What does the Bible say about sex?

[Patriot]

Masturbation—is it a sin according to the Bible?​

ANSWER

The Bible does not mention masturbation or self-gratification or “solo sex,” as it’s sometimes called. In its silence on the subject, the Bible does not state whether or not masturbation is a sin. Some people take the view that masturbation is a lustful act and is always wrong; others believe it involves a normal bodily function and has nothing to do with sin.

A passage frequently associated with masturbation is the story of Onan in Genesis 38:9–10. Some interpret this passage to say that “spilling seed”—the squandering of semen—is a sin. However, that is not what the passage is saying. God condemned Onan not for “spilling his seed” but because Onan was rebellious. Onan refused to fulfill his duty to provide an heir for his deceased brother. The passage is not about masturbation but about fulfilling a family obligation.

A second passage sometimes used as evidence that masturbation is a sin is Matthew 5:27–30. Jesus speaks against having lustful thoughts and then says, “If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away.” While there is often a connection between lustful thoughts and masturbation, it is unlikely that Jesus was alluding to the specific sin of masturbation in this passage.

Though the Bible nowhere explicitly addresses masturbation, it does outline the purpose of sex. According to 1 Corinthians 7:2–5, “Each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.” Implicit in this passage are these truths:
- God’s plan for sex requires relationship, namely, that of a husband and wife (verse 2). Masturbation is sex disconnected from relationship.
- Foundational to God’s plan for sex is giving one’s body to another (verse 4). Masturbation is the keeping of one’s body to oneself.
- The solution to a time of deprivation is to “come together” (verse 5). Masturbation is done alone, not together.

First Corinthians 7:9 identifies the proper outlet for single people who struggle with sexual desire: “If they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” Paul suggests that self-control is the best avenue. To singles who lack self-control, Paul does not say, “Let them masturbate”; he says, “Let them marry.” Again, marriage is the God-given outlet for sexual yearnings.

Those who believe that masturbation has no moral or ethical import argue that masturbation is a “need” akin to the need to eat or the need to scratch an itch. However, the Bible never presents sexual fulfillment as a need. On the contrary, Paul says to the unmarried, “It’s better to stay unmarried” (1 Corinthians 7:8, NLT).

Certain actions often associated with masturbation are sinful and should be dealt with: lustful thoughts, inappropriate sexual stimulation, and pornography use, for example. If these problems are tackled, masturbation becomes less of a temptation. Many people struggle with guilt concerning masturbation, when, in reality, they would be better off repenting of the sins that lead them to masturbate.

So, is masturbation a sin? The Bible does not directly answer this question, but there definitely are some biblical principles to apply:

(1) “So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31). If we cannot give God glory for something, we should not do it.

(2) “Everything that does not come from faith is sin” (Romans 14:23). If we are not fully convinced that an activity is honoring to God, it is a sin.

(3) “I will not be mastered by anything” (1 Corinthians 6:12). Christians have a responsibility to avoid anything that might enslave them.

(4) “I discipline my body and keep it under control” (1 Corinthians 9:27). Self-denial is difficult, but self-discipline is worth it.

(5) “The fruit of the Spirit is . . . self-control” (Galatians 5:22–23). Masturbation is almost always a sign of a lack of self-control.

(6) Do “not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want” (Galatians 5:16–17). We are called to self-denial, not to self-gratification.

These truths should have an impact on what we do with our bodies. In light of the above principles, it is doubtful that masturbation can be a God-honoring activity. If masturbation could be done with
• no lust in the heart
• no immoral thoughts
• no pornography
• no self-gratification of the flesh
• full assurance that it is good and right
• thanks given to God
then perhaps it would be allowable. But those qualifiers seem to negate the very meaning and purpose of masturbation.

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

Every Young Man’s Battle : Strategies for Victory in the Real World of Sexual Temptation by Stephen Arterburn

Every Young Woman’s Battle: Guarding Your Mind, Heart, and Body in a Sex-Saturated World by Shannon Ethridge

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[Patriot]

​

Is Masturbation a Sin According to the Bible? | Is it wrong to Masturbate?​

Got Questions Ministries

Is masturbation a sin according to the Bible? Is it wrong to masturbate? What does the Bible say about masturbation? These are questions many people would like to ask, but don’t out of embarrassment, or fear. In this video, Pastor Nelson with Bible Munch, answers these questions about both, male and female masturbation from a biblical perspective.

*** Curious about Bible Munch? Go check them out! https://www.youtube.com/BibleMunch

 

[Patriot]

What is a biblical view of sexuality?​

ANSWER

Human sexuality, including all its physical, emotional, and spiritual intricacies, was God’s invention. He gave sexuality to His human creations as a gift with two functions: to perpetuate the human race and to create an intimate bond between husband and wife. The right use of sexuality leads us to understand intimacy with God in greater ways; the wrong use of it destroys intimacy with God and substitutes sexuality in His place. In order to understand the biblical view of sexuality, we will examine its multi-faceted nature one aspect at a time.

The first mention of sexuality in the Bible is in the Garden of Eden. God told Adam and Eve to “be fruitful and multiply, filling the earth” (Genesis 1:27–28), a command that necessitates sex. Shortly after that, we read that Adam “knew his wife Eve and she conceived” (Genesis 4:1). That use of the word knew is a more complete translation of the concept than more modern phrases such as “had sexual relations with.” It suggests much more than a physical act. When Adam “knew” his wife, the first couple was experiencing sexuality the way God had gifted it to them. Sex was to be a unifying action they entered into together that was to be unlike any other connection. It was specially designed by their Creator to be the single most intimate action two humans could experience. Within covenant marriage, sexual union is a binding force that draws the couple together as “one flesh” (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:6). They discover and share with each other in ways that are exclusive to the couple and creates a sacred unity.

Whatever God creates, Satan perverts. It did not take long for fallen humanity to distort and destroy God’s sacred gift of sexuality. By the time God gave the Law to the Israelites, He had to forbid all sorts of sexual perversions that were accepted by the cultures at the time. God had already designated one man for one woman since creation but now had to clarify and forbid all manner of perversions people had invented. And as the population of the earth increased, God tightened the ethical boundaries about marrying close relatives. Leviticus 18 and 19 detail many of those forbidden practices, such as sex with a close family member, adultery, and homosexuality.

Although polygamy was tolerated during Old Testament times, partially due to the lack of options for single women and the need for men to have many sons for survival of the family line, the practice was fairly non-existent by New Testament times. In fact, Jesus reiterated God’s initial purpose for marriage when asked about divorce. In Matthew 19:3–6 Jesus said, “At the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” Being the husband of only one wife was a requirement for church leadership (1 Timothy 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6).

A significant percentage of the world’s problems stems directly or indirectly from our abuse of God’s gift of sexuality. Imagine the world we would have if every human being followed God’s standards for sexuality. Abortions, divorce, STD’s, AIDS, pornography, sex trafficking, fatherless children, single mothers, rape, abandoned babies, and pedophilia would all cease or be greatly reduced. The ripple effects of those changes alone would completely transform every continent, every nation, and every culture. Economies would rebound, disease would plummet, and mental hospitals would have empty beds.

God knows what He is talking about when He includes boundaries with His gifts. Electricity is an incredible discovery and if used correctly benefits all mankind. Used wrongly, however, electricity can maim or kill. So it is with the power of human sexuality. When we seek to live within the healthy boundaries God instituted for our well-being, sexuality is once again a good gift.

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

Teaching Your Children Healthy Sexuality: A Biblical Approach to Prepare Them for Life by Jim Burns

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[Patriot]

Side A, Side B, Side X, and Side Y—what are the different Christian viewpoints on LGBTQ+ issues?​

ANSWER

There are many competing perspectives on human sexuality and LGBTQ+ issues. Helping delineate those perspectives is the “Side” approach. This divides the spectrum of beliefs on sexuality into four categories: Side A, Side B, Side X, and Side Y. These labels are used to describe what a person generally believes concerning LGBTQ+ matters. Each of the four Sides has advocates within the realm of Christianity.

Side A. Side A Christians believe that God intentionally created queer people with same-sex attractions; therefore, same-sex relationships are blessed by God. Side A is commonly called the affirming view. The number of believers who take this stance has grown over the last several decades, and there are now several affirming denominations led by Side A preachers. Advocates of this Side claim that the various Bible passages that prohibit homosexuality (e.g., Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:27; 1 Corinthians 6:9–11) do not apply to modern gay relationships. They argue that the biblical authors were referring to ancient sexual practices—or nonconsensual encounters—and not the loving, monogamous, homosexual relationships of today. Thus, Side A Christians affirm that believers can be part of same-sex relationships if they choose because that desire is made by God and is honoring to Him.

Side B. Side B believers hold that homosexual orientation is not a sin, but acting on homosexual inclinations is. Side B takes the position that sexual relationships between people of the same sex are morally wrong, but romantic relationships are different, so celibate same-sex partnerships are not necessarily wrong. Queer individuals can maintain their sexual identity and even celebrate it while remaining celibate. Proponents of this view say that homosexuality is no different from any other sin since it is listed among many sins and not singled out (see 1 Timothy 1:8–11). Also, every human on earth has sexual attractions that fall outside God’s design. The key is to not act on those ungodly attractions. So, Side B Christians encourage all believers either to marry a member of the opposite sex or, if they are same-sex attracted, to live celibately and get involved in an understanding church community.

Side X. Side X Christians believe that homosexual attraction itself is a sin. Those with same-sex inclinations must repent, for heterosexuality is God’s purpose for all people. God can and does change sinful attractions, and homosexuals can be cured; Side X uses terms such as ex-gay and former LGBTQ+. According to Side X teachers, the phrasing in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13—specifically the word detestable—categorizes homosexuality as a terrible offense. Indeed, Side X’ers assert that homosexuality was the primary reason Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed in Genesis 19 (cf. Jude 1:7 and 2 Peter 2:6–7,10). Therefore, Christians must leave behind all same-sex attractions to truly follow and honor God. Josh Proctor, producer of the Life on Side B podcast, summarizes that, for Side X, “marriage and chaste singleness are both viewed as godly options for people with same-sex attractions to pursue, but while there are multiple ex-gay individuals who end up single for life, the pursuit of marriage is always seen as the higher calling” (www.lifeonsideb.com/thefoursides, accessed 2/18/2023).

Side Y. Side Y basically falls in between Side B and Side X—agreeing with both Sides that same-sex sexual relationships are wrong. Side Y’s stance is that we find our identity in Christ, and therefore we shouldn’t identify ourselves by our sexual orientation. We have all been called to holiness. Side Y focuses on identity as a Christian rather than sexual identity, much like Paul removes identification labels in Galatians 3:28 because “you are all one in Christ Jesus.” So, unlike Side B, Side Y does not see maintaining a queer identity as God-honoring. And unlike Side X, Side Y does not strive to make all Christians heterosexual. The ultimate goal, according to Side Y, is becoming more like Christ in the individual way God has for each person.

These four Sides are a way for believers to address LGBTQ+ questions and understand other perspectives. It should be said that Side A has no scriptural basis whatsoever. The other Sides have varying degrees of biblical support. It is up to Christians to study, pray, and decide for themselves whether Side B, Side X, or Side Y, or somewhere in between, best represents their convictions.

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

What Does the Bible Really Teach About Homosexuality? by Kevin DeYoung

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[Patriot]

Should a Christian take ED medications such as Viagra and Cialis?​

ANSWER

The surest way to add controversy to any issue is to connect it with sex, and this makes discussions of erectile dysfunction medicines like Viagra and Cialis more difficult than they need to be. Opinions on these drugs are not merely affected by views of pharmacy but also attitudes toward sex and sexuality. In particular, there is a greater tendency to assume “sin” with respect to matters of sex than with other medical questions. However, given that sex is something God not only created but encouraged (see Genesis 1:28), there is no explicit biblical reason why a married couple cannot use such medications.

God designed Eve specifically for Adam: spiritually, emotionally, and biologically (Genesis 2:18). This design included the ability to reproduce, which requires sex (Genesis 1:28). Simply put, the suggestion that sex is inherently sinful is not only incorrect, it blatantly contradicts the Bible. In the context of a marriage between one man and one woman, sex is actually encouraged (Song of Solomon 5:1). God intends for married men and women to enjoy each other’s sexuality, only abstaining for spiritually mature reasons and on mutual agreement (1 Corinthians 7:3–5).

That context makes all the difference in how we view erectile dysfunction medications (ED meds) such as Viagra or Cialis. Persons with diabetes take insulin to restore a normal function that their bodies are failing to maintain. Persons with cancer take chemotherapy drugs to combat an abnormal function of their body’s cells. In both cases, the goal is to restore the “healthy” function of the body. Used as intended, ED medications serve the same purpose. They aid a person in restoring a function their body was specifically designed to fulfill.

This does not mean all uses of ED meds are acceptable, any more than it would be for other drugs. Many medicines meant for healthcare, such as painkillers, are abused for recreation. Others, such as steroids, are sometimes taken by someone seeking physical abilities beyond what their “natural” bodies were ever intended to do. One can rightly condemn the use of ED meds for inappropriate purposes without declaring them off-limits for their intended use.

Likewise, not all discussions of medications such as Viagra and Cialis are appropriate. Christians are right to be uneasy about the commercialization of sexuality, as many advertisements for ED medications demonstrate. And the presentation of such content in times and places where younger children may be watching is a separate but concerning issue.

The same points can be made about sex itself, of course. There has always been—and always will be—abuse of our God-given sexuality. However, the fact that some people choose promiscuity, exploitation, or immorality does not obligate everyone else to forego the correct use of sex. Nor does the fact that sex is presented in lurid ways in popular culture mean there is a problem with sex; rather, there is a problem with our attitude toward it. On the contrary, these concerns mean that celebrating and honoring the value of legitimate sex is all the more important.

Christians who consider using Viagra, Cialis, or other ED medications can do so without any particular prohibitions from Scripture. Obviously, this applies only to using such substances as intended by a doctor and for the purposes of marital sex. But those who choose to abuse these drugs for adultery or bingeing, or who obtain them illegally, are sinning.

Part of God’s design of our bodies is to enjoy sex, and husbands and wives become “one flesh” as a result (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5–6). Using medicines to restore a bodily function that God intended is perfectly acceptable.

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

The Act of Marriage by Tim and Beverly LaHaye

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[Patriot]

What is the Plan B morning-after pill?​

ANSWER

Women have used different methods of contraception for thousands of years. With the ease and effectiveness of modern contraception comes a culture that treats sex casually, with the knowledge that pregnancy does not have to be a side effect. That line of thinking continues when contraceptives aren’t in use and pregnancy is more likely. Sometimes sex is taken lightly, and sometimes the contraception malfunctions. In other, tragic, cases, sometimes a woman is assaulted against her will. Either way, emergency contraception is available to prevent pregnancy after sex has already occurred.

Emergency contraception is medication or chemicals introduced into a woman’s system after she has had sex to prevent pregnancy. Emergency contraception does not include mifepristone—RU-486—which is a chemical abortifacient specifically designed to cause the non-surgical abortion of a fetus implanted on the uterine wall. There are two basic types of emergency contraception: pills and the copper IUD.

Emergency Contraceptives

Emergency Contraceptive Pills (ECPs) contain various chemicals designed to prevent or delay ovulation and/or limit the mobility of sperm so they cannot reach the egg. Progestin-only ECPs are available over the counter and have a higher effectiveness rate than estrogen/progestin ECPs, but estrogen/progestin ECPs are just carefully calculated doses of birth control pills and may be more convenient. Effectiveness may be limited by the weight of the woman, the number of days since she had sex, and whether ovulation has already occurred. Ulipristal acetate (“ella”) uses a lower dosage of the chemical found in RU-486. It is not designed to be an abortifacient, but it’s not to be used by pregnant women. It is more effective over a wide variety of factors and may have fewer side effects.

Copper-bearing IUDs are usually used for long-term birth control (they can be left in for ten years), but, if implanted shortly after sex, they also act as emergency contraception. Copper IUDs do not affect ovulation; their primary method is creating an environment toxic to sperm. They are very effective (as high as 99 percent) but can have some serious side effects, including pelvic inflammatory disease.

The Problem with Emergency Contraception

The controversy with ECPs and copper IUDs is that, along with preventing or delaying ovulation and limiting sperm mobility, the chemicals are also known to change the lining of the uterus so that a fertilized egg cannot implant. To secular medical and government authorities, this is not a problem; many do not consider a woman pregnant until the fertilized egg implants on the uterine wall. They hold that, if an implanted egg is artificially induced to release, then it’s an abortion; if a fertilized egg never attaches, it’s not.

This line of thinking is convenient. The medications and chemicals that affect ovulation and sperm mobility just happen to also affect the uterine wall; with medication that can prevent pregnancy after sex has occurred, there is currently no way to get one without the other. The belief is especially easy to adopt because reduced chance of implantation is not the medications’ primary birth-control method. It’s a second- or third-tier possibility.

Making a distinction between a fertilized egg and an implanted fertilized egg may be convenient, but that doesn’t mean it’s logical. The fertilized egg is still a mass of cells containing the DNA of an individual. It just happens that the implanted egg has access to resources needed to survive and the other doesn’t.

The Bible makes no distinction, either. In Psalm 139:16, David acknowledges that God knew him as an individual when he was still an “unformed substance.” The imagery is of a lump of clay with no structure or organization. No limbs, no head, no spinal column or heart. This certainly describes the cell cluster of an embryo before implantation.

Should a believer use emergency contraception? To do so is to take chances with a baby’s life. Beyond the exhortation for couples to “fill the earth” and the larger discussion about birth control, there is nothing specifically unscriptural about preventing ovulation or preventing the fertilization of an egg. Neither an egg nor a sperm is a person. But to deliberately do anything that has the possibility of keeping a fertilized egg from implanting is like refusing to give a newborn milk. The cells are no less an individual life before they are connected to the womb than they are when they are released after birth.

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture by Scott Klusendorf

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[Patriot]

Why is marital infidelity so destructive?​

ANSWER

Marital infidelity, or unfaithfulness, occurs when a partner in a marriage goes outside the marriage to engage in a sexual relationship with someone else. Most everyone understands that marital infidelity is not good; many surveys reveal that close to 90 percent of Americans, Christian or not, believe marital infidelity to be wrong. However, statistically speaking, between 30 and 50 percent of Americans will cheat on their spouses. There are a number of reasons for people engaging in adultery, but the majority of cases occur because of a need to be emotionally connected. Human beings have a deep need to be wanted, needed, and understood. Ideally, this need is met in a marital relationship. If the need is not met in a marriage, a spouse may look to connect emotionally (and physically) elsewhere, which results in marital infidelity.

Marital infidelity does not lead to happiness. God designed sex to be enjoyed within a committed marital relationship; to remove sex from that context is to pervert its use and severely limit its enjoyment. Sexual contact involves a level of intimacy not possible in any other human relationship. When God brought Adam and Eve together in marriage, He established the “one flesh” relationship. Genesis 2:24 tells us that a man should leave his family, join to his wife, and become “one flesh” with her. This idea is carried through the New Testament as well; we see it in Jesus’ words in Matthew 19:5 and Mark 10:7. Paul elaborates on the “one flesh” idea in 1 Corinthians 6:12–20. He says that when a man has sex with a prostitute, they have become “one body” (verse 16). It’s clear that there is something special about the sexual relationship; it is not simply a biological function.

Marital infidelity is highly destructive to a marriage because two people becoming “one flesh” involves more than just physical intimacy. During sex, there is a sharing of emotions as well as bodies. The Old Testament euphemism for sexual intercourse has to do with “knowing” one another—a significant word. During sex, the most intimate of human encounters, a person can be said to truly “know” someone else. The level of trust required for this act makes one extremely vulnerable, and this is one reason why sex should be limited to the marital relationship. Marriage allows for vulnerability without fear; each spouse is protected by the other’s commitment and the stability inherent in a covenantal relationship. To violate that trust through infidelity is devastating to the individual and to the marriage. It is the betrayal of a confidence, the breaking of a vow, the shattering of security, and the severing of a union.

Marital infidelity is not an automatic death knell for a marriage. Reports say that 60 to 75 percent of couples who have experienced a betrayal stay together. However, this does not mean that these relationships are healed or that the trust and commitment have been regained. In many cases, a couple stays together after marital infidelity not because they’re happy together but because they’re afraid of the alternative. However, there are other couples who commit to the hard work of dealing with the problem, identifying weaknesses, and correcting mistakes. Such couples have an excellent chance not only of staying together but of coming through the process with a strong, happy, fulfilling marriage.

It is important to remember that marital infidelity, like all sins, can be forgiven. The adulterer or adulteress is not beyond the reach of God’s grace (Isaiah 59:1). As the sinner repents and God forgives, the betrayed partner is also obliged to forgive. Jesus said that, if we do not forgive the sins of others, our own sins will not be forgiven (Matthew 6:15). To “forgive and forget” is not instinctive, and it’s not easy. The road to restoration will be long and painful. But God’s grace is always sufficient.

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

Surviving an Affair by Willard Harley

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[Patriot]

What is the Queen James Bible?​

ANSWER

The Queen James Bible (QJV), also called the “Gay Bible,” is an edit of the biblical text done in the name of preventing “homophobic interpretations.” To accomplish this goal, the publishers printed a Bible in which all negative references to homosexuality have been removed. The Queen James Bible was published in 2012 and is based on the 1769 edition of the King James Bible.

The publishers of the Queen James Bible chose the name “Queen James” as an obvious take-off on the “King James” Version, as the Authorized Version of 1611 is commonly called. The publishers of the Gay Bible also claim that King James was bisexual, so their choice of title capitalizes on the slang meaning of the term queen.

The editors of the Queen James Bible, who chose to be anonymous, claim that there was no reference to homosexuality in any Bible translation prior to the 1946 Revised Standard Version. Then, they assert, “anti-LGBT Bible interpretations” arose, based on a faulty translation in the RSV of eight verses.

The unidentified “scholars”—their scholastic credentials are unknown—who produced the Queen James Bible suggest that all Bible translations of these eight verses are wrong and that they are the only ones who have got it right. Below are the eight verses. The King James Version is shown first, followed by the Queen James Version and some comments concerning each change:

Genesis 19:5: “And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, ‘Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them’” (KJV). (The expression “to know,” in this context, means to have sexual intercourse.)

“And they called out unto Lot, and said unto him, ‘Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may rape and humiliate them’” (QJV, emphasis added).

The change from “know them” to “rape and humiliate them” is based on the idea that male-on-male rape is not really a sexual act but is an expression of power and domination. It is clear that physical rape was what the men of Sodom had in mind, but nowhere in the Hebrew text is the word humiliate used.

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

The editors of the Queen James Version reckon that Leviticus is outdated as a moral code. They say the Hebrew word translated “abomination” is something that was “ritually unclean” or a “taboo.” From this they assert that a biblical “abomination” would be understood by today’s standards to be something “scandalous.” Because they do not consider homosexual relations to be taboo (and because not all abominable offenses were punishable by death), the publishers of the QJV conclude that, at some point in time, there must have been an error in translation. Whereas Leviticus 20:13 clearly says that men lying together is an “abomination,” punishable by death, the editors of the Queen James Bible claim that, if having sex with a man was punishable by death, it wouldn’t be called an abomination. However, it is clear that to lie with a person does not mean simply to be prone and go to sleep. The biblical expression “to lie with” means to have sexual relations (see Genesis 39:12).

The editors of the Queen James Version want us to believe that Leviticus 18:12 and 20:13 are all about pagan worship of the god Molech. They have therefore taken the liberty of adding to the Word of God. This is how they have rendered these two passages:

“Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind in the temple of Molech; it is an abomination” (QJV, emphasis added).

“If a man also lie with mankind in the temple of Molech, 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” (QJV, emphasis added).

So, according to the editors of the QJV, it is “abominable” for a man have sex with a man if they’re in the temple of Molech, but it’s not “abominable” for a man to have sex with a man if it has nothing to do with Molech worship.

Romans 1:26–27: “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, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet” (KJV).

The plain reading of this passage indicates that lesbianism and homosexuality are unnatural. The Greek words for “against nature” mean “monstrous, abnormal and perverse; that which is contrary to nature’s laws.”

But the editors of the Queen James Bible assert that verse 26 is not talking about women engaging in lesbian sex. Neither do they accept that lesbianism is “unnatural.” While acknowledging that they really have no idea what is meant by women engaging in the “unnatural” use of their bodies, they suggest it could mean pagan dancing. As for the men, we are to believe the “unseemly” behavior is sexual activity linked to idolatry. The Queen James Bible reads thus:

“Their women did change their natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, left of the natural use of the woman, burned in ritual lust, one toward another; Men with men working that which is pagan and unseemly. For this cause God gave the idolators up unto vile affections, receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet” (QJV, emphasis added). Note how they have again added to the Word of God to conform it to their thinking.

The editors of the Queen James Bible claim that most scholars believe the sin in Romans 1 isn’t being gay or lesbian or having gay sex. The sin, they say, is pagan worship. Interestingly, there is no evidence to back up their claim that “most scholars” agree with them.

1 Corinthians 6:9: “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind” (KJV).

The Greek word for “soft” is translated as “effeminate”; that is, a “soft, womanly man.” But the Queen James Bible editors claim that the word effeminate is unrelated to how the word is used today; rather, it means “morally weak.” The Greek word arsenokoites translated here as “abusers of themselves with mankind,” refers to sodomites, males engaging in same-gender sexual activity. However, the QJV editors claim this means “the male who has many beds,” an expression referring to men who are promiscuous. They say that, since no specific Greek word for homosexuality was used, they are justified in “translating” it as “promiscuous.” The phrase “abusers of themselves with mankind” has simply been replaced in the QJV:

“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor morally weak, nor promiscuous” (QJV, emphasis added).

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

The editors of the Queen James Bible objected to the expression “defile themselves with mankind,” so they simply deleted “with mankind”:

“For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine” (QJV, emphasis added).

Jude 1:7: “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire” (KJV). “Strange flesh” here refers to illicit use of the human body.

The editors of the Queen James Bible felt that this recount of the story of Sodom needed clarification. So, the “strange flesh” the mob of Sodom was seeking was “angelic flesh”; that is, it was only “strange” because it was nonhuman. Thus, the sexual violence the men of Sodom wanted to perform on Lot’s guests cannot be truly called a homosexual act:

“Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after nonhuman flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire” (QJV, emphasis added). However, the men of Sodom didn’t know Lot’s guests were angels! For all they knew, the guests were men, just like they. The implication is that Jude is denouncing men having sex with men, not men lusting after angels.

Jesus warned against altering one jot or tittle from God’s Word (Matthew 5:18). Yet the unidentified editors of the Queen James Bible have seen fit to boldly remove anything they dislike and add words that have no right to be there—all to try to make God say what they want said. They are trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole, linguistically speaking, and it will never work. What are their scholastic credentials? Where can seekers of truth go to verify their claims? Are we to believe that all other Bible translators succumbed to “interpretive ambiguity,” while only the editors of the QJV have seen the truth of the text?

There is no textual support for the changes they have made to these eight passages pf Scripture. The only reason for making such changes is to accomplish their stated goal of making “homophobic interpretations impossible.” In other words, they are twisting the Word of God to suit their agenda.

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

101 Frequently Asked Questions About Homosexuality by Mike Haley

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[Patriot]

What does the Bible say about necrophilia?​

ANSWER

Necrophilia (literally, “corpse-love”) is a deviant sexual practice involving attraction to a corpse. It is also called necrophilism or necrolagnia. A necrophiliac is a person who derives sexual pleasure from having sex with a dead body. A necrophagist is someone who derives sexual pleasure from eating dead bodies or certain parts of them. The Bible nowhere directly mentions necrophilia or necrophagia.

In some cases, necrophilia involves sexually touching or having sexual intercourse with a recently deceased body; more often, however, a necrophiliac chooses bodies in more advanced stages of decay. The body of someone murdered by a necrophiliac is often kept in a shallow grave or other hidden place, allowing the necrophiliac to return for more sex with the victim at will. Fairly recent examples of necrophiliacs include Ted Bundy, Gary Ridgway (the Green River Killer), Edmund Kemper (the Co-ed Killer), and Jeffrey Dahmer.

“There is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9), and the sin of necrophilia has been around for a long time. The Greek historian Herodotus (c. 484—425 BC) wrote of how the ancient Egyptians safeguarded the deceased from the practice of necrophilia (The Histories, Penguin Books, 1972, p. 161). At least one Greek mythology contains hints of necrophilia perpetrated by Achilles. In that second-century account, a fellow soldier says that Achilles “fell in love with the Amazon [Penthesilia] after her death” as he stood over her corpse (Apollodorus, Library Epitome, trans. by Frazer, J., book E, ch. 5, § 1).

Although the Bible does not explicitly condemn necrophilia, it contains principles that clearly mark it as a sin. The Mosaic Law specified that touching a dead body made a person unclean (Numbers 19:11–16). The law applied to any type of touching, including incidental contact required for moving the body and preparing it for burial. The uncleanness extended to those who touched a grave (verse 16) and even to those who were in the same tent as a corpse (verse 14). After seven days, the unclean person could be cleansed by going through a ceremonial process. Failing to complete that process carried a hefty penalty: “Whoever touches a dead person, the body of anyone who has died, and does not cleanse himself, defiles the tabernacle of the Lord, and that person shall be cut off from Israel” (Numbers 19:13, ESV).

The Bible limits sexual activity to a husband and wife. All forms of sex outside of marriage are sinful (Acts 15:20; 1 Corinthians 5:1; 6:13, 18; 10:8; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Jude 1:7; Revelation 21:8). Within the confines of marriage, sex is good and right. However, death ends a marriage (Romans 7:2). Thus, it is impossible for a necrophiliac to be married to the object of his lust, and necrophilia falls under the same condemnation as other forms of extramarital sex. Necrophilia in any circumstance is a sexual perversion and forbidden by God.

Some of the acts of the flesh are listed in Galatians 5. The first two are sexual immorality and impurity (verse 19). Necrophilia definitely involves immoral sex, and it is impure by any measure of purity. It is a sin that carries a severe warning: “Those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God” (Galatians 5:21).

Death is the ultimate insult to God’s plan. Death is the result of sin (Romans 6:23). God’s original creation was perfect, complete, and good (Genesis 1). When sin was introduced into the universe, it began the process of perverting, twisting, and ruining what was intended to be holy, right, pure, and lovely. Necrophilia is one example of the twisting of God’s intent and the darkness capable of fallen humanity.

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

Against God and Nature: The Doctrine of Sin by Thomas McCall

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[Patriot]

Can a person be born gay?​

ANSWER

In 1996, The Advocate, a gay and lesbian magazine, asked readers what they believed the potential impact would be to the advancement of gay and lesbian rights if a scientific discovery proves a biological basis for homosexuality. About 61 percent of the magazine’s readers asserted that such scientific research would advance the cause of gays and lesbians and lead to more positive attitudes toward homosexuality. For example, if one can be born gay, much as one can be born with brown eyes, then a fair society could not possibly condemn him as being unnatural or immoral. To that end, gay activists and the liberal media have actively encouraged the idea that homosexuality is inherited and unchangeable, and researchers have diligently sought scientific evidence to back up that claim. Unfortunately for the pro-homosexuality movement, the research on this subject has failed to establish any scientific evidence that shows a purely genetic basis for homosexuality.

The controversy began with the work of Simon LeVay, M.D. In 1991, LeVay tested the brains of 41 cadavers and noted differences between homosexual versus heterosexual males. The hypothalamus, an area believed to regulate sexual activity, was smaller in homosexual males than in heterosexuals. Dr. LeVay believed the differences proved a biological basis for homosexuality, but he failed to consider a variety of reasons, other than genetic, that the brains were different. First, all 19 of the homosexual cadavers had died of AIDS, a disease known to affect the neurological system. It could be that the disease had shrunk the hypothalamus. Second, scientists who study brain biochemistry know that the way a person thinks affects the way his brain functions; specifically, it affects the neurochemicals released in the brain and the way certain pathways grow and change. Could the structural brain differences have started with the difference in thoughts between homosexuals and heterosexuals, rather than with genetics? Third, there is no proof linking hypothalamus size with homosexuality, either as a cause or effect.

In 1993, Dr. Dean Hamer, a pro-gay activist, made the astounding claim in his research that there may be a gene for homosexuality. His team of researchers began a series of gene linkage studies, in which families with several homosexuals underwent genetic analysis to determine if any chromosomal variants could be found in the family and if the variant correlated with those individuals who displayed the homosexuality. Although Hamer’s study sample was very small, he found a significant linkage between gays and a marker on the maternal X chromosome, Xq28. Additional studies with larger sample sizes produced conflicting results in the linkage to Xq28. It is important to note that Hamer’s experiments have never been validated; in fact, other groups of researchers have discredited Hamer’s work as non-replicable or even fraudulent.

Even if there were some genetic commonalities among homosexuals, associated characteristics do not prove a causal link. To illustrate, a genetic study among professional athletes would probably show that a significant percentage of these stars share certain genetic sequences. One might erroneously conclude that the genetic sequences for increased speed, agility and strength prove that engaging in professional sports is a heritable trait. However, no genetic sequence can account for human choice and the effects of environment. People who have the genetic traits of an athlete may naturally gravitate toward professional sports or be encouraged to play. Although athletes share some common traits, being a professional athlete itself is not heritable. The culture in which an individual matures and the choices he makes decide his career path.

There are many researchers who cite environmental factors as major contributors to homosexual feelings. They strongly believe that negative early childhood experiences in an unloving or non-supportive home environment are a critical part of this process. Common elements seem to include an emotionally withdrawn or physically absent father and an overbearing, fawning, or over-protective mother. In many cases, there are reports of physical, sexual, or emotional abuse. Disruption of gender identification may contribute to the development toward homosexuality. This process begins between ages two and four. During this phase, children move from their primary connection with the mother to seek out deeper attachments with the parent of the same gender. For males, the relationship between a boy and his father is the primary means of developing a secure gender identity. As a father and son share time together, the father expresses his value and interest in the son and gives to the son a sense of masculinity. The boy begins to develop a sense of his own gender by understanding himself in relation to his father. Conversely, a mother who is distant, abusive, or physically absent or a mother who is viewed by her daughter as being weak (such as when the mother is abused by males) may disrupt her daughter’s identification with being feminine.

Peer attachments with same-sex friends also play a role in developing gender identity. Eventually, after years of interaction and bonding with same-sex peers, children enter puberty and begin to pay attention to the opposite sex. When this natural process is disrupted, it feels natural for a child to love and crave the attention of those of the same sex. When children with certain temperaments initially perceive rejection of the same-sex parent, they detach and bond with the other parent. They begin to adopt the patterns and attributes of the opposite sex. However, there is always a longing for a connection with the same-sex parent, love and affirmation from the same gender. These children believe that they were born that way, having craved love and attachment with the same-sex parents for as long as they can remember. Homosexual behavior thus begins as an emotional craving, not a sexual craving. It reflects a legitimate need for non-sexual love, an emotional need that ultimately becomes sexualized with the onset of puberty.

Most researchers have concluded that sexual orientation is a complex, multifactorial issue in which biological, social, and psychological factors combine to play a role in the ultimate sexual orientation of an individual. According to Julie Harren, Ph.D., the formula for this interplay between factors might be represented by these equations:

--Genes + Brain Wiring + Prenatal Hormonal Environment = Temperament.
--Parents + Peers + Experiences = Environment.
--Temperament + Environment = Homosexual Orientation.

What’s missing from these equations are the existence of a soul, the choice of the individual, and the temptation of the devil (see James 1:14).

Although it may be easier, psychologically, for a homosexual to believe that homosexuality is inborn, the accumulated scientific evidence suggests otherwise. Homosexuals may have a genetic predisposition, but human choice is still a factor. A predisposition is not a constraint. Ultimately, sexual orientation is determined outside of the womb. For those who are unhappy living a homosexual lifestyle, this truth offers hope for change. Clinical experience has shown that, with help, some homosexuals can change learned responses and defense mechanisms to early painful experiences.

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, the sin of homosexuality is listed right next to theft. Just as there is no genetic excuse for stealing, there is no genetic excuse for homosexuality. Environment, culture, and choice make one a thief, and the same factors make one a homosexual.

Christ died for homosexuals. God loves persons of all sexual orientations, just as He loves all sinners. The Bible says, "God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8). Jesus Christ "is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2). The gospel of Christ "is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes" (Romans 1:16). In Christ alone we find the definitive source for healing, restoration, forgiveness, and comfort. He is the way by which we can all experience the affirming, unconditional love, value, and acceptance of our Father in heaven.

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

101 Frequently Asked Questions About Homosexuality by Mike Haley

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[Patriot]

What is an incel?​

ANSWER

The term incel is short for involuntary celibate. Incel is a self-identifier used by a group who particularly resent their inability to have a relationship, specifically a sexual relationship. The concept originally included a wide range of backgrounds and applied to different kinds of people who felt especially lonely, rejected by society, or spurned by sexual partners. Over time, the self-applied label has become more limited. It now applies mostly to those with an especially bitter, cynical attitude toward sexuality, women, and Western society in general.

Incels, mostly young, straight, white males who feel betrayed or disappointed by a lack of sexual or romantic experience, are the product of three toxic aspects of modern culture:

1) The victim mentality. The rejection incels feel is a result of the consistent suggestion that not getting what you want is primarily because some person, group, or culture is oppressing or persecuting you.

2) The idolization of sex. The bitterness nurtured by incels can be traced to a belief that any and all sexual desires or inclinations must be accepted, celebrated, and fulfilled.

3) The echo chamber. The isolation experienced by incels is due to their ability, greatly enhanced by the internet, to surround one’s self with like-minded people, while completely ignoring other, healthier perspectives. This social media contact, ironically, leads to even further isolation and loneliness.

Extremist views, such as those of incels, are often fed by legitimate concerns. Lack of healthy, loving relationships inspires loneliness and depression. Those who would be satisfied with “modest” sexual experience grow resentful when extreme sexual tastes are celebrated and promoted. A feeling that their experiences are being ignored—or even mocked—leads people to gather with like-minded persons to validate perceived victimhood. In the absence of a biblical worldview, those factors can merge into extremism, venting hatred at anyone perceived as an oppressor.

Some who find themselves under these stresses call themselves incels, whose failure to establish meaningful or fulfilling relationships leads them into thicket of misogyny, misanthropy, and bitterness. They interpret their lack of romantic or sexual fulfillment as proof of prejudice or persecution against them.

Extremism among incels varies. A minority openly advocate rape or assault. In recent years, several high-profile mass shooters in the United States have been linked to the incel community. Targets of their hatred include women, non-incel men, and others who are seen as contributors to “the problem.”

Obviously, the incel mindset contradicts much of what the Bible says about human value, sexuality, and community. So does a culture that breeds loneliness and unbiblical sexual expression. Both need to be countered with truth. Incels need to know that God intends sex to be special and sacred and that their value is not determined by whom they sleep with. Isolation and the sense of being deprived are negative factors that the gospel and Christian fellowship can ease.

At the same time, it’s important to realize that extreme attitudes don’t develop in a vacuum. Western culture currently sends all kinds of false messages: sex is no big deal, everyone should have their sexuality celebrated, all sex is good sex, people who don’t have sex are losers, flaunting one’s sexuality is a right to be defended at all costs, and so forth.

Incels have been misled to think they are being spitefully denied something that is supposedly cheap, common, and critically important. A biblical response will confront two things: culture’s incorrect attitudes about sex and relationships, and the negative responses people may have to their own experience. Embracing a biblical view of sexuality and self-worth is the answer to the incel mindset.

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

Single Servings: 90 Devotions to Feed Your Soul by Lee Warren

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

RELATED ARTICLES​

How should Christians view Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)?

 

[Patriot]

What should a believer do if his or her spouse chooses to live a transgender lifestyle?​

ANSWER

Discussions about gender dysphoria and transsexualism have permeated secular and Christian communities for several years now. Discussions continue as to what transgenderism is, whether transgenderism is a result of sin or mental illness, and even if Christians should use a person’s preferred pronouns.

Christian ministries are fairly good at helping parents whose children believe they are transgender. Rarely, however, do either secular or Christian communities speak to the spouse of someone who identifies as transgender. But it is a real issue. What is a Christian supposed to do if his or her spouse reveals he or she is transgender? The answer is as difficult as the situation.

First, a definition of terms:
Transgender: being a person who feels his or her biological gender does not match their gender identity.
Gender-fluid: being a person who feels his or her gender identity changes.
Nonbinary/genderqueer: being a person who feels that his or her gender identity does not align with the male/female standard.
Gender dysphoria: the state of anxiety and depression caused by the feeling that one’s gender identity does not match one’s birth gender.

Currently in the U.S., one’s transgender status is protected by law. That means someone who identifies as transgender, whether or not they have had reassignment surgery, is not required to tell a future spouse. Like those with same-sex attraction, some people with gender dysphoria marry the opposite sex believing it will fix them or at least provide a cover to hide their struggles. Others reveal their feelings to their future spouses but promise to remain their biological gender and seek counseling—only to renege on the promise later. And gender-reassignment surgery, post-marriage, is not legal grounds to have the marriage annulled.

At some point, a transgender person may decide to live as the gender they identify as, rather than their birth gender, but desire to stay in the marriage. This can be devastating to the spouse who married in good faith and assumed that they were in a traditional marriage with a godly partner. They may feel abandoned, betrayed, and lied to. They may even feel that their own gender and sexuality are being attacked. This is an incredibly lonely and difficult time. One half of the couple is exulting in the freedom of “being who they are,” while the other feels as if their spouse has died and they’re not allowed to mourn. Instead, someone new has moved in, a near-stranger, wanting the same or similar relationship.

We want to be clear that this article is not about warning signs of potentially unwise marriages; kind-hearted people go into marriages they know will have serious challenges every day, and finger-pointing after the fact is not helpful. When the transgender person wants to remain in the marriage, either celibately or monogamously, their spouse must determine what God wants them to do. There are at least four major issues to consider:

The Cultural Response to Transgenderism

There are thought to be three lenses through which the culture views the condition of transgenderism:

1. Integrity. This is the view that God has created man and woman, and anyone who presents as the opposite gender is in deliberate sin (Deuteronomy 22:5).

2. Disability. This view sees transgenderism and the resultant gender dysphoria as mental illnesses, caused by the fall and the continued deterioration of God’s creation. The person is no more in sin for having the condition than someone with depression or a personality disorder, although, if they act on their feelings by cross-dressing, presenting as the opposite gender, or having reassignment surgery, that is a choice to sin.

3. Diversity. This is the acceptance and even celebration of transgenderism. Someone with this “lens” would encourage the transgender person to express their felt gender as they see fit and take their place in the transgender community.

A biblical viewpoint would incorporate elements from integrity and disability, while recognizing the need for community that diversity claims to provide. It may very well be that transgenderism has a chemical, hormonal, or otherwise biological influence. Of course, it may also have a psychological source, such as a woman who was abused as a girl and subconsciously believes she’ll be safer as a man. At the same time, the Bible is clear that God made humans as male or female, and He expects us to live as the gender He has determined for us.

The “Abandonment” Clause

Another issue to consider is Scripture’s “abandonment” clause for divorce. First Corinthians 7:15 states, “But if the unbeliever leaves [the marriage], let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.” Today, Christians interpret the term abandon in several different ways:
1. The refusal to have sex with one’s spouse;
2. Addiction, including to pornography, drugs, or alcohol;
3. A serious mental illness;
4. Emotional detachment;
5. The refusal to provide financial necessities;
6. Continued, unrepentant sin;
7. Actual, physical abandonment, in which the spouse leaves the home.

Such liberal widening of the definition of abandonment serves those who wish God to validate their choice to leave an unhappy marriage. If literal adultery, abandonment, or abuse is not involved, however, the biblical standard doesn’t apply. The question is, does it apply to someone who chooses to present as a different gender, with or without surgery and hormones?

“Sex Change”

Can someone who has come out as transgender and has chosen to live that lifestyle be considered a different person? Some in the transgender community believe so and are offended when someone uses their birth name when they have made it known they want to be addressed by a new name—to use the person’s former name of “Thomas” instead of their chosen name of “Betty” is “deadnaming” and considered provocative by many transgenders. Again, Christians hold different interpretations:
1. The person has indeed changed since they were married. They are now the opposite gender, and the marriage is now a same-sex marriage, which the Bible does not recognize.
2. Gender is a matter of biology, not perception or human alteration. The marriage is still between one man and one woman, even if one spouse refuses to accept their status.

The Believing Spouse’s Heart

The mental and emotional state of the believing spouse is a significant consideration. They may still love their partner deeply; they may feel they have been growing apart for years. They may be surrounded by a loving, supportive family and church; they may feel alone, too ashamed or afraid to tell anyone. They may be willing to see their spouse as a friend with a mental illness whom they can support and, hopefully, encourage into a reconciliation with God and who God made them to be; they may be so heartbroken they can’t bear to look at the person they once loved—or still do love.

Hopefully, the believing spouse will find a godly support system. The support group can help them understand that they are not responsible for another’s choices, and they can still trust in God’s love and affirmation.

The Choices

There are three basic responses the believing spouse of a transgender person must choose from:
1. Remain in the home and maintain the relationship, presenting as a married couple, with the intent to encourage the transgender spouse back to God and healing.
2. Separate, legally or informally. Contact can vary from retaining a close friendship with the hope of reconciliation to a complete break in communication.
3. File for divorce.

Our Suggestions

These situations are complicated; personalities, support structures, the presence of children, and spiritual maturity levels all come into play. There’s no one-size-fits-all solution. The believing spouse will need to pray fervently for wisdom and strength from God and follow His will (James 1:5). Beyond that, we humbly offer these suggestions:

1. If the transgender person restricts their expression of transgenderism to private situations at home, the believing spouse should consider staying and seek counseling. Likewise, if the transgender person withholds sex or emotional warmth, the believer should seek help, but there’s not a biblical reason to separate yet.

2. If the transgender spouse decides to dress and publicly present in a way counter to their biological gender, and the believing spouse decides to stay in hopes of encouraging their partner toward reconciliation, that is a valid choice. If the believing spouse does not have the emotional margin, the spiritual maturity, or the support system to stay, or if the partner refuses to repent and seek reconciliation with God, separation would be in order.

3. If the spouse has gender reassignment surgery, the believing spouse should separate. If the transgender person refuses to change their lifestyle or repent and seek reconciliation with God, we suggest the believing spouse is free to initiate a divorce. Believers should bear in mind that, no matter the cause, divorce should be a last step. Divorce should never be initiated for the purpose of finding another partner. Any believer who divorces should assume they will either remain single or reconcile with their spouse.

4. If the transgender person commits adultery or physically leaves the family, the situation falls under the adultery and abandonment clauses.

5. If the transgender person files for divorce, the believer is released from the marriage (1 Corinthians 7:15).

We acknowledge that godly believers will have different opinions as to the biblical response. We pray that all believers will love and support everyone affected by transgenderism in a way that shows Christ’s love.

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

Understanding Gender Dysphoria: Navigating Transgender Issues in a Changing Culture by Mark Yarhouse

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[Patriot]

What is onanism?​

ANSWER

Onanism is yet another English word that has its roots in the Bible. The term itself comes from a character in the book of Genesis. Onanism, also called coitus interruptus, is the “interrupting” of sexual intercourse—specifically, the purposeful withdrawal of the penis from the vagina before ejaculation occurs. Onanism is synonymous with the “withdrawal method” of birth control; however, within Judaism, onanism is given a broad definition, encompassing withdrawal (coitus interruptus), masturbation, and any other “improper emission of seed.”

In patriarchal societies of the ancient Near East, the uninterrupted passing on of land and property from father to son was extremely important. It was so important that the Mosaic Law outlined the requirements for levirate marriage: if a married man died childless, his brother (or another family member) was obliged to marry the widow and sire a son who could inherit the dead man’s property and carry on the man’s name (Deuteronomy 25:5–10). The practice of levirate marriage was understood and accepted by the Israelites far earlier than the giving of the Law, and we have an example of it in Genesis 38; that’s where we find the story of Onan and his onanism.

Judah’s son Er was killed by God for his evil lifestyle, and, since Er had not fathered a son, Er’s wife, Tamar, followed the tradition of levirate marriage and married his next-oldest brother, Onan. Onan was willing to have sex with Tamar, but he wasn’t willing to sire a son with her—a son who would not legally be his and who would take away his chance of inheriting his dead brother’s property. So, in the midst of sexual relations with Tamar, Onan withdrew and “spilled his semen on the ground” (Genesis 38:9). In this way Onan ensured he would not provide a child to Tamar, even though it was his “duty” to do so (verse 8). Genesis 38:10 says, “What he did was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death also.”

The word onanism is, therefore, an eponym, since it is derived from the personal name of an individual. Onan’s action of “spilling his seed” rather than impregnating his wife is now called “onanism.” Historically, there has been a great amount of confusion about Onan’s sin. Contrary to what some teach, his sin was not masturbation. Nor is Genesis 38 teaching that the withdrawal method of birth control is sinful. No, the sin of Onan was his greedy, selfish refusal to sire a son on behalf of his brother. Onan was of the tribe of Judah, the kingly tribe and the tribe of the Messiah. In fact, Tamar, the woman wronged by Onan, is listed in the genealogy of Christ (Matthew 1:3). God had a vested interest in Tamar’s children and Judah’s grandchildren.

Is onanism a sin? The true crime of Onan was refusing to sire a son on his brother’s behalf, which doesn’t really apply to modern culture, anyway. The debate over masturbation has been thoroughly discussed elsewhere. Onanism for the purposes of birth control is fine biblically but not very effective physically—effectiveness rates vary from 96 to 73 percent. Therefore, the question of onanism’s morality does not really apply to us today.

Recommended Resource: Men - Every Young Man’s Battle : Strategies for Victory in the Real World of Sexual Temptation by Stephen Arterburn.

Women - Every Young Woman’s Battle: Guarding Your Mind, Heart, and Body in a Sex-Saturated World by Shannon Ethridge

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[Patriot]

If God is love, why does He condemn homosexuality?​

ANSWER

A common argument for the acceptance of homosexuality and same-sex marriage is that, if God is love, He would not condemn the love of others. The main problem with this is what kind of “love” we’re talking about.

First John 4:8 says, “Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.” The “love” referenced here is the Greek agape. This type of love is the conscious act of sacrificing one’s own desires, comfort, and even well-being for the sake of another. It is love that sent Jesus to die on the cross for our sins (Romans 5:8). And the love that led God to send Him (John 3:16). The greatest fulfillment of this love is to sacrifice one’s life for another (John 15:13).

The question, then, becomes what constitutes the well-being of another? The world and maybe even our own sensitivities might say that to allow another to live in a homosexual relationship is to see to their well-being. The Bible says otherwise. Romans 1:26 says it is disgraceful and dishonoring. First Corinthians 6:9 says it will keep a person from the kingdom of God. First Corinthians 6:18 says that homosexual behavior is a sin against one’s own body.

If this is true and homosexual behavior is dishonoring, a separation from God’s blessing, and self-harm, then the loving thing to do is to stay away from it. To encourage others to indulge in sin is to encourage them to reject God’s blessings on their lives. It is the opposite of love.

That being said, those with homosexual attractions are in desperate need of love. Even if they agree with the Bible that homosexuality is a sin and resolve not to seek fulfillment of their sexual desires, they must still find love in other relationships—the self-sacrificing love of agape and the friendly companionship of phileo. When our emotional and social needs for love are met, we are less likely to seek fulfillment in unbiblical ways. It’s no different for single heterosexuals than for those with homosexual attraction.

Can someone with same-sex sexual attraction be healed and become heterosexual in thought, desire, and deed? It is possible, but it is not certain. Being saved and forgiven does not rid one of temptation. For the believer, as long as same-sex attractions are present, abstinence is crucial—as it is for anyone not in a heterosexual marriage. Believers should not condone sexual relationships outside of a heterosexual marriage, even as they show agape and phileo love.

It is a lie that all humans need sexual fulfillment (Matthew 19:12). It is a lie that sex equates to love. The God who created us insists that sex is an expression of love between a man and woman who are married to each other. Outside of that context, sex is harmful and very much unloving. If we love others, we will not encourage them to sin, bringing harm to themselves. Instead, we will follow the greatest commandment and provide for them the real love they need from us.

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

101 Frequently Asked Questions About Homosexuality by Mike Haley

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[Patriot]

Why would God’s law command a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night to be stoned to death?​

ANSWER

The Mosaic Law provided strict requirements regarding sexuality. In Deuteronomy 22:13–30 there are many laws focused on violations of the marriage covenant. Verses 20–21 address the case of a woman who presents herself as a virgin in marriage to a man but is not really a virgin. In such cases, the woman was sentenced to death by stoning: “If . . . the charge [that the bride was not a virgin on her wedding night] is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.”

The reasons for this command, as noted in Deuteronomy 22:21, include the fact that the disgraced bride had 1) done an “outrageous” thing and 2) been “promiscuous” while living in her father’s home. In other words, the woman in this situation had engaged in premarital sex and then lied about her virginity—or at least allowed her husband to assume she was a virgin, thus lying by her silence; either way, she had entered the marriage under false pretenses. Her stoning was to be carried out at the door of her father’s home, rather than outside the camp, because of the shame attached to her family’s name.

The Law of Moses had addressed fornication and its penalty in Exodus 22:16–17, and the prescribed penalty was not death. This fact has led many commentators to conclude that the situation described in Deuteronomy 22 refers to adultery, rather than fornication. In other words, the woman’s immorality had occurred after she was betrothed to her husband; thus, she had broken a marriage covenant already in place.

The Mosaic Law held high standards regarding sexual practices and emphasized the purity and sanctity of marriage. Deuteronomy 22:21 says that the punishment was to “purge the evil from among you.” The breaking of the marriage covenant was not to be taken lightly. God wants His people to take sexual purity seriously. Sex is key in the “one flesh” union of husband and wife. Throughout the Bible, marriage is used as a metaphor to describe God’s relationship with His people. His covenants are unbreakable, and violations to marriage misrepresent Him.

Children of God are no longer bound to observe the Law of Moses, but the Law’s underlying principles remain true. For example, marriage is still a sacred union of a man and a woman for a lifetime, and adultery is wrong. The New Testament teaches believers to flee from sexual immorality (1 Corinthians 6:18). The options for Christians are 1) remain single and celibate or 2) get married and remain faithful within that marriage (1 Corinthians 7:1–3). Today, God does not demand that we stone those who are not virgins on their wedding night—that was a specific law for a specific nation in a specific time period. At the same time, sexual purity should be held in high esteem. Sex is too important and meaningful a gift to be used outside of its intended purpose in marriage.

Skeptics may ridicule the Bible’s teachings regarding marriage and sexuality. However, those who seek to please the Lord will be focused on discovering His wisdom on the subject and how to apply that wisdom in life. Though we are no longer under the strict consequences of the Mosaic Law, we still have the universal truth that “a man who commits adultery has no sense; whoever does so destroys himself” (Proverbs 6:32). Also, “marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral” (Hebrews 13:4).

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

Undefiled: Redemption from Sexual Sin, Restoration for Broken Relationships by Harry Schaumburg

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[Patriot]

What does the Bible say about BDSM?​

ANSWER

BDSM stands for “bondage/discipline/sadism/masochism.” BDSM is sexual activity that uses physical restraints, grants or surrenders physical or psychological control, or inflicts pain in the pursuit of pleasure. The term can refer to the whole subculture that participates in sexual dominance/submission and sadomasochism. People who role-play in a dominant/submissive sexual dynamic, seek to receive or administer pain during sex, or incorporate some type of bondage are engaging in BDSM. The Bible does not mention BDSM, but the practices associated with BDSM are becoming better known—and more accepted—due to the Fifty Shades of Gray books and movies.

The Bible presents marriage as “honorable” and the “marriage bed” as something to keep “pure” (Hebrews 13:4), but it does not restrict what a married couple can do sexually with each other. Adultery (threesomes, swapping, etc.) and pornography are clearly wrong, and the Bible explicitly identifies those things as sinful. Beyond that, as long as a married couple’s sexual practices are God-honoring, exclusive, loving, other-oriented, unifying, and mutually agreed upon, they carry God’s blessing. If a husband and his wife are in full agreement, with neither being forced or coerced, God has given married couples freedom in regards to what takes place in bed. Could this freedom include black leather costumes, non-violent bondage, sex toys, and role-play? There is nothing in the Bible that explicitly restricts the use of such things.

With that said, there are dark aspects to BDSM in which a Christian should have no part. Receiving sexual pleasure through the giving or receiving of pain is not in agreement with what the Bible says about sex. Sex is to be an expression of love, affection, passion, gentleness, selflessness, and commitment. Sex is to be the literal expression of a married couple being “one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). To bring pain, degradation, or humiliation into the sexual relationship distorts what it is supposed to be, even when such actions are consensual.

In the BDSM subculture, the “top/bottom dynamic,” or the need to dominate or be dominated, may reveal a psyche in need of redemption. Even if the domination is not sexual, the desire to control or exert power over another person is ungodly. Jesus Christ demonstrated servant leadership, not dominance, in His relationships with others (see John 13), and He died to set us free from sin and its consequences (Luke 4:18; Galatians 5:1). Yearning to dominate—or acquiescing to domination—is spiritually unhealthy. Even if some aspects of BDSM are allowable within the context of marriage, believers must be cautious and discerning and guard their marriages from any corrupting influence.

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

The Act of Marriage by Tim and Beverly LaHaye

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[Patriot]

What does the Bible say about promiscuity?​

ANSWER

A promiscuous person is one who engages in many sexual liaisons with a number of different people. In the days when purity and morality were commonly considered virtues, promiscuity was frowned upon. In our current cultural environment, however, promiscuity is promoted in television, movies, and music. Kids feel the pressure by early middle school to have a boyfriend or girlfriend and are taught in the classroom about human sexuality without biblical morality. So it is not surprising that, before American teens reach adulthood, more than half have already had at least one sexual encounter. A large number of those could be considered promiscuous. Our culture calls this progress; the Bible calls it sin (Hebrews 13:4).

Scripturally speaking, promiscuity is the repeated violation of God’s standards for sex. God created sex as a beautiful expression of love that would propagate the species, but He also knows the devastation that results from abusing His gift. When God put limits on our sexual expression, He did so for our own good. Promiscuity is an abuse of the power of sexuality. It robs those who practice it of the ability to understand true intimacy. It steals its participants’ self-worth, dignity, and purity of heart.

Even a casual glance at global issues reveals that promiscuity is at the heart of many of the world’s problems. Consider the social ills brought about by promiscuity: abortion, STD’s, single mothers in poverty, AIDS, fatherless children, adultery, divorce, the rape culture, and the proliferation of related issues such as welfare fraud, overcrowding, starvation, and pornography. Billions of dollars and thousands of hours are invested in resolving those issues, but most of the problems would disappear if people simply followed God’s instructions about sex.

While the world may consider promiscuity a normal way to live, God’s warnings punctuate the pages of Scripture (1 Corinthians 6:9; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 5:3). Sexual immorality is a sin that separates us from God. Galatians 5:19–21 says, “The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery . . . drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.” We may try to redefine promiscuity to exclude whatever behaviors we are engaging in, but our definitions don’t count. Only God’s definitions matter, and we would be wise to submit to them.

Anyone can make a mistake and sin sexually. God’s solution is repentance and forgiveness (1 John 1:9). Those who are sexually promiscuous need a radical lifestyle change. Those who continue to violate themselves by having sexual relations with multiple people do not have a heart transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:18; 2 Corinthians 5:17).

Psalm 24:3 asks the question, “Who may ascend the mountain of the Lord? Who may stand in his holy place?” The answer should be the goal for everyone who desires a right relationship with God: “The one who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not trust in an idol or swear by a false god” (verse 4). It is impossible to have clean hands and a pure heart when living in sexual promiscuity. Those who believe they can sin all they like, ask God’s forgiveness, and then do it again the next day are deceiving themselves. That is false religion, not reality. However, the radical change of heart that we all need is available in the cross of Christ. Those who come before God in brokenness and repentance will find His mercy and power ready to transform their lives (Psalm 51:16–17).

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

Hope and Holiness: How the Gospel Enables and Empowers Sexual Purity by John Fonville

Every Young Woman’s Battle: Guarding Your Mind, Heart, and Body in a Sex-Saturated World by Shannon Ethridge

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

 

[beensetfree]

Be A Warrior for Him​

Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.

Colossians 4:5,6 NIV


__________________

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Abstain from all appearance of evil. And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Thessalonians 5:21-23 KJV


__________________




Let no one look down on your youthfulness, but rather in speech, conduct, love, faith and purity, show yourself an example of those who believe. Until I come, give attention to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching.

1 Timothy 4:12,13 NASB


__________________

Thanks be unto God for His wonderful gift:
Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God
is the object of our faith; the only faith
that saves is faith in Him.

 

[beensetfree]

“Behold, if the leprosy have covered all his flesh, he shall pronounce him clean that hath the plague.”

Leviticus 13:13

Strange enough this regulation appears, yet there was wisdom in it, for the throwing out of the disease proved that the constitution was sound. This evening it may be well for us to see the typical teaching of so singular a rule. We, too, are lepers, and may read the law of the leper as applicable to ourselves. When a man sees himself to be altogether lost and ruined, covered all over with the defilement of sin, and in no part free from pollution; when he disclaims all righteousness of his own, and pleads guilty before the Lord, then he is clean through the blood of Jesus, and the grace of God.

Hidden, unfelt, unconfessed iniquity is the true leprosy; but when sin is seen and felt, it has received its deathblow, and the Lord looks with eyes of mercy upon the soul afflicted with it. Nothing is more deadly than self-righteousness, or more hopeful than contrition. We must confess that we are “nothing else but sin,” for no confession short of this will be the whole truth; and if the Holy Spirit be at work with us, convincing us of sin, there will be no difficulty about making such an acknowledgment — it will spring spontaneously from our lips.




What comfort does the text afford to truly awakened sinners: the very circumstance which so grievously discouraged them is here turned into a sign and symptom of a hopeful state! Stripping comes before clothing; digging out the foundation is the first thing in building—and a thorough sense of sin is one of the earliest works of grace in the heart. O thou poor leprous sinner, utterly destitute of a sound spot, take heart from the text, and come as thou art to Jesus—

“For let our debts be what they may, however great or small,
As soon as we have nought to pay, our Lord forgives us all.
’Tis perfect poverty alone that sets the soul at large:
While we can call one mite our own, we have no full discharge.”

 

[Patriot]

What is the meaning of mutual consent in 1 Corinthians 7:5?​

ANSWER

In 1 Corinthians 7, the apostle Paul is addressing practical questions related to marriage raised by the believers in Corinth. He instructs husbands and wives not to deprive one another of sexual intimacy “except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control” (verse 5). Paul uses the term mutual consent to indicate that both parties—both husband and wife—must agree to the decision and the terms of their temporary period of sexual abstinence.

It seems that certain members of the church in Corinth were claiming that it was “good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman” (1 Corinthians 7:1). This blanket statement made without any conditions implies that the best option for every person in every situation is to abstain from sex. But Paul corrects this misconception, explaining that married believers should continue in their sexual relationship with one another: “But because there is so much sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband. The husband should fulfill his wife’s sexual needs, and the wife should fulfill her husband’s needs” (1 Corinthians 7:2–3, NLT).

Two opposing extremes were occurring in the church in Corinth. Some members were excusing flagrant sexual immorality, incest (1 Corinthians 5:1), and prostitution (1 Corinthians 6:15–16), while others were advocating for total abstinence, even between married couples. Paul links the two problems, suggesting that forced abstinence between husbands and wives may be encouraging sexually immoral behavior in the church. Paul maintains that married people should fulfill their spouse’s sexual needs.

The Bible affirms that sexual intimacy in marriage is a blessing from God and a privilege designed to be nurtured and enjoyed: “Let your wife be a fountain of blessing for you. Rejoice in the wife of your youth. She is a loving deer, a graceful doe. Let her breasts satisfy you always. May you always be captivated by her love” (Proverbs 5:18–19, NLT; see also Song of Solomon 4:9–16).

Married couples have a responsibility and an obligation not to hold back sexual intimacy without good reason (Exodus 21:10). Paul points out that neither party has the right to deprive the other: “The wife gives authority over her body to her husband, and the husband gives authority over his body to his wife” (1 Corinthians 7:4, NLT). Paul’s statement here strengthens the idea that sexual intimacy is designed to be equally agreeable and mutually satisfying to the husband and the wife.

In 1 Corinthians 7:5, Paul unambiguously asserts that, if a married couple decides to abstain from sex, it must be by mutual consent for a spiritual purpose (to seek God in focused prayer), and only for a determined amount of time. Mutual consent means that both the husband and the wife agree to the temporary period of abstinence. The custom of refraining from sexual relations during special times of religious devotion, such as for prayer and fasting, has its foundation in the Old Testament (1 Samuel 21:4–5). Paul likely had this practice in mind as he taught the Corinthians.

The Bible is clear that married couples are not to deprive one another of sexual gratification, except by mutual agreement and only for a specific timeframe and purpose. Once the devoted time has ended, the couple ought to resume physical relations so that Satan cannot tempt them into sexual misconduct.

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

The Act of Marriage by Tim and Beverly LaHaye

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!