Genesis Sexual Health Positive Terms

Be Fruitful and Increase, pah-RAH rah-BAH (Genesis 1:22) Strong, H6509 and H7235

Sexual Intimacy, yah-DAH (Genesis 4:1) Strong, H3045

Covenant, buh-REETH (Genesis 6:18) Strong, H1285

Foreplay, yih-TSACH (Genesis 26:8) Strong, H6711

Birth Control, shah-CHAWT (Genesis 38:9) Strong, H7843

Eunuch/Intersexual Traits, sah-REECE (Genesis 37:36) Strong, H5631

Reproductive and Anatomical Terms

Flesh, bah-SAR (Genesis 2:21) Strong, H1320

Naked, ah-ROME (Genesis 2:25) Strong H6174

Conceive, hah-RAH (Genesis 4:1) Strong, H2029

Give Birth To, YEH-led (Genesis 4:1) Strong, H3045

Circumcision, nah-MAHL (Genesis 17:11) Strong, H5243

Foreskin, ahr-LAH (Genesis 17:11) Strong, H6190

Menstruation: The Way of Women, DEH-rek nah-SHEEM (Genesis 31:35) Strong, H1870 and H802

Unhealthy Sexuality Terms

Decline of Sexual Safety, chah-LAWL (Genesis 6:1) Strong, H2490

Sexual Nihilism, Evil, RA (Genesis 6:5) Strong, H7451

Sexually Transmitted Infections, neh-GAH  (Genesis 12:17) Strong, H5061

Sodom, (Genesis 13:13) Strong, H5467

Sacred Sex Trafficking, zah-NAH (Genesis 34:31) Strong, H2181

Coercive Sexual Intercourse, BO (Genesis 38:9) Strong, H935

The sexual health-positive big picture takes shape in Genesis 1-2.  Unhealthy sexuality does not exist within these chapters. All vocabulary and images paint a positive view of human sexuality.  The teaching learning of little children begins with divine mandate for the earth to “bring forth” (Genesis 1:11). Then, the command directs at all of creation with  “be fruitful and increase” appearing seven times in the book of Genesis (Genesis 1:22, 28; 8:17; 9:1,7; 17:20; 35:11). Seven often appears as a perfect or complete number in ancient culture reflecting spiritual wholeness.  One can see the explanation of Hebrew numbers and specifically “seven” in the Biblical literary device section of Part Three.  The sexual health phrase “be fruitful and increase” affirms sexually reproducing animals, the families of  Adam and Eve, Noah, and finally the family of Abraham to Joseph. No negative images connect to the “be fruitful and increase” sexual health statements throughout the entire Bible.  Every intimate relationship God formed with humans in Genesis begins with this sexual health affirmation.  The reader may see connection between  spirituality and human sexuality. The blending of spiritual intimacy with physical sexuality forms an ongoing thread through this work.  

Within Genesis 1-5 the “be fruitful and increase” sexual health-positive phrase appears twice. Genesis 1:22 reveals the first pronouncement of God in the Bible  blessing the sexuality of the animal kingdom. The second blessing directs at humans “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.” (Genesis 1:28)  The first blessing for humankind emerges as a sexual health-positive mandate.  No unhealthy sexual images appear in Genesis 1-5 except for the sexual shame humankind experienced in the loss of intimacy with God.  The hiding of genitalia and distancing from God may foreshadow the loss of intimacy with decline to sexual abuse of Genesis 6-9.

One Flesh, Naked Without Shame, Give Birth To

Genesis two again illustrates specifics of intimacy with God and humans.  

Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.The man said,“This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh, she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.  Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame. (Genesis 2:22-25)  

Children eventually ask caregivers, “Where do babies come from?” These Genesis sexual health-positive images craft a teaching-learning process based on the essential being of God rather than sexual performance. Before caregivers unpack the explanation of reproductive acts Genesis paints a kind picture of human sexuality showing spiritual connection with God, beauty, pleasure, compassion, balance, and reconciliation. Human sexuality seems safe from coercion or violence within these images.  Children may begin to build a belief system that sexual health is not only good, but safe. 

Two images teaching children about sexual shame form an inclusio in Genesis 1-3.  “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.  Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.” (Genesis 2:25) In this piece sexual intercourse mirrors spiritual oneness between partners.  Human sexuality and the naked body bare no shame.  Piaget (1929) calls the development of a child’s brain, the schema.  Bowlby (1969) identifies this neurological growth as the attachment system.  According to Piaget between the ages of two to seven, a child’s value system shapes according to the nurture of caregivers. Bowlby (1969) takes this theory a step further demonstrating a child’s brain volume physically grows according to caregiver intimacy.  It seems reasonable that a child’s sexuality can form both structure and function on the intimacy of spirituality, beauty, compassion, balance, and healthy relationships. On the other hand it seems that shame and fear can also shape the sexual system of the brain in specific ways. If shame and fear shape the schema or attachment system of the brain, then sexuality may trigger fear based responses.  Genesis 1-5 may have potential to shape a child’s sexual health schema or attachment system with compassionate boundaries, reason, and social awareness.

When caregivers communicate to children the compassion of benevolent Creator formed sexual health, this wiring instantly sprouts new connections in the prefrontal cortex (PFC). The PFC governs and regulates the entire system. When a child thinks about sexuality, the response based on this PFC wiring can be healthy, compassionate, and regulated.  If shame shapes a child’s brain so sexuality is feared, punished for, or repulsed from, then neural connections form from the fear or shame center of the brain. This can mean that if a child believes male genitalia is scamlin, or a shame limb, then she may have a completely different neurological experience than a child who views anatomy as most excellent creation in the image of omnibenevolent God.

  The snap shot bringing the sexual shame inclusio to an end focuses on the covering of shame (Genesis 3:21). Shameless sexuality appears in Genesis 1:28 beginning the snap shot and 3:21 ends the scene with the covering of shame.  The result of humans seeking equality with God is sexual shame. Reproductive science, the dopamine arousal system, adrenaline and hormone transfer, do not appear to change in the Fall. Perception of sexuality shifts. Instead of seeing genitalia as bearing the image of God humans assign shame to body parts.   In response, the first family covers genitalia with self made clothing hiding from the presence of God.  After awareness of and consequence for their sin, Creator gives humankind gifts of meaning making, pain, labor, and childbirth. Then the climax of the snap shot appears, The Maker tailors clothing, majestic royal garments, to cover shame. Following this immediate context the first mention of genital sexual intercourse in the Bible records. The word used to paint this first sexual health snap shot is YDA, genital sexual intercourse, the intimate knowing of body, mind, and spirit. 1:28 begins the snap shot with shameless sexuality and 3:21 ends the scene with the covering of shame and then intimacy of sexual health, YDA. Pope John Paul II wrote an excellent piece on the intimacy of God at Creation.

The Intimacy of Genital Sexual Intercourse

Genesis 4:1 introduces for the first time the sexual health term, genital  sexual intercourse, YDA, ידע, pronounced ya-DAH ( Strong, H3045). The word YDA, sexual intimacy, appears three times in the sexual health big picture of Genesis 1-5 (Genesis 4:1,17, 25).  Nine times the sexual health use of  YDA  appears in the Book of Genesis (Genesis 4:1,17, 25; 19:5, 8, 33, 35, 24:16, 38:26).  The range of usage includes: sexual intimacy between Adam and Eve of 4:1, 25, Cain’s intercourse with his wife in 4:17; the threat of gang rape of 19:5, the description of virginity 19:8 and 24:16,  the incestuous intercourse of Lot’s daughters in 19:33, 35, and as the narrator explains Judah ceased intercourse with his daughter-in-law, Tamar in 38:16.

YDA appears within the sexual health-positive big picture of Genesis 1-5 with neither prohibition nor negativity.  Chapter 19 may be the use  of YDA as a literary device called paradox 

(Giordano, 2017).  The Biblical Theology section explains the many uses of literary devices in the Bible.  Chapter 19 uses the word, YDA, sexual intercourse four times. The Genesis author may be contrasting the sexual health-positive term, YDA, of chapter 4 with unhealthy sexuality. Specifically chapter 19 uses YDA within the threatening assault of gang rapists. YDA, then describes Lot’s daughters intent on incest who dope their father, then sexually assault him on two occasions. So with the use of Biblical literary device,  chapter 19 may be communicating a paradox contrasting sexual health of Genesis 4 with sexual abuse. Finally chapter 36 reflects the use of YDA in a sex trade seduction scene of Judah with his daughter-in-law, Tamar. The word, YDA, as a sexual health term is used nine times in Genesis breaking down this way:

1. Sexual health: 5 x’s
2. Sexual abuse: 4 x’s

Another Biblical inclusio begins Genesis 5. Chapter one paints the image of God in creation. All flows from this benevolent act including sexuality. The entirety of creation reflects only good. Sexual health too is exceptionally good.  God blesses healthy sexuality as Creator intimately walks and talks with humanity.  In the same way Genesis 5 begins with the image of God in creating humankind. The writer details the record of families. In this piece Enoch walks with God as Adam and Eve walked in the garden.   The sexual health big picture syncs chapters 1 with 5 using precise themes and vocabulary bringing this section to conclusion. All images in the big picture of sexual health reflect intimacy with God and humankind. Even though humankind fails and falls, sexual health does not suffer sin’s effect until the pathogenesis or decline of intimacy in Genesis 6. The excellence of sexual health according to Genesis 1-5 is spiritual, beautiful, pleasurable, compassionate, brings balance, and reconciles relationship.

 Pathogenesis or Decline of Sexual Health

After the sexual health-positive big picture of Genesis 1-5, chapters 6-10 contrast sexual health with the decline of sexual safety.  This too may be a literary device of paradox highlighting the stark contrast of sexual health with sexual assault. The flood account of Noah and his family paints loss of intimacy between God and humankind. Spiritual distance from God parallels decline of sexual health.  Genesis 1-5 sets the sexual health-positive big picture and chapters 6-10 details the pathogenesis to the incestuous sexual assault of Noah’s wife by their biological son, Ham. The Flood snap shot pictured as an unhealthy sexuality teaching piece is new technology and may be counter intuitive for the reader. The teaching learning theory thus far looks like this: Genesis 1-5 teaches children the foundations of sexual health with kind positive images.  Genesis 6-11 teaches children about boundaries for sexual health. The decline of sexual health to abuse in chapter 6 shows the impact of loss of intimacy with God. This can be thought of as not only a boundary statement for children warning about coercive sexuality but also may teach children the origin of sin and sexual abuse.  Chapters 1-5 teaches foundational principles and chapters 6-11 frames boundaries preventing abuse specifically incest.

Pathogenesis or Decline From Intimacy with God-HLL, Coercive Sexuality

The decline of sexual safety, begins with the Hebrew word, HLL (Strong, H2490).  HLL, חָלַל, pronounced ha-LAL, means to profane, defile, pollute, desecrate, to begin, to defile oneself sexually, to wound, to pierce. The majority of uses for the Hebrew word HLL connect to decline of intimacy with God.  HLL can mean “to begin”, but the majority use of the word appears as a term of the decline of intimacy with God. As a term of decline, HLL can mean profaning, defiling, polluting, desecrating, wounding, or unhealthy sexuality. HLL as a word signaling decline of sexual health adds clarity to the flood snap shot of Genesis 6-9. The Biblical Theology section treats all the sexual health uses of HLL in detail.

When human beings began (HLL) to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them,  the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.  Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.” (Genesis 6:1)

The passage does not make coherent sense without the translation of HLL as decline of sexual health.  Why would God lament the mortality of humans and exterminate the human race without cause? The reason for global judgement ? The decline to sexual abuse.

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. (Genesis 6:4)

This translation struggles. The term Nephilim, נְּפִלִים, pronounced nu-fil-EEM is the Hebrew word  meaning “to fall upon or attack” with alternate meanings of “ to bully” or “tyrant” (Strong, H5303). The Greek text uses the word, gigantes, γίγαντες, pronounced GEE-gan-tes. The gigantes were Greek mythological snake-footed giants born from the blood spatter among the castration gore of Uranus, the heaven deity (Mussies, 2021). The most ancient Greek origin stories cite Uranus’ wife Gaia as his incestuous mother. Hesiod states in the Theogony that Gaia the mother-wife of Uranus coerced Cronus to castrate her husband for imprisoning her children. Cronus ambushed his father, violently castrated him throwing the testicles into the sea. Aphrodite came forth from the bloody castrated genitals (Hesiod Theogony). Perhaps the Greek translators purposely used the back story of the gigantes? Could it be that Uranus’ incestuous relationship with Gaia and his bloody castration add depth to the Nephilim snap shot ending with the incest of Ham and his mother?  The term in Genesis 6:4 for sexual intercourse, BO, always means unhealthy sexuality in Genesis.  The word, heroes, too is unfortunate and can also mean, “warrior tyrants”. An Arabic equivalent for heroes, _{جَبَّارً} , means one who acts proudly, magnifies himself, or an audacious bold-tyrant (Strong, H1368). Men of renown may not have the flattering intention of the author, but rather may mean, “infamously bad reputation.”

The Book of Enoch is a non canonical ancient Near East text dating from 200 BCE to 100 AD which gives helpful insight into this pathogenesis text.  

And it came to pass that the children of men had multiplied in those days and were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of heav- en, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: ‘Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children… ’ [They] took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught tyrants… And there arose much godlessness, and they com- mitted fornication, and they were led astray, and became corrupt in all their ways (Enoch Book 6.1-2, Rogers, p. 24).

The NIV translation uses warm words like “going into”, “beautiful women”, “marriage to heroes of renown”. These terms seem to craft a romantic narrative perhaps?  Enoch sets the tone for a more accurate translation based on context and language study.  Enoch uses the words “lusted”, “defile”, “charms and enchantments” meaning perhaps the use of sorcery, “tyrants”, “godlessness”, “fornication”, and “corrupt”. These unhealthy sexuality descriptors are dramatically different than the NIV’s Hallmark movie rendition. Enoch’s translation connects to my proposed translation.

The following reflection is a possible translation based on Hebrew textual analysis and the ancient source of Enoch with the big picture of sexual health in Genesis.  The alternate Biblical theological translation appears without italics so the reader can compare the (NIV) text with the proposed translation. 

“When (unhealthy sexuality increased, HLL) among human beings on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and married any of them they chose.  Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not (fight) with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.  (Sexual predators coerced, BO unhealthy sexuality) the daughters of humans and impregnated them. They were the (infamous tyrants of history).” (Genesis 6:1-4) 

The reader can note that HLL, unhealthy sexuality, of verse one can connect to form an inclusio with verse four, “sexual predators coerced.”This proposed translation not only connects more closely to the version of Enoch but seems to make a coherent transition to the next section.

The Lord saw how great the (violent abuse, RA, רע) of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only (coercive, RA, רע) all the time.  The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.  So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the crea- tures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”  But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord. (Genesis 6:5-8)

Sexual Nihilism, Evil

The cause for terminating the human race?  Loss of spiritual intimacy leading to sexual nihilism.  This sexual safety snap shot starting in Genesis 6:1-8 forms a thematic inclusio with the assault of Noah’s wife by her son Ham in Genesis 9:21-25. Sexual nihilism underlies the philosophy that sexuality has no values and nothing can be truthfully known or communicated. Nihilism connects with extreme pessimism and radical skepticism condemning existence. True nihilism trusts nothing, possesses neither loyalty nor purpose and anarchy is impulse. Nihilism associates with Friedrich Nietzsche who projected that nihilism’s destructive effects would undermine  moral, religious, and metaphysical convictions creating the greatest crisis in human history (Nietzsche, 2010). In the 20th and 21st centuries nihilistic value destruction and purposelessness preoccupy politics, arts, and sexual media.  By the beginning of the 21st century, existential despair transitioned to indifference, as seen in escalating suicide statistics across all age groups, school shootings without national policy, political insurrection, and multi trillion dollar indebtedness.  A sexual nihilist then may have no boundaries, no loyalties, no purpose, and present a “nothing matters” destructive pattern in sexual relationships  (Pratt, 2021). Global sexual nihilism with abuse seems to be a more just judgement for the flood sequence of Genesis 6-9.

The word for wickedness and evil, RA, רע in Genesis 6:5 is the same word used in the Genesis creation snap shot of 2:17 (Strong, H7451). Evil, RA, in Genesis 2:17 forms the one boundary statement God draws for humankind, “You must not eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of God and Evil (RA) for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil according to von Rad (1967)  means omniscience, to be like God in knowledge. Perhaps another possible translation may be, “You must not confuse intimacy with coercion, for when you do, relationships certainly die.” What immediately follows this boundary is the coercive temptation of the snake with Adam and Eve in Genesis 3, Cain’s premeditated ambush murder of his brother in Genesis 4, and the sexual assault snap shots of Genesis 6-9. Trace each of these events to the pathogenesis of decline and the reader may see loss of intimacy with God begins the movement from sexual health to abuse. The idea of evil in the first 11 chapters of the Genesis sexual health big picture has clear connection to sexual coercion and decline from intimacy with God.

Covenant Intimacy of Relationship, Safety and Incest Boundaries

Chapters 9 and 10 end with the inclusio of the Noah snap shot. Noah with his family survive the pathogenesis. The text reads, 

Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil (RA, רע) from childhood (NAR, נער). And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done. “God blessed Noah and his sons saying to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase, and fill the earth.’”  (Genesis 8:20)  

The Creator reconciles distance with humankind through the intimacy of forgiveness mirroring the reconciliation with the covering of sexual shame in Genesis 3:21. A sacrificial life exchanges for the pain of unhealthy sexuality.

The statement, “even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood”  may need clarity. The term childhood is the Hebrew word, NAR, נער, pronounced, NAH-ar (Strong, H5271).   This word appears 46 times in the Hebrew Old Testament for pubescent adolescents and once for little children in this passage.  The usage of NAR may not permit the translation to be “childhood” found only in this verse. Perhaps a more accurate translation could be, “sexually mature young adults” connecting to the introduction with the abuse of the tyrants. This statement “even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood” too forms an inclusio at the opening of chapter 6 with the decline of sexual health.   A more contextual translation may be, “even though every inclination of the human heart can be coercive from onset of puberty.”

The repetition of the “be fruitful and increase” sexual health phrase  of Genesis 8:20 mirrors the first blessing of God in Genesis for humans reconnecting to the big picture of sexual health. The word for covenant or intimate relationship, BRT, appears seven times in chapter 9. Seven is a perfect number in Hebrew numerology and the author may be emphasizing the point for God’s comprehensive compassion toward humans. The Creator once again takes responsibility for the distance of humankind with the intimacy of reconciliation.

Immediately after the “be fruitful and increase” sexual health reconciliation snap shot, the story picks up the sexual abuse theme from the introduction of chapter 6. This forms a succinct literary inclusio.  

The sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem, Ham and Japheth. (Ham was the father of Canaan.) These were the three sons of Noah, and from them came the people who were scattered over the whole earth.

Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a vineyard. When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father naked and told his two brothers outside.  But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their fa ther’s naked body. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father naked.

 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him,  he said,

“Cursed be Canaan!
    The lowest of slaves
    will he be to his brothers.”

He also said,

“Praise be to the Lord, the God of Shem!
     May Canaan be the slave of Shem.

May God extend Japheth’s territory;
  may Japheth live in the tents of Shem,
    and may Canaan be the slave of Japheth.”

After the flood Noah lived 350 years. 29 Noah lived a total of 950 years, and then he died. (Genesis 9:18-29)

So, the English translation reads that God eternally cursed Canaan because his father, Ham, saw his naked grandfather, Noah, blacked out from a binge-drinking bender.   A more accurate version leans on another Hebrew literary device called euphemism.  Jewish writers used words carefully, more comfortable speaking of bodily functions in terms of “covering the feet or watering the feet” instead of defecating or urinating. Today incest is a difficult topic not spoken of lightly. So it was with the Biblical writers. In Leviticus 18 laws prohibiting sexual intercourse between family members appear. Each time the word for incest occurs, a Hebrew euphemism softens the conversation perhaps protecting young ears. The words used for incest are “to uncover the nakedness of” beginning with Leviticus 18:6.  The literal translation of this Hebrew verse is “Oh man, oh man, do not come near to any of your blood relatives to uncover the nakedness, I am the Lord.”

The prohibitions which follow Leviticus 18:6 address uncovering the nakedness of or genital sexual intercourse with one’s mother, stepmother, sister, grand daughter, half sister, aunt, uncle’s wife, daughter in law, and sister in law.  Ham’s sexual assault of his biological mother seems to be a better explanation for the curse against the incestuous offspring, Canaan. The territory belonging to Canaan along with its inhabitants will be a source of pain and conflict for the family of Israel throughout the Old Testament. The negative undertone of the Land of Canaan may connect to the incestuous assault of Ham with his mother.

The Genesis 6-10 decline of sexual safety ends with a genealogy of Noah, the ark maker’s family. The Noah snap shot transitions with reconciliation and reconnection to the big picture of sexual health in chapters 1-5. Noah’s family is blessed by God. The Creator repeats the command for human beings to be “fruitful and increase” connecting with the opening passages of Genesis. Genesis 1-5 paints the picture of foundation for sexual health and Genesis 6-11 illustrates boundaries protecting children from abuse.  Now humankind has awareness of not only the intimacy of sexual health from Genesis 1-5, but clarity on the pathogenesis or decline to unhealthy sexuality of Genesis 6-11.  When humans move away from intimacy with God and one another, sexuality trends toward coercion, violence, and nihilism. When humans engage God intimately, sexual health appears spiritual, beautiful, pleasurable, compassionate, balanced, and reconciliatory.

The sexual health-positive big picture appears in Genesis 1–11. The Abraham snapshot also spans 11 chapters in Genesis 11–22. This eleven chapter organization appears purposeful. So far in Genesis, Chapters 1–5 articulate the sexual health-positive big picture followed by the contrasting unhealthy sexuality snapshot of Noah in Chapters 6–10. The balance of the Book of Genesis features the family of Abraham in Chapters 11–36 and Joseph in Chapters 37–50. This section discusses how the sexual health big picture threads through the sexual politics of the 4th century BCE with the topics of sexually transmitted infections, same-sex conversation, masturbation theology, birth control, the sacred sex trade, and perhaps intersexuality. 

The Abraham in Egypt snapshot shows the cause and effect of unhealthy sexuality and disease. Sodom with its violence has been the basis of religious and governmental legislation against homosexuality for thousands of years. The Onan account of Chapter 38 forms Jewish and Christian belief around masturbation and birth control. Tamar’s coercive seduction of her father-in-law Judah, touches on the sacred sex trade, and the Joseph with Potiphar snapshot of Chapter 39 perhaps reflects intersexual politics. Each of these concepts detail in the Biblical Theology, Neuroscience, and Clinical Sexology sections.

Genesis 11: Pathogenesis, HLL

Chapter 11 begins another snapshot of pathogenesis using the untranslatable Hebrew word HLL. This term in Genesis signals the decline of intimacy with God in the Noah account of 6:1, the incest snapshot of Ham in 9:20, the Tower of Babel in 11:6, the beginning of famine in 41:54, the crisis of stolen contraband in 44:12, and Reuben’s rape of the partner of his father, Jacob, in 49:4. The complete Biblical use of HLL aspathogenesis or decline of spirituality explains with fuller commentary in the Biblical Theology section. Humankind once again seeks to attain godhood in Chapter 11, as Adam and Eve attempted. The reader may note that the pathogenesis term HLL appears in Verse 6. HLL connects directly to the global lingua franca, or common language, as humans leverage a building project to obtain equality to God. 

They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.” But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun (HLL) to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.” So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. That is why it was called Babel—because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth. (Genesis 11:1–9)

Humankind becomes more advanced in their attempt to be like God. Human research and development formulate the “brick with adhesive tar” industrial technology to replace stonework and mortar. With this new technology humankind attempts to coerce equal status with deity.

In modern terms, the Server (God) hacks human language networks with a malware virus firewalling humans from influencing social policy. The political propaganda machine cannot breach the hack. The project funding stalls, thus making the obsession to be like God unattainable. Mankind avoids another existential and global disaster due to the intervention of the Server (God).

Abraham and Sexually Transmitted Infection

The Abraham snapshot begins with sexual health images, reconnecting to big picture of Genesis 1–5. The be fruitful and increase imagery of Noah’s family appears, “After Terah had lived 70 years, he became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran.” (Genesis 11:26) This piece connects the Noah snapshot to Abraham and his family. The snapshot transitions to Abraham, whose wife Sarah suffers from infertility. “The name of Abram’s wife was Sarai…. Now Sarai was childless because she was not able to conceive.” (Genesis 11:29–30). The reader may note that the genealogy and the infertility pieces connect to the sexual health theme of Genesis 1–5. God speaks, directs, and blesses Abraham, similar to His actions with Adam and Eve. “The Lord had said to Abram, ‘Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you. I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you, I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse, and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you’” (Genesis 12:1–3). 

The blessing ranges from massive landholding with corresponding national presence,  to the existential affirmation of having a “great name.” The final piece touches on blessing the world through Abraham. The peoples of Israel and Islam reach back to this specific event to validate their racial and religious identity. The Abraham snapshot also fuels entitlement to political territory of Palestine. This chapter marks a key place in the history of civilization. 

An unhealthy sexuality snapshot is presented. The local economy suffers downturn. Anxious, Abraham moves his family south to recession resistant Egypt. Abraham feels the immediate threat of Egyptian sexual politics. He states to his wife, Sarah, “I know what a beautiful woman you are. When the Egyptians see you, they will say, ‘This is his wife.’ They will kill me but will let you live. Say you are my sister so that I will be treated well for your sake and my life will be spared because of you” (Genesis 12:11–13). 

Abraham understood the sexual politics of Pharaoh. Egyptian royalty operated sovereignly, holding themselves as deities. Forcefully taking eligible child-bearing women for the royal harem was not unknown. One common thread in unhealthy sexuality snapshots is the consequences of infidelity, which may be a teaching illustration for children about sexually transmitted infections. The ancient Near Eastern explanation of sexually transmitted infections assigned divine punishment for sexual misconduct. Pharaoh takes Sarah as a sexual partner for his harem. The royal household immediately suffers disease, “But the Lord inflicted serious diseases on Pharoah and his household because of Abram’s wife Sarah” (Genesis 12:17). Ancient Egyptian medical papyri describe numerous disorders, including sexually transmitted infections. The Kahun papyri of 1900 BCE lists impotence, irritated genitals, the labia being “ill”, prolapsed uterus, and venereal disease. Although ancient physicians did not comprehend the science of sexual transmitted infections, the Akkadians assessed that testicular abscesses originated from “being in bed with a woman” (Tannahil, p. 65). 

The Biblical writer charges God as the source of the disease because Pharaoh took Sarah, a married woman, as bride. Ascribing natural consequences to God is a frequent literary device called a causation idiom. Humankind in the ancient Near East interpreted all disasters and disease as originating from deities. Literary devices receive full treatment in the Biblical Theology section. After perhaps suffering a sexually transmitted infection, Pharaoh releases Sarah, and Abraham returns to his homeland richer. Abraham uses this method of self-preservation again, resulting in sexual disease of another royal, King Abimelek, in Genesis 20:2.

Sodom 

Sodom has been a violent symbol of sexual assault for 3500 years. The goal of this work  allows the text to interpret itself without political bias. As the Sodom snapshot unfolds, several questions emerge. Is Sodom a case study in same-sex attraction? Are Sodomites violent homosexuals? What could be the author’s intent for the Sodom snapshot?

The text states, “The people of Sodom were very wicked (RA, רע ) and sinned against the Lord.” (Genesis 13:13) The reader can see that evil, RA, connects to a loss of intimacy with God, “The people…sinned against the Lord.” In context RA carries the weight of coercion. (Genesis 2:17, 6:5) RA has no other meaning at this point in the Hebrew manuscript other than coercion and sexual abuse. RA in Genesis within context of the entirety of the Bible can be found in the Biblical Theological section and Appendix A.

After leaving Egypt, Abraham resettles where he earlier built an altar and “called upon the name of the Lord.” Spirituality forms the primary piece of intimacy between God and humanity. Abraham makes sacrifices at the altar and calls upon the name or character of God (Genesis 13:4). 

“The Lord said to Abram after Lot had departed from him, ‘Look around from where you are, to the north and south, to the east and west. All the land you see I will give you and your offspring forever. I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth, so that if anyone could count the dust, then your offspring could be counted. Go, walk through the length and breadth of the land for I am giving it to you’ …There he built an altar to the Lord.” (Genesis 13:14–18) 

This section forms an inclusio beginning and ending with Abraham spiritually connecting to God with worship. Once again, intimacy with God and sexual health form the central theme of relationship with humankind. 

Covenant: BRT

Sexual health in Genesis connects to a greater picture of intimacy with God. Before sexual intercourse takes place in 4:1, Genesis paints the picture of spiritual connection with God in beauty, pleasure, compassionate presence, regulation of anxiety, and relational integrity. Chapter 15 details intimacy between God and Abraham called the covenant, BRT. Abraham states, “Sovereign Lord, what can you give me since I remain childless” (Genesis 15:2). Abraham’s plea to God forms around the aging patriarch’s concern for sexual health. God responds by walking outside with Abraham to reflect on the night sky saying, “Look up at the sky and count the stars-if indeed you can count them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be” (Genesis 15:5–6). The spiritual intimacy word covenant, BRT, reappears with detail. 

So the Lord said to him, “Bring me a heifer, a goat and a ram, each three years old, along with a dove and a young pigeon.” Abram brought all these to him, cut them in two and arranged the halves opposite each other; the birds, however, he did not cut in half. Then birds of prey came down on the carcasses, but Abram drove them away. As the sun was setting, Abram fell into a deep sleep, and a thick and dreadful darkness came over him. Then the Lord said to him, “Know for certain that for four hundred years your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own and that they will be enslaved and mistreated there. But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions. You, however, will go to your ancestors in peace and be buried at a good old age. In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.” When the sun had set and darkness had fallen, a smoking firepot with a blazing torch appeared and passed between the pieces. On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram and said, “To your descendants I give this land, from the Wadi of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates” (Genesis 15:9–18).

God directs Abraham to sacrifice five animals, cutting the carcasses in two except for the fowl and arranging the pieces in two opposing rows. The intimacy theme of God walking with and talking to humankind repeats. Abraham falls into a deep sleep, as in the creation story of Adam’s rib excision, and God ceremoniously walks between the animal sacrifices with Abraham stating, “To your descendants I give this land”. The word for covenant, BRT, means “to cut,” reflecting the dissection of the animals (Genesis 15:9–21). Complete detail on BRT can be found in the Biblical Theology section. God cuts a covenant with Abraham using a sacrificial rite mirroring relational intimacy between God and the first family in Genesis 3:21. The covenant, BRT, affirms that the parties now commit themselves to one another, and if either dishonors the agreement “may it be done to the offender, as was done to the animal sacrifices.” This act seems to reflect the seriousness and resilience of intimacy.

Genesis 16:1 begins with a sexual health statement, “Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children, but she had an Egyptian slave named Hagar.” Sarah then mandates to her husband, “‘The Lord has kept me from having children. Go sleep with my slave; perhaps I can build a family through her.’ Abram agreed to what Sarai said” (Genesis 16:2).Ancient Near Eastern sexual health codes permitted plural wives. The Babylonian term for a secondary wife was ashshetu or esirtu, meaning “rival.” Jewish rabbis called the “rival” wife, sarot or “jealous associate.” Babylonian sexual health codes provided that if a woman was unable to have children she had the responsibility to find her husband a surrogate wife (Tannehil, p. 64). Abraham’s agreement to the Babylonian custom began a 3500-year history of jealous rivalry and violent conflict between the Jewish and Arabic peoples. 

All uses of the Hebrew word for genital sexual intercourse in these passages appear as, BO, בוא (BLB, Genesis 16:1–4, Strong, H935).  BO for sexual intercoursein Genesis only connects to unhealthy sexuality. The word for sexual intercourse as intimacy, YDA, which appeared in Genesis 1–5, does not occur. The coercive sexual intercourse that follows for Abraham and Hagar reflects the ancient Near Eastern culture of slavery. Foreign slaves had no right to consent to sex. The Code of Ḫammurabi assumed a male slave owner had sexual rights over female slaves (Paraclete Forum, 2021).

Sarah’s forced surrogacy of her slave Hagar does not go well. When Hagar reports she has conceived Abraham’s child, a painful rivalry builds between the first wife and the “jealous associate.” Sarah complains, Abraham backs his first wife, and Hagar flees the compound (Genesis 16:6).

God seeks Hagar. The Creator moves into relationship with broken humans once again. God connects Hagar to the sexual health big picture with the phrase, “I will increase your descendants so much that they will be too numerous to count” (Genesis 16:10). Hagar’s son with Abraham is Ishmael, the father of the Arabic peoples, and he too is promised progeny too numerous to count. Hagar responds with the words, “‘You are the God who sees me,’ for she said, ‘I have now seen the One who sees me.’ That is why the well was called Beer Lahai Roi, it is still there between Kadesh and Bered” (Genesis 16:13–14). The place name, Beer Lahai Roi, means, “Well of the Living One seeing me” (BLB, Genesis 16:13–14). Intimacy between God and Hagar reconciles her surrogacy disaster. She becomes the mother of the Arabic peoples despite her coerced sexual trauma.

The Abraham snapshot appears at the center of the book of Genesis. Ancient authors often placed the climax of their story in the middle of their writings. The Abraham account appears centrally in Genesis, The Ten Commandments in Exodus Chapter 20 (of 40), The Song of Solomon’s climax in Chapters 4 and 5 (of eight), the promise of the new covenant in Jeremiah 30 (of 52), the redemption of Israel in Isaiah Chapter 35 (66), among numerous examples. 

The climactic theme of Genesis is not sexuality but rather intimacy between God and humankind, the covenant, BRT. The word for intimacy, BRT, appears 26 times in the Book of Genesis. Half of the instances of covenant, BRT, occur in Chapter 17 (BLB, Genesis 17). The BRT, the climax of the relationship between God and humans, sets in a literary device called repetition. The purpose of repeating words or phrases is to highlight a theme with emphasis. Genesis Chapters 1–2 repeats the creation snapshot, and Chapter 17 repeats the word covenant, BRT, 13 times. The sexual health big picture was passed on to children through stories in the oral tradition. Sexual health culture transmits from one generation to another through storytelling. Although word repetition may seem cumbersome to the reader, in oral poetry and storytelling a storyteller can use inflection and drama to communicate a truth. The emphasis of Chapter 17 may teach children about the centrality of intimacy with God called the covenant, BRT.

The first statement of this climax chapter of Genesis 17 is a sexual health reflection, “Abram was ninety nine years old.” God promises to give the geriatric patriarch and his 80-year-old infertile wife a baby whom they will conceive themselves.

Circumcision 

God appears to Abraham with the intimacy language of “walking” with Adam and Eve, Enoch, and Noah, “I am God almighty, walk before me faithfully and be blameless” (Genesis 3:8; 5:22; 6:9). The covenant language repeats the sexual health vocabulary, be “fruitful and increase,” connecting to the Genesis sexual health big picture. Next, God states that Abraham will receive the whole land of Canaan, which is the geographic area named for the cursed son of Ham in Chapter 9. The curse resulted from the incestuous encounter of Ham and his mother while Noah lay passed out nearby. Could it be that God’s promise to Abraham and his descendants forms part of His reconciling unhealthy sexuality from the Noah snapshot? Does a subtle theme emerge teaching children about sexual health? Enter genital circumcision as sign of covenant.

Covenant or intimate connection with God touches human sexuality literally. “This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you for generations to come. This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You are to undergo circumcision and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you” (Genesis 17:10–11). Every newborn male, whether free or slave, on Day 8 was expected to be circumcised. Intimacy between God and humankind connects to sexuality once again.

Abraham fell on his face and laughed. Abraham was 99 and his wife Sarah was 90 (Genesis 17:1; 17). The Hebrew word for laugh forms the root word for the name Isaac, the promised son about whom God spoke (BLB, Genesis 17:17, Strong, H6711). Abraham named his soon to be born son Isaac, “He laughed”. 

An inclusio links the Sodom snapshot introduced in Chapter 13. The Sodom inclusio spans five chapters. The sexual health big picture of Genesis 1–5 and the pathogenesis, or decline of sexual health in Genesis 6–11 cover five chapters each, which appears to be an intentional organization around sexual health themes.

Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them” (Genesis 19:4).

Sodom’s citizens, who have a history of erotic violence, surround the house of Lot, Abraham’s nephew. The threatening crowd demands “to know,” YDA, ידע, to have genital sexual intercourse, with God’s messengers inside Lot’s home. Interesting to note the Hebrew manuscript differs from the English translation. The end of verse 4 in the Hebrew text stated, “All the people from that area.” The word for people or tribe, AM, עמ, pronounced awm, appears 1,836 times in the Old Testament for “people” both male and female. The word AM translates as men only twice in the Old Testament (Strong, H5971). Why did the translators leave this descriptive word out? Could it be sexual politics prompted translators to make the case that heterosexuals and women were not involved in the riot? One of the errors translators have historically made with these texts is the insertion of personal or institutional biases into the narrative. Instead of translation, scholars may have projected personal theology or politics into the story. The goal of this work is to resist insertion of such bias and permit the story to interpret itself with other texts as support. Is this an account of same-sex attraction of men? The text indicates that this mob likely includes heterosexuals and women. The fact that Lot would offer his daughters to the mob seems to indicate the presence of heterosexuals or at minimum bisexuals. The Hebrew text states that all the people, AM from that region, including women, assembled at Lot’s house. The context of Genesis favors the idea of coercive violent sexuality as the “evil” of the men and women of Sodom.

There are dynamic pieces in this unhealthy sexuality snapshot. The intimidating crowd escalates into a violent, riotous rabble, who escalate from threats to attempted forced entry. Then Lot, under the stress of a homicidal throng, offers his two virgin daughters as a sacrificial offering. Lot, his intentions clear, states, “Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you and you can do what you like with them” (Genesis 19:8). Lot’s loss of compassion for his daughters may be an anxiety reaction to the threat of death. The role of anxiety reaction with the disabling of the prefrontal cortex may give clarity for Lot’s betrayal.  Anxiety reaction explains fully in the Neuroscience Section. The word for slept with is the word YDA which is the Hebrew word used in the sexual health big picture for the intimacy of genital sexual intercourse. YDA includes a sense of “knowing” fully through genital sexual intercourse. Perhaps this use of YDA can be best understood through the literary device of paradox. The violence of the masses and betrayal of trust by Lot toward his daughters paints a dramatic contrast with the intimacy of the sexual health big picture. The paradox continues when Lot uses the Hebrew word TOBE, טוב, as he addresses the crowd, “Do what you like (TOBE) with them.” This is the same term appearing in the sexual health big picture for the blessing of God for the goodness of human sexuality. Could this use be paradox? This snapshot takes a more tragic turn. In Genesis 19:14, Lot “went out and spoke to his sons in law who were pledged to marry his daughters.” The daughters he offered to the violent mob as sexual collateral were engaged to be married. The painful backstory points to the covenant of marriage that would bring Lot grandchildren. Lot undermined his own family and legacy under the threat of death. This incident transitions to the next piece of the narrative, offspring.

The Lot unhealthy sexuality snapshot does not end with the coercive violence of Sodom. Lot survives the murderous multitude. He flees with his daughters and takes refuge in a cave. 

“One day the older daughter said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man around here to give us children—as is the custom all over the earth. Let’s get our father to drink wine then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father.” (Genesis 19:31–32)

 The daughters dope their father then sexually assault him on two successive nights. Lot’s blood alcohol content is so extreme “he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up. So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father” (Genesis 19:35–36).

The word for sleep with or have sexual intercourse with, in this snapshot is SCB, שכב, “lie down with.” All sexual-intercourse–related uses of SCB in the Book of Genesis connect to coercive incest, adultery, payment for sex, or rape.  SCB appearsin the Biblical Theology Section in context of all Old Testaments uses. Once again, the pathogenesis or decline of sexual health falls on coercive sex and incest, using language sensitive for children.

Abraham revisits the Egypt snapshot of passing Sarah off as his sister to avoid death. Chapter 20 is an unhealthy sexuality snapshot with Abraham, Sarah, and Abimelek, the regional royal of Gerar. The sexual politics of both Egypt and Gerar permitted sovereign kings to gather harems to ensure succession of leadership from one dedicated bloodline. The Egyptians practiced incestuous royal marriages, and perhaps the mutations and mortality of common DNA motivated them to “take” suitable child-bearing women as they wished.

Abraham pimps out his wife Sarah for the second time to save his life, as he did with Pharaoh in Genesis 12. Abraham again claims his wife is merely his relative and therefore an available sexual partner for the king’s harem. Abimelek and God have a conversation. God comes to Abimelek in a dream and says, “You are as good as dead because of the woman you have taken; she is a married woman” (Genesis 20:3). Egyptian marriage taboos did not permit adulterous affairs, and apparently neither did the sexual mores of Gerar. Abimelek responds, 

Lord will you destroy an innocent nation? Did he not say to me, ‘She is my sister,’ and didn’t she also say, ‘He is my brother’? I have done this with a clear conscience and clean hands.” God responds, “Yes, I know you did this with a clear conscience and so I have kept you from sinning against me. That is why I did not let you touch her. (Genesis 20:4–6)

This smaller snapshot of the coercion of unhealthy sexuality ends with Abraham praying for Abimelek and his royal harem to recover from infertility. Again, the consequence of unhealthy sexuality does not appear to be an ambiguous moral transgression but disease.

The drama around the 100-year-old patriarch and his 90-year-old wife’s infertility climaxes with Chapter 20 when Sarah gives birth to Isaac, “He Laughs,” as God promised. The sexual health big picture connects. Geriatric conception and birth is not unheard of. In October 2019, Xinju Tian made global news when the 67 year old gave birth without IVF to a healthy female baby by cesarean section. She named the infant, Tianci, gift from heaven (Oldest.org, 2019).

When Isaac weans, Abraham throws a party. Sarah feels the threat of a competing heir and repeats her resentment of Hagar’s surrogacy. “Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac. The matter distressed Abraham greatly because it concerned his son” (Genesis 21:10). Sarah had grounds for concern. The Code of Hammurabi protected slave children with inheritance statues (Paraclete Forum, 2021). Abraham buckles to his wife’s complaint and permanently excommunicates Hagar and Ishmael.

The text states Abraham felt “distressed,” RA, רע (Strong, H7489), which term is also used for Adam and Eve’s loss of intimacy with God in Genesis 2:17, the sexual abuse by tyrants in Genesis 6:5, and the threat of violent sexual trauma of Sodom in Genesis 13:13. RA seems to connect the pain over Abraham’s part in the surrogacy disaster with Hagar. The consequence of Sarah’s conflict with Hagar results in Abraham’s loss of his son Ishmael, which may be the distress, RA Abraham felt.

Chapter 21 ends with two intimacy narratives. Hagar and Ishmael, exiled to the wilderness, find themselves betrayed, destitute, and dying. Hagar grieves the imminent death of her only child intensified by the rejection of his father. God speaks and opens Hagar’s eyes to an overlooked water source nearby. “God was with the boy as he grew up. He lived in the desert and became an archer” (Genesis 21:20). Not only did Ishmael and his descendants become fruitful and increase as God promised, the Arabic people who call Ishmael father became excellent financiers in the global petroleum market. It seems wilderness exile in Arabia with trillion dollar oil reserves did not make a bad option after all.

The final intimacy piece reconciles Abraham and Abimelek, the royal whom Abraham deceived in the unhealthy sexuality snapshot of Genesis 20. Abraham and Abimelek disagree over water rights. Such matters often result in warfare. “So Abraham brought sheep and cattle and gave them to Abimelek and the two men made a treaty” (BRT, covenant). Intimacy and sexual health connect to reconciliation, one of the seven forms of intimacy within the sexual health big picture of Genesis 1–5 (Volker, 2021). The final words in Chapter 21 are, “Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in Beersheba, where he called on the name of the Lord, the Eternal God. And Abraham stayed in the land of the Philistines for a long time” (Genesis 21:33–34). This is the first time the Bible uses this specific name for God, Eternal. Perhaps the birth of Isaac to a postmenopausal wife wired a sense of permanence and faith in the patriarch? Once again intimacy reconciles relationship.

Isaac: Conjugal Caresses, Foreplay

The Isaac and Jacob snapshots take shape in Chapters 24–36. The reader may note the organization of Genesis so far. Chapters 1–11 detail the sexual health big picture of Genesis and the decline of intimacy with God. Genesis 12–25 detail the Abraham snapshot, and 24–36 feature Isaac and Jacob. Each section comprises 11 chapters. The Book of Genesis thus far follows a logical organization around intimacy and sexual health using an 11 chapter scheme.

The Isaac snapshot reveals the guilt of one unhealthy sexuality event in his life. In Genesis 26:7 Isaac fears for his life as his father, Abraham. 

Now there was a famine in the land— besides the previous famine in Abraham’s time—and Isaac went to Abimelek king of the Philistines in Gerar…. So Isaac stayed in Gerar. When the men of that place asked him about his wife, he said, “She is my sister,” because he was afraid to say, “She is my wife.” He thought, “The men of this place might kill me on account of Rebekah, because she is beautiful.”

When Isaac had been there a long time, Abimelek king of the Philistines looked down from a window and saw Isaac caressing his wife Rebekah. So Abimelek summoned Isaac and said, “She is really your wife! Why did you say, ‘She is my sister’?” Isaac answered him, “Because I thought I might lose my life on account of her.” (Genesis 26:2–9)

This snapshot may be a teaching piece showing families the impact of sexual health and children. Sexual health values of consent, boundaries, and intimacy form physical structures in the brain called neural pathways. When these pathways react in balanced healthy ways, they transmit neuro chemicals and healthy sexual behavior results. In the same way sexual health neural pathways react, so do unhealthy sexual behaviors. Isaac most likely heard the stories of his father, Abraham, and his unhealthy sexual behaviors in Egypt and Gerar. Under the threat of death, Abraham lied about Isaac’s mother, Sarah, claiming she was not his wife. This coercion insured in Abraham’s mind that the royals would not execute him and forcibly take Sarah into their harems. These unhealthy sexuality snapshots likely wired in Isaac’s memory. When Isaac experienced the same threat of death, the wiring learned from his father reacted, and Isaac repeated the same unhealthy sexual behavior. Isaac passed his wife off as a potential sexual partner for the men of Gerar. This phenomenon can be described as neurological permanence or traumatic repetition (Carnes, 2016; May, 1988). The body retains memory information and with the correct external stressor or trigger it can recall the thinking or sensations from the original event. So it was with Isaac; when threatened with death, he repeated the coercive trauma of his father pimping out his wife for self-preservation. 

Genesis 26:8 features another sexual health term. “When Isaac had been there a long time, Abimelek king of the Philistines looked down from a window and saw Isaac caressing his wife Rebekah.” The words “caressing his wife Rebekah” reflect colorful imagery. The word for caressing forms from the word for Isaac, “he laughs.” In the Hebrew verbal form called Piel, it can mean sporting, or joking over and over again with intensity. Brown Driver and Briggs Hebrew Lexicon defined this word as “conjugal caresses” (BLB, Genesis 28:6). Clearly, intimate sexual contact or foreplay is meant (Paraclete Forum, 2021). 

Jacob and Intimacy with God

The Jacob snapshot paints a dramatic picture of intimacy with God overcoming coercive character defects. The Hebrew name Jacob literally means a traitor who lifts his heel against his victim, anything that stalks, attacks, ambushes, or cheats from behind, insidious, deceitful, the painful consequences of a bribe, or the aftermath of shame (TWOT, pp. 691–692; BDB, pp. 784–785). Jacob is the younger of two fraternal twins. As his brother Esau is born, reaching out from the birth canal, Jacob grasps the heel of the elder twin. The foreshadowing of Jacob the manipulator sets for the rest of his life. 

The rap sheet for Jacob’s coercive acts is impressive. The deceiver Jacob takes advantage of Esau’s weakness to manipulate the elder brother into selling his valuable birthright. Jacob offers a bowl of stew in exchange for Esau’s inheritance. The famished Esau relinquishes his privileged inheritance, forfeiting both his family leadership and its judicial authority(Genesis 25:29–34). Jacob perpetuates the coercive behavior by cheating Esau again in a conspiracy with his mother, Rebekah. Mother and son perpetrate this deception to coerce a blessing from the blind and beguiled Isaac. Esau, now fooled twice, threatens to kill his fraternal twin, which makes a connection to Genesis 4:1–16 with the coercion of Cain’s premeditated murder of his brother, Abel. In the Jacob snapshot, the elder again conspires to murder the younger. 

The God of Genesis reflects a relentless resilience for intimacy with humankind. While Jacob seeks a wife, God speaks to Jacob in a dream. He 

had a dream in which he saw a stairway resting on the earth, with its top reaching to heaven, and the angels of God were ascending and descending on it. There above it stood the Lord, and he said: “I am the Lord, the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac. I will give you and your descendants the land on which you are lying. Your descendants will be like the dust of the earth, and you will spread out to the west and to the east, to the north and to the south. All peoples on earth will be blessed through you and your offspring. I am with you and will watch over you wherever you go, and I will bring you back to this land. I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you.”

When Jacob awoke from his sleep, he thought, “Surely the Lord is in this place, and I was not aware of it.” He was afraid and said, “How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God; this is the gate of heaven.” (Genesis 28:12–17)

Jacob makes a poignant statement, “I was unaware” (Genesis 28:16).Awareness is the word YDA, ידע intimacy, used also for sexual intimacy. Jacob’s coercive tactics emerged from a life without spiritual or relational intimacy with God or his family. This lack of intimacy may explain the callous treatment of his closest family members. Intimacy forms in the prefrontal cortex, which regulates fear, anger, and sexual neural pathways. Without intimacy activating in the prefrontal cortex, the system can dysregulate. Jacob assesses his coercive history accurately. He has no intimate connection or knowledge of God. The loss of intimacy with God forms the pathogenesis or decline of consciousness to unhealthy sexuality throughout the Book of Genesis. 

The tables turn on Jacob. The coercive mastermind experiences painful manipulation in return. Jacob’s father-in-law, Laban, victimizes Jacob in an unhealthy sexuality snapshot of betrayal. After promising Rachel in marriage, Laban switches daughters on the wedding night. In the morning, Jacob becomes profoundly aware of the coital coercion. Laban manipulates Jacob to serve nearly two decades in the family business. The deceiver, Jacob, gets schooled in coercive tactics by his father-in-law (Genesis 29:15–29). “Jacob made love to Rachel also, and his love for Rachel was greater than his love for Leah. And he worked for Laban another seven years” (Genesis 29:23,30). The Hebrew word for made love is BO,בא, meaning “to come in to.” The word for sexual intimacy, YDA, is not used. Perhaps this has meaning? It appears Jacob, the intelligence behind numerous crimes against his own family, cannot escape the cycle of coercion, shame, and treachery.

During the 20-year stint of forced servitude to Laban, the Jacob snapshot revisits sexual health themes. Rachel, the infertile beloved bride, cannot conceive. Leah, the unwanted and unloved sister bride, cannot stop giving birth. Within 4 years, Leah delivers four sons. Rachel scores zero births. The game is on. 

When Rachel saw that she was not bearing Jacob any children, she became jealous of her sister. So she said to Jacob, “Give me children, or I’ll die!” Jacob became angry with her and said, “Am I in the place of God, who has kept you from having children?” Then she said, “Here is Bilhah, my servant. Sleep with her so that she can bear children for me and I too can build a family through her.”So she gave him her servant Bilhah as a wife. Jacob slept with her, and she became pregnant and bore him a son. Then Rachel said, “God has vindicated me; he has listened to my plea and given me a son.” Because of this she named him Dan. Rachel’s servant Bilhah conceived again and bore Jacob a second son. Then Rachel said, “I have had a great struggle with my sister, and I have won.” So she named him Naphtali. (Genesis 30:1–8)

Jacob apparently recalled the stories of how his grandfather Abraham used female slaves for reproductive services. He submits to Rachel’s plea to impregnate a surrogate slave. When Leah realizes she can no longer conceive, she repeats surrogacy with her own slave.

When Leah saw that she had stopped having children, she took her servant Zilpah and gave her to Jacob as a wife. Leah’s servant Zilpah bore Jacob a son. Then Leah said, “What good fortune!” So she named him Gad. Leah’s servant Zilpah bore Jacob a second son. Then Leah said, “How happy I am! The women will call me happy.” So she named him Asher. (Genesis 30:9–13)

Once again, Jacob faces the coercive power of food. This time food with sex. Just as Jacob manipulated Esau with stew, Leah, the unwanted and unloved sister-wife, coerces Rachel. Leah challenges Rachel to compel Jacob to have intercourse with Leah using food. The rejected sister barters food for sex using the mandrake plant, an ancient aphrodisiac with hallucinogenic compounds. The progeny of Abraham repeats pimping of family members for sex and food. 

During wheat harvest, Reuben went out into the fields and found some mandrake plants, which he brought to his mother Leah. Rachel said to Leah, “Please give me some of your son’s mandrakes.”But she said to her, “Wasn’t it enough that you took away my husband? Will you take my son’s mandrakes too?” “Very well,” Rachel said, “he can sleep with you tonight in return for your son’s mandrakes.” So when Jacob came in from the fields that evening, Leah went out to meet him. “You must sleep with me,” she said. “I have hired you with my son’s mandrakes.” So he slept with her that night. God listened to Leah, and she became pregnant and bore Jacob a fifth son. Then Leah said, “God has rewarded me for giving my servant to my husband.” So she named him Issachar. Leah conceived again and bore Jacob a sixth son. Then Leah said, “God has presented me with a precious gift. This time my husband will treat me with honor, because I have borne him six sons.” So she named him Zebulun. Some time later she gave birth to a daughter and named her Dinah. (Genesis 30:14–21)

Part of the teaching theory of Genesis seems to connect to the results of unhealthy sexuality. Ham assaults his mother, and the incestuous offspring is Canaan. He receives a curse, possibly genetic mutations? The land of Canaan appears in the Old Testament as a continual threat to the people of Israel. Reuben, the harvester of sexual aphrodisiacs and hallucinogens sexually assaults his father’s concubine. In Jacob’s farewell blessing to his family, this abuse is remembered, and Reuben receives his just reward. Dinah, the offspring from coercive payment of food for sex, becomes a rape survivor. Sexual health and consequences of unhealthy sex threads throughout the characters of Genesis.

Menstruation: The Way of Women 

Sexual health education would not be complete without a conversation with children on menstruation. The Book of Genesis as sexuality educator does not disappoint. Jacob the deceiver abandons his abusive father-in-law, Laban, with stealth. As Jacob’s family gathers their belongings for the hasty exodus, Rachel steals the religious idols of her father, Laban, stashing them in her saddle bags. The enraged father pursues his lost icons and family. Spirituality and family bonds form humankind’s deepest attachment. In one day Laban loses daughters, grandchildren, and his idols. Laban reaches the caravan carrying his family. As the grieving father searches for his idols, Rachel secures her treachery by sitting on the saddle bags. When interrogated, Rachel claims she cannot get up from her position because she suffers from menstrual cramps. This excuse may form a dual purpose for children—teaching about idolatry and female reproductive function.

When Laban had gone to shear his sheep, Rachel stole her father’s household gods. Moreover, Jacob deceived Laban the Aramean by not telling him he was running away. So he fled with all he had, crossed the Euphrates River, and headed for the hill country of Gilead. Jacob answered Laban, “I was afraid, because I thought you would take your daughters away from me by force. But if you find anyone who has your gods, that person shall not live. In the presence of our relatives, see for yourself whether there is anything of yours here with me; and if so, take it.”… Now Rachel had taken the household gods and put them inside her camel’s saddle and was sitting on them. Laban searched through everything in the tent but found nothing. Rachel said to her father, “Don’t be angry, my lord, that I cannot stand up in your presence; I’m having my period.” So he searched but could not find the household gods. (Genesis 31:19–35)

Jacob now faces a confrontation with his elder twin Esau, from whom the deceiver Jacob, manipulated both birthright and blessing. Esau threatened to kill his brother in retaliation for that coercion. On the way to encounter his bitter elder brother, Jacob sees God. Intimacy can be painfully transparent. 

Then Jacob prayed, “O God of my father Abraham, God of my father Isaac, Lord, you who said to me, ‘Go back to your country and your relatives, and I will make you prosper,’ I am unworthy of all the kindness and faithfulness you have shown your servant. I had only my staff when I crossed this Jordan, but now I have become two camps. Save me, I pray, from the hand of my brother Esau, for I am afraid he will come and attack me, and also the mothers with their children. But you have said, “I will surely make you prosper and will make your descendants like the sand of the sea, which cannot be counted.” (Genesis 32:1–12)

Jacob the mastermind of deception prays with others in mind. He uses the words, kindness and faithfulness (Genesis 32:10). The Prophets use these very words to speak of a reconciling intimacy between God and the people of Israel. Jacob has not dealt with God on this level before. The imminent loss of family and his own life bring Jacob to a place of humility. No more coercion.

God sends a messenger to wrestle Jacob. The transformation from manipulator to intimate friend of God approaches. As the wrestling match lasts through the night, the MMA envoy taps out by dislocating Jacob’s hip and then by blessing Jacob. The reforming con man asks for a blessing and is given a new name. A name in the ancient Near East possessed the character and the potency of the named. The manipulator experiences a transformation of character. His new title reflects inner change, Israel, God Prevails. Jacob will not be known as the ambush brother and deceiver of family, but instead his locus of control, or inner drive, becomes the prevailing presence of God. This new name identifies the resilient people of modern day Israel and fulfillment of the sexual health big picture, “Be fruitful, increase, and fill the earth.”

So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak. When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob’s hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. Then the man said, “Let me go, for it is daybreak.”But Jacob replied, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.” The man asked him, “What is your name?””Jacob,” he answered.

Then the man said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome.”

Jacob said, “Please tell me your name.”

But he replied, “Why do you ask my name?” Then he blessed him there.

So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.”

The sun rose above him as he passed Peniel, and he was limping because of his hip. Therefore to this day the Israelites do not eat the tendon attached to the socket of the hip, because the socket of Jacob’s hip was touched near the tendon. (Genesis 32:24–32)

Jacob sees the face of God, the Hebrew word is Peniel. Humankind sees God, the Creator sees into humans, intimacy. The prefrontal cortex is responsible for consciousness, reason, social awareness, compassion and intimacy. Jacob, now Israel, will need this new transparency as he faces a lifetime enemy, his brother Esau, who was once intent on murdering Jacob. Intimacy forms part of the regulation system of the prefrontal cortex. Intimacy balances anger, fear, and sexual neural pathways. Israel is ready for the final aspect of intimacy with God, reconciliation. When Israel confronts his mortal enemy, the reformed con man is regulated, aware, and humble. 

Jacob looked up and there was Esau, coming with his four hundred men; so he divided the children among Leah, Rachel and the two female servants. He put the female servants and their children in front, Leah and her children next, and Rachel and Joseph in the rear. He himself went on ahead and bowed down to the ground seven times as he approached his brother.

But Esau ran to meet Jacob and embraced him; he threw his arms around his neck and kissed him. And they wept. Then Esau looked up and saw the women and children. “Who are these with you?” he asked.

Jacob answered, “They are the children God has graciously given your servant.”

Then the female servants and their children approached and bowed down. Next, Leah and her children came and bowed down. Last of all came Joseph and Rachel, and they too bowed down.

Esau asked, “What’s the meaning of all these flocks and herds I met?”

“To find favor in your eyes, my lord,” he said.

But Esau said, “I already have plenty, my brother. Keep what you have for yourself.”

“No, please!” said Jacob. “If I have found favor in your eyes, accept this gift from me. For to see your face is like seeing the face of God, now that you have received me favorably. Please accept the present that was brought to you, for God has been gracious to me and I have all I need.” And because Jacob insisted, Esau accepted it.

Then Esau said, “Let us be on our way; I’ll accompany you.” (Genesis 33:1–12)

The transformation completes. Intimacy restores with reconciliation. Genesis 1–3 outlines seven kinds of intimacy (Volker, 2021). In order of appearance, intimacy in Genesis presents as spiritual, beautiful, pleasurable, compassionate, balanced, sexually healthy, and reconciles relationships. The Jacob–Israel snapshot ends with forgiveness, as does Genesis 1–3 when God reconciles the first family by covering their shame. Immediately following this reconciliation piece, the first act of genital sexual intercourse occurs in Genesis 4:1. The intimacy of reconciliation follows Cain’s murder of his brother, the covenant with Noah, the compassion of God for Hagar and Ishmael, the reconciliation of Abraham with Abimelek, and now Jacob-Israel with Esau. Reconciliation and amends form in the prefrontal cortex. This part of the brain regulates anger, fear, and sexual neural pathways. The premise of this work forms on the ability to regulate affect as Jacob did with Esau.

Children learn from caregivers how to calm themselves, called anxiety regulation. Little children can also mirror the dysregulation of anxiety from parents. The Dinah unhealthy sexuality snapshot shows how a family system can repeat traumatic thinking and behavior. Jacob now faces perhaps the most painful consequence for a father. Dinah, offspring of the Jacob and Leah mandrakes-for-sex bargain, is raped by Shechem. Although Jacob-Israel has experienced a major shift in character, the culture of deception he nurtured throughout his life influences his children. Dinah’s brothers retaliate by conspiring to annihilate the entire male population of Shechem in revenge for the rape. The sons of Jacob mirror the manipulation of Jacob and his wives, who coerced birthrights, blessings, religious rituals, and sex for food. 

Because their sister Dinah had been defiled, Jacob’s sons replied deceitfully as they spoke to Shechem and his father Hamor. They said to them, “We can’t do such a thing; we can’t give our sister to a man who is not circumcised. That would be a disgrace to us. We will enter into an agreement with you on one condition only: that you become like us by circumcising all your males. Then we will give you our daughters and take your daughters for ourselves. We’ll settle among you and become one people with you. But if you will not agree to be circumcised, we’ll take our sister and go.” (Genesis 34:13–17)

The brothers use the religious ritual of circumcision to deceive Shechem and his community. Jacob’s sons negotiate with the rapist, Shechem, to circumcise the entire male population in return for their sister’s hand in marriage. While recovering from surgery, the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi slaughter and loot the unsuspecting circumcised villagers. 

Jacob reconciles with God and Esau. His family, however, repeats similar coercive behaviors. The final statement in the Dinah snapshot sets up educating children about the ritual abuse of the sacred sex trade with the word, ZNH, temple prostitute. But they replied, “Should he have treated our sister like a prostitute?” (Genesis 34:31).

Jacob-Israel’s coercion days seem to be over. He has connected with God in meaningful ways and made amends with his twin brother, whom Jacob scammed both birthright and blessing from. Jacob-Israel connects with God intimately. Without directive, Jacob-Israel rids his family of idols with a focus on ritual purification, symbolizing depth of commitment and honor. 

Then God said to Jacob, “Go up to Bethel and settle there, and build an altar there to God, who appeared to you when you were fleeing from your brother Esau.”

So Jacob said to his household and to all who were with him, “Get rid of the foreign gods you have with you, and purify yourselves and change your clothes. Then come, let us go up to Bethel, where I will build an altar to God, who answered me in the day of my distress and who has been with me wherever I have gone.”So they gave Jacob all the foreign gods they had and the rings in their ears, and Jacob buried them under the oak at Shechem. Then they set out, and the terror of God fell on the towns all around them so that no one pursued them.

After Jacob returned from Paddan Aram, God appeared to him again and blessed him. God said to him, “Your name is Jacob, but you will no longer be called Jacob; your name will be Israel.” So he named him Israel.

And God said to him, “I am God Almighty; be fruitful and increase in number. A nation and a community of nations will come from you, and kings will be among your descendants. The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I also give to you, and I will give this land to your descendants after you.” Then God went up from him at the place where he had talked with him.

Jacob set up a stone pillar at the place where God had talked with him, and he poured out a drink offering on it; he also poured oil on it. Jacob called the place where God had talked with him Bethel. (Genesis 35:1–15)

Jacob-Israel reflects an intimacy with God not seen before his MMA wrestling match in Genesis 32. He seems to possess a spiritual sensitivity for authenticity with God. He leads his family to purge idolatry from their community. Jacob-Israel buries the idols in Shechem, the symbol of unhealthy sexuality, betrayal, and treachery. God then speaks to Jacob-Israel, tying in the sexual health-positive big picture of Genesis 1–11. “I am God Almighty; be fruitful and increase in number. A nation and a community of nations will come from you, and kings will be among your descendants” (Genesis 35:11).

This section closes with the genealogy of Esau, the cheated brother. The genealogies appear to be the literary device called inclusio, indicating the end of a snapshot. Although manipulated out of his birthright and blessing of the first born, Esau does well. God blesses Esau with children and financial security. A sexual health motif appears in this piece. Esau chose to marry within the Canaanite community. As the reader recalls, Canaan was the incestuous offspring of Ham and his mother in Genesis 9:22. Perhaps this lends some insight into the reason for Jacob-Israel’s ascent over his brother? 

Joseph:Masturbation Theology, Birth Control, The Sacred Sex Trade,

Intersexuality-Eunuchism, Regulation of Sexual Neural Pathways

The Joseph snapshot concludes the Book of Genesis. Chapters 37–50 feature the themes of masturbation theology, birth control, the sacred sex trade, intersexuality and the regulation of sexual arousal.

Joseph, the 11th son of a blended family, finds himself marred amidst the politics of jealous siblings. Joseph betrays the confidence of his brothers by ratting them out to their father with a, “bad, RA report.” The 10 half-blood siblings resent Joseph even more because their father rewards Joseph for the betrayal. Jacob gives Joseph a highly prized royal garment called a chitone immediately following the report on coercive behavior. This valuable apparel was used as a trading commodity in the ancient Near East. The chitone of Genesis 37 is the same word and perhaps type of royal apparel God tailored to cover the shame of Adam and Eve when they reconcile in Genesis 3:21. The blended family bitterness escalates when Joseph recounts disturbing dreams for his family. Joseph, clearly immature with brazen lack of humility, narrates a number of dreams predicting his family would one day submit to his authority.

Jacob lived in the land where his father had stayed, the land of Canaan. This is the account of Jacob’s family line. Joseph, a young man of seventeen, was tending the flocks with his brothers, the sons of Bilhah and the sons of Zilpah, his father’s wives, and he brought their father a bad report about them.

Now Israel loved Joseph more than any of his other sons, because he had been born to him in his old age; and he made an ornate robe (chitone) for him. When his brothers saw that their father loved him more than any of them, they hated him and could not speak a kind word to him.

Joseph had a dream, and when he told it to his brothers, they hated him all the more. He said to them, “Listen to this dream I had: We were binding sheaves of grain out in the field when suddenly my sheaf rose and stood upright, while your sheaves gathered around mine and bowed down to it.”

His brothers said to him, “Do you intend to reign over us? Will you actually rule us?” And they hated him all the more because of his dream and what he had said.

Then he had another dream, and he told it to his brothers. “Listen,” he said, “I had another dream, and this time the sun and moon and eleven stars were bowing down to me.”

When he told his father as well as his brothers, his father rebuked him and said, “What is this dream you had? Will your mother and I and your brothers actually come and bow down to the ground before you?” His brothers were jealous of him, but his father kept the matter in mind. (Genesis 37:1–11)

Jealousy escalates to murderous hatred similar to Cain’s murder of Abel in Genesis 4. The 10 brothers tend herds near Shechem, where their sister Dinah was raped, and incarcerate Joseph in a prison pit. The place names of Canaan and Shechem paint unhealthy sexuality images and set the tone for the conspiracy to kill Joseph. The enraged brothers strip him of the extravagant chitone and soak the precious garment with animal blood. The crimson-drenched clothing strengthens their alibi claim of Joseph’s demise—death by apex predator. In lieu of murder, Joseph’s brothers sell him to Midian slave traders. The brothers score a financial victory in the sale and lessen their guilt of fratricide. The slave traders sell Joseph to Potiphar, a possible intersexual Egyptian military officer, called a eunuch, SARS, סרס.

Masturbation Theology and Birth Control

Before the Potiphar snapshot gains traction, the centerpiece of Jewish and Christian masturbation theology unfolds in Chapter 38. Judah, one of Joseph’s brothers, marries a bride with Canaanite history. Canaan is often an image of unhealthy sexuality and coercion. The vocabulary for sexual health and intimacy, YDA, does not appear. The Hebrew words for genital sexual intercourse in this piece are LQH, and BO,“he took her and went into her”  (BLB, Genesis 38:2; Strong H3947 and H935). These words may connect a sense of unhealthy sexuality to the snapshot. Judah’s marriage yields three sons, Er, Onan, and Shelah. Onan is the principle player in Christian masturbation theology.

Judah got a wife for Er, his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death.

Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.” But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also. (Genesis 38:8–10)

This unhealthy sexuality snapshot forms one of the most prolific misuses of Scripture over the last 3500 years. From this singular verse of the Bible Jewish and Christian theologies of masturbation developed, impacting the current era. The plain reading of the text states that the Lord killed Er for unspecified evil acts. The word for evil in the Book of Genesis up to this point means coercion or sexual abuse. The younger brother, Onan, refuses to impregnate his sister-in-law as tribal custom demands. Onan too commits acts of coercion and dies. The final scene in the snapshot shows Tamar coercing a pregnancy with her father-in-law, Judah. She poses as a sacred prostitute to seduce Judah unknowingly for sex. Religious writers from many faith traditions for over 2000 years have mistranslated this single line of Scripture into a theology negatively affecting sexual health education for billions of people. 

As laid out in Genesis 38, ancient Near Eastern sexual health codes permitted a surviving family member to marry a brother’s widow. This marriage practice, called a YBM, or Levirate marriage, has occurred in many cultures for thousands of years until the present. The purpose of this form of marriage was to bring financial stability for the widow with tribal protection (Oxford Biblical Studies Encyclopedia, 2021).

Deuteronomy 25:5–10 permits the brother of a man who dies childless to marry the widow in a Levirate marriage, which allows either party to refuse the union.

If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.

However, if a man does not want to marry his brother’s wife, she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, “My husband’s brother refuses to carry on his brother’s name in Israel. He will not fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to me.” Then the elders of his town shall summon him and talk to him. If he persists in saying, “I do not want to marry her,” his brother’s widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, take off one of his sandals, spit in his face and say, “This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother’s family line.” That man’s line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled. (Deuteronomy 25:5–10)

Islamic Sharia Law too encourages similar consensual sexual health practices.

O you who have believed, it is not lawful for you to inherit women by compulsion. And do not make difficulties for them in order to take [back] part of what you gave them unless they commit a clear immorality. And live with them in kindness. For if you dislike them – perhaps you dislike a thing and Allah makes therein much good (al-Nisa 4:19, Sahih).

The purpose of the consensual Jewish YBM and similar Sharia Law marriage was to protect the widow and ensure provision and protection. Offspring created inheritance rights, status, and security. Both sexual health traditions required mutual consent for the marriage of the widow to the brother-in-law.

The Judah unhealthy sexuality snapshot paints a picture of coercive sex beginning with Er and Onan and continuing through Judah and Tamar. Er acts wickedly, RA, רע.The meaning of RA in the Book of Genesis up to this point is coercion or violent sexual abuse. The text clearly states that God kills Er for unnamed acts of coercion and perhaps abuse. The snapshot then describes Judah coercing Onan, his son, to have intercourse with Tamar to fulfill the YBM or Levirate marriage law. Onan does not consent to this marriage by Judah but practices coitus interruptus, withdrawing his penis from the vaginal barrel before ejaculation, when having intercourse with Tamar. He chooses not to conceive with Tamar and “spills his seed” at ejaculatory inevitability. The Hebrew words for “spills his seed” are SHT ZRH, שחת זרע. The word for seed or semen is, ZRH, זרע (Strong, H2233). SHT, שחת, appears 147 times in the Old Testament. All of the uses of this word carry the nuance of corruption or coercion (Strong, H7843). 

The intent of the Judah unhealthy sexuality snapshot may teach children about coercive nonconsensual sexuality. Er’s evil was unnamed acts of coercion. Judah manipulated Onan to marry and conceive with Tamar. Onan, too, according to the text bears guilt for coercive action. Based on the limits of the text, the coercion appears to be that Onan did not assume the responsibility of fulfilling the Levirate marriage law or YBM. 

What follows, however, appears to be thousands of years of personal bias and sexual politics attached to this one line of Biblical text. Religious writers assumed that Onan’s death sentence was for the evil of, “spilling the seed” or withdrawing the penis at ejaculatory inevitability. Church fathers, popes, Christian medical professionals, and Evangelical authors have connected Onan’s act with ejaculation of any kind, ascribing the death sentence for transmission of semen based on the misuse of a single line of Scripture called prooftexting. 

The final scene in the Judah unhealthy sexuality snapshot may teach children about the religious sacred sex trade of the ancient Near East (Genesis 38:13–30).

When Tamar was told, “Your father-in-law is on his way to Timnah to shear his sheep,” she took off her widow’s clothes, covered herself with a veil to disguise herself, and then sat down at the entrance to Enaim, which is on the road to Timnah. For she saw that, though Shelah had now grown up, she had not been given to him as his wife. When Judah saw her, he thought she was a prostitute, for she had covered her face. Not realizing that she was his daughter-in-law, he went over to her by the roadside and said, “Come now, let me sleep with you.”And what will you give me to sleep with you?” she asked.

“I’ll send you a young goat from my flock,” he said.

“Will you give me something as a pledge until you send it?” she asked.

He said, “What pledge should I give you?”

“Your seal and its cord, and the staff in your hand,” she answered. So he gave them to her and slept with her, and she became pregnant by him. After she left, she took off her veil and put on her widow’s clothes again…

About three months later Judah was told, “Your daughter-in-law Tamar is guilty of prostitution, and as a result she is now pregnant.”

Judah said, “Bring her out and have her burned to death!”

As she was being brought out, she sent a message to her father-in-law. “I am pregnant by the man who owns these,” she said. And she added, “See if you recognize whose seal and cord and staff these are.”

Judah recognized them and said, “She is more righteous than I, since I wouldn’t give her to my son Shelah.” And he did not sleep with her again. (Genesis 38:13–30)

Tamar, Judah’s daughter-in-law, poses in cognito as a sacred sex trade worker to coerce him to impregnate her. Judah has intercourse with Tamar and she conceives. In a politically brilliant move Tamar requests his signet ring and staff as Judah arranges payment for sex. In modern terms perhaps one would say, she asked for his passport and vaccine record as security for payment. When Judah hears of her pregnancy, he orders her death sentence until Tamar produces Judah’s passport picture and proof of vaccination, the signet ring and staff. 

The sacred sex trade formed a strategic part of ancient Near Eastern culture and sexual health education for children. In the Sumerian era 1750 BCE religious institutions staffed priests, attendants, artists with sacred sex trade workers in places of worship. The purpose of the sex workers connected the believers with the deities through intercourse. The sacred sex workers provided a, “substantial part of the temple’s income” (Tannehill, 1980, p. 79). The sacred sex trade business provided great profit to religious institutions. One sex worker named Metiche, earned the name, Clepsydra, or stop watch, for timing the length of customer intercourse so she could streamline her clients for greater income (Tannehill, 1980, p. 100). A millenium after Hammurabi, Herodotus, the Greek historian, reported, 

Every woman who is a native of the country must once in her life go and sit in the temple and there give herself to a strange man….she is not allowed to go home until a man has thrown a silver coin into her lap and taken her outside to lie with him. …The woman has no privilege of choice-she must go with the first man who throws her the money. When she has lain with him, her duty to the goddess has been discharged and she may go home…. Tall handsome women soon manage to get home again but the ugly ones stay a long time before they can fulfill the condition which the law demands, some of them indeed as much as three or four years. (p. 80). 

Sacred sex workers classified in three groups. The harimtu, connected to the word harem, may have been a quasi secular sex worker. The qadishtu, a sacred sex worker, reflects the Greek narrative of Herodotus. The ishtaritu were dedicated sex workers for the goddess Ishtar (Tannehill, 1980, p. 80). A Babylonian father wrote to advise his son, “Never take a harimtu to wife, her husbands are beyond counting; nor an Istaritu, she is reserved for the gods” (Tannehill, 1980,  p. 80). 

According to Tannehill (1980) caregivers may have coerced their children into the sacred sex trade. The sex trade offered a less expensive way to transition a female child into adulthood rather than paying a dowry. The harimtu appear to have been married women who left their husbands and had no other recourse than the sex trade. The higher earning sex trade workers operated within the temple complex itself perhaps because of the volume of customers and income potential. The under earners focused on locations outside the temple where potential customers gathered, typically, the local bar. This class of sex workers operated on the “streets, crossroads, and public places” (Tannehill, 1980, p. 80). The sacred sex trade had strict regulations on publicity and marketing. Assyrian law insisted that, 

“A common harlot shall not veil herself (as other women do); her head shall be uncovered. Anyone who sees a common harlot veiled shall arrest her….They shall beat her fifty strokes with rods, and they shall pour pitch on her head” (Tannehill, 1980, p. 81). 

The sacred sex trade involved coercion. A concubine did not have the independence of a hetaira, nor legal protection of a wife, and if she displeased her master, she could be sold to a brothel (Tannehill, 1980, p. 104). The sacred sex trade offered survival to the sex trade worker, not choice. The placement of Chapter 38 in the Joseph snapshot seems awkward. On the other hand, perhaps this cameo on unhealthy sexuality contrasts with Joseph’s healthy response to Potiphar’s wife and her seduction attempts in the coming chapters?

The Joseph snapshot resumes with Chapter 39 and the term eunuch appears for the first time in the Bible. The bitter brothers sell Joseph into slavery to Ishmaelite investors. The reader may note that Ishmael is the surrogate son of Abraham and Sarah with Hagar the slave. The earlier drama of blended family betrayal and coercion finds some justice and perhaps humor with the descendants of Ishmael selling Joseph to an Egyptian executioner. Potiphar, an elite royal military captain, describes in two ways. He is the guardian, SAR,שר, of the Pharaoh and identified as a eunuch, SRS, סריס (BLB, Genesis 37:26). The reader may note that the words guardian, SAR,שר, and eunuch, SRS, סריס sound similar but have different spellings (Strong, H5631).

The Biblical text identifies Potiphar as a eunuch. Eunuchs have been employed by royalty for millennia to oversee their harems.  The eunuch was unable to impregnate consorts because of intersexual traits at birth or surgery to remove genitalia. Eunuchism includes those born with intersexual traits incapable of heterosexual intercourse. This section describes both eunuchism and intersexuality connecting them to the sexual health teachings of the Old and New Testaments. Clinicians use the term intersexual for variations in sexually reproducing organisms. Intersexual births feature characteristics between typical males and typical females. Intersexual genitals differ in numerous ways with wide diversity. Many intersexual traits never appear outwardly. Some variations present when the intersex child reaches puberty, and still others at adulthood. Again, some intersexual traits never appear physically (Fausto-Sterling, 2000).

Fausto-Sterling (2000) examined clinical intersex data from 1955 to 1999. She stated, “We surveyed the medical literature from 1955 to the present for studies of the frequency of deviation from the ideal male or female. We conclude that this frequency may be as high as 2% of live births” (pp. 151–166). Genetics governing growth and development cause most intersex variations. Hormones underlie the most frequent variations among the intersexual population. Sterling listed numerous intersex variations with their prevalence:

Not XX and not XY one in 1,666 births

Klinefelter (XXY) one in 1,000 births

Androgen insensitivity syndrome one in 13,000 births

Partial androgen insensitivity syndrome one in 130,000 births

Classical congenital adrenal hyperplasia one in 13,000 births

Late onset adrenal hyperplasia one in 66 individuals

Vaginal agenesis one in 6,000 births

Ovotestes one in 83,000 births

Idiopathic (no discernable medical cause) one in 110,000 births

Iatrogenic (caused by medical treatment, for instance progestin administered to pregnant mother) no estimate

5 alpha reductase deficiency no estimate

Mixed gonadal dysgenesis no estimate

Complete gonadal dysgenesis one in 150,000 births

Hypospadias (urethral opening in perineum or along penile shaft) one in 2,000 births

Hypospadias (urethral opening between corona and tip of glans penis) one in 770 births (pp. 151–166).

Numerous eunuch snapshots appear in both the Old and New Testament records. The Bible uses the terms SARS in Hebrew and eunuch in New Testament Greek (Strong, H5631, G2135).

Royalty concerned for DNA purity of heirs chose staff members incapable of reproduction to oversee harems. The SARS-eunuch lacked the ability for genital sexual intercourse with the king’s wives whether by intersexual traits or surgical castration. The SARS served as a nonthreatening caregiver ensuring royal blood lines with unbroken succession to the throne. 

The fifth century AD Etymologicon by Orion of Thebes cites an early definition for the SARS: guarding the bed and being deprived of male to female sexual intercourse.

The historian Lucian states two criteria for vetting a SARS: physical inspection of genitalia while examining the candidate during a sexual act with females. This vetting process proved the SARS posed no threat to infiltrate royal DNA (Sturz, p. 58).

The most expansive community representing eunuchism in the United States is the medically castrated population of 500,000 male prostate cancer patients incapable to procreate or engage in genital sexual intercourse. One study showed that this population lives 13.5 years longer than uncastrated males due to decrease in testosterone and decreased violence (Wille & Beier, 1989).

Many cultures record surgical castration to prevent sexual intercourse with royal consorts. Vietnamese eunuchism removed both testicles and penis of male staff members to ensure the progeny of the Emperor. The duties of Vietnamese eunuchs primarily maintained the harem for sexual intercourse with the Emperor (Taylor, 2013).

The Biblical Hebrew word for eunuch is saris, SRS, סריס (Strong, H5631). Potiphar in the Joseph snapshot circa 12th Dynasty BCE is called Pharaoh’s SRS (BLB, Genesis 37:36, Strong, H5631). Daniel of the Babylonian Exile 8th century BCE served under a SRS and is assumed to be part of the eunuch culture to secure the purity of heir making. The Book of Isaiah 56:1–5 uses the term SARS in a blessing piece.

This is what the Lord says:

“Maintain justice

and do what is right,

for my salvation is close at hand

and my righteousness will soon be revealed.

Blessed is the one who does this—

the person who holds it fast,

who keeps the Sabbath without desecrating it,

and keeps their hands from doing any evil. 

Let no foreigner who is bound to the Lord say,

“The Lord will surely exclude me from his people.”

And let no eunuch(SARS) complain,

“I am only a dry tree.”

For this is what the Lord says:

“To the eunuchs(SARS) who keep my Sabbaths,

who choose what pleases me

and hold fast to my covenant—

to them I will give within my temple and its walls

a memorial and a name

better than sons and daughters;

I will give them an everlasting name

that will endure forever.

The Old Testament records the word for SARS 42 times. Of those 42 uses, English versions translate eunuch 28 times (Strong, H5631; Biblical Hermeneutics, 2016). Brown Driver and Briggs Hebrew Lexicon connects the Hebrew SARS, to the Arabic term, “to be impotent” (BDB, p. 710). Holladay’s Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (1983) defines SARS as only eunuch. The Aramaic dialects also translate SARS only as eunuch (Biblical Hermeneutics, 2016). The Book of Esther cites servants of the harem of Ahasuerus. These eunuchs are named specifically such as Hegai and Shashgaz, Hatach, Harbonah, Bigthan, and Teresh. The sarisim, the plural of SARS, were potential threats to impregnate the harem of the king and therefore chosen because of the inability for intercourse with royalty.

Some argue that if Potiphar were a eunuch with perhaps intersexual variations then why would he be married? Chapter 38 of Genesis immediately preceding this snapshot illustrates the YBM or Levirate Law of ancient Near Eastern custom to marry the widow of a deceased brother-in-law. Potiphar in similar way may have married his brother’s widow to protect her financially. Potiphar’s union may also be explained as a possible political alliance within the court of Pharaoh. Finally, the pursuit of a sexual affair with Joseph in the face of Egyptian taboos for adultery may be explained by a sexually frustrated partner. Potiphar’s wife pursued Joseph with relentless abandon. Could it be that her marriage to a partner unable or unwilling to engage in intercourse motivated her pursuit of Joseph?

The New Testament uses the term eunuch in two narratives, Mathew 19 and Acts 8. Jesus speaks of eunuchs in Matthew 19 stating that some intersexual-eunuchs are born, some eunuchs are made (surgically), and others choose to be eunuchs (Matthew 19:1–12).

“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” (Matthew 19:1–12)

The eunuchs Jesus described may include those who were born with intersex variations and could not have heterosexual genital sexual intercourse. The second snapshot appears in Acts 8:26–39. In this piece the apostle Phillip interprets Isaiah 53 for an, “ Ethiopian eunuch, an important official in charge of all the treasury of the Kandake which means ‘queen of the Ethiopians.’” (Acts 8:27) The reader can note that the Ethiopian eunuch served a royal consort, a queen. In addition the term eunuch separates from the words, an important official in charge. This supports the context of the SARS of the Old Testament who guards the harem of the king.

During my 40-year career as a faith-based sexual health educator, the tendency of conservative Christians has been to condemn intersexuality as immoral or taboo. The conversation that intersexuals are born, “that way” has been resisted by many. Scripture and the teachings of Christ both support the concept of intersexuality at birth. The reader may also note that all intersexual citations in the Bible appear without condemnation. In Deuteronomy 23:1 a statement is made prohibiting some males from worshiping with the congregation. “No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting (the genitalia) may enter the assembly of the Lord.” This Deuteronomy passage does not use the word SARS. The words, emasculated by crushing or cutting, appear four times in the Bible, and the meaning seems to involve an act of random violence (Deuteronomy 23:1, 1 Kings 20:37, and Song of Solomon 5:7). SARS-eunuch in the Old Testament never carries a negative image.

Intersexual-eunuch passages in Matthew 19 and perhaps Acts 8 appear without condemnation as well. The Acts snapshot with the Ethiopian eunuch and Phillip communicates honor and dignity.

The Joseph snapshot may also be a teaching piece for children on the regulation of sexual arousal. Joseph’s brothers sold him to a slave owner named Potiphar, whose royal duties included guarding Pharaoh’s consorts. Potiphar, ‘The Butcher’, entrusted Joseph with his entire household. Joseph, a skilled administrator, inspired both productivity and profit with his leadership skills. 

Now Joseph had been taken down to Egypt. Potiphar, an Egyptian who was one of Pharaoh’s officials, the captain of the guard, bought him from the Ishmaelites who had taken him there.

The Lord was with Joseph so that he prospered, and he lived in the house of his Egyptian master. When his master saw that the Lord was with him and that the Lord gave him success in everything he did, Joseph found favor in his eyes and became his attendant. Potiphar put him in charge of his household, and he entrusted to his care everything he owned. From the time he put him in charge of his household and of all that he owned, the Lord blessed the household of the Egyptian because of Joseph. The blessing of the Lord was on everything Potiphar had, both in the house and in the field. So Potiphar left everything he had in Joseph’s care; with Joseph in charge, he did not concern himself with anything except the food he ate. (Genesis 39:1-6)

A sexual health snapshot follows on regulating sexual neural pathways and sexual arousal. Potiphar’s wife sexually harassed Joseph in the workplace. On multiple occasions the executioner’s wife coerced Joseph for intercourse. The value of storytelling permits the listener to enter into the narrative with imagination and color. Perhaps Potiphar’s wife felt discontent being married to a partner incapable of sexual intercourse and conception? Did the relationship between the The Butcher and his wife result from an arranged marriage as Levirate customs demanded? Whatever the reason, Potiphar’s wife pursued Joseph even though Egyptian taboos forbade adultery with execution as punishment. The tension and stakes created high anxiety for all involved. 

Now Joseph was well-built and handsome, and after a while his master’s wife took notice of Joseph and said, “Come to bed with me!”

But he refused. “With me in charge,” he told her, “my master does not concern himself with anything in the house; everything he owns he has entrusted to my care. No one is greater in this house than I am. My master has withheld nothing from me except you, because you are his wife. How then could I do such a wicked thing and sin against God?” And though she spoke to Joseph day after day, he refused to go to bed with her or even be with her.

One day he went into the house to attend to his duties, and none of the household servants was inside. She caught him by his cloak and said, “Come to bed with me!” But he left his cloak in her hand and ran out of the house.

When she saw that he had left his cloak in her hand and had run out of the house, she called her household servants. “Look,” she said to them, “this Hebrew has been brought to us to make sport of us! He came in here to sleep with me, but I screamed. When he heard me scream for help, he left his cloak beside me and ran out of the house.” She kept his cloak beside her until his master came home. Then she told him this story: “That Hebrew slave you brought us came to me to make sport of me. But as soon as I screamed for help, he left his cloak beside me and ran out of the house.”

When his master heard the story his wife told him, saying, “This is how your slave treated me,” he burned with anger. Joseph’s master took him and put him in prison, the place where the king’s prisoners were confined.

But while Joseph was there in the prison, the Lord was with him; he showed him kindness and granted him favor in the eyes of the prison warden. So the warden put Joseph in charge of all those held in the prison, and he was made responsible for all that was done there. The warden paid no attention to anything under Joseph’s care, because the Lord was with Joseph and gave him success in whatever he did. (Genesis 39:6-23)

This is the first snapshot in Genesis demonstrating the regulation of sexual arousal. Joseph, a handsome single young man is sexually pursued by someone his superior. Dominant in authority through her husband, Potiphar’s wife attempts to coerce sexual favors from her husband’s subordinate employee. When confronted with the seduction narrative of Potiphar’s wife, Joseph responds with the prefrontal cortex regulating sexual response. One feature of this work emphasizes healthy regulation of sexual neural pathways rather than depriving sexuality. These themes are taken up more fully in the Neuroscience and Clinical Sexology section. 

The prefrontal cortex regulates the limbic system, where anger, fear, and sexual neural pathways wire. This regulation can also be called executive function. When the prefrontal cortex operates with balance, sexual arousal can be regulated. When the prefrontal cortex is depleted of blood flow, anger, fear, and sexual arousal cannot be fully regulated. Detailed explanation can be found in the Neuroscience section on the prefrontal cortex and anxiety regulation. The reader can note the prefrontal cortex response of Joseph to regulate sexual arousal. 

But he refused. “With me in charge,” he told her, “my master does not concern himself with anything in the house; everything he owns he has entrusted to my care. No one is greater in this house than I am. My master has withheld nothing from me except you, because you are his wife. How then could I do such a wicked thing and sin against God?” And though she spoke to Joseph day after day, he refused to go to bed with her or even be with her. (Genesis 39:8–10)

Joseph uses the reason center of the prefrontal cortex to make a sexually healthy decision. The Hebrew word for decision is MAN, מאן, to refuse utterly (BLB, Genesis 39:8, Strong, H3985). Next Joseph stated that Potiphar entrusted all to Joseph’s care. The word for intimacy of compassionate presence is used, YDA, ידע. This is the same word used for sexual intimacy, an intimate knowing, reasoning with compassion. Finally, Joseph affirmed that he cannot engage in sexual intercourse with Potiphar’s wife because the act would be wicked, RA, a coercive act against God. This view of sexual intercourse touches the spirituality of intimacy. Joseph felt compassion for the will of both God and Potiphar. The last scene in this snapshot shows Joseph fleeing the threat of coercive sexual assault.

Potiphar, Pharoah’s executive executions officer, with the nickname “Butcher,” imprisoned rather than torturing and killing Joseph for the alleged rape attempt of his wife. Perhaps Potiphar understood the sexual politics of his partner so he commuted Joseph’s sentence to life imprisonment? This story is an excellent depiction of sexual health that teaches children to regulate sexual neural pathways with reason, emotional intimacy, compassion, awareness, and spirituality. 

The balance of the Book of Genesis Chapters 40–50 reflects Joseph’s spiritual intimacy with God in prison, emancipation to the court of Pharaoh, his marriage, and it climaxes with the intimacy of family reconciliation. Joseph of all the characters in the Book of Genesis consistently acts with sexual health in mind. The book ends with the intimacy of family reconciliation just as Chapter 3 finishes with God reconciling the shame of humankind. In Chapters 1–3 of Genesis, the sexual health big picture illustrates intimacy between God and humankind. This intimacy is first spiritual, then beautiful, compassionately present and pleasurable, and balanced; it reflects sexual health and reconciles relationships. Joseph finds a compassionate presence of God while incarcerated. 

But while Joseph was there in the prison, the Lord was with him; He showed him kindness and granted him favor in the eyes of the prison warden. So the warden put Joseph in charge of all those held in the prison, and he was made responsible for all that was done there. The warden paid no attention to anything under Joseph’s care, because the Lord was with Joseph and gave him success in whatever he did. (Genesis 39:21–23)

Twice the text stated that God was with Joseph in presence and specifically “showed him kindness (compassion) and granted him favor in the eyes of the prison warden.” This kindness is the intimacy of compassionate presence. God helps Joseph regulate the fear and pain of prison with awareness of the compassion and love of God. 

Joseph has two children during his tenure as chief operating officer of Egypt, Manasseh and Ephraim. 

Before the years of famine came, two sons were born to Joseph by Asenath daughter of Potiphera, priest of On. Joseph named his firstborn Manasseh and said, ‘It is because God has made me forget all my trouble and all my father’s household.’ The second son he named Ephraim and said, “It is because God has made me fruitful in the land of my suffering.” (Genesis 41:50–52) 

Although the text does not state a clear connection, it appears that Joseph may have married into the family of Potiphar, “two sons were born to Joseph by Asenath daughter of Potiphera, priest of On” (Genesis 41:50–52). Potiphera may be a family name connecting to Potiphar, The Butcher, Joseph’s first Egyptian employer.

The snap shot of Joseph ends this great book on a sexual health-positive note. Joseph regulates sexual neural pathways in the prefrontal cortex through spirituality, compassionate presence, and reconciliation. His brutal family history of betrayal then reconciles with these words,

 When Joseph’s brothers saw that their father was dead, they said, “What if Joseph holds a grudge against us and pays us back for all the wrongs we did to him?” So they sent word to Joseph, saying, “Your father left these instructions before he died.” This is what you are to say to Joseph: ‘I ask you to forgive your brothers the sins and the wrongs they committed in treating you so badly.’ Now please forgive the sins of the servants of the God of your father.” When their message came to him, Joseph wept.

His brothers then came and threw themselves down before him. “We are your slaves,” they said.

But Joseph said to them, “Don’t be afraid. Am I in the place of God? You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives. So then, don’t be afraid. I will provide for you and your children.” And he reassured them and spoke kindly to them. (Genesis 50:15–21)

When Joseph stated he would provide for the children, he used the word, TPH, טף  “little ones” (Strong, H2945). The term TPH means “racing toddler with tripping gait.” This final scene speaks to small children about the care and compassion of God for them. The Joseph snapshot forms an inclusio of sexual health, tying in Genesis Chapters 1–5. Human sexuality reflects the image of omnibenevolent Creator whose compassion teaches children about sexual health and safety.

What would a child of the 4th century BCE learn about sexual health from this primer called Genesis? An awareness could emerge that sexual health forms one aspect of intimacy with God. Human sexuality is spiritual, beautiful, pleasurable, created without shame, possesses a compassionate presence, brings balance, and reconciles relationships. Sexual health forms a central place in the life of a community called covenant with God. Sexuality reflects one piece of intimacy with the God of the Bible. Rather than sex becoming object of worship, sexual health reflects a facet of intimacy with God and one another. Sexual health parallels a spiritual, beautiful, pleasurable, compassionate, balanced, and reconciling intimacy with God and one another.

Unhealthy sexuality from a 4th century BCE child’s view might look like coercion, a powerful person manipulating sex from a weaker one. Unhealthy sexuality may look like sharing private parts with a family member. Unhealthy sexuality betrays a partner without compassionate presence. Unhealthy sexuality coerces violent sex against another, called rape. Unhealthy sexuality connects to the sacred sex trade manipulating profit for the sharing of private parts. 

Future recommendation could be a thorough treatment of sexual health texts in the entire Bible.  The work would use Genesis as the foundational theory and work through each book to Revelation making connections. Based on the research thus far I would project historic interpretations based on bias of sexual politics may change current understandings. I will also continue to develop the video series for children. With this series I will craft a book proposal targeted for caregivers and their little children. The series will include a book for children ages 0-4 focusing on the benevolence of sexual health, a book for children ages 5-10 and abuse prevention, and finally a book for adolescents featuring chapters 12-50 of Genesis.