Thou shalt not commit adultery. (Exodus 20:14)¹

The Seventh Commandment is found twice in the Old Testament and six times in the New Testament: Exodus 20:14, Deuteronomy 5:18, Matthew 5:27, Matthew 19:18, Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20, Romans 13:9, James 2:11.

This article is devoted to the sexual intimacy that Yahweh² designed for a man and a woman joined together in holy matrimony to experience and enjoy. Adam referred to this husband and wife relationship after Yahweh had provided Eve as his helpmeet:

…Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 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)

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 two individuals. However, when it is perverted or adulterated, it becomes one of mankind’s most debased, obscene, and repugnant of 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, he makes what is good evil, what is light dark, and what is sweet bitter – Isaiah 5:20.

Without Yahweh and His laws, unregenerate man is capable of devising, participating in, and justifying the vilest behavior. The Seventh Commandment – the antithesis of man’s decadent sexual conduct – brings Yahweh’s condemnation upon anyone who does not repent of the sin of adultery.

Sexual relations with someone other than a person’s husband or wife is adultery; but this limited application does not cover the scope of the Seventh Commandment. Sexual relations with someone other than your marriage partner is adultery; but adultery is not simply sexual relations with someone other than your marriage partner.

The word "adultery" is derived from "adulterate." 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 spurious sexual relations satisfy this definition of adultery because they all corrupt, debase, and make impure by the addition of a foreign or an inferior substance.

Adultery is any sexual transgression as defined by the Bible that defiles the marriage bed. Hebrews 13:4, which is probably the single best commentary on the Seventh Commandment, associates not only moichos, the Greek word translated adulterers, with defiling the marriage bed, but also pornos, 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, is fairly close to how the translators of The Bible in Basic English rendered Exodus 20:14:

Do not be false to the married relation.

Pornos, which is a form of porneia and from which our English word "pornography" is derived, is usually translated as "fornication" in the New Testament. Pornos or porneia are more inclusive words than what most Christians⁴ realize. Fornication is most often portrayed as sexual misconduct participated in by an unmarried couple. While this is one form of fornication, porneia or fornication is not limited to premarital sexual improprieties. For example, incest is described as porneia in 1 Corinthians 5:

It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you [the Corinthian church], and such fornication … that one should have his father’s wife. (1 Corinthians 5:1)

Porneia, in 1 Corinthians 6, describes harlotry or prostitution:

…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)

In Hebrews 12, forbidden lineage relationships are likewise associated with the Greek word pornos:

Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God … lest there be any fornicator … as Esau [who took two wives from the forbidden lineage of the Canaanites], who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. (Hebrews 12:15-16)

In Jude 1, sodomy or homosexuality is defined by the Greek word ekporneuo, a combination of two words including porneuo, from which porneia is derived:

…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 immorality – incest, harlotry, forbidden lineage, and sodomy – are identified in the New Testament as instances of porneia or fornication that defile the marriage bed. This defilement is not limited to sexual misconduct committed after the wedding. Sexual sins committed prior to the wedding also defile the marriage bed because Yahweh’s design for sexual intimacy is exclusive to the marital relationship between husbands and wives.

Although not specified as porneia in the New Testament, there are other sexual perversions, for example miscegenation and bestiality, that also constitute porneia or fornication that can be placed under the broader heading of adultery.

Adultery is any sexual impropriety committed before or after the wedding that is false to the marriage covenant. Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) corroborates this broader definition or understanding:

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.⁵

The Seventh Commandment is found only twice in the Old Testament. However, most commentaries and books devoted to the Ten Commandments include Leviticus 18:20 as another instance where the Seventh Commandment is cited in the Old Testament:

…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 "Thou shalt not commit adultery," it is immediately apparent why many think that this verse is another Old Testament instance of the Seventh Commandment. Leviticus 18:20, however, is not a reiteration of the Seventh Commandment, but instead one of the statutes that falls under or helps to explain the Seventh Commandment. Most of the other Seventh Commandment statutes are also listed in Leviticus 18. This is one instance when the Bible has the majority of a commandment’s statutes listed in the same location.

None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am YHWH.⁶ (Leviticus 18:6)

Verse 6 is a general statement condemning incestuous relationships. The following twelve verses expand upon this statute to include prohibitions against sexual relationships between parents and children, siblings or half siblings, grandparents and grandchildren, uncles or aunts and nephews or nieces, and between in-laws.

Leviticus 18:7-8 describes incest with a person’s mother or a father’s wife with the idiom "uncovering your father’s nakedness":

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 also describe incest with a person’s mother or a father’s wife.

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 understanding of the phrase "the nakedness of his father" helps to correctly determine what happened in this incident. It reveals why Canaan was named in this passage instead of Ham’s other sons and why Canaan and his descendants were cursed instead of Ham. Permitting the Bible, specifically Leviticus 18:7-8, Deuteronomy 22:30 and 27:20, to be its own commentary, it becomes apparent that Canaan was cursed because he was the offspring of Ham’s sexual relationship with his mother.

While some people may still question why Canaan was cursed instead of Ham, 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 were from the incestuous relationships of Lot and his two daughters, as described in Genesis 19:30-38. In addition to the Canaanites, the Moabites and the Ammonites were likewise cursed in Ezra 9:1-12 and the Israelites were forbidden to marry them.⁷

The gravity of incest is also demonstrated in the New Testament. Of all the crimes, including murder, of which Herod was guilty, John the Baptist singled out the sin of incest:

…Herod … had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for Herodias’ sake, his brother Philip’s wife: for he had married her. For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother’s wife…. (Mark 6:14-28)

The Apostle Paul also condemned incest:

It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you … that one should have his father’s wife. And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed … 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 Yeshua.⁸ (1 Corinthians 5:1-5)

Yahweh did not feel compelled to explain His reason for condemning the familial⁹ relationships listed in Leviticus 18. Although the Israelites of Moses’ day may not have yet made the connection between such close genetic relationships and the spiritual and physical consequences that usually result from incest, theirs was not to question why but to simply benefit from what might be labeled blind obedience.

Arthur C. Custance in "Doorway Papers, No. 51, Cain’s Wife" expounded upon the physical consequences of incestuous relationships:

From a mathematical point of view … matings among first cousins (as in Darwin’s case, for example, or his sister Caroline’s case) result in the offspring having identical genes in a ratio of 1 to 7. Many of these genes will be recessive mutants and therefore detrimental to the possessor when inherited homozygously. Mating of uncle to niece or nephew to aunt raises this ratio to 1 to 3. Matings among brothers and sisters raises this ratio, often disastrously, to 1 to 1….

Such children will have an increased risk of being affected by recessive conditions. In order to get an estimate of the extent of this risk, in 1958 I invited Children’s Officers to let me know prospectively of pregnancies or of new births in which it was known that the pregnancy or birth was the result of incest between first degree relatives.

…Thirteen cases of incest (6 father-daughter and 7 brother-sister) were reported to me … when the children were all 4 to 6 years old. I summarize … the information on these 13 children.

Three children are dead: one at 15 months of cystic fibrosis of the pancreas, … one at 2 1/2 months of progressive cerebral degeneration with blindness; and one at 7 years, 11 months of Fallot’s Tetrology (this child had an IQ of 70). One child is severely sub-normal, with much delayed-milestones, and was considered non-testable at age 4 years, 9 months, when she had a vocabulary of only a few words. Four children are educatively subnormal: the known IQ of 3 are 59, 65, and 76….¹⁰

In other words, eight out of thirteen children were born with or developed severe mental or physical deficiencies and three of the children were dead before they reached their eighth birthday. Although man may not have yet understood these potential consequences, Yahweh could foresee the consequences when He commanded Moses to ban these adulterous relationships.

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 [during her menstrual impurity NASV]. (Leviticus 18:19)

This verse addresses an area of privacy that is seldom spoken of or written about. Because many people are unaware that the Bible addresses this area of intimacy, many Christians are transgressing this statute.

This Seventh Commandment statute is principally speaking of the monthly cycle that follows a woman’s ovulation, technically known as menstruation. It is by this cycle that Yahweh designed a woman’s body to cleanse and prepare itself for reproduction.

A man’s wife, especially a prudent wife, is a gift from YHWH – Proverbs 19:14. But, Yahweh has not given man license to do whatever he wishes with his wife, prudent or otherwise. 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, till, 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. It could be said that the same applies to a man’s wife, not every seven years, but for at least seven days every month. 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 disregarded.

Couples should abstain from conjugal relations for seven days from the beginning of the menstrual cycle, provided the woman’s cycle is normal. Although, there are differences of opinions as to whether this passage requires total separation, there is no question that Yahweh demands sexual abstinence during this cleansing cycle. The same law of abstinence 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)

Abstinence should also be observed 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:

…If a woman have … born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation…. And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days. (Leviticus 12:2-5)

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. Although probably having something to do with hormonal variations, medical science has yet to determine the reason for this stipulation. Unquestioning obedience is, nonetheless, 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 in physical uncleanness, requiring purification by a self-imposed separation or quarantine, whereas a deliberate offence is a much more serious transgression in Yahweh’s sight:

And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness [a menstruous woman NASV], and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain [laid bare her flow NASV], 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, the latter probably being the punishment in this instance. 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)

The Bible contains many warnings against 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 2:10-12)

Within marriage, sexual relations are meant to produce life, whereas outside of matrimony, they can lead to death both physically and spiritually. The last statement of the previous passage is used as a hyperbole for the sake of emphasis. Certain individuals, such as David, who were sexually unfaithful, repented and returned to the paths of life. 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)

The number of people, however, who escape the addictive nature of this sin are far fewer than those who, once entrapped therein, are able to escape its dire consequences. King Solomon devoted a good part of four chapters in his proverbs to warning his sons about the dangers of infidelity:

…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, passing through the street near her corner; and he went the way to her house…. 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)

Sandwiched between prohibitions against 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. Following are four clues that should prove helpful in determining Yahweh’s intent.

The phrase "the fire" in verse 21 is in italics, indicating that there are no corresponding words in the Hebrew manuscripts and that these two words were added by the translators. This is not to say that Molech worship did not include offering children as burnt sacrifices. The fact that this did occur is indicated in other passages. However, this is not what is being addressed in Leviticus 18, and, therefore, the words "the fire" do not belong in this verse. The judgment for passing one’s seed to Molech is found in Leviticus 20:

…Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that 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 phrase "the fire" in the judgment for this sin, and its absence leaves room for the possibility that there is more than one way to offer or sacrifice your seed to Molech.

Leviticus 20:5 uses the words "whoring" and "whoredom" to describe this same transgression. These two words are, of course, indicative of some kind of sexual misconduct, either figurative or literal:

And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech…. And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not: Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people. (Leviticus 20:3-5)

This passage is not addressing Israel’s "whoredom," that is, idolatry as a nation. Instead, it pertains to an individual’s whoredom with Molech or with what Molech represents. Therefore, the whoredom addressed in Leviticus 18 and 20 is more likely literal than figurative.

…a primitive root; to cross over; used very widely of any transition (literal or figurative; transitive, intransitive, intensive, causative); specifically, to cover (in copulation).¹¹

…prop. causeth to pass over, sc. semen….¹²

The latter lexicon also quotes Job 21 in which the Hebrew word `abar 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 `abar as mates and breeds. It may not yet be evident what specific sexual sin is being referred to 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 himself. Therefore, Molech represents something or someone else. Molech was the national deity of the Ammonites, who were one of several lineages with whom the Israelites were forbidden to intermarry. The fact that the Ammonites were a forbidden lineage is the final clue for the correct interpretation of this prohibition. Passing one’s seed to Molech is a Hebrew idiom indicating forbidden lineage and interracial relationships. Both transgressions are condemned because they mingle or pollute Israel’s genes and usually lead to idolatry.

Peake’s Commentary on the Bible questions the customary interpretation of Leviticus 18:21 and then provides alternate analyses:

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’.¹³

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 [non-Israelite] woman to cause her to be pregnant…." …This ordinance is against cohabiting with pagan women….¹⁴

Lamsa also points out that the word "‘Molech’ … [in] the Aramaic reads "a strange woman;" that is, a woman of another race or religion."¹⁵

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 [non-Israelites] 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.¹⁶

In the book of Jubilees intermarriage with all [non-Israelite] 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….)"¹⁷

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 [non-Israelite] 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….¹⁸

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)

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)

This was to be done according to the law. The only law Ezra could have been referring to was the Seventh Commandment statute found in Leviticus 18:21. The fact that Israelites were commanded to live separate from other peoples also demonstrates that Yahweh forbade miscegenation.

With these witnesses in mind, and because Deuteronomy 20 associates this sin with whoredom, and because the phrase "pass through" can have sexual implications, 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 perfectly. This verse condemns forbidden lineage and interracial relationships – also known as miscegenation – that pollute Israel’s genes and often lead to the worship of false gods.

Yahweh’s desire for racial purity, cannot be denied. His design for His creation to produce after its own kind is repeated ten times in Genesis 1. This idea was expanded upon in the Apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus:

Every beast loveth his like, and every man loveth his neighbour. All flesh consorteth according to kind, and a man will cleave to his like. (Ecclesiasticus 13:15-16)

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 was it for man’s sake that it was written that we are not to gender 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 KJV)

The Hebrew word mamzer, translated "bastard" and "illegitimate birth" in the King James and New American Standard versions, is defined in Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary:

…from an unused root meaning to alienate; a mongrel, i.e. born of a Jewish [Israelite] father and a [non-Israelite] heathen mother.¹⁹

A child conceived from an interracial relationship is just as illegitimate in Yahweh’s sight as is a child born out of wedlock – both are the consequence of adultery, the mating of two people outside lawful limits.

Along with other Old Testament passages, Nehemiah’s inspired commentary (Nehemiah 13:1-3) on Deuteronomy 23:3 reveals that the congregation or assembly of Yahweh is not speaking of a religious assembly, but instead of the geographical territory wherein Israel abode. This phrase demands racial, not necessarily religious, segregation.

The Bible clearly dictates racial and, therefore, geographical segregation for the Israelites (Exodus 33:16, Leviticus 20:24-26, Numbers 23:9, Deuteronomy 32:8, 1 Kings 8:51-53, Acts 17:26, etc.) Nevertheless, Yahweh intends that His laws, including those concerning racial purity and sebregation, be communicated to the rest of the world (1 Kings 8:41-60, Isaiah 2:2-3, 49:3-6, 56:3-8, Mark 16:15-16, etc.).

The judgment upon the offspring from a forbidden lineage or interracial relationship, as described in Deuteronomy 23, may seem harsh, especially because the offspring was not a participant in the initial sin. However, the Bible provides precedent for this kind of judgment. Canaan, Moab, and Ammon were the consequence of incest, and yet 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 the innocent victims of their parents’ transgressions? It should be kept in mind that Yahweh knows the beginning from the end and that His judgments are remedial in nature for the overall good of mankind. Therefore one of the reasons for Yahweh’s judgment upon the mamzer or mongrel, it would appear, was to deter the perpetuation of the same sin, thereby retaining purity in the bloodlines and preventing the weaknesses that result from genetic interbreeding.

People are more likely to mix with those who are or appear to be racially alike. Therefore, according to the laws of Yahweh, the mamzer, who would look more like an Israelite than a pure-blood non-Israelite, is to be segregated from Israel, the same as the pure-blood person of another race or forbidden lineage.

Ezra and other leaders in 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: for we remain yet escaped, as it is this day: behold, we are before thee in our trespasses: for we cannot stand before thee because of this. (Ezra 9:1-15)

This passage is principally addressing Canaan, Moab, and Ammon and those 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 the non-Israelites in the land at that time. Nehemiah expanded and applied Deuteronomy 23:3’s prohibition against mixing with Ammon and Moab, to all forbidden foreigners:

…they read in the book of Moses in the audience of the people; and 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 `ereb. `Ereb is defined by James Strong:

…the web (or transverse threads of cloth); also a mixture, (or mongrel race).²⁰

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)

Miscegenation or race mixing is forbidden in the Bible. It is adultery, that is, the adulteration of any and all races, the mixing of two diverse seeds that Yahweh never intended to be mixed.

Typical of cultures that have rejected their biblical moorings, and that, more often than not, call good evil and evil good (Isaiah 5:20), today’s multicultural society condemns segregation and promotes miscegenation. 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 all the different races and their cultures. It should be apparent which of the two ideologies is truly hateful and destructive.

People often provide supposed examples of race-mixing in the Bible in an effort to counter the Scriptures’ prohibitions against miscegenation. 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. However, none of these instances represent race-mixing for the simple reason that race-mixing requires two races, and in each of these instances the husband and wife were of the same race.

…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)

There is only one race 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, and the Midianites were descended 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)

And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman [Adoniah] whom he had married…. (Numbers 12:1)

This woman is not Moses’ wife Zipporah as many people have supposed, but a woman by the name of Adoniah, an Ethiopian according to some English versions.

Today, an ethnic Ethiopian would not be of the same race as an Israelite. However, Ethiopian, as it has been rendered in the King James Version, is a poor translation of the Hebrew word Kuwshiy. Strong’s Concordance defines Kuwshiy:

…patronymically from OT:3568; a Cushite, or descendant of Cush.²¹

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 who was a progenitor of the Israelites. Therefore, Ham’s descendants through Cush were of the same race as were Shem’s Israelite descendants through Abraham and Jacob. Even if Adoniah had been a racial Cushite, she would have been of the same race as Moses.

Although 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 Adoniah and Moses’ relationship with her during his exile from Egypt and after he had delivered her people 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 [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….²²

Apparently Adoniah was of Canaanite descent and a Cushite 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. The Hebrew word laqach, translated marriage in Numbers 12:1, simply means took and does not necessarily imply marriage.

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)

Joseph was an Israelite and Asenath is identified in the book of Exodus as an Egyptian. The book of Psalms affirms that the Egyptians of that day were Hamites:

He [Yahweh] … smote all the firstborn in Egypt; the chief of their strength in the tabernacles of Ham. (Psalm 78:50-51)

Israel also came into Egypt; and Jacob sojourned in the land of Ham…. They shewed his signs among them, and wonders in the land of Ham. (Psalm 105:23-27)

…God … had done great things in Egypt; wondrous works in the land of Ham, and terrible things by the Red sea. (Psalm 106:21-22)

Joseph was an Israelite, and the Israelites were descendants of Shem, the first-born son of Noah. Asenath was a Hamite, and the Hamites were descendants of Ham, the second-born son of Noah. Only one race was represented in Joseph’s marriage to Asenath, which precludes any race mixing in their marriage.

And Salmon begat Booz [Boaz] of Rachab [Rahab]…. (Matthew 1:5)

Salmon was a Judahite, and Rahab is often alleged to be a Canaanite. However, even if Rahab were a racial Canaanite there would not be two races represented in Salmon’s marriage to Rahab. As already established, the Canaanites, although a forbidden lineage, were descendants of Ham, the brother of Shem and progenitor of the Israelites. Therefore, there was only one race represented in this relationship.

It is, nonetheless, untenable that Yeshua would have been born of a forbidden lineage:

When YHWH thy God shall bring thee 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 covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. (Deuteronomy 7:1-3)

The seven nations listed in Deuteronomy 7 were all descendants of Canaan who were forbidden to Israel for marriage.

There is no reason to conclude that Yeshua was born of a forbidden lineage because Rahab is never identified as a Canaanite in the Bible. Although Rahab lived in the Canaanite city of Jericho, it is speculation to identify her as a racial Canaanite from this fact alone. As an example, Moses, who was unquestionably an Israelite, was identified as an Egyptian after departing from Egypt:

And when they [the daughters of Reuel] came to Reuel their father, he said, How is it that ye are come so soon today? And 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.

If Rahab were a Canaanite, Yeshua, being a descendant of Rahab, could not legitimately sit on the throne. The law of Yahweh demands that no one but an Israelite is to rule over Israelites:

Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom YHWH thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother. (Deuteronomy 17:15)

Yeshua came from Judah, not Canaan, to rule over His people Israel:

And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, art not the least among the princes of Judah: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel. (Matthew 2:6)

Rahab is listed in the book of Hebrews, in the Hebrew and Israelite faith hall of fame − Hebrews 11:31. Rahab, therefore, must have been a Hebrew or Israelite who resided in Jericho, perhaps a slave or a descendant of a slave. This could perhaps explain why the two Israelite spies sought her out and also why the king of Jericho went to her looking for the two spies in Joshua 2:1-3.

For the principle point under discussion, it does not make any difference whether Rahab was an Israelite or a Canaanite. Either way she was of the same race as Salmon her husband and therefore their marriage was not interracial.

…and Booz [Boaz] begat Obed of Ruth. (Matthew 1:5)

Boaz, the son of Salmon, was a Judahite and Ruth is five times identified as a Moabitess in Ruth 1:22, 2:2, 21, 4:5 and 4:10. However, once again, even if Ruth were a racial Moabite, she would not be of another race. The Moabites were descendants of Lot and 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)

Lot was a nephew of Abraham, a progenitor of the Israelites:

And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother’s son…. (Genesis 12:5)

There is only one race represented in the relationship between Boaz and Ruth. Nevertheless, there is no reason to conclude that Ruth was a racial Moabite. Ruth 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 Moabites:

…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…. (Ezra 9:1-2)

Yeshua could not have become king of the Israelites had He come from a forbidden lineage or mixed race. Therefore, Ruth must have been known as a Moabite because she had lived in the country of Moab, the same as Moses was identified as an Egyptian because of his former residence in Egypt.

Evidence that Ruth was a Moabite by residence rather than by race is demonstrated in Boaz applying to Ruth the levirate law that requires Israelite men to raise up a male heir for a deceased brother, thereby preserving 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 a descendant of the forbidden lineage of Moab or of another race, the law of the levirate would not have applied because her previous relationship with Boaz’s kinsman would have been unlawful and, therefore, adulterous. She must have been an Israelite or at least a descendant of a racially-alike lineage with whom the Israelites were permitted to marry. Otherwise the estate would have been lost to a non-Israelite descendant, the very thing that prompted Ezra to command the Judahites to put away their Moabite and other foreign wives (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.

Moses and Zipporah’s, Moses and Adoniah’s, Joseph and Asenath’s, Salmon and Rahab’s, and Boaz and Ruth’s were not interracial relationships. Interracial marriage is never sanctioned in the Bible, but instead condemned.

People who promote or condone miscegenation often argue that the Old Testament prohibitions against mixing with forbidden lineages and other races 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 question and answer that was 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 t/hey 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….²³

Mike and Mary’s answer is typical of most of today’s churches. But Deuteronomy 7:1-4 does not substantiate Mike and Mary’s limited application of this particular passage in its implications concerning interracial relationships:

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)

Faith in Yahweh is undeniably central to this particular passage. With this in mind, 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, the consequences of race mixing for Israelites²⁴ have not changed. In 1776 there were approximately 2.5 million people in America. Less than one percent of the population was collectively represented by 20,000 Catholics, 3,000 non-Israelite Jews,²⁴ and a few deists. More than 99 percent were white, Christian, Israelite²⁴ Protestants. In light of these 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 religiously pluralistic she becomes, and the more pluralistic she becomes, the more heathen and ungodly she becomes. In other words, nothing has changed since Deuteronomy 7.

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.²⁵

Martin E. Marty, a nationally acclaimed demographics expert and director of the public religion project, also confirmed the inevitable consequences 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.²⁶

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, but when Israelites mix with other races, they usually turn to the gods of those people with whom they mix. This is in fulfillment of the principle found in the Apostle Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 15:33 that "bad company corrupts good morals." Nothing has changed since Deuteronomy 7.

Faith in Yahweh is central to the Bible’s prohibitions against mixing with forbidden lineages, but it is not the only reason for racial segregation. If it had been, the Bible would have provided 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 with the people of those lands…. I fell upon my knees, and … said, O my God … we have forsaken thy commandments, which thou hast commanded by thy servants the prophets, saying, … 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? …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 nor for the children born of these mixed relationships who might have been converted by their fathers. This important fact is completely overlooked by most of modern Christianity.

The prohibition against mixing with certain racially-alike lineages and other races did not pertain merely to faith in Yahweh.

In addition to idolatry, Ezra provided two other reasons why the Israelites were commanded 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 race or the genes of the Israelites.

Verse 12 provides a third reason 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 marriages had been allowed to continue, the land of Israel would have been in jeopardy of being lost or turned over to the mixed multitude born to these relationships. This would have occurred even if both parents of these mixed children or the mixed 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)

This same thing is occurring in America and throughout the world. Someone who spurns his birthright, history, posterity, and future through miscegenation can never regain what was lost, even though he may deeply regret his previous actions. 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. It is an emotionally charged issue that is a lightning rod for false accusations from non-Christians and Christians alike. People who believe that miscegenation is biblically condemned and who, therefore, promote the separation and purity of the different races are often accused of racism, hatred and, in some instances, even white supremacy. The basis for such accusations is emotional rather than rational in nature.

People who promote integration and miscegenation of the different races are advancing a position that ultimately destroys the purity of each race, and therefore, each race and its distinct culture. 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 obvious which position demonstrates more genuine 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.²⁷

The Winnipeg Free Press (May 6, 1997) 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.²⁸

Woods’ admission that there is no word to describe him speaks for itself. Dyer’s article also pointed out that mixed marriages are not only increasing among Caucasians, but that they are increasing to a much greater degree among non-Caucasians:

…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.²⁹

Not only is the white race being destroyed through miscegenation, but so are the blacks, Asians, American Indians, and other races "at a staggering rate." Racial segregation and purity benefits all – not just the white man.

Dyer declared, "The ‘melting pot’ is finally working, even in the U.S." It may well be working, but not to the betterment of everyone involved. What it is working toward is the ultimate genocide of all races and the destruction of 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 [Martin Luther King] 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.³⁰

The fact that these young people of mixed race are on a "quest for identity" indicates that they have no identity. They are lost because they have no race or a culture with which to identify. 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.³¹

Children from interracial relationships have to redefine their culture and religion because what might have been theirs has been destroyed through miscegenation.

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.³²

From 1960 to 1990, marriages between blacks and whites increased by 400 percent. During the same period, marriages between whites and Asians increased nearly 1,000 percent (U.S. Census). 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 is this increase in miscegenation, it has only gotten worse. Everyone, no matter what race he may be, needs to stand together 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 motivates and 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

Miscegenation is condemned in the Bible. The brazen promotion and practice of miscegenation is endemic of our modern world’s rapid progression into depravity. If we are to change the direction our nation is presently headed, we must determine to be true to our God, His law, ourselves, our children, and our race.

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

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind [homosexuals NASV] … shall inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

Society has been more disposed to label homosexuality a perversion than they have other sexual iniquities – an indictment with biblical precedence. Leviticus 18:26-30 identifies all of the sexual sins listed therein as collective abominations, but only homosexuality is singled out with the same denigration. Genesis 13:13 describes sodomites as exceedingly wicked sinners, and Genesis 18:20 identifies their sin as very grievous to Yahweh, a description used only in reference to homosexuality.

The New Testament uses the Greek word pornea, translated fornication, to identify incest, harlotry, and forbidden lineage relationships. But only homosexuality or sodomy is described by the even stronger Greek word ekporneuo:

Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication [ekporneuo], and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. (Jude 1:7)

Ekporneuo is defined by James Strong and Joseph Thayer:

…from NT:1537 and NT:4203; to be utterly unchaste.³³

…1 aorist participle feminine ekporneusasa; (the prefix ek seems to indicate a lust that gluts itself, satisfies itself completely)….³⁴

While this perversion is especially repugnant to Yahweh, the extra attention given to this sin by man sometimes contributes to dulling Christians’ judgment of other sins. Homosexuality is not the only sin that should be identified as a perversion. The Apostle Paul’s statement to Elymas the sorcerer in Acts 13:9-10 indicates that anything contrary to the ways of Yahweh is perversion. Even the lesbian practice of wearing men’s clothing and the homosexual practice of wearing women’s clothing is abominable to Yahweh (Deuteronomy 22:5).

Homosexuals are accurately described as perverts; they have perverted what Yahweh ordained as the normal and accepted act of sexual relations between a husband and wife. For the same reason that homosexuals are perverts so are those who participate in any kind of sexual relationship prior or in addition to the marriage relationship between a man and a woman.

Tragically, many sexual perversions have become acceptable. Once a society tolerates any perversion, it opens the door to all perversions, including homosexuality. A little leaven eventually leavens the whole lump (1 Corinthians 5:6-7).

The 1975 Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary accurately defines perversion:

…2: a perverted form; esp: an aberrant sexual practice esp. when habitual and preferred to normal coitus.³⁵

This definition correctly defines any aberrant sexual conduct as a perversion. However, it does not provide the standard by which aberrant is to be determined. Consequently, one person’s standard would appear to have just as much merit as the next person’s.

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. The United States of America finds herself today upon this very road. This moral deterioration is evidenced by her many politicians and citizens who have inverted nearly everything, calling good evil and evil good (Isaiah 5:20). Whereas society once identified sodomites as perverts and queers, it now identifies them as gays and their perversion an alternate lifestyle.

In The Institutes of Biblical Law, Rousas John Rushdoony cites a column by Ann Landers wherein Landers recommended 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.³⁶

The National Education Association (NEA), which has a virtual monopoly on public schools, determines what children between the ages of five and eighteen are taught in the public school system. A publication titled Homophobia and Education: How to Deal with Name Calling, designed for classroom use, can be found in the NEA’s professional library in West Haven, Connecticut. 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."³⁷ It stands to reason, then, that on the same grounds, the NEA also could 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 same 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?³⁸

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. 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 why homosexuality has become an accepted lifestyle in the United States is that most American pulpits no longer teach Yahweh’s commandments, statutes, and judgments as the moral standard for mankind. Instead of condemning this sin as the perversion it is, 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."³⁹

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."⁴⁰

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."⁴¹

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."⁴²

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 as found in His Word:

Chuck Colson
If homosexuals want to have relationships with people of the same sex in the privacy of their homes, that is their right.⁴³

Gary Bauer
[I am] willing to adopt a live-and-let-live attitude toward what others do in private.⁴⁴

James Dobson
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.⁴⁵

We believe every human being [specifically referring to those in the homosexual community] … is entitled to acceptance and respect.⁴⁶

In the same newsletter from which the previous quotation was extracted, Dobson stated, "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."⁴⁷ Yahweh’s solution for unrepentant homosexuals is the death penalty, not acceptance and respect. And anyone unwilling to promote this judgment is mocking part of Yahweh’s law and solution for this sin.

At one time, when America’s preachers taught Yahweh’s laws as the moral standard for this nation, sodomy was a criminal offense in all fifty states. Not until 1961 did these laws begin to be 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."

In The Ten Commandments for Today, William Barclay made a distinction (one certainly not found in the Ten Commandments) between two different categories of homosexuals – the homosexual by nature who cannot help being a homosexual and the homosexual by choice who deliberately sets out to be a homosexual. The former, declares Barclay, deserves "nothing but sympathy" and the latter "nothing but condemnation."⁴⁸ One wonders if Barclay makes the same distinction between different kinds of thieves, rapists, and murderers.

Barclay, while suggesting his hypothesis was biblical, continued his ungodly distinctions:

I do not think that we can escape from beginning with the fact 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.⁴⁹

No one is a homosexual until he chooses to participate 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.

Because preachers and politicians alike have bought into the lie that certain people are born homosexual, sodomy is considered a sickness by some and a choice by others. Even if it could be proven that certain people have a genetic proclivity toward homosexuality 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.

Barclay continued:

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.⁵⁰

According to Barclay, no one has the right to condemn another unless he at some time has participated in the same sin. But Yahweh condemns homosexuals, and He certainly never shared in their iniquity, and He likewise commands us to condemn those who participate in this perversion.

There is a cure for homosexuality – it’s called repent or suffer capital punishment at the hands of a godly government.⁵¹

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."⁵²

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, punishable by death.

Those who play God have no regard for Yahweh’s Word and have set themselves up as mankind’s moral authority. The Apostle Paul explained that when people reject Yahweh and disobey His Word, Yahweh turns them over to their own depravity, which in some instances includes 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 are the terms Paul used to describe the sin of sodomy. It is also described as "bitter" in Deuteronomy 32:32, "horrible" in Jeremiah 23:14, and "ungodly," "filthy," and "unlawful" in 2 Peter 2:6-8.

In most Bible versions, the Greek word arsenokoites is translated homosexual, but in 1 Corinthians 6:9, the King James Bible translators chose to render arsenokoites 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 [sic]) 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 25-44.⁵³

This lifestyle would be better termed an "alternate death-style." It is almost as if King Solomon had homosexuals 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 would seem to be one of His means of fulfilling this proverb among the sodomite community.

Today the sodomites have gone far beyond just "coming out of the closet." Their agenda includes proselytizing and lobbying congress for support.

Roberta Achtenberg, President Bill Clinton’s assistant secretary of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development and the first known homosexual appointed to a federal position, 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…. WILLIAM J. CLINTON⁵⁴

This was to be expected from Bill Clinton, but most people would be surprised to discover that 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 gives domestic partners of city employees access to health benefits. Consider the following, reported by World Net Daily:

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."⁵⁵

Guide, a popular homosexual magazine, printed a homosexual agenda 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.⁵⁶

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.⁵⁷

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, a man 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 … wherever men are with men together. 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. All homosexuals must stand together as brothers…. 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, and we will succeed because we are adept at setting styles….

The family unit – spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence – will be abolished. The family unit … must be eliminated. 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. …we are free to live our lives according to the dictates of the pure imagination. 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.⁵⁸

Some in the homosexual community have argued that this piece is satire. But what kind of reprobates produce and publish such satire? Carefully read again the opening paragraph and decide for yourself whether you think 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 today. 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 heterosexuals, as reported by Ken Walker in an article entitled "Homosexuals more likely to molest kids, study reports":

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 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.⁵⁹

Because sodomites cannot reproduce, they must recruit the young into their ranks. A 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 (June 1995) published an article by Vernon Geberth entitled "Homosexual Serial Murder Investigation":

Homosexual homicides, where victims are killed by lovers of the same sex, are relatively common….

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.⁶⁰

Back in the Closet, Under the Blood or In a Casket

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 gay.⁶¹ By that same logic, Van Buren should have also informed her readers that 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 that person 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 Yeshua, 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. Becoming a Christian can only be accomplished by renouncing and completely turning away from this perverted lifestyle.⁶² Otherwise, under Yahweh’s laws, sodomy is a capital crime against society and should be punished as such.

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)

Certain people attempt to use Leviticus 18:23 as a prohibition against miscegenation or interracial mixing. Miscegenation, as we have seen, is addressed in verse 21. Furthermore, the word "beast" is translated from the word behemah, 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).⁶³

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."

As is true in most issues, the Talmud (Yabamoth 59b), the Jews’ religious book of faith, promotes the exact opposite of what the Bible teaches:

Women having intercourse with a beast can marry a priest, the act is but a mere wound.

Modern society is also beginning to promote 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.⁶⁴

One might contend that Dr. Ullerstam is promoting the rape of animals. Where are animal rights activists when you 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 [sic – twenty-eight 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 ½ 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….⁶⁵

The judgment for this abomination is provided in Exodus 22:

Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death. (Exodus 22:19)

Leviticus 20 demands that the animal with which this perversion is committed 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 colonies of New England where 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.⁶⁶

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)

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. This sin, therefore, can be described as unlawful sexual commerce. Prostitution, whoredom, and harlotry are all terms describing promiscuous sexual relations performed for hire or payment.

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," said Shaw, "would you go to bed with me for f12?" "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 a woman is a prostitute; it only determines whether or not she is well-paid.

Likewise, women or men who are paid to remove their clothing for pornographic magazines or movies, and Hollywood actors and actresses who are paid to go to bed with someone who is not their husband or wife are also prostitutes in principle, if not in fact.

From time-to-time, the idea of legalizing prostitution is discussed among our legislators and in the media, and it has already been legalized in some countries. But in such places, prostitution has only become legal – not lawful. Man’s legislation can never make lawful what Yahweh has outlawed.

Leviticus 21 forbids Yahweh’s priests from marrying harlots:

They shall be holy unto their God…. They shall not take a wife that is a whore, or profane; neither shall they take a woman put away from her husband: for he is holy unto his God…. And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire…. And he shall take a wife in her virginity. 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 21:6-15)

Prostitution is such a grievous sin to Yahweh that He requires the corpse of an executed prostitute to be burned with fire. Perhaps this added desecration is because prostitutes not only make a living from this form of adultery, but their livelihood demands that they seek 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, … I have decked my bed with coverings of tapestry, with carved works, with fine linen of Egypt. I have perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes, and cinnamon. 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 spiritually strong men have also been destroyed by lewd women:

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 bod