majority of America’s leaders, Asa and Josiah were more interested in being Biblically correct than they were in being politically correct.
The underlying reason homosexuality has become an accepted lifestyle in the United States is because most American pulpits no longer teach Yahweh’s commandments, statutes, and judgments as the moral standard for mankind. Instead of condemning this sin as a perversion, many liberal denominations sanction and even promote homosexuality:
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ECLA), in its December 1991 document Human Sexuality and the Christian Faith, states, “We must distinguish between moral judgments regarding same-sex activity in Biblical times and in our own time.”35*
Upon release of its October 1993 edition of The Church and Human Sexuality: A Lutheran Perspective, the ELCA said “it recognizes that many Lutherans take literally the Biblical condemnations of homosexuality…. But the task force urges Lutherans to challenge such attitudes. It argues that “responsible Biblical interpretation” strongly supports the acceptance and even blessing of same-sex unions and emphasizes what it says is the pre-eminent Biblical command – to “love your neighbor as yourself.”36**
Over 70 bishops of the Episcopal Church signed a “Statement of Koinonia” which says, “We believe that some of us are created heterosexual and some of us are created homosexual. We believe homosexuality and heterosexuality are morally neutral.” The Washington, D.C., diocese officially approved the document and declared that homosexuals who live together in monogamous relationships should be “honored.”37
The United Methodist Church has also convened panels to determine whether homosexuality is a sin. Though the proposals to loosen church strictures on homosexuality were rejected, the 1991 panel did agree that Biblical references to sexual practices should not be viewed as binding “just because they are in the Bible.”38
*Because Yahweh does not change according to Malachi 3:6, His morality and His revulsion of the sin of homosexuality have not changed either.)
**The phrase “love thy neighbor as thyself” is initially found in Leviticus 19:18, one chapter after Yahweh’s condemnation of homosexuality, and one chapter before His judgment for this sin. Taking the Biblical stand against sodomy does not negate this Commandment; on the contrary, it is a crucial part of loving your neighbor as yourself.
The real tragedy is that even many well-known “conservative” church leaders, who do take a stand against sodomy, still fall woefully short of Yahweh’s standard:
If homosexuals have relationships with people of the same sex in the privacy of their homes, they have the same civil rights as the rest of us. What they do privately is not the issue, and politically speaking, it’s not our concern.39
Most Americans, across a wide spectrum of opinion on homosexuality itself, are willing to adopt a live-and-let-live attitude toward what others do in private.40
We … will never support legislation aimed at depriving them of their basic constitutional rights – rights they share with every citizen. …The same Scriptures that condemn homosexuality and premarital heterosexuality also tell us to accept those who are in violation of these ordinances. …I hope you can see that our opposition to the gay and lesbian tidal wave is … one of social justice and common sense.41
We believe every human being [specifically referring to those in the homosexual community] … is entitled to acceptance and respect.42
How ironic that in the same newsletter from which the previous quotation was extracted, Dobson promoted Yahweh’s laws as the standard and hope of our nation:
Any nation that mocks the laws of God will ultimately fail. It is inevitable. And each of us is either part of the problem or a part of the solution.43
Yahweh’s solution for unrepentant homosexuals is the death penalty (Leviticus 20:13), not acceptance and respect. Anyone who is unwilling to promote this judgment is mocking Yahweh’s law and part of His solution for this sin.
At one time, when America’s preachers were still teaching Yahweh’s laws as the moral standard for this nation, sodomy was a criminal offense in all fifty states. Not until 1961 were the first of these laws overturned. North Carolina’s original sodomy law read: “Any person who shall commit the abominable and detestable crime against nature, not fit to be named among Christians … shall be adjudged guilty of a felony and shall suffer death without the benefit of clergy.”44
In The Ten Commandments for Today, William Barclay made a distinction that is certainly not found in the Ten Commandments. He argued there are two categories of homosexuals: the homosexual by nature who cannot help being a homosexual and the homosexual by choice who deliberately becomes so. The former, declares Barclay, deserves “nothing but sympathy” and the latter “nothing but condemnation.”45 One wonders if Barclay classifies thieves, rapists, and murderers in the same unbiblical fashion.
While suggesting that his hypothesis was Biblical, Barclay continued his ungodly distinctions:
I do not think that we can escape … that, if the authority of the Bible is to be accepted, homosexual practices are forbidden as wrong. This would seem to mean, from the biblical point of view that even if it is impossible to blame a man for being homosexual, it is still necessary to blame him for practicing homosexuality.46
No one is a homosexual until he participates in this aberrant lifestyle, any more than someone is a rapist until he rapes someone. No one is born a homosexual. A person becomes a homosexual only when he chooses to participate in this sin.
Politicians and preachers alike promote the ungodly lie that certain people are born homosexual. Even if it could be proven that certain people have a genetic proclivity toward homosexuality, this does not mean that we should declare this lifestyle normal. If a so-called genetic link is all the excuse needed to justify this abomination, society had better prepare itself to someday sanction rape and murder on the same grounds.
In the cases in which no cure is possible homosexuals who associate for the only human relationship they know must be regarded with sympathy and understanding, in the awareness that those of us who have never known this problem must be hesitant to condemn something which is outside our experience, and which we cannot understand.47
According to Barclay, no one has the right to condemn another unless he has participated in the same sin. One has to wonder if Barclay applies this same criterion to rapists and murderers. Yahweh condemns homosexuals, but He certainly never shared in their iniquity. He commands us to do the same.
The Casper Star-Tribune (October 17, 1998) quoted Jimmy Creech in an Associated Press news release entitled “Reverend says church, not gays, has sinned”:
A Methodist pastor who sparked controversy last year by performing a union ceremony for two women says it is the church that has sinned by promoting unhealthy attitudes about sex…. By turning away homosexuals, the church does “great damage,” Creech said. “It’s the church that’s sinning, not the gays and lesbians,”…. Creech said teaching people to deny their true selves leads to “a form of suicide.” “I think it’s blasphemy, telling children of God that God has played a cruel trick on them,” he said. “I think God loves gay people and lesbian people. Whatever sexual orientation one has is natural and healthy.”48
What is blasphemous is playing God, and the cruelest trick of all is telling people that their lifestyle is natural and healthy when Yahweh identified it as a perversion with eternal consequences, punishable by death.
The Apostle Paul explained that when people reject Yahweh and disobey His Word, Yahweh abandons them to their own depravity, including homosexuality:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness…. Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God…. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools…. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves…. 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: 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 [indecent, NASV], and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 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 [proper, NASV]…. 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. (Romans 1:18-32)
Unclean, dishonoring to the body, vile, against nature, lustful, indecent, reprobate, and improper – these are the terms Paul used to describe the sin of sodomy. In Deuteronomy 32:32, it is described as bitter, in Jeremiah 23:14, as horrible, and in 2 Peter 2:6-8, as ungodly, filthy, and unlawful.
None of this is to say that a cure for homosexuality does not exist. Simply put, the cure is: Repent or suffer capital punishment at the hands of a godly governemt.*
*In July 1999, Gary Matson and Winfield Mowder, both homosexuals, were killed by Benjamin Matthew Williams. Although Williams attempted to use the Bible as justification for his vigilante act, an individual does not have Biblical authority to carry out the death penalty upon homosexuals. Capital punishment is something that must be carried out by a community in accordance with the judicial protocol found in Yahweh’s Word (Deuteronomy 1:16, 16:18, 25:1, Job 31:9-11, etc.). People like Williams who take the law into their own hands are murderers and, according to Biblical law, should be put to death by the community.49
Abusers of Themselves
In most Bible versions, the Greek word arsenokoitai is translated “homosexual,” but in 1 Corinthians 6:9, the King James Bible translators chose to render arsenokoitai as “abusers of themselves with mankind.” This is an interesting rendition, especially in light of the following statistics:
70% to 78% of gays reported having had a sexually transmitted disease. The proportion with intestinal parasites (worms, flukes, ameba) ranged from 25% to 39% to 59%. As of 1992, 83% of U.S. AIDS in whites had occurred in gays….
The lifespan of homosexuals suggests that their activities are far more self-destructive than smoking. 5,371 obituaries from 16 U.S. homosexual journals were compared to a large sample of obituaries from regular newspapers. …The median age of death of married men was 75 and 80% of them died old (age 65 or older). For unmarried or divorced men the median age of death was 57 and 32% died old. Married women averaged 79 at death; 85% died old. Unmarried and divorced women averaged 71 and 60% died old. The median age of death for homosexuals, however, was virtually the same nationwide – and, overall, less than 2% survived to old age. If AIDS was the cause of death, the median age was 39. For the 588 gays who died of something other than AIDS, the median age of death was 42 and 9% died old. The 106 lesbians had a median age of death of 45 and 26% died old.
2.5% of gays died violently. They were 87 times more apt to be murdered; 25 times more apt to commit suicide; and had a traffic-accident death-rate 18 times the rate of comparably aged white males. Heart attacks, cancer and liver failure were exceptionally common. Twenty-one percent of lesbians died of murder, suicide, or accident – a rate 532 times higher than of white females aged 25-44.50
“Alternate death-style” would be a better term for the homosexual way of life. It almost seems that King Solomon had homosexuals particularly in mind when he wrote in Proverbs 10:27 that “…the years of the wicked shall be shortened.” Nothing occurs except by Yahweh’s sovereign design; AIDS seems to be one of His means of fulfilling this decree within the sodomite community.
Coming Out of the Closet
Today, sodomites have gone far beyond just “coming out of the closet.” Their agenda includes proselytizing and lobbying Congress for support.
Roberta Achtenberg, secretary of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development during Bill Clinton’s administrations, was the first known homosexual appointed to a federal position. She waged a two-year court battle against the Boy Scouts of America because they refused to allow homosexuals to be Scout leaders. Clinton himself was very pro-homosexual. He made the following statements in his June 2000 proclamation for Gay and Lesbian Pride Month:
Gay and lesbian Americans have made important and lasting contributions to our Nation in every field of endeavor…. In recent years … the gay and lesbian rights movement has united gays and lesbians, their families and friends, and all those committed to justice and equality in a crusade to outlaw discriminatory laws and practices and to protect gays and lesbians from prejudice and persecution. I am proud of the part that my Administration has played to achieve these goals. Today, more openly gay and lesbian individuals serve in senior posts throughout the Federal Government than during any other Administration…. This June … we observe Gay and Lesbian Pride Month and celebrate the progress we have made in creating a society more inclusive and accepting of gays and lesbians. I hope that in this new millennium we will continue to break down the walls of fear and prejudice and work to build a bridge to understanding and tolerance, until gays and lesbians are afforded the same rights and responsibilities as all Americans.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, WILLIAM J. CLINTON, President of the United States of America … do hereby proclaim June 2000 as Gay and Lesbian Pride Month. I encourage all Americans to observe this month … and recognize the gay and lesbian Americans whose many and varied contributions have enriched our national life….51
Most people would be surprised to discover that President George W. Bush is also very pro-homosexual. Among others, he appointed homosexual Scott Evertz to direct his new Office of National AIDS Policy, homosexual Michael Guest as ambassador to Romania, and homosexual activist David Cappoccia to the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts.
Bush supports state-level civil unions between sodomites. On December 21, 2001, he signed a bill that allowed the District of Columbia’s government to fund a program that for the first time gave the domestic partners of city employees access to health benefits:
Not long after he endorsed “Marriage Protection Week,” President Bush sent a letter of congratulations to a denomination founded by homosexual activists that performs more than 6,000 same-sex “weddings” each year. The president wrote to the founding congregation in Los Angeles of the Metropolitan Community Churches, led by leading homosexual activist Rev. Troy D. Perry, on the occasion of its 35th anniversary. “By encouraging the celebration of faith and sharing God’s love and boundless mercy, churches like yours put hope in people’s hearts and a sense of purpose in their lives,” Bush said in his Oct. 14 missive. “This milestone provides an opportunity to reflect on your years of service and to rejoice in God’s faithfulness to your congregation.”52
In The Advocate, the nation’s largest homosexual publication, Steve Warren warned Christians what sodomites expect of them:
Here are some things you will be expected to affirm…. 1. Henceforth, homosexuality will be spoken of in your churches and synagogues as an ‘honorable estate.’ 2. You can either let us marry people of the same sex, or better yet abolish marriage altogether…. 3. You will be expected to offer ceremonies that bless our sexual arrangements…. You will also instruct your people in homosexual as well as heterosexual behavior, and you will go out of your way to make certain that homosexual youths are allowed to date, attend religious functions together, openly display affection, and enjoy each other’s sexuality without embarrassment or guilt. 4. If any of the older people in your midst object, you will deal with them sternly, making certain they renounce their ugly and ignorant homophobia or suffer public humiliation. 5. You will also make certain that … laws are passed forbidding discrimination against homosexuals and heavy punishments are assessed…. 6. Finally, we will in all likelihood want to expunge a number of passages from your Scriptures and re-write others, eliminating preferential treatment of marriage and using words that will allow for homosexual interpretations of passages describing biblical lovers…. Warning: If all these things do not come to pass quickly, we will subject Orthodox Jews and Christians to the most sustained hatred and vilification in recent memory. We have captured the liberal establishment and the press…. You have neither the faith nor the strength to fight us, so you might as well surrender now.53
Guide, a popular homosexual magazine, published an article outlining a homosexual plan to win support by means of the news media:
In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role as protector…. Our campaign should not demand direct support for homosexual practices, but should instead make anti-discrimination as its theme…. To be blunt – they [anti-homosexuals] must be vilified…. The public should be shown images of ranting homophobes whose secondary traits disgust middle America…. In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to abstract social questions as much as possible. First, let the camel get his nose inside the tent – and only later his unsightly derrier.54
Many homosexuals are rabid revolutionaries, as demonstrated in the following essay entitled “For the Homoerotic Order,” which first appeared in Gay Community News, February 15-21, 1987. It was written by Michael Swift, known as the “Gay Revolutionary”:
This essay is outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor.
We shall sodomize your sons.… We shall seduce them…. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us…. All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men…. We will triumph only when we present a common face to the vicious heterosexual enemy.
If you dare to cry faggot, fairy, queer, at us, we will stab you in your cowardly hearts and defile your dead, puny bodies. We shall write poems of the love between men; we shall stage plays in which man openly caresses man; we shall make films about the love between heroic men…. Our writers and artists will make love between men fashionable and de rigeur….
The family unit – spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence – will be abolished…. Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory. They will be bonded together in communal settings, under the control and instruction of homosexual savants. All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men…. For us too much is not enough….
We shall be victorious because we are fueled with the ferocious bitterness of the oppressed who have been forced to play seemingly bit parts in your dumb, heterosexual shows throughout the ages. We too are capable of firing guns and manning the barricades of the ultimate revolution.
Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks.55
Some in the homosexual community have argued that this piece is satire. But what kind of reprobates produce and publish such satire? Read again the opening paragraph and decide whether this was meant to be merely satirical. When this was written in 1987, no one would have believed that the homosexual community could have had the impact upon our nation’s laws that they do now only twenty years later. No one would have believed that TV sitcoms and Hollywood movies would be so brazen in their depiction of homosexual relationships. No one would have believed it possible to conceive and grow baby boys outside a mother’s womb in a laboratory. No one would have believed that the Bible could be labeled as hate literature and that pastors who preach against homosexuality could be imprisoned.
It is a statistical fact that children are much more likely to be molested by homosexuals than they are by heterosexuals:
A social researcher who has studied sexual behavior for 24 years believes the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) has sound reasons for maintaining its prohibition against gay scoutmasters. A homosexual cannot automatically be considered a child molester, said Judith Reisman, president of the Institute for Media Education in Suburban Louisville, Ky. But with 17-24 percent of boys being abused by age 18, nearly as many as the 25 percent of girls, there is cause for concern, she said. Since heterosexuals outnumber the homosexual population about 44 to 1, as a group the incidences of homosexuals molesting children is up to 40 times greater than heterosexuals, she said. “You’re looking at a much higher rate of abuse,” said Reisman, a former university research professor who recently completed a study titled, “Crafting Gay Children.” “The Department of Justice just released data and the rate of abuse are [sic] off the charts.” …Reisman points to figures from a 1991 population study by the U.S. Department of Commerce. It showed that 8 million girls were abused by age 18 by heterosexual men, a ratio of 1 victim to 11 adult men. However, 6-8 million boys were abused by age 18 by 1-2 million adult homosexuals, a ratio of 3-5 victims for every gay adult.
…Figures released last summer (2000) by the Justice Department reveal that … 67 percent of all reported sex abuse victims are children and 64 percent of forcible sodomy victims are boys under 12….
Even homosexual activists don’t try to hide the connection with pedophilia. In The Gay Report – a book published back in 1979 – authors Karla Jay and Allen Young found that 73 percent of those surveyed had had sexual relations with males 16 to 19 or younger.56
Because sodomites cannot reproduce, they must recruit the young into their ranks. The rallying cry of some homosexuals is “Sex before eight – before it’s too late.” Two groups in particular prey on young boys – Pedophiles Anonymous (PAN) and the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), which advocates eliminating the age of sexual consent altogether.
Another seldom mentioned statistic is that the five leading United States serial killers, averaging 30 murders each, were all homosexuals. Jeffrey Dahlmer, who killed 17 young men and boys over a thirteen-year period, is the most recent and probably the most infamous. Sixty-six percent of all mass murders between 1975 and 1992 were committed by homosexuals.
Law and Order published “Homosexual Serial Murder Investigation” by retired NYPD Lieutenant Commander Vernon Geberth:
Homosexual homicides, where victims are killed by lovers of the same sex, are relatively common….
Back in the Closet, Covered by the Blood, or In a Casket
Homosexual serial murders involve sadomasochistic torture, lust murders, thrill killings, and child killings as well as robbery homicides which are homosexually-oriented. Homosexual serial killers can be loosely divided into three groups: (1) The homosexual serial killer, who exclusively targets other homosexuals of the same gender, (2) The homosexual-oriented serial killer, who attacks heterosexual and homosexual victims, (3) The male pedophile homosexual serial killer, who attacks young males and boys….
The table [provided in Geberth’s article] shows a listing of 37 known and documented homosexual serial killers, which represent 30 cases of homosexual serial murder. These 37 offenders were charged with the deaths of approximately 280 male victims and are suspected of murdering approximately 755 victims.57
Abigail Van Buren, in one of her “Dear Abby” columns, claimed that “If a person has one or two sexual experiences with someone of the same sex” it does not make him a homosexual. By that same logic, if Ted Bundy had only raped one or two women he would not have been a rapist.
In Yahweh’s sight, one homosexual act alone makes a person a homosexual until he repents of his perversion and is covered by the blood of Yeshua the Christ.
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? …Nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind [homosexuals, NASV]…. 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. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)
Whether a person has committed a homosexual act a hundred times or only once, that person is a homosexual, at least until he becomes a Christian. And becoming a Christian can only be accomplished by renouncing and completely turning away from this perverted lifestyle. Otherwise, under Yahweh’s laws, sodomy is a capital crime against society and should be punished as such.
*Mark 16:15-16, Acts 2:36-41, 22:1-16, Romans 6:3-4, Galatians 3:26-27, Colossians 2:11-12, and 1 Peter 3:21 should be studied in order to understand what is required to be covered by the blood of Yeshua and forgiven of your sins.58
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 [perversion, NASV]. (Leviticus 18:23)
Some people attempt to use Leviticus 18:23 as a prohibition against miscegenation, but miscegenation, as we have seen, is addressed in verse 21. Furthermore, the word “beast” is translated from the word baheemaah, which is Hebrew for quadruped animals:
…From an unused root (probably meaning to be mute); properly, a dumb beast; especially any large quadruped or animal (often collective).59
The Septuagint translates this verse:
Neither shalt thou lie with any quadruped for copulation, to be polluted with it: neither shall a woman present herself before any quadruped to have connexion with it; for it is an abomination.
On the other hand, in Yabamoth 59b, the Talmud* – the Jews’ religious book of faith – permits and, in some instances, promotes the exact opposite of what the Bible condemns:
Women having intercourse with a beast can marry a priest, the act is but a mere wound.
*The traditions of the elders, repeatedly denounced by Yeshua, were codified circa 500 A.D. into what today is known as the Talmud.
Modern society is also beginning to tolerate bestiality:
The present sexual revolution is experimenting extensively with bestiality. Dr. [Lars] Ullerstam has pleaded for abolition of “this moral yoke,” the prohibition against bestiality, and vindicates the act.60
One might contend that Dr. Ullerstam is promoting the rape of animals. Where are the animal rights activists when we actually need them?
A bill was recently introduced before the Massachusetts’ Legislature in which the existing punishment for the crime of bestiality would be replaced with a less severe sentence:
BOSTON, November 17, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Four legislators in Massachusetts are quickly following up on their success at legalizing homosexual unions by pushing for softening laws against other forms of sexual deviance. They have introduced a bill [Senate Bill 938] that proposed to reduce the penalties associated with the state’s prohibition on sex acts with animals.
The four Democrat legislators, Cynthia S. Creem, Robert A. O’Leary, Michael E. Festa and David P. Linsky, are all vocal supporters of abortion, homosexual unions, and are all endorsed by all three of Massachusetts’ gay lobby groups….
The bill would amend the Massachusetts penal code to give judges the option of imposing only a fine or an eighteen-month sentence in local jails for those convicted. It reads, “Whoever commits a sexual act on an animal shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 20 years or in a house of correction for not more than 2 1/2 years, or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment.”….
By calling the bill, “An Act Relative to Archaic Crimes,” its sponsors have revealed their bias which assumes that traditional sexual morality is “archaic” and no longer relevant to modern society….61
Yahweh’s judgment for this abomination is provided in Exodus 22:
Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death. (Exodus 22:19)
Yahweh demands that the animal also be killed:
And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:15-16)
In some of the early New England colonies, when the laws of Yahweh were the law of the land, these statutes and judgments were taken literally:
The laws of Puritan New England required the death penalty in terms of Scripture. Thus, John Winthrop recorded, “One Hackett, a servant in Salem … was found in buggery with a cow, upon the Lord’s day;” in accordance with Biblical law, both man and cow were executed.62
Prostitution, Whoredom, and Harlotry
Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness. (Leviticus 19:29)
They [the priests] shall not take a wife that is a whore…. And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire…. A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife. Neither shall he profane his seed among his people: for I YHWH do sanctify him. (Leviticus 21:7-15)
There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel…. (Deuteronomy 23:17)
Webster’s 1828 dictionary states that the word “whore” is derived from huriaw, meaning “to hire.” In other words, prostitution is the unlawful commerce of sex. Prostitution, whoredom, and harlotry are all terms describing promiscuous sexual relations performed for hire.
A story is told of Irish-born playwright and critic George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950), sitting at dinner beside a very attractive woman. Shaw asked her, “Madame, would you go to bed with me for f50,000?” The woman looked astonished and hemmed and hawed a bit, but did not reject. Shaw then asked, “Well, how about f5,000?” The woman still did not refuse. “Well, look, would you go to bed with me for f12?,” inquired Shaw. “Mr. Shaw!” the woman exclaimed, “What do you think I am?” Shaw replied, “We’ve already established that, Madame. We’re just negotiating the price.”
The price is not what determines whether or not a woman is a prostitute. It only determines if she is a well-paid prostitute.
Men and women who are paid to remove their clothing for pornographic magazines or movies, and Hollywood actors and actresses who are paid to jump into bed with someone to whom they are not married are also prostitutes in principle, if not in fact.
The idea of legalizing prostitution is periodically discussed among legislators and in the media. In some countries the interdiction has already been lifted. But in such places, prostitution has only become legal – not lawful. Man’s legislation can never make lawful what Yahweh has forbidden.
Yahweh views prostitution as so grievous a sin that He requires the corpse of an executed prostitute to be burned. Perhaps this added desecration is because the prostitute’s livelihood feeds upon an endless number of victims:
In the twilight, in the evening, in the black and dark night … there met him a woman with the attire of an harlot, and subtil [cunning, NASV] of heart…. So she caught him, and kissed him, and with an impudent face said unto him.… Come, let us take our fill of love until the morning: let us solace ourselves with loves…. With her much fair speech she caused [enticed, NASV] him to yield, with the flattering of her lips she forced [seduced, NASV] him…. Let not thine heart decline to her ways, go not astray in her paths. For she hath cast down many wounded: yea, many strong men have been slain by her. Her house is the way to hell [sheol], going down to the chambers of death. (Proverbs 7:9-27)
Verse 26 declares that many strong men have been slain by her. Strong men should not be understood to mean only the physically strong. Many an otherwise moral man has been destroyed by his inability to control his lust:
Lust not after her beauty in thine heart; neither let her take thee with her eyelids. For by means of a whorish woman a man is brought to a piece of bread: and the adulteress will hunt for the precious life. Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned? Can one go upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned? …But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul. (Proverbs 6:25-32)
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. What? Know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? For two, saith he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. 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? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s. (1 Corinthians 6:15-20)
The Apostle Paul admonished the Corinthian Christians to flee fornication. Joseph, in his Egyptian bondage, literally fled when Potipher’s wife attempted to seduce him. Far too few people flee as Joseph did. Instead, they become victims, both physically and spiritually, of men and women who commerce in sex.
Prostitutes are not the only guilty parties in this sin. King Solomon describes men who are controlled by their lusts as simpletons:
For at the window of my house I looked through my casement, and beheld among the simple ones, I discerned among the youths, a young man void of understanding, passing through the street near her corner; and he went the way to her house…. He goeth after her straightway, as an ox goeth to the slaughter, or as a fool to the correction of the stocks; till a dart strike through his liver; as a bird hasteth to the snare, and knoweth not that it is for his life. (Proverbs 7:6-23)
Such a man is not only a simpleton – he is a pervert, fornicator, and adulterer. And unless he repents and is covered by blood of Yeshua, he will be judged and condemned for his sins.*
*Mark 16:15-16, Acts 2:36-41, 22:1-16, Romans 6:3-4, Galatians 3:26-27, Colossians 2:11-12, and 1 Peter 3:21 should be studied in order to understand what is required to be covered by the blood of Yeshua and to have your sins forgiven.63
The “Victimless” Crime
It is a travesty that prostitution is often described as the “victimless crime.” In addition to this sin’s many male victims, the prostitutes themselves suffer terrible spiritual, physical, and emotional abuse.
Seldom do we hear the statistics regarding the abuse to prostitutes themselves. In a Reader’s Digest article entitled “Why the Shocking Rise in Prostitution?,” Nathan M. Adams provides the following quotation:
“Many judges and prosecutors consider prostitution a ‘victimless crime,’” says former Washington police chief Maurice Cullinane. “Time after time, I have asked them to increase fines and award jail time, but they consider dealing with prostitution a nuisance. Well, they don’t live in affected neighborhoods. It’s not their daughter who is on the street. They don’t see how these girls are scarred, physically and emotionally. Believe me, there’s nothing ‘victimless’ about prostitution.”64
In an article entitled “The Truth on Prostitution” by Amanda Smith, The Rocky Mountain News reported the following:
There is a class of people in this country who are regularly beaten, tortured, raped, kidnapped, bought, sold, traded and jailed. They are poor, addicted and homeless. They live in every town. Most of us barely know they are there. Those of us who do know tend to snicker. They’re called prostitutes.
The Council for Prostitution Alternatives in Portland, Ore., offers these stomach-churning statistics from women in their program: The age when they entered prostitution ranged from 1 to 34. 78% have been raped, an average of 46 times a year. 84% assaulted, an average of 103 times a year. 49% kidnapped by pimps or customers, 10 times a year. 55% tortured. 27% mutilated. 65% have attempted suicide. 87% have been homeless.65
Not included in these figures is the devastation wreaked by venereal diseases. Hardly a prostitute alive has not been infected with venereal disease. These diseases are passed on to their customers and then to other prostitutes in an endless cycle.
King Solomon provided the means for avoiding the siren song of prostitutes:
For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life: To keep thee from the evil woman, from the flattery of the tongue of a strange woman. (Proverbs 6:23-24)
My son, keep my words, and lay up my commandments with thee. Keep my commandments, and live; and my law as the apple of thine eye. Bind them upon thy fingers, write them upon the table of thine heart. Say unto wisdom, Thou art my sister; and call understanding thy kinswoman: That they may keep thee from the strange woman, from the stranger which flattereth with her words. (Proverbs 7:1-5)
The Psalmist concurred:
Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way [keep his way pure, NASV]? By taking heed thereto according to thy word. With my whole heart have I sought thee: O let me not wander from thy commandments. Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee. (Psalm 119:9-11)
Serve Yahweh, keep His commandments, flee fornication, and you will be one of today’s Josephs, going where few travel – on Yahweh’s high road to purity and holiness.
Remarriage to a Twice-Divorced Woman
When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. (Deuteronomy 24:1-2)
Although it was not His original desire for us, Yahweh did provide for divorce. This provision was confirmed by Yeshua:
The Pharisees also came … saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered … Have ye not read, that he which made them … made them male and female, 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?... What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. (Matthew 19:3-8)
Yahweh knew that not all men and women would be able to fulfill His plan concerning marriage. He provided the means for a couple to end an unwholesome or dangerous relationship. But, divorce is nevertheless certainly not without its repercussions.
The tragedy of divorce has lasting effects on generations to come. In most instances, divorce leaves deep and often permanent scars on one or both divorced partners, sometimes even resulting in suicide and murder. Before deciding to marry, every couple should understand that “Getting married is like buying a phonograph record. Although you buy it for what is on one side, you have to take the flip side as well. Divorce, however, is like getting the hole in the middle.”
Divorce should always be the last resort, the solution only when all else fails and reconciliation is impossible. Divorce is seldom, if ever, a positive good. At best, it is the lesser of two evils.
In light of Yahweh’s law and Yeshua’s validation of it, divorce and remarriage cannot be entirely denounced. Many Christians erroneously believe that remarriage is only permitted in instances involving marital infidelity. In Deuteronomy 24, Yahweh sanctioned remarriage with only one exception:
And if the latter [second] husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; her former [first] husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before YHWH…. (Deuteronomy 24:3-4)
In defiance to this Seventh Commandment statute, certain churches require women who have married a second time to divorce their second husbands and return to their first husbands as a part of their repentance in coming to Christ for salvation. Such antinomian churches are no different from churches who perform sodomite weddings; both are blatant violators of Yahweh’s morality, as codified in His law.
Marriage to a Put-Away but Undivorced Woman
Based almost entirely upon Malachi 2, it has become a mantra that “God hates divorce.” Although Yahweh certainly hates the consequences of divorce, He was not speaking about divorce in Malachi 2:
…Take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. For YHWH, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith YHWH of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously. (Malachi 2:15-16)
Had Yahweh wanted to convey hatred for divorce, He would have used the Hebrew word keriythuwth. Instead, He used shalach, correctly translated in the King James Bible as putting away.
Deuteronomy 24:1-2 stipulates three elements that comprise a lawful divorce: 1) the husband must write out a certificate of divorce, 2) he must deliver the certificate to his wife, and 3) he must put her out of his house. Putting away alone does not constitute a lawful divorce.
Yahweh is not the author of confusion. Because divorce is a lawful institution, it could not be the treachery described in Malachi. The Israelite men in Malachi’s day were dealing treacherously with their wives because they were putting them out of their homes without the certificate of divorce required in Deuteronomy 24. Consequently, these put away – but undivorced – women could not seek another husband without committing adultery.
In their vindictiveness, these husbands were forcing their wives into a deplorable predicament. If one of these women “remarried” or attached herself to another man, she would have been an adulterer and subject to stoning.66 By law, without a certificate of divorce, she was still married to her first husband.
Any man who “married” a put away – but undivorced – women became a partner in her crime of adultery. Without a lawful divorce contract annulling her previous marriage contract, she would still be another man’s wife.
If she chose not to commit adultery, the woman would be left to fend for herself, which was nearly impossible under the conditions of that time. No doubt, some women felt they had no choice but to resort to prostitution in order to provide for themselves and their children. One can understand why Yahweh hated the treachery those men committed against their wives.
Because some words in Matthew 5 were poorly translated, it may not be immediately apparent that this was the same treachery Yeshua commented upon. In the text below, apoluo, which means “to put away,” and apostasion, which means “divorce,” have been inserted into the New American Standard Bible text to assist in determining Yeshua’s intention:
And it was said, “Whoever sends his wife away [apoluo], let him give her a certificate of divorce [apostasion];” but I say to you that everyone who divorces [apoluo – puts away] his wife, except for the cause of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced [apoluo – put away] woman commits adultery. (Matthew 5:31-32, NASV)
Even though the King James Bible rendered these two verses more correctly, its translation still leaves something to be desired:
And it was said, “Whoever sends his wife away [apoluo], let him give her a certificate of divorce [apostasion];” But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away [apoluo] his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced [apoluo – put away] committeth adultery. (Matthew 5:31-32)
Both of these translations put Yeshua in conflict with Yahweh’s mandate in Deuteronomy 24. If the intent of the last clause in Matthew 5 had been “whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery,” Matthew would have used the Greek word apostasion. When correctly translated “whosoever shall marry her that is put away committeth adultery,” Yeshua’s statement is in perfect harmony with Yahweh’s law. Had He taught anything contrary to this law, He would have promoted disobedience to the law of Yahweh and could not have been our Savior.
Yeshua pointed out that the husband who puts away his wife without a writ of divorce causes her to commit adultery if she becomes another man’s “wife.” The man who “marries” a put away – but undivorced – woman would be a partner in her crime of adultery because without a lawful divorce contract that annuls any previous marriage contract, she would still be another man’s wife.
The following account from John 4 provides a final witness, which proves the usual interpretation of Matthew 5:31-32 is incorrect:
The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw. Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither. The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly. (John 4:15-18)
It is often incorrectly deduced from Matthew 5 that if a divorced woman marries another man she becomes an adulteress and that the second man or any man thereafter who takes her for his wife becomes an adulterer. But if this were true, Yeshua would have designated only the first man as this woman’s lawful husband, and all five other men as adulterers.67
The Exception Clause
At first glance, Yeshua’s statement in Matthew 5:32, “saving for the cause of fornication,” appears to be in conflict with the previous interpretation. But it, too, fits perfectly with Yahweh’s law on divorce.
The word “fornication” is translated from the Greek word porneias, and is used in the New Testament to describe incest in 1 Corinthians 5:1, harlotry in 1 Corinthians 6:13-18 and 10:8, and forbidden lineage relationships in Hebrews 12:15-16. In Jude 1:7, homosexuality is translated from the closely related word ekporneusasai. Although not specifically mentioned in the New Testament, miscegenation, bestiality, remarriage to a twice-divorced woman, and marriage to a put-away but undivorced woman are also fornication. Porneia can be used to describe any unlawful sexual relationship.
How do these acts of fornication relate to Yeshua’s declaration in Matthew 5:31-32? It must be remembered that in Matthew 5, Yeshua was not condemning divorce, but rather the putting away of a wife without a bill of divorcement. With this in mind, Matthew 5:31-32 should be understood to say the following:
And it was said, “Whoever sends his wife away [apoluo], let him give her a certificate of divorce [apostasion];” But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away [apoluo] his wife [without a certificate of divorce], saving for the cause of fornication [incest, forbidden lineage relationships, miscegenation, etc.], causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her [any undivorced woman] that is put away [apoluo] committeth adultery. (Matthew 5:31-32)
Deuteronomy 24:1 forbids a man from putting away his lawful wife without a certificate of divorce. But, a divorce certificate is not required if the union is porneia, or fornication. Such relationships are not lawful marriages and, therefore, do not require a divorce certificate. As demonstrated in Ezra 10, termination of these types of relationships only requires repentance and the putting away of the unlawful partner:
And Shechaniah … answered and said unto Ezra, We have trespassed against our God, and have taken strange wives of the people of the land…. Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law. (Ezra 10:2-3)
Instead of being at odds with the law of Yahweh, Yeshua expounded upon and confirmed that Deuteronomy 24:1-4 was the standard for divorce and remarriage, except in cases of fornication, which only require the putting away of an unlawful partner.67 This interpretation of Matthew 5:32’s exception clause is the only interpretation that harmonizes with Deuteronomy 24:1 and does not put Yeshua in conflict with Yahweh’s morality.
Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee: But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves: For thou shalt worship no other god: for YHWH, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods … and thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods. (Exodus 34:12-16)
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. (2 Corinthians 6:14-18)
Even when both partners are racially alike, mixed-faith relationships do not constitute a lawful marriage. The one exception to this law is when one partner becomes a Christian after already having been married as a non-Christian to a non-Christian:
If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? Or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? (1 Corinthians 7:12-16)
Although not specified, a non-Christian to non-Christian marriage must be the kind of relationship described by Paul. Otherwise, this passage would provide license to mixed-faith relationships in contradiction to Exodus 34:12-16, 2 Corinthians 6:14-18, and 1 Corinthians 7:39.
The Greek word translated “unequally yoked” in 2 Corinthians 6:14 is heterozugountes, which means “to associate discordantly.” Disparate yoking is forbidden even with animals:
Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together. (Deuteronomy 22:10)
The dissimilar gaits of an ox and an ass have a tendency to chafe both animals and can contribute to the physical break down of one or both animals when yoked together. Similarly, no matter how well-intentioned their “marriage,” a Christian and a non-Christian will always be out of step with each other*:
Can two walk together, except they be agreed? (Amos 3:3)
*This principle also applies to miscegenation.
Horses are yoked together for the purpose of pulling a load in the same direction. Their combined strength is multiplied for the task at hand. For example, a 2,200-pound draft horse can, by himself, pull his own weight. Harness two draft horses together, and they can pull from 12,000 to 16,000 pounds.
This combined strength and purpose is certainly needed in the relationship of a husband and wife. Nothing can frustrate or thwart this effort like a mixed-faith relationship. Not only will the world views of a Christian and non-Christian oppose each other, but everything from child rearing to career objectives will be affected. It will, at best, be a discordant relationship.
If the Christian in an unequally yoked relationship holds firm to his morals and principles and, especially, if he requires that all be done according to Yahweh’s laws, he and his spouse will inevitably find themselves disputing with each other over nearly everything. Most marriages have enough challenges without the inherent problems caused by discordant religious beliefs.
The Christian in such a relationship will have a difficult enough task maintaining his own faith, much less influencing his mate. The deck is stacked against the Christian because “bad company corrupts good morals” (1 Corinthians 15:33, NASV). If a person consorts with an evil or negative influence long enough, his objection will become tolerance, his tolerance will become acceptance, and his acceptance will turn to participation and probably even enjoyment.
In 1 Corinthians 7, the Apostle Paul reaffirmed the mandate that Christians are to marry only Christians:
The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord. (1 Corinthians 7:39)
Common sense alone provides plenty of reasons to shun mixed-faith relationships, but the fact that the relationship would be adultery in the eyes of Yahweh should be the only reason a Christian needs.
Because marriage should be the only intent of courtship, Christians should never court non-Christians. To do otherwise is to invite trouble, distress, grief, and possibly even damnation. Once a Christian is emotionally involved with a non-Christian, emotions will almost invariably overrule convictions.
The young person who determines never to court a non-Christian will never have to concern himself with “marrying” a non-Christian. Daughters should never be faced with such a decision in the first place because the final decision regarding whom a daughter courts and marries belongs to her father:
If a woman also vow a vow unto YHWH, and bind herself by a bond, being in her father’s house in her youth; and her father hear her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father shall hold his peace at her: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand. But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth; not any of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand: and YHWH shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her. (Numbers 30:3-5*)
*It stands to reason that under a patriarchal system, if a woman’s father is no longer living, the final decision concerning her mate passes to her oldest brother or her father’s nearest male relative.
Fathers ultimately have the final choice even as it pertains to defiled virgins:
And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins. (Exodus 22:16-17)
No matter who the couple may find to perform the ceremony or what license the state may provide, elopements are not lawful marriages in Yahweh’s eyes. Any magistrate or pastor who performs such a wedding is no different from one who performs a ceremony for homosexuals. Just as man should not put asunder what Yahweh has joined together, man cannot join together what Yahweh has not united.
Fathers should also be looking for suitable wives for their sons, although that decision ultimately belongs to the prospective father-in-law. Unless he decides he wants to pass on the coverture of his daughter, it makes no difference how much you may want his daughter as a wife for your son. Neither you nor your son nor anyone else has jurisdiction over another man’s daughter.
It is a disgrace when fathers do not take seriously the responsibility of choosing their daughters’ husbands. The father’s passing of his coverture responsibilities to a worthy and competent man is the most important facet of a wedding and the marriage to follow.
A prospective son-in-law should be chosen very carefully and should, at the bare minimum, meet the following criteria:
- He must be a passionate Christian.*
- He must be of the same race.
- He must be willing and able to lead his home both physically and spiritually.
- He must be willing to lay down his life to protect a wife and children.
- He must display the fruits of the Spirit.
- He must be mature.
- He must be wise.
- He must be humble.
- He must possess a servant’s spirit.
- He must be financially responsible, out of debt, and able to adequately provide for himself, your daughter, and any future children.
*Not everyone claiming to be a Christian has been properly instructed in the Biblical plan of salvation. Mark 16:15-16, Acts 2:36-41, 22:1-16, Romans 6:3-4, Galatians 3:26-27, Colossians 2:11-12, and 1 Peter 3:21 should be studied in order to understand what is required to be covered by the blood of Yeshua and forgiven of your sins.68
This may seem a tall order to fill. But remember, we are discussing the future happiness and well-being of our daughters and potential grandchildren.69
Seduction and Rape
And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins. (Exodus 22:16-17)
This passage is addressing consensual sexual participation between a man and an unmarried woman. “Endow” is translated from the Hebrew maahor and is defined in Strong’s Concordance as “to bargain for.”70 A man who seduces a virgin is required to marry her, provided her father sanctions the marriage. The dowry is required even if the father forbids the marriage.
Yahweh’s law protects women from predatory men. If a man robs a maiden of her virginity, he is to monetarily remunerate her father and, if the father agrees, take the woman as his wife. The man can never divorce this woman:
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
A shekel was considered equal to a day’s wage. Until we return to a silver standard at an equivalent value, the dowry must be computed depending upon the man’s daily wage. For example, if his daily wage is $100 per day, the dowry would be $5,000, and if his wage is $200 per day, the dowry would be $10,000. If these statutes were still implemented today, far fewer unprincipled men would take advantage of unsuspecting women. There would also be far fewer pre-marital pregnancies, many of which end in infanticide.
The seducer who refuses to pay the dowry and marry the woman would have to be dealt with in the same manner as a rapist:
If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you. But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her. (Deuteronomy 22:23-27)
Rape is a capital crime, not only for the rapist, but also for the betrothed woman who does not cry out for help when in earshot of others. If the victim is physically capable of crying out and does not, she is indistinguishable from a willing participant in adultery and, therefore, subject to being punished as an adulteress.
It is extremely important that parents teach their daughters to scream and fight if accosted. Not only will this establish their innocence, but most rapists will desist in their attacks when confronted with such resistance. Because fathers cannot always be there to protect their daughters, they should instruct them in self-defense and the use of firearms.71
Transgression of the Heart
At the core of all Seventh Commandment violations is the sin of lust. In Matthew 5, Yeshua elaborated on the spirit of the law concerning adultery:
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. (Matthew 5:27-28)
Adultery is not only a violation of the flesh, it is also a transgression of the heart, as it is with all sin:
But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. (Matthew 15:18-19)
Willful sin is committed in the heart even when it is not actually carried out in the flesh. Many men who would never commit physical adultery are nonetheless guilty before Yahweh because they have committed adultery in their hearts. This is why it is so important that we guard not only our actions, but also our hearts:
Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life. (Proverbs 4:23)
Yahweh does not want us to simply keep His laws by rote with the attitude “I will because I have to!” In order for our obedience to be pleasing to Him, it must come from our hearts:
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love YHWH thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. (Matthew 22:37-40)
Because disobedience originates in our hearts, our obedience to Yahweh must also begin in our hearts. Otherwise, despite our outward obedience, sin is master of our hearts, not Yahweh:
…God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. (Romans 6:17-18)
Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. (Ephesians 6:6)
Under the New Covenant, obedience or disobedience to the Commandments is a matter of love or hate for Yahweh and for our fellow man. This is principally an issue of the heart. Therefore, guard your hearts, and if you cannot look upon a woman without lusting after her, make a covenant with your eyes as did Job:
I made a covenant with mine eyes; why then should I think upon a maid? (Job 31:1)
Matthew 5:28 settles any question about pornography.
Pornography comes in many forms – magazines, movies, websites, music, dial-a-porn telephone services, and talk shows. Even if they do not sell Playboy, Penthouse, or Hustler, the newsstands in nearly every grocery store in America still display pornography on dozens of magazine covers, including Cosmopolitan, Vogue, and Sports Illustrated infamous swimsuit issue. These magazines do not pose women nude – but how much skin can be bared before Yahweh considers it pornography?
American society is at a point where women and men alike cannot remove much more clothing without completely exposing themselves. Christians’ ethics have been dulled to where little difference exists between the world’s morals and the average Christian’s. Consider today’s swimwear. What most women would never consider wearing in public or in mixed company becomes perfectly acceptable when it is adorned with stripes, polka dots, or some other design, and is worn at the beach or pool. It is ludicrous to think that men do not lust after these near-naked women. Yet, under such circumstances, it has become socially acceptable for women to tempt men to lust after them and for men to look on women in ways that are lewd and immoral.
Simply put, Christian women do not parade around in their underwear, polka dotted or otherwise, and Christian men do not frequent places where they will be tempted to commit fornication with women who do not have enough sense to keep their bodies covered:
Harlotry, wine, and new wine take away the understanding. …For a spirit of harlotry has led them astray, and they have played the harlot, departing from their God. (Hosea 4:11-12, NASV)
This decadent behavior has been deliberately fostered by Christianity’s enemies:
Behold the alcoholized animals, bemused with drink, the right to an immoderate use of which comes along with freedom. It is not for us and ours to walk that road. The peoples of the goyim [non-Jews] are bemused with alcoholic liquors; their youth has grown stupid on classicism and from early immorality, into which it has been inducted by our special agents – by tutors, lackeys, governesses in the houses of the wealthy, by clerks and others, by our women in the places of dissipation frequented by the goyim.72
In countries known as progressive and enlightened we have created a senseless, filthy, abominable literature. For some time after our entrance to power we shall continue to encourage its existence … which will be distributed from exalted quarters of ours.73
Pornography is almost always addictive and progressive in nature. It is spiritual slavery. It can get hold of you, never let go, and eventually destroy your marriage and your life. Ted Bundy, America’s number one serial sexual murderer, testified that pornography was at the root of his raping and murdering of twenty-three women.
In 1 Corinthians 6:18, Paul instructs us to flee fornication. The Greek word translated “fornication” is, once again, porneia, from which our English word “pornography” is derived. The man, or woman, who would flee fornication must flee pornography.
Seventh Commandment Judgment
Leviticus 20 addresses the judgment for transgressions of some of the Seventh Commandment statutes listed in chapter 18:
And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. And the man that lieth with his father’s wife hath uncovered his father’s nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them. 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. And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you. And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:10-16*)
*The phrase “burnt with fire” in verse 14 is probably referring to what is to be done with the corpse following the stoning, as was done with Achan’s body in Joshua 7:15-25.
This and other Old Testament passages reveal that Yahweh’s view of adultery is so loathsome that it requires the death penalty.74 The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia sheds light on a possible reason why adultery is seldom punished at all any longer:
Actual capital punishment for adultery ceased when the Second Temple was destroyed (70 C.E.)…. During the Gaonic period the culprit was flogged, his head and beard were shaven, and he was excommunicated for a period…. Where Jews had a measure of autonomy in the Middle Ages the adulterer was punished by flagellation, imprisonment or exile. …The rabbis … received many requests from confessed adulterers for a suitable program of penance. The earliest and most famous of these programs are those of Eliezer of Worms and Judah of Regensburg (Sefer Hasidim, edit. Margulies, No. 167) of the 12th cent., who advised bathing in icy waters in winter time, exposure to the bites of insects, and frequent fasting. Maharam of Lublin (Responsum no. 45) went to the length of advising fasting for an entire year (eating only at night), refraining from meat and wine, sleeping on hard surfaces, and letting oneself be flogged daily. Ezekiel Landau (18th cent.) and others placed more stress on self-abasement, the study of Torah and the performance of charitable deeds (Responsa, vol. I; Orah Hayim, no. 35).75
As time has marched on, the rejection of Yahweh’s judgment has only become more entrenched. Modern society has become so tolerant of adultery that even a misdemeanor judgment against this sin is protested:
The Charlotte (N.C.) Observer: Taylorsville, N.C. – A judge’s decision to charge an Alexander County couple with adultery under a seldom-used 1805 law could cause havoc in the courts, some lawyers say. District Court Judge Jimmy Myers of Davie County issued the charges … shocking lawyers and others in the Alexander County courtroom…. “This statute is rarely ever prosecuted by private citizens or by judges, mainly because a substantial part of our population violate it,” said Chas Coltrane, chairman of the Family Law Section of the North Carolina Bar Association….
The adultery law – which prohibits a man and woman who aren’t married to each other to “lewdly and lasciviously associate, bed and cohabit together” – is prosecuted a few times each year in North Carolina…. Violating it is a misdemeanor; prison time is only possible if the defendant has prior criminal convictions….
“The way people are living, it is (outdated) …,” said Sen. John Garwood, R-Wilkes….76
According to Chairman Coltrane and Senator Garwood, sin should be overlooked entirely provided it is trendy. Yahweh, His morality, and therefore His judgment for adultery does not change with the trends. Despite Talmudic or American law to the contrary, adultery is still a capital crime!
The Woman Taken in Adultery
Some Christians cite John 8:1-11, in which Yeshua pardoned the woman taken in adultery, as evidence that this sin should no longer be considered a capital crime:
…the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery…. They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? …Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground…. So when they continued asking him, he … said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. …And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one…. When Jesus … saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. (John 8:3-11)
This incident is often used by opponents of the death penalty in an attempt to do away with capital punishment altogether under the New Covenant.
If Yeshua’s statement abolished capital punishment in contradistinction to Yahweh’s law, He would have sinned in doing so and could not be our Savior. In order to be our Savior, He had to perfectly teach and observe all the laws of Yahweh, which is precisely what He did in this and all other instances recorded in the New Testament (Matthew 5:17-19).
By pardoning this woman instead of requiring her to be stoned, Yeshua did not repeal capital punishment. Instead, He upheld it, as demonstrated in His initial ruling that this woman was to be stoned by her witnesses in compliance with Yahweh’s judgment for adultery in Leviticus 20.
Some scholars suggest that when Yeshua bent down and wrote something in the dirt, He wrote the names of those standing before Him, accusing them of being the woman’s fellow adulterers. Whatever it was that He wrote, it caused the accusers to exit the scene, in effect leaving no witnesses against the woman. Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15 (a statute that Yeshua referred to in John 8:17) require that capital punishment cannot be administered without the testimony of two or three witnesses – who are required to throw the first stones at the execution:
At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you. (Deuteronomy 17:6-7)
Yeshua required this prerequisite when he told the woman’s accusers, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” Apparently these men were guilty of the same sin and therefore they could not witness against the woman without subjecting themselves to the same judgment.
Yeshua did not change the judgment for adulterers. He upheld Yahweh’s law perfectly, as required in order for Him to be our sinless sacrifice and Savior.
The Incestuous Man
Some people also cite 1 Corinthians 5 in an attempt to abrogate the death penalty under the New Covenant:
It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you … that one should have his father’s wife…. For I verily … have judged … concerning him that hath so done this deed, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. (1 Corinthians 5:1-5)
Because it appears the Apostle Paul recommended excommunication instead of the death penalty for this adulterer,* it is sometimes assumed that capital punishment is not an option under the New Covenant. But, this interpretation pits 1 Corinthians 5:1-5 against John 8:1-11, Romans 1:28-32 and 13:1-4, and 1 Timothy 1:8-10, all of which advocate capital punishment. Another interpretation for 1 Corinthians 5 must exist, one that harmonizes these passages and explains why Paul appears to have recommended a different punishment.
*The woman’s punishment for this sin was not addressed, therefore she must not have been a part of the Christian community in Corinth.
The answer is found in part in 2 Corinthians 10:
For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; and having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled. (2 Corinthians 10:3-6)
In the New American Standard, this last phrase is translated “…we are ready to punish all disobedience, whenever your obedience is complete.” Why would Paul wait to punish sin until the Christians’ obedience was complete? This verse does not make sense unless it refers to a future point in time when the church was large and powerful enough to influence and even control government polity, including the punishment of the wicked.
This is substantiated by the fact that Paul expected the Christian community to set up their own judicial system:
Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? And if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? How much more things that pertain to this life? If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? No, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. (1 Corinthians 6:1-6)
Because the church in its infancy did not have the civil force to carry out capital punishment, and because capital punishment may only be executed by vigilantes in rare and specific cases, capital punishment was not an option for the church at that time.77
Not until the Christian community had grown in size and political clout – when their obedience had become complete – would they be able to punish all disobedience as described in Romans 13:
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” (Romans 13:3-4*)
*Many ministers have turned this passage into “a sword of oppression rather than a shield from tyranny.” The Apostle Paul is explicit regarding the type of rulers he was referring to. Three times in five verses he identified them as ministers of God who do good to the righteous and strike fear in the hearts of the wicked.78
Paul’s intent in 2 Corinthians 10:6 is evident in his use of the Greek word ekdikeesai, translated “revenge” in the phrase “in readiness to revenge all disobedience.” Ekdikeesai is derived from the word ekdikos, translated “revenger” in the phrase “the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil” in Romans 13:4.
If satana had been properly translated “adversary” instead of transliterated** “Satan,” 1 Corinthians 5:5 could be understood to say that Paul was turning this man over to the Corinthian government – which was an adversary to the Christians – to be put to death (the destruction of his flesh). The phrase “put away from among yourselves that wicked person” in 1 Corinthians 5:13 appears to be a paraphrase of “so thou shalt put the evil away from among you” – a judgment of death – in Deuteronomy 17:7. This evidence seems to indicate that this man was to be turned over to the Corinthian government for execution.
**Translation commutes the meaning of a word from one language to another and should be used for words other than the names of people, places, etc. Transliteration commutes the letters of a word from one language to another and should be used exclusively for the names of people, places, etc..
Death Penalty Exceptions
Yahweh’s law regarding adultery provides two exceptions to the death penalty. The first concerns sexual relations with a slave:
Now if a man lies carnally with a woman who is a slave acquired [betrothed, KJV] for another man, but who has in no way been redeemed, nor given her freedom, there shall be punishment; they shall not, however, be put to death, because she was not free. And he shall bring his guilt offering to YHWH to the doorway of the tent of meeting, a ram for a guilt offering. The priest shall also make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering before YHWH for his sin which he has committed, and the sin which he has committed shall be forgiven him. (Leviticus 19:20-22, NASV*)
*This statute does not apply to slaves from Canaanite, Moabite, or Ammonite lineages or from different races because such betrothing would be a transgression of Leviticus 18:21 to begin with.
This judgment does not set well with some people, but Yahweh always knows best, whether or not we like it or understand His reasoning. We must be careful to conform our morality to the Bible, not the Bible to our opinions.
Because female slaves were women who had been forced into bondage, neither they nor their male companions were held to as severe a judgment as were free women and their companions. Rousas John Rushdoony provides a possible explanation for this exception to capital punishment:
…A “bondmaid betrothed to a husband” (Lev. 19:20), i.e., a girl who has been secured as a concubine, could not be put to death for adultery; both she and the guilty man could only be punished by scourging.* The reason is given: “they shall not be put to death, because she was not free” (Lev. 19:20). A principle is clearly in evidence here: to whom much is given, from him much can be expected. But, since a concubine receives a limited status and receives less dignity in the marriage, only a limited loyalty can be expected. She was expected to be faithful, but in case of adultery her punishment was less, because her status was lower than that of the endowered wife. The wife had the security of her dowry and a status of authority; her punishment for adultery, as was the punishment for her husband for adultery, was death.79
*Although the King James Version uses the word “scourged” in Leviticus 19:20, scourging is not necessarily indicated in the Hebrew.
The second exception to the death penalty for adultery is when a man seduces an unbetrothed virgin as per Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29, cited earlier on pages 62-63.
Except in these two instances and possibly in the case of deliberate menstrual contamination, the Bible requires the death penalty for all unrepentant adulterers.* Adultery is a sin that destroys not only marriages but also the family unit and, ultimately, society in general. History has demonstrated that the more adulterous and immoral a society becomes, the closer it is to self-destructing. No wonder Yahweh deems this sin a capital crime.
*Rushdoony believes that Leviticus 20:19-21 provides a third exception for those who would “marry” the wife of an uncle, a blood aunt, or a brother’s wife. He interprets “die childless” to mean that they would have “no legal heir in their progeny” (Rushdoony, pp. 368-369). However, a more consistent interpretation is that they are to be put to death before they bear any children.
Incest, conjugal relations during a wife’s menstrual cycle, infidelity, forbidden lineage and interracial relationships, homosexuality, bestiality, prostitution, remarriage to a twice-divorced woman, marriage to a put-away woman, and mixed-faith relationships all adulterate Yahweh’s plan for marriage and pervert the holy and normal sexual relations intended for a man and his wife. What, then, constitutes Biblical marriage?
Sexual Relations Alone
Do sexual relations alone constitute a lawful marriage? Those who believe that it does cite Genesis 24:67, when Isaac “brought her [Rebekah] into his mother Sarah’s tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife.” Because nothing is said in this incident about vows or a public ceremony, some people maintain that such are not necessary for a couple to be lawfully married. However, just because this passage does not mention vows or a public ceremony does not mean that they did not occur. Doctrine cannot be established by silence.
The following passage disproves that physical relations alone constitute marriage:
What? Know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? For two, saith he, shall be one flesh…. Flee fornication…. (1 Corinthians 6:16-18)
If the “one flesh” experience alone constitutes a lawful marriage, then the Apostle Paul would have identified the relationship with such women as marriage, not fornication, and the women as wives, not harlots.
In His encounter with the Samaritan woman, Yeshua made a distinction between her husbands and the man she simply cohabited with:
Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither. The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly. (John 4:16-18)
This woman had been married to five different men whom Yeshua recognized as husbands. But the man with whom she was living at the time was not her husband. Something set the former five husbands apart from the man she was cohabiting with at the time. Merely living with a man or a women does not constitute a lawful marriage.
Public Marriage Vows
Because we are not told what it was that caused Yeshua to identify the five men as husbands, we must look elsewhere for the answer.
…At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. (Deuteronomy 19:15)
Bible law requires two or three witnesses to a covenant of any sort, including marriage. One of those witnesses would most likely be the bride’s father because a daughter must have her father’s permission for the marriage to be lawful.
Written Marriage Covenants
What father, in his right mind, would not require an oral marriage vow and perhaps a written contract from his son-in-law?
The ancient Code of Hammurabi, which some scholars believe may have been derived from the laws of Yahweh, requires a written agreement for a marriage to be valid:
If a man take a wife and does not draw up a contract with her, that woman is not a wife. (Hammurabi 128)
That this might have been a custom with the Israelites is perhaps manifest in that a writ of divorce is one of the three elements that constitute a lawful divorce in Deuteronomy 24:1-2.
A written agreement between a husband and his wife may have been a custom of the Israelites, but that does not make it a precedent for government licenses. The State has no jurisdiction licensing anything that Yahweh has already instituted and sanctioned.* State marriage licenses are just a cunning means of collecting revenue, and, more disconcerting, they make the State the controlling power in the marriage, ultimately placing any children thereof under the authority and control of the State.
*A government license often legalizes what is otherwise unlawful. The first marriage license was issued circa 1870 to legalize miscegenation. The State has no jurisdiction to license what Yahweh has declared unlawful.
The fact that Yeshua’s first miracle was performed at a public wedding ceremony in John 2:1-11, and the fact that He compared the kingdom to a wedding in Matthew 22:2-13 is indicative of His tacit sanction of public ceremonies.
Sexual intimacy does not constitute a marriage – it consummates the vows.
Any study on the Seventh Commandment would be incomplete without devoting some time to the positive side of this commandment – fidelity within the covenant of matrimony.
Too many people view marriage as an event in their life. The wedding is the event; marriage is a lifetime accomplishment. Simply put, marriage is work. But, as with any good work, the returns from this labor of love far outweigh the effort expended. Dividends are paid not only to the couple, but also to their children and all generations to follow.
Yahweh designed the family unit, beginning with the relationship between husbands and wives, as the very fabric of a healthy society:
Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge. (Hebrews 13:4, NASV)
Any society that fails to safeguard the sanctity of marriage is its own worst enemy. A strong society is impossible to maintain without healthy families resting upon the bedrock of faithful marriages.
Anyone who would dishonor the sanctity of his wedding vows can hardly be trusted with any other vows, agreements, contracts, business deals, or partnerships. If a man’s wife cannot trust him, why should anyone else? In 1 Timothy 3:1-12 and Titus 1:5-9, Yahweh made a man’s personal life – including his relationship with his wife – essential to being a leader in Christian society.
Because the destruction of the marriage covenant is ultimately the ruin of society, it is important that we rebuild the foundation of matrimony as Yahweh intends it and that we pass this vision on to our children and grandchildren.
Fully Committed to Yahweh
A Biblical relationship must begin with both the husband and wife being fully committed to Yahweh. Neither spouse will ever be what the other needs without first endeavoring to be everything that Yahweh intends them to be. Yahweh must come first, even before a spouse:
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. (Matthew 10:37-38)
Next to Yahweh, spouses should love each other above all others:
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. (Genesis 2:24)
This love for your spouse must exceed even that for your children. To love your children more than you do your mate is not only destructive to the relationship, it passes a poor legacy on to your children and their future mates.
As much as your children need to know that you love them, they have an even greater need to know that next to Yahweh, your spouse comes first in your life.
The world’s idea of a marital relationship is the antithesis of Yahweh’s idea. Yahweh calls for oneness or singularity and, therefore, self-sacrifice. The world touts individuality and self-fulfillment. Yahweh’s design reaps the deepest of relationships, whereas the world’s idea provides, at the best, shallow and superficial relationships.
Our goal should be to become completely one with our spouses – physically, mentally, emotionally, and socially. Although, the physical relationship between a husband and wife alone will not make for a healthy relationship, this is not to say that it certainly isn’t unimportant. Women, generally speaking, are unable to find physical oneness and fulfillment without experiencing oneness in the other areas as well, whereas men, generally speaking, are unable to find oneness in other areas without experiencing oneness physically. Yahweh designed men and women so that we cannot experience oneness and fulfillment ourselves without seeking to please and satisfy our spouses:
My beloved is mine, and I am his…. (Song of Solomon 2:16)
The Right Person
Let the husband fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again lest Satan tempt you because of your lack of self-control. (1 Corinthians 7:3-5)
Benjamin Franklin once said, “Keep your eyes wide open before marriage and half shut afterward.” Good advice! But success in marriage depends more upon being the right person than it does upon finding the right person. Most marital problems are the consequence of a union between two people who are more in love with themselves than they are with each other. Couples would do well to remember that in the word “wedding,” we comes before I.
Taken by itself, Franklin’s advice about keeping our eyes half shut after the wedding is not enough to maintain a happy and lasting relationship. Even with eyes half closed, plenty of faults will still need to be overlooked or forgiven. Love, as described in 1 Corinthians 13, takes no account of a wrong suffered, thereby blinding us to our partner’s faults:
Above all, keep fervent in your love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins. (1 Peter 4:8, NASV)
Happy is the marriage of two forgivers.80 Amen.
1. For a more thorough explanation concerning the use of the names of God, “The Third Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not take the name of Yahweh thy God in vain may be ordered from Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska, 69363 for a suggested $4 donation.*
2. Noah Webster, “adultery,” American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828 edition reprinted (San Francisco, CA: The Foundation for American Christian Education, 1967).
3. Adulterate,” Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (Springfield MS: G. & C. Merriam Company, 1975) p. 17.
4. For a more thorough explanation concerning baptism and its relationship to salvation, “Baptism by the Scriptures” and “Fifty Objections to Baptism Answered” may be read online, or the book Baptism: All You Wanted to Know and More may be ordered from Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for free.
5. For a more thorough explanation concerning the use of the names of God, “The Third Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not take the name of Yahweh thy God in vain may be ordered from Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska, 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.*
6. Arthur C. Custance, “Doorway Papers, No. 51, Cain’s Wife.”
7. For a more thorough explanation concerning the use of the sacred names of God, “The Third Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not take the name of Yahweh thy God in vain may be ordered from Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.*
8. James Strong, “Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary,” The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1990) p. 85.
9. Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, Charles A. Briggs, William Gesenius, The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1979) p. 718.
10. Matthew Black, General Editor, Peake’s Commentary on the Bible (Nairobi, Kenya: Thomas Nelson and Sons, LTD, 1962) p. 249.
11. George M. Lamsa, Old Testament Light: The Indispensable Guide to the Customs, Manners, & Idioms of Biblical Times (New York, NY: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., 1964) p. 177.
12. Lamsa, p. 182.
13. “Moloch, Cult of,” Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem, Israel: Encyclopaedia Judaica Company, 1971) Volume 12, p. 232.
14. “Intermarriage,” The Jewish Encyclopedia (New York & London: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1904) Volume VI, p. 611.
15. God’s Covenant People: Yesterday, Today and Forever provides a documented dissertation identifying Israel with today’s Celtic, Scandinavian, Germanic, Anglo-Saxon, and kindred peoples. God’s Covenant People may be read online, or it may be ordered from Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $14 donation.*
16. For more concerning Yahweh’s New Covenant marital relationship with Christian Israelites, The Mystery of the Gentiles: Who Are They and Where Are They Now? may be read online or ordered from Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $10 donation.*
17. Strong, “Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary,” p. 67.
18. Strong, “Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary,” p. 91.
19. Strong, “Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary,” p. 55.
20. “Ask Mike and Mary,” Home Life (Nashville, TN: Life Way Press, December 1995) p. 10.
21. God’s Covenant People: Yesterday, Today and Forever provides a documented dissertation identifying Israel with today’s Celtic, Scandinavian, Germanic, Anglo-Saxon, and kindred peoples. God’s Covenant People may be read online, or it may be ordered from Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $14 donation.*
22. Cheryl Russell, “Most Americans Claim Religious Affiliation,” The Official Guide to the American Marketplace (Ithaca, NY: New Strategist Publications, Inc., 1995) p. 252.
23. Martin E. Marty, quoted by Tom Heinen, “Scholar sees strength in abundance of faiths,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Monday, April 26, 1999.
24. “Genocide,” Random House Webster’s College Dictionary (New York, NY: Random House, 2000) p. 547.
25. Gwynne Dyer, “Tiger Woods’ description of himself says it all. The future is light brown,” Winnipeg Free Press, Tuesday, May 6, 1997, p. A1.
26. Dyer, p. A1.
27. “Miscegenation,” The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia (New York, NY: The Century Co., 1900) Volume V, p. 3786.
28. Stephen Magagnini, “Working toward one race,” San Ramon Valley Times, November 2, 1997, p. A1.
30. Strong, “Dictionary of the Greek Testament,” p. 27.
31. Joseph Henry Thayer, The New Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1981) p. 199.
32. Ann Landers, Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, Monday, September 1, 1969, p. A-14.
33. NFD Journal, July/August 1984, quoted by Curtis Dickinson, The Witness.
34. Colorado for Family Values, “Equal Rights – Not Special Rights!,” 1992, p. 2, quoted by Gary Gibbs, Homosexuality: Return to Sodom (Roseville CA: Amazing Facts, Inc., 1996) p. 25.
35. National & International Religion Report, Volume 5, No. 26, December 16, 1991, quoted by Gary Gibbs, Homosexuality: Return to Sodom (Roseville, CA: Amazing Facts, Inc., 1996) pp. 7-8.
36. David Briggs, “Lutheran Sex Study Finished,” Associated Press, October 20, 1993.
37. American Family Association Journal, April 1995, quoted by Gary Gibbs, Homosexuality: Return to Sodom (Roseville, CA: Amazing Facts, Inc., 1996) p. 8.
38. National & International Religion Report, Vol. 5, No. 26, December 16, 1991, quoted by Gary Gibbs, Homosexuality: Return to Sodom (Roseville, CA: Amazing Facts, Inc., 1996) p. 9.
39. Chuck Colson, “It’s Policy, Stupid: How Not to Oppose Gay Rights,” BreakPoint Commentaries, May 26, 1993, www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=4157.
40. Gary Bauer, “Weirdness on Parade,” Focus on the Family Citizen (Colorado Springs, CO: Focus on the Family Citizen) June 21, 1993, Volume 7, No. 6.
41. James Dobson, “Dr. Dobson Answers Your Questions,” (Colorado Springs, CO: Focus on the Family, July 1993) pp. 6-7.
42. James Dobson, “Family News from Dr. James Dobson,” (Colorado Springs, CO: Focus on the Family, June 1998) p. 1.
43. Dobson, p. 7.
44. North Carolina’s General Statutes, Section 14-177, www.sodomylaws.org/usa/north_carolina/north_carolina.htm, The Revised Statutes, supra, at 192, §6, enacted Dec. 1836, www.sodomylaws.org/sensibilities/north_carolina.htm#fn15.
45. William Barclay, The Ten Commandments for Today (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1973) p. 173.
46. Barclay, p. 174.
47. Barclay, p. 175.
48. “Reverend says church, not gays, has sinned,” Casper Star-Tribune, p. A11, October 17, 1998.
49. A more thorough study of capital punishment may be read online, or the booklet Capital Punishment: Deterrent or Catalyst? may be ordered for a suggested $3 donation. The book The Phinehas Hoods: A Biblical Examination of Unscriptural Vigilantism, a more thorough study on unscriptural vigilantism, may be may be ordered from Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska, for a suggested $3 donation.*
50. “Medical Consequences of What Homosexuals Do,” Family Values, January/February 1993.
51. William J. Clinton, “Proclamation: Gay and Lesbian Pride Month, 2000,” U.S. Newswire, 2 June, 2000.
52. Daniel J. Sparks, “Bush cheers ‘gay’ church after ‘Marriage Week’… 2003,” WorldNetDaily. com, posted November 12, 2003.
53. Steve Warren, “Warning to the Homophobes,” The Advocate, September 1, 1987, p. 29, quoted by Gary Gibbs, Homosexuality: Return to Sodom (Roseville, CA: Amazing Facts, Inc., 1996) pp. 21-22.
54. Guide, quoted in Gospel Truth, March 1993, p. 2.
55. Michael Swift, “For the Homoerotic Order,” Gay Community News, February 15-21, 1981, p. 5.
56. Ken Walker, “Homosexuals more likely to molest kids, study reports,” May 30, 2001, BP News, http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=11002.
57. Vernon Geberth, “Homosexual Serial Murder Investigation,” Law and Order, June 1995, p. 83.
58. For a more thorough explanation concerning baptism and its relationship to salvation, “Baptism by the Scriptures” and “Fifty Objections to Baptism Answered” may be read online, or the book Baptism: All You Wanted to Know and More may be ordered from Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for free.
59. Strong, “Dictionary of the Hebrew Bible,” p. 110.
60. Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1973) p. 439.
61. Hilary White, “First Comes Gay Marriage then Comes Bestiality in Massachusetts,” November 17, 2005, LifeSiteNews.com, <http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/nov/05111703.html>.
62. Rushdoony, p. 256.
63. For a more thorough explanation concerning baptism and its relationship to salvation, “Baptism by the Scriptures” and “Fifty Objections to Baptism Answered” may be read online, or the book Baptism: All You Wanted to Know and More may be ordered from Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for free.
64. Nathan M. Adams, “Why the Shocking Rise in Prostitution?,” Reader’s Digest (Pleasantville, NY: The Reader’s Digest Association, Inc., 1978) Volume 112, No. 673, May 1978, pp. 203-204.
65. Amanda Smith, “The Truth on Prostitution,” The Rocky Mountain News, Friday, October 30, 1992.
66. Stoning is Yahweh’s means for capital punishment. Reasons for stoning can be read at at www.missiontoisrael.org/capital-punishment.php, or the book Capital Punishment: Deterrent or Catalyst may be ordered from Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $3 donation.*
67. A more thorough explanation concerning divorce and remarriage can be read online, or the booklet Marriage, Divorce & Remarriage may be ordered from Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $3 donation.*
68. For a more thorough explanation concerning baptism and its relationship to salvation, “Baptism by the Scriptures” and “Fifty Objections to Baptism Answered” may be read online, or the book Baptism: All You Wanted to Know and More may be ordered from Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for free.
69. A pre-marriage counseling questionnaire can be found online.
70. Strong, “Dictionary of the Hebrew Bible,” p. 62.
71. For a more thorough explanation concerning what the Bible has to say about firearms and self-protection, “Firearms: Scripturally Defended” may be read online.
72. Protocol 1, Article 22, Sentences 1-3, Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, translated from Russian by Victor Emile Marsden, 1905 (Boring, OR: CPA Books) p. 50. According to Marsden, the Protocols give the substance of the addresses delivered at the First Zionist Congress, held in Basel, Switzerland in 1897, under its president and the father of modern Jewish Zionism, the late Theodor Herzl (Binyamin Ye’ev).
73. Protocol 14, Article 5, Sentences 1-2.
74. The booklet Capital Punishment: Deterrent or Catalyst can be read online, or it may be ordered from Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $3 donation.*
75. “Adultery,” The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia (New York, NY: The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, Inc., 1939) Volume 1, p. 103.
76. Hannah Mitchell, “N.C. Judge charges couple with adultery under 1805 law,” The Charlotte (N.C.) Observer, August 19, 2001.
77. For a more thorough explanation concerning unlawful vigilantism the book The Phinehas Hoods: A Biblical Examination of Unscriptural Vigilantism may be ordered as a booklet from Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a $3 suggested donation.*
78. Christian Duty Under Corrupt Government: A Revolutionary Commentary on Romans 13:1-7 may be ordered from Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $7 donation.*
79. Rushdoony, pp. 363-364.
80. For more scriptural instruction on Biblical marriage, a marriage counseling questionnaire can be found online.
*Although we have provided a suggested price for our books, we do not sell them. In keeping with 2 Corinthians 9:7, this ministry is supported by freewill offerings. If you cannot afford the suggested price, inform us of your situation, and we will be pleased to provide you with whatever you need for whatever offering you can send.