Clinical Sexology

Recent breakthrough studies in neuroscience and clinical sexology are changing the landscape of sexual health for faith-based clients. The words of Jesus in Matthew 19 regarding intersexuality-eunuchism find new clarity with the Fausto-Sterling (2000) report on sexual dimorphism also called intersexual variations. The purpose for this section creates clearer understanding of intersexuality-eunuchism among people of faith bringing compassion to families impacted by intersexual variations.

Intersexuality and Eunuchism

Intersexuality is the word for sex variations occurring in sexually reproducing animals. Intersexual births feature non typical sex characteristics of males and females. Intersexual genitalia may be different in numerous ways. The Fausto-Sterling (2000) report researched the wide range of variation occurring in live births from 1955 to 1999. The report found nearly 2% of live births feature some variation from typical XX and XY (Blackless, et al., 2000).

Intersexuality-eunuchism in the ancient Near East was known for inability to procreate or engage in heterosexual genital sexual intercourse. A valued court official, the intersexual-eunuch attended to royal harems. The intersexual-eunuch served as non threatening overseer to ensure purity of royal blood lines and succession to the throne.

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 19:12)

Christ mentions intersexuals-eunuchs who are born, eunuchs made surgically, and eunuchs who choose celibacy for the sake of ministry. The references to intersexual-eunuchs in the Bible are only positive. No negative statements exist about intersexual variations in Scripture. This section of Part 3 examines Fausto-Sterling’s (2000) contribution in the Blackless, et al. (2000) report defining each intersexual variation for the reader.

The Fausto-Sterling Report

Fausto-Sterling (2000) participated in a landmark examination of medical intersexual data  and states: 

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. The frequency of individuals receiving ‘corrective’ genital surgery, however, probably runs between 1 and 2 per 1,000 live births (0.1 – 0.2%). (Blackless, et al., 2000, p. 151)

Response to the Fausto-Sterling (2000) study was immediate: 

Many reviewers are not aware that this figure includes conditions which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex, such as Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, and late- onset adrenal hyperplasia. If the term intersex is to retain any meaning, the term should be restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotyp- ic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female. Applying this more precise definition, the true prevalence of intersex is seen to be about 0.018%, almost 100 times lower than Fausto-Sterling’s estimate of 1.7%. (Sax, 2002)

The criticism of Fausto-Sterling’s (2000) 1.7% intersex live birth statistic connects to Sax’s (2002) definition of intersexuality. Sax (2002) states that Fausto-Sterling’s (2000) results are inflated because she included Klinefelter, Turner, and late onset hyperplasia. Sax (2002) makes the case that most clinicians do not recognize Klinefelter and Turner syndromes, and late onset hyperplasia. Perhaps citing a percentage of clinicians with Sax’s (2002) view would be helpful. However, if Klinefelter, Turner, and late onset hyperplasia impact the sexuality of a client, it seems therapeutically reasonable as a clinical sexologist to include them in the sample. If not, then clearly, one can say experts agree data shows at minimum .018% to a maximum of 1.7% of live births have variation from typical males and females.

Klinefelter Syndrome, Turner Syndrome, Adrenal Hyperplasia

Klinefelter is a hereditary condition presenting with external male genitalia, small testicles, impaired ability to generate sperm, and female looking breasts. Turner syndrome is a chromosomal condition affecting female development. Features of Turner syndrome are short stature, ovary dysfunction, possible infertility, and onset of puberty requiring hormone treatment. Adrenal hyperplasia is a hereditary condition passed on from both parents. Aldosterone assists kidney function balancing electrolytes with the help of the enzyme 21-hydroxylase. When 21-hydroxylase is deficient, the adrenal glands cannot produce aldosterone. In this state, the body produces excess testosterone. The result can be masculine characteristics for females such as a deeper voice, early growth of pubic or armpit hair, irregular periods, lack of menstruation, facial hair, and/or infertility (Schneider, et al., 2006).

The criticism of Fausto-Sterling’s (2000) work focuses on definition of intersexuality. Sax (2002) states masculine characteristics for a female do not qualify as intersexuality. Perhaps that argument cannot be reconciled by scientists. However, from a therapeutic point of view Fausto-Sterling’s (2000) conclusions are both accurate and helpful in the treatment of clients with gender identity concerns. I have counseled numerous faith-based families with high anxiety about gender dysphoria among family members.This data can be helpful to normalize intersexuality and down regulate the fear and shame of faith-based caregivers.

Non-XX and Non-XY

XO chromosomes produce female external genitalia with gonads incapable of reproducing. XO patients do not experience puberty or secondary characteristics like pubic hair, but do have enlarged breasts, widening hips for females, and facial hair with Adam’s apples for males. XXX females experience puberty with widened hips, enlarged breasts, and may be fertile. XXY patients with Klinefelter syndrome feature external male genitalia, small testes, impaired production of sperm, and often have enlarged breasts. The karyotype (laboratory image of an individual’s chromosomes) for XXYY clients is considered a Klinefelter syndrome variant. XYY males on average are taller than XY males, and often feature underdeveloped testicles. XXY and XYY males have no presenting symptoms (Blackless, et al., 2000). 

Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome and Partial Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome

Fetuses have the same genitalia during the first trimester of pregnancy. When XY fetuses experience a disruption in hormones, the typical reason is defective androgen hormone receptors. When androgen receptors fail, a feminine XY can feature the vulva with smaller amounts of pubic hair. The vulva appears typical, but the vagina has little depth lacking the vaginal barrel leading to reproductive organs. The masculine XY cannot produce sperm and has elevated levels of luteinizing hormone (LH). LH stimulates testosterone in the testes, and in females LH stimulates steroid release from the ovaries, ovulation, and progesterone transfer after ovulation. There are three other types of Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome; 5 Reductase deficiency, Reifenstein syndrome, and Infertile Male syndrome. 5 Reductase deficiency and Reifenstein syndrome both produce non typical genitalia. Infertile Male syndrome is typically masculine in appearance but as the title suggests the patient cannot reproduce. Androgen resistance occurs in over 40% of males with small testicles or who are unable to produce sperm. Androgen resistance may appear in XY males and at the same time presents feminine features (Blackless, et al., 2000).

Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH)

The most common reason for intersexual traits in XX females is CAH also called 21-hydroxylase deficiency. Inherited genetically CAH traits are not always visible. When CAH presents in childhood, the symptoms can be premature puberty, excessive growth of coarse facial, back, and chest hair, and clitoral growth. When CAH presents in adults, the typical characteristics are menstrual disorders, coarse hair, and enlarged clitoris (Blackless, et al., 2000). 

Vaginal and Penile Agenesis 

Agenesis refers to organs not developing during pregnancy. XY males born with testicles but lacking a penis are rare perhaps one in a million births. On the other hand, complete or partial vaginal agenesis are in comparison fairly common. Fausto-Sterling (2000) states the occurrence of vaginal agenesis is 0.1694/1,000. She also suggests this statistic may be higher since vaginal agenesis is often not visible with symptoms (Blackless, et al., 2000).

Hormone-Producing Tumors and Exogenous Sex Hormones

Hormone producing tumors can cause masculine characteristics in adult women. These traits may include coarse body hair, voice change, and clitoral enlargement. Female fetuses may also feature male characteristics due to hormone producing tumors. An exogenous hormone is any hormone entering a human’s body which is not produced by the individual’s endocrine system as in the use of medical treatments or performance enhancing drugs. Exogenous hormones are used in hormonal replacement therapy, for menopause symptoms, androgen replacement therapy, growth hormone deficiency, hypothyroidism, immunosuppressants, anti-inflammatory treatments, progesterone or progestins for gynecological disorders, and human gonadotropin fertility treatment (Fertility, 2021).

True Hermaphrodites and Mixed Genitalia from Unknown or Idiopathic Cause 

True hermaphroditism features the presence of both testicular and ovarian tissue. Though mixed genitalia with unknown causes and hermaphroditism are rare, the Fausto-Sterling report suggests specific people groups such as Alaska natives have high CAH. True hermaphroditism is surprisingly common in southern Africa (Blackless, et al. 2000).

The Fausto-Sterling report grand total for intersexual variations is 1.728% of live births, however, “because of the Eurocentric nature of most medical data, there may well be other large population groups worldwide which exhibit substantial frequencies of intersexuality” (Blackless, et al., 2000, p. 9). 1.62% of the population may be subject to genital surgery as a treatment for intersexuality. This means within every faith community of 100 worshipers, up to two may have intersexual variations, with some in that population having undergone corrective surgery unawares.

Sexual Health and Intersexuality-Eunuchism

The prevalence of intersexual traits is approximately the frequency of humans with red hair (Healthline.com, 2020). This may prove a helpful comparison to wire compassion for the intersexual faith community. At no place in the Bible are intersexual-eunuchs condemned or viewed as inferior humans. Potiphar is a powerful figure in Genesis described as a SARS, eunuch. The eunuchs of Daniel’s Babylonian court and harem of which Esther was part are all spoken of with terms of honor. Isaiah the prophet writes inspired Scripture blessing intersexual-eunuchs. The first African convert to Christianity operated as a top tier financial administrator described as a eunuch. Jesus speaks of intersexuality-eunuchism without condemnation or negativity. Christ affirms some are born unable to have heterosexual intercourse and others receive surgery to become eunuchs. Then Jesus includes himself among those who choose life without heterosexual intercourse for the sake of God’s kingdom. 

Summary

Condemning intersexuality is contrary to orthodox teachings of Scripture and violates the Biblical theology of noncondemnation by both Christ and Paul the Apostle. Perhaps the orthodoxy of Christian communities emerging within this postmodern era will feature greater compassion? One ethical principle therapists engage is ‘do no harm’ treatment. Can the little children of the next generation wire the compassion of Christ for intersexuality and  ‘do no harm’?  Instead of condemnation what might happen if the rebels of the next reformation of faith focus on healthy solutions for intersexuality-eunuchism within church communities?

Many faith-based parents have sought my help for intersexual traits among family members. Numerous medical tests exist to appraise intersexuality. A physical exam can include: blood test assessing for male and female hormone levels, genetic karyotype chromosome test, sperm count, testicular biopsy, and pelvic ultrasound to confirm the presence of female reproductive organs (MedlinePlus, 2020).

In 2018, the first study on the health of intersex adults in the United States took place. In July-September of 2018 a national health study of intersex adults aged 18 and older reported prevailing health issues including depression, anxiety, arthritis, and hypertension. The physical health of 43% of the sample responded as fair/poor as well as 53% reported their mental health was fair/poor. 62.6% of intersexual subjects reported life-time anxiety disorders. 40.9% reported PTSD symptoms, 61.6% depressive disorders, and 61.7% current depressive symptoms. Nearly 33% reported difficulty completing tasks, with over 50% having cognitive difficulty (Rosenwohl-Mack, 2020).

This data may mean that compassionate communities of faith-based children can help their intersex friends and family. A generation of little children who carry no shame for intersexuality can reflect the witness of orthodox Christianity in healthy solution-based approaches for spiritual and mental health. The big picture of sexual health throughout the Bible prescribes no condemnation for any variation of intersexuality. Christ reflects the same truths of compassion and grace for intersexual-eunuchs of the first century church. Compassion with awareness touches the conduct of character present in the great reformations of history and orthodox noncondemnation teachings of the Bible.

Mandrakes-DUDAI: (Genesis 30:14)

Menstrual Cycle-DRK NSHM: (Genesis 31:35)

Sacred Sex Trade-ZNH: (Genesis 34:31)

Eunuch/Intersexual-SARS: (Genesis 37:36)

Coitus Interruptus–SHT: (Genesis 38:9) 

Mandrakes-DUDAI: (Genesis 30:14)

This sexual health image connects to a plant root often shaped in the sexualized image of human beings, the mandrake. Strong H1736 matches the Hebrew DUDAI
דּוּדַי, pronounced du-DIE. DUDAI occurs seven times in five verses in the Hebrew Bible.

Mandrake references can be found in Genesis, Jeremiah, and The Song of Solomon. The mandrake root possesses narcotic properties inducing hallucination. So potent, ancient surgeons used mandrake root as anesthesia for surgery. Ancient Near Eastern folk medicine included the mandrake as a sexual health remedy for curing infertility. Pictures of uncovered roots often resemble the naked human form so the mandrake can take on a sexualized physical image (Britannica, 2021).

In Genesis, Reuben, the eldest son of Jacob and Leah, unearths mandrakes (Genesis 30:14). Reuben coerced a sexual encounter with Bilhah, his father Jacob’s concubine. As retribution for this act of sexual sedition, Reuben receives his father’s death bed curse (Genesis 49:4). Rachel, Jacob’s favorite yet infertile wife, barters for Reuben’s mandrakes. Rachel offers her sister Leah, the mother of Reuben, a drug trade for sexual favors. Rachel hopes to become pregnant by the superstitious use of the mandrakes. The trade goes down like this: Rachel permits Leah to have intercourse with her husband, Jacob, if Leah surrenders the mandrakes to Rachel. Leah had no children for several years, so perhaps Rachel gambles that mandrakes offer better odds of producing a pregnancy than Leah conceiving with Jacob. The gamble goes poorly for Rachel. The mandrakes fail to produce offspring for Rachel, and Leah bears three more children before Rachel, now recovered from mandrake intoxication, finally conceives the favored son, Joseph (Brittanica, 2021).

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. (Genesis 30:14-17)

The final two mandrake references appear in Jeremiah and The Song of Solomon. Jeremiah cites the term as a prophecy metaphor. Solomon uses mandrakes in context of a love poem for his paramour. All citations for the toxic, hallucinogenic mandrake root connect to unhealthy sexuality or the trauma of exile.

Menstrual Cycle-DRK NSHM: (Genesis 31:35)

The term for menstrual cycle occurs once in Genesis 31:35. Rachel feigns menstrual cramps to conceal stolen contraband from her father, Laban: “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 31:35).

This is the only occurrence of menstrual cramps in the Bible using the Hebrew words, DRK NASIM, or the way of women.

Sacred Sex Trade-ZNH: (Genesis 34:31)

ZNH, זָנָה (pronounced zan-AH), appears 93 times within 81 verses of the Hebrew Old Testament (Strong, H2181). ZNH has range of use: to be or act out in adultery, be or act as a sex trade worker, or describing spiritual decline of intimacy with God. The Aramaic and Ethiopic use of ZNH is quite literal, effusio seminis virilis, seman effusum, or absorption of the male seed (Strong, H2181).

ZNH appears three times for sexual health education of children in Genesis. Shechem rapes Dinah. Ancient sexual health customs allow for rape victims to marry the perpetrator once their value as a virgin bride has been compromised by assault (Exodus 22:16-17; Deuteronomy 22:28-29). Dinah’s brothers retaliate by coercing the perpetrator with his male tribal community to circumcise themselves as part of a faux marital agreement. While Shechem and his male cohorts recover from surgery, Dinah’s brothers wreak vengeance by slaughtering the incapacitated circumcision patients. Genesis relays the reason for the brothers’ atrocity: “But they replied, ‘Should he have treated (raped) our sister like a prostitute (ZNH)’” (Genesis 34:31).

The final two Genesis citations of ZNH, זָנָה emerge in the Judah and Tamar sacred sex trade seduction snapshot of Genesis 38. Judah promises to give his son Shelah to Tamar in marriage, whose previous two husbands died in the Onan coitus interruptus snapshot. 

When Judah delays the marriage, Tamar conspires to pose as sacred sex trade worker and seduce Judah into impregnating her. Judah falls for the coercion and Tamar conceives by her father-in-law. When Tamar’s pregnancy is disclosed, Judah assumes she conceived in the sacred sex trade. Judah calls for Tamar’s execution. The death sentence is commuted when his pregnant daughter- in-law produces identification Judah gave her after the sex trade transaction. Judah remarks after ordering the death of his daughter-in-law with near termination of his embryonic twin sons, “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 38:26).

Exodus cites ZNH twice. Both refer specifically to the sacred sex trade and idolatry. Leviticus uses the term, sacred sex trade seven times. Three passages emerge in directions for priests. Leviticus directs priests not to marry within the sacred sex trade, and daughters from priestly families are not to engage in ZNH (Leviticus 21:3). The sacred sex trade connects directly to the worship of Molek (Leviticus 20:4) and spiritual mediums. Goat worship with the sacred sex trade begins the conversation in Leviticus 17:7. The people of Israel are mandated not to force their daughters to enter the sacred sex trade (Leviticus 19:29). All five citations in Numbers relate to the sacred sex trade. Israel was to adorn clothing with tassels as a reminder to down regulate sexual neural pathways.

You will have these tassels to look at and so you will remember all the commands of the LORD, that you may obey them and not prostitute yourselves by chasing after the lusts of your own hearts and eyes. (Numbers 15:39) 

 For the first time male sacred sex trade workers appear in the Bible. 

You must not bring the earnings of a female prostitute or of a male prostitute into the house of the LORD your God to pay any vow, because the LORD your God detests them both. (Deuteronomy 23:18) 

God prohibits Israelis from paying vows with sacred sex trade earnings in Numbers 23:18. The final passage of Numbers proposes upon Moses’ death, the people will once again decline to the sacred sex trade (Numbers 31:16). 

The Prophets

Joshua mentions Rahab the sacred sex trade worker four times. All citations reflect positively on her for her faith and willingness to protect covert Israeli operatives. Judges strategically uses ZNH, זָנָה six times, perhaps connecting decline of consciousness. All citations connect to the sacred sex trade. Judges 19 highlights decline of sexual health for the people of Israel. A Levitical priest takes a concubine from Bethlehem who then abandons him for the sacred sex trade. The story of Israel’s pathogenesis hits rock bottom in these final chapters. The priest’s concubine is gang raped, her body is dismembered, then the parts are distributed to the twelve tribes of Israel. The families of Benjamin, having fallen into disfavor, face possible extinction. In response, the eleven tribes annihilate the people of Jabesh Gilead, kidnapping 400 virgins for the Benjaminites. With regret, this number of human contraband fails to meet the need. The Israelis encourage the tribe of Benjamin to,”Go and hide in the vineyardsand watch. When the young women of Shiloh join in the dancing, rush from the vineyards and each of you seize one of them to be your wife” (Judges 21:20-21). Murder, annihilation, gang rape, and kidnapping define unhealthy sexuality, along with the decline of conscious awareness. The final words in Judges connect loss of intimacy with the decline of sexual health: “In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit” (Judges 21:25).

Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel use the term ZNH thirty times in their prophecies about the unfaithfulness of Israel. ZNH appears fifteen times in the minor prophets. The Writings use the term nine times. All references connect to the sacred sex trade and infer the unfaithfulness of the people of Israel.

The New Testament

Sacred sex trade worker, pornay, πόρνη, pronounced POR-nay, appears twelve times in the Greek New Testament (Strong, G4204). Matthew records the term twice in chapter 21. Jesus compares the righteousness of sex trade workers with their tax-extorting customers against the religious politicians opposing Christ and his ministry. Jesus states that sex trade workers enter the kingdom of heaven before corrupt religious elitists. Luke uses the term pornay, πόρνη in the Prodigal Son snapshot (Luke 15:30). Again, this parable compares the arrogance of  religious politicians to the transparency of the prodigal son who returns to the compassionate father. The allegedly devout brother condemns the prodigal son because of participation in the sex trade. The compassionate father, God, defends the prodigal son with heartfelt intimacy of reconciliation. 

Pauline Epistles

Paul the Apostle utilizes the word pornay twice in a sexual health piece for the Corinthian community. In Paul’s mind, participation in the sacred sex trade results in the same kind of spiritual unity as sexual intercourse in marriage. 

The General Epistles

The books of Hebrews and James reflect on the life of Rahab, the sacred sex trade worker of Joshua 2. Rahab protected two Israeli intelligence operatives surveilling Jericho for an impending siege. All Biblical writers speak of Rahab with dignity and respect. In fact, Rahab appears in the direct family line of Jesus within Matthew’s genealogy (Matthew 1:5). 

The final pornay passages appear five times in Revelation 17 and 19. Conspiracy and intrigue weave end time disaster with greedy sexual politics. Four times the sacred sex trade appears in chapter 17, describing a political leader ultimately defeated by a military power. The final reference to pornay features defeat of the sexualized leader within a celestial scene of victorious celebration. 

Eunuch/Intersexual-SARS: (Genesis 37:36)

Genesis as educational primer for children, teaches the spirituality of sexual health including those incapable of heterosexual intercourse. Eunuch, meaning those unable to have heterosexual genital intercourse, is the Hebrew word SARS appearing 42 times in the Hebrew Old Testament (Strong, H5631). The New Testament Greek term is eunuch, εὐνοῦχος, pronounced you-NEW-kos, which occurs eight times (Strong, G2135).

In the Old Testament, SARS is used to describe Potiphar, the cup bearer and chief baker for Pharaoh, the eunuchs caring for the harem including Esther, and Isaiah’s encouraging prophecy of hope. In the New Testament Jesus affirms intersexuality-eunuchism among the church, and the conversion of Queen Candace’s chief of operations in Acts 8. All references to intersexual/eunuch/SARS in the Bible hold positions of honor and dignity. The Scriptural record also supports that the first African convert to Christianity was a eunuch and possible intersexual holding one of the highest executive level positions within Ethiopia. A full treatment of the intersexual/εὐνοῦχος/SARS citations can be found in Appendix D.

Birth Control, Coitus Interruptus-SHT: (Genesis 38:9)

The coitus interruptus snap shot of Onanin Genesis 38 features two words necessary for the conversation of sexual health. The passage in question states, “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” (Genesis 38:9). The word ‘spilled’ in Hebrew is SHT, שָׁחַת, pronounced sha-HATH  (Strong, H7843). SHT, appears 147 times in 136 verses of the Hebrew Old Testament. The range of meaning includes: go to ruin, act corruptly, injure, violate, fall, escape, destroy, mutilate, or spoil. 

The other term is ZRA, זֶ֫רַע , pronounced ZE-raw. This word means seed, used figuratively and literally for fruit, plant, sowing-time, posterity, unhealthy sexuality, child, fruitful, and sowing-time, and semen (Strong, H2232).

The Genesis use of SHT connects the pathogenesis of intimacy with God to the unhealthy sexuality of Genesis 6. Twice in Genesis 6 the text states the earth had become SHT, that is, declined from intimacy with God to sexual abuse. God responds to the SHT of mankind with SHT, translated as ‘destroy’ in the following two verses. Humankind expended tremendous energy in the pursuit of unhealthy sexuality. Perhaps the global flood became the equal response in consequence? The references to SHT in Genesis 9 reflect God’s covenant to withhold this same kind of destruction in the future. The remaining passages from Genesis 13-19 connect SHT to the destruction of Sodom due to erotic rage involving sexual violence. 

The Genesis 38 Onan snapshot features the only citation in the Hebrew Old Testament referring to coitus interruptus. All Genesis citations connect to sexual health. Two more passages connect to unhealthy sexuality in Ezekiel and Proverbs. Both touch the sacred sex trade and adultery, the first stating: “Her sister Oholibah saw this, yet in her lust and prostitution she was more depraved than her sister” (Ezekiel 23:11). The second states: “But a man who commits adultery (idolatry) has no sense; whoever does so destroys himself” (Proverbs 6:32).

In the book of Genesis, SHT only connects to the unhealthy sexuality of erotic violence: the sexual nihilism of Genesis 6-9, the erotic violence of Sodom in Genesis 13-19, and the Onan coitus interruptus snapshot of Genesis 38. If one connects the context of these words with the death of Er and Onan, then the text implies that coercive violent sexuality brought about their deaths.

Mandrakes-DUDAI: (Genesis 30:14)

Menstrual Cycle-DRK NSHM: (Genesis 31:35)

Sacred Sex Trade-ZNH: (Genesis 34:31)

Eunuch/Intersexual-SARS: (Genesis 37:36)

Coitus Interruptus-SHT: (Genesis 38:9) 

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 (PFC), 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. Laban, Jacob’s father-in-law, 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 the surrogacy plan 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 for 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 with 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, 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 consequence. Dinah, offspring from the coercive pay for sex with food deal, becomes a rape survivor. Consequences of unhealthy sex thread throughout the characters of Genesis.

Menstruation: The Way of Women 

Sexual health education would not be complete without a conversation with maturing children about menstruation. The Book of Genesis as sexuality educator does not disappoint. With stealth Jacob the deceiver abandons his abusive father-in-law, Laban. 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 conceals her treachery by sitting on the saddle bags. When interrogated, Rachel claims she cannot get up from her seated 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, Jacob, 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). 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, meaning 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. 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 punishes 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 coercive behavior. 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 Esau? 

The Joseph snapshot concludes the Book of Genesis. Chapters 37–50 feature the themes of masturbation theology, birth control, the sacred sex trade, possible 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 in the Genesis 3:21 reconciliation scene. The blended family bitterness escalates when Joseph details disturbing dreams for his family. Joseph, clearly immature with brazen lack of humility, narrates a number of dreams predicting his family would one day slavishly 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 chitone 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, RA 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 permits. 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 (Islamic Studies, 2021).

The purpose of the consensual Jewish YBM and similar Sharia Law codes was to protect the widow by ensuring 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. 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 instead practices coitus interruptus, withdrawing the 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 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 word masturbation did not appear in print until the 17th century AD. The Latin word masturbation means ‘destruction by the hand’ (Harper, 2021). Theologians began to connect the term masturbation to Onan’s death sentence for coitus interruptus. The context of the passage, however, appears to be another lesson reinforcing the evil of coercive sexuality and abuse. The Onan incident is not a genital self-stimulation narrative. In addition there exists no support from other Biblical passages that God killed Onan for practicing birth control, coitus interruptus. The judgment against Er and Onan appears to have clear textual support on the basis of coercive sexuality and or violent abuse. No Biblical evidence supports the death sentence for coitus interruptus or genital self-stimulation to orgasm with ejaculation. The non-Biblical term masturbation appears to be a misuse of Scripture. The 17th century word masturbation does not appear in or reflect the authoritative text of the Bible anywhere. 

The translation method this work uses is called Biblical theology. This time-tested process uses Scripture to interpret Scripture. When a passage requires clarity, other relevant texts are compared for meaning. Biblical theology can be thought of as a scientific method for studying sacred literature with integrity. The tension in this passage focuses on the interpretation that God put Onan to death because he practiced birth control during intercourse through coitus interruptus. Therefore according to many authors any transmission of semen except for procreation is condemned by God and sinful.

The circumstance of Onan’s death appears four times in the Old Testament (Genesis 38:9–10; 46:12; Numbers 26:19; 1 Chronicles 2:3). Two of the passages state that Onan simply died (Genesis 46:12; Numbers 26:19). The Hebrew verb form used in these two passages is called the Qal. This verb form shows that Onan died without intervention from God to end his life. The text of Genesis 38:10 states that someone or something killed Onan. The final Onan passage of 1 Chronicles 2:3 mentions Onan but does not state that the Lord killed him. Rather, Er his brother was terminated by God. The author of Chronicles omits Onan from the consequences of direct judgement by God. The four texts agree that Onan did not die by a direct act from God.

The verse in question is not clear that Onan’s death was caused by God. The passage literally says in the Hebrew language, ‘He (Onan) did evil in the eyes of the Lord, and the thing which he did, killed him, even him.’ Hebrew to English translators added “The Lord”  to verse 10 as the subject doing the killing. (Genesis 38:10) The corruption and misuse of this passage began with the editing of the text by an unknown translator from the Hebrew to English who added “The Lord” as Onan’s executioner. (Genesis 38:10) No direct statements in the Bible support God putting Onan to death. All Biblical citations converge to the point that God did not terminate Onan because he withdrew before ejaculation.

The energy spent on this verse matters for billions of people who look to the Bible for sexual health education. What the reader will see in the following history of masturbation theology is the threat of divine death sentence and disease for ejaculation. Specifically, according to numerous religious writers, any sexual arousal or transfer of semen except for conception may bring the same consequences for death as Onan received. One misused prooftexted verse of Scripture without support from the entirety of Biblical revelation created 3500 years of threat, violence, and sexual shame among people of faith.

The first part of the word masturbation derives from the Latin word, manus, meaning ‘hand.’ The second part of the Latin term, disturbare, means to disturb, demolish, or destroy. Stupere connects to this word, meaning stupid or shameful. The Latin word masturbor then follows the meaning, ‘I shamefully defile myself, I masturbate.’ The word masturbation first  appears in literature by 1711. In the 1620s, mastupration preceded the use of the term masturbationderivedfrom the latin words manus, hand, and stupor meaning rape, defile, or dishonor. In the 17th century genital self stimulation carried the nuance of sexual violence and shame. (Harper, 2021)

The Evangelical Christian books Every Man’s Battle and Every Women’s Battle reflect thinking on genital self-stimulation to orgasm with ejaculation from the 1990s. Arterburn (2001), the primary author for these books, reflects the cultural and Evangelical sexual politics of the era. Panic and crisis of the 1980s’ AIDS epidemic may have driven religious and political leaders to teach abstinence in favor of sexual health. Arterburn reflected, “Masturbation is a symptom of uncontrolled eyes and free racing thoughts” (Arterburn, 2001, p. 110). He counseled that masturbation ceases when a man can “bounce” his eyes and take his thoughts captive (p. 112). He stated that the only legitimate release from genital tension for a single man is the nocturnal emission. Arterburn did not permit men to masturbate, even though he admits the Bible does not speak to it. Ethridge, Arterburn’s female counterpart and coauthor of Every Woman’s Battle, too instructed her readers not to masturbate. She (2003) stated, “Believe it or not no one ever died from not having an orgasm…once the sin of masturbation does know you by name, it will call, and call and call” (Ethridge p. 40). Is it possible that Ethridge may imply, ‘Believe it or not, some have died from an orgasm,’ specifically Onan? Ethridge stated that treatment for masturbation is to “starve it to death” (Ethridge, p. 41). Neither Arterburn nor Ethridge believed genital self-stimulation to orgasm with ejaculation was an acceptable practice, even though both admit the Bible gives no direction on the matter. 

The 19th and 20 centuries featured religious and medical practitioners contributing to the conversation of genital self-stimulation to orgasm with ejaculation. Doctor John Harvey Kellogg of the Battle Creek Corn Flakes fame (February 26, 1852–December 14, 1943) passionately campaigned against genital self-stimulation. Kellogg legitimized his views by using medical language with citations from physicians like Dr. Adam Clarke. Kellogg (1888) citing Clark compared the disastrous effects of genital self stimulation to plagues, war, and small pox. (Kellogg, 1881) Kellogg made strong warnings against masturbation claiming genital self-stimulation could be fatal, literally dying by one’s own hand. Kellogg believed the ‘solitary-vice’ caused uterine cancer, urinary diseases, nocturnal emissions, impotence, epilepsy, insanity, mental and physical pathologies, and dimness of vision. Kellogg warns of the evils of sex perhaps believing sexuality itself to be evil. He crafted treatment plans to cure children from acting out in what he termed the ‘solitary vice’ and or ‘self abuse’ (genital self stimulation). Kellogg prescribed as means of masturbation prevention: restraining a child’s hands, protecting the genitals with patented cages preventing sexual contact, stitching the foreskin shut with wire, electrical shock, and circumcision without anesthesia. Kellogg himself underwent circumcision at the age of 37 (Kellogg, 1888). Kellogg presented detailed treatment plans to prevent genital self-stimulation.

A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases. The soreness which continues for several weeks interrupts the practice, and if it had not previously become too firmly fixed, it may be forgotten and not resumed. Further, a method of treatment [to prevent masturbation] … and we have employed it with entire satisfaction. It consists in the application of one or more silver sutures in such a way as to prevent erection. The prepuce, or foreskin, is drawn forward over the glans, and the needle to which the wire is attached is passed through from one side to the other. After drawing the wire through, the ends are twisted together, and cut off close. It is now impossible for an erection to occur, and the slight irritation thus produced acts as a most powerful means of overcoming the disposition to resort to the practice. In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid (phenol) to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement (Kellogg, 1888, pp. 294-296).

In Kellogg’s (1883) Ladies’ Guide in Health and Disease for nymphomania, he recommended “Cool baths; the cool enema; a spare diet; the application of blisters and other irritants to the sensitive parts of the sexual organs” (Markel, p. 215).  Kellogg also reported that he practiced female genital mutilation by surgically removing the clitoris in cases of “self-abuse (genital self stimulation), and a complete abandonment to lascivious thoughts” (Kellogg, 1883, pp. 546-547). 

Swiss physician Samuel-Auguste Tissot published L’Onanisme in 1760, a comprehensive medical treatise on the negative effects of genital self-stimulation to orgasm with ejaculation. Tissot believed that seminal fluid was an ‘essential oil and stimulus.’ According to Tissot, the loss of semen in large amounts could cause, 

a perceptible reduction of strength, of memory and even of reason; blurred vision, all the nervous disorders, all types of gout and rheumatism, weakening of the organs of generation, blood in the urine, disturbance of the appetite, headaches and a great number of other disorders. (Stolberg, 2000, pp. 1-21)

In the 17 century, masturbation became synonymous with Onan in Genesis 38. Although different behaviors, Coitus interruptus and genital self-stimulation now become one idea (Etymonline, 2021). A 17th-century Puritan law code for the colonies of New Haven, Connecticut outlawed blasphemy, homosexuality, and genital self-stimulation. The consequence for offenders? The death penalty (Lawrence, 1997, p. 41).

Before masturbation terminology appeared in the 17th century early Christian church fathers contributed volumes of commentary. Many church authorities taught that genital self-stimulation was a secret sin, injurious, prohibited, and corrupt. In the 14th century AD, Jean Gerson, crafted a confessional manual entitled, On the Confession of Masturbation. Gerson’s manual directs clergy to confess to the sin of masturbation which was considered more serious than incest, or the kidnapping-rape of nuns and virgins (Taylor, 2008).

Thomas Aquinas, 1225–1274 AD, scholastic of the Catholic Church authored the Summa Theologica, The Summary of Theology. The Summa intended to instruct seminarians and literate church members. In Question 154 Article 5, Aquinas argues for the sinfulness of dreams producing nocturnal emissions. 

Article 5. Whether nocturnal pollution is a mortal sin? Objection 1. It would seem that nocturnal pollution is a sin. For the same things are the matter of merit and demerit. Now a man may merit while he sleeps, as was the case with Solomon, who while asleep ob tained the gift of wisdom from the Lord“ (1 Samuel 3:5). Therefore a man may demerit while asleep; and thus nocturnal pollution would seem to be a sin (Knight, 2017; Summa Theologica,154:5).

Beginning in the 11th century Pope Leo IX regarded genital self-stimulation as, “unnatural sex, murder, a diabolical practice, and the cause of two-thirds of all diseases and disorders including insanity, neurosis, and neurasthenia” (Patton, 1985, p. 133).

Epiphanius of Salamis (375 AD) stated in Medicine Chest Against Heresies, that certain Egyptian heretics “exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption”(Catholic Encyclopedia, 2021; Medicine Chest Against Heresies 26:5:2, 375 AD). Lactantius, advisor to Roman Emperor Constantine the Great, in the fourth century AD added, “God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital [‘generating’] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring” (Catholic Encyclopedia, 2021;Medicine Chest Against Heresies, 6:23:18). Clement of Alexandria in 191 AD stated that, “Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted, and, “To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature” (Catholic Encyclopedia, 2021; The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2; 2:10:95:3, 375 AD).

Origen (184-253 AD), an Early Church Father, was considered the genius of the second and third century church. Origen authored a body of over 6,000 works laying the foundation for current Christian theology, apologetics and preaching theory. Origen also struggled with dysregulated sexual arousal. As a young man, he voluntarily submitted to a bilateral orchiectomy, the surgical removal of both testicles. His goal was to conform to the words of Jesus in Matthew 19 regarding becoming a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom of God. Origen later regretted his decision (Silver, 2021).

Christ does not speak on the matter of genital self-stimulation to orgasm with ejaculation. Neither New Testament writers nor Old Testament authors rule on the matter. Again, the primary Christian authoritative sources and accepted body of sacred literature do not regulate genital self-stimulation. The Old Testament passages connecting to transmission of seminal fluids can be found in the Levitical sexual hygiene code.

When a man has an emission of semen, he must bathe his whole body with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Any clothing or leather that has semen on it must be washed with water, and it will be unclean till evening…When a man has sexual relations with a woman and there is an emission of semen, both of them must bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening…These are the regulations for a man with a discharge, for anyone made unclean by an emission of semen. (Leviticus 15:16,17,18, 32)

Neither mandate nor commentary exists for genital self-stimulation to orgasm with ejaculation in the entire Bible. The focus of transmission of fluids in Leviticus falls under the heading of hygiene and in this case sexual health hygiene. There are no death penalties in the Leviticus sexual hygiene code for the transmission of seminal fluids by any means.

Four characteristics underlie the postmodern sex addict in North America. P. Carnes explained in a sex addiction certification seminar (personal communication, January 2014) the typical person with problematic sexuality comes from a Bible believing family with black and white shame based rules, deprivation, and sex negativity. This work attempts to counter these underlying drivers of addict behaviors with sexually healthy Biblical conversations. The goal is to teach children that the sexual health-positive big picture of the Bible reflects intimacy with God. This spiritual intimacy is beautiful, pleasurable, present in compassion, balanced, sexually healthy, and reconciles relationships. Rather than rigid shame based compliance to man-made mandates, this work teaches children the health of consent with boundaries. Instead of deprivation thinking, children are shown how to love and care for the image of God within themselves and others through sexual health hygiene. Sexual health can be only good reflecting the omnibenevolence or complete goodness of the Creator. Sexual health is never a state of sin in the Bible.

Clarke (2021), the author of Connection Theory, mentored clinical sexologists to examine, ‘the meaning’ of sexual behavior in the assessment of disorders. Does the meaning of one’s sexual health practice connect to the image of an omnibenevolent Creator? Does the spirituality of sexual health follow Scriptural support? Does sexual hygiene promote beauty and pleasure as opposed to neglect and shame? Does a sexual health practice bring balance with compassion, or does the behavior become obsessive, problematic, and cause harm? Is the outcome of one’s sexual hygiene restoration of health? Does sexual hygiene like genital self stimulation connect to the values of one’s family and community? These questions of spiritual significance transcend the black and white shame based approach of many religious writers over the last 2000 years. My goal not to promote a sexual hygiene behavior, but rather to permit the reader to choose what is Scriptural and healthy and to do so without shame. Replacing shame based rules with compassionate boundaries, promoting sexual health hygiene in place of deprivation, and connecting intimacy to sexual health may help children by treating the underlying drivers of problematic sexuality and at the same time honor the teachings of the Bible.

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 millennium 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” (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 women and girls, 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 eunuchos 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 criterion for vetting a SARS: physical inspection of genitalia while examining the candidate during an unsuccessful sexual act with females. This vetting process proved the SARS posed no threat to infiltrate royal DNA (Sturz, 1820, p. 58).

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 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 tracking with Old Testament usage. 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 permitted? 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, 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 name connecting to Potiphar, The Butcher, Joseph’s first Egyptian employer. Although the terms are similar, there is no Biblical text to confirm. 

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 perpetrates erotic violent against another, called rape. Unhealthy sexuality connects to the sacred sex trade manipulating profit by coercing families to share private parts with strangers.

Foreplay with Intercourse or Conjugal Caresses-TSACH: (Genesis 17:17)

Unhealthy Genital Sexual Intercourse-SCB: (Genesis 19:32)

One of the unique words in the Bible translates as foreplay with intercourse or conjugal caresses. Formed on the Hebrew word TSACH, צָחַק (pronounced ts-KACH), it means to laugh with hilarity or shame, to mock, play, and as a sexual health term ‘foreplay’ with intercourse (Strong, H6711). Used thirteen times in the Old Testament, ten of the citations occur in Genesis. The author seems to enjoy irony of the word. Six of the uses appear in the birth announcement about Isaac. When God told geriatric Abraham that his post-menopausal wife would have a natural birth child, Abraham and Sarah both laugh at the idea. They name their son Isaac, formed on the word laugh, TSACH, צָחַק. 

TSACH, צָחַק is used in Genesis 26:8 to describe Isaac and Rebekah’s foreplay for intercourse, translated by some as ‘conjugal caresses’ (Strong, H6711). Isaac, whose name means laughter, lies to Abimalek, the Palestinian King, implying Rebekah is not his wife. Isaac mirrors this ploy from his father Abraham, who also lied about his wife Sarah, implying she was not his wife, on two separate occasions. The purpose of the ruse in their minds was to protect Abraham and Isaac from threat of execution and their wives from being kidnapped for royal harems. Abimalek, under the impression Rebekah is Isaac’s sister, voyeuristically sees the couple ‘sporting’ or ‘caressing’ with sexual intent in the garden. The king immediately deduces this romantic couple have a marriage covenant, blowing the cover story.

Two Genesis references connect to the mocking laughter of Lot’s sons in law and Ishmael. Two other citations describe the false sexual harassment allegations of Potiphar’s wife against Joseph. Her accusation alleged that Joseph attempted to seduce the executioner’s wife, and she uses the term ‘make sport,’ perhaps meaning ‘to humiliate,’ in her sexual harassment allegation. The Exodus citation reflects a nuance of unhealthy sexuality when the people of Israel  engage in idolatry with loss of sexual boundaries. The term used in Exodus is ‘revelry.’ The Judges account uses the term for high spirited entertainment when Samson amuses guests. The word translates ‘entertain’ and ‘perform.’  

Unhealthy Genital Sexual Intercourse-SCB: (Genesis 19:32)

One of the common Biblical Hebrew words for sexual intercourse is SCB, שָׁכַב, pronounced shaw-KAV (Strong, H7901). SCB appears 213 times in 194 verses of the Hebrew Old Testament. The range of meaning includes: to lie down, genital sexual intercourse, to rape,  to die, to sleep, or to stay. Genesis uses SCB twenty times, fifteen of which refer to unhealthy sexuality. All uses of SCB in the book of Genesis connect to the unhealthy sexuality of incest, non-consensual intercourse, bartering for sexual favors, rape, and coercive seduction for sexual intercourse. 

“Let’s get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father.” (Genesis 19:32)

That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and slept with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up. (Genesis 19:33)

The next day the older daughter said to the younger, “Last night I slept with my father. Let’s get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him so we can preserve our family line through our father.” (Genesis 19:34)

So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up. (Genesis 19:35)

Then Abimelek said, “What is this you have done to us? One of the men might well have slept with your wife, and you would have brought guilt upon us.” (Genesis 26:10)

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.” (Genesis 30:15)

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. (Genesis 30:16 )

When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, the ruler of that area, saw her, he took her and raped her. (Genesis 34:2)

Meanwhile, Jacob’s sons had come in from the fields as soon as they heard what had happened. They were shocked and furious, because Shechem had done an outrageous thing in Israel by sleeping with Jacob’s daughter—a thing that should not be done. (Genesis 34:7)

While Israel was living in that region, Reuben went in and slept with his father’s concubine Bilhah, and Israel heard of it. Jacob had twelve sons. (Genesis 35:22)

…and after a while his master’s wife took notice of Joseph and said, “Come to bed with me!” (Genesis 39:7)

And though she spoke to Joseph day after day, he refused to go to bed with her or even be with her. (Genesis 39:10)

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. (Genesis 39:12)

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.” (Genesis 39:14)

Exodus uses SCB three times in chapter 22. Two reference unhealthy sexual intercourse related to seducing a virgin, sex with an animal, and once in a compassion statement for the poor. The term drops out of usage by the time of the prophets and the word ZNH, meaning ‘sacred sex trade,’ appears.

Leviticus cites SCB fourteen times in a sexual hygiene section. Hygiene instruction appears for male discharge without intercourse (Leviticus 15:4), and intercourse hygiene during menstrual cycle (Leviticus 15:18, 20, 24a, 24b, 26, 33, and 20:18). SCB appears three times for the unhealthy sexuality of incest (Leviticus 20:11,12, 20). Two citations refer to male with male intercourse (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13), and intercourse with a betrothed female slave (Leviticus 19:20). All citations connect to sexual hygiene and/or unhealthy sexuality.

SCB appears fifteen times in Deuteronomy. Ten citations connect to sexual health conversation. SCB describes adultery twice (Deuteronomy 22:22), has four references for rape (Deuteronomy 22:23-24, 25, 28:28-29), three incest passages (Deuteronomy 27:20, 22, 23) and one reference to sex with an animal (Deuteronomy 27:21).

The Prophets

The books of 1 and 2 Samuel feature SCB 27 times. SCB in sexual health contexts appears seven times. Eli’s sons used their position of authority to seduce women for sex who serve at religious worship services (1 Samuel 2:22). The term SCB, meaning rape, appears three more times in King David’s seduction of Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11:4), and twice for Amnon’s rape of his sister Tamar (2 Samuel 13:11-14). SCB has one reference to the future sexual assault of King David’s concubines by his son Absalom (2 Samuel 12:11). SCB as genital sexual intercourse occurs twice in reference to Uriah’s resistance to having intercourse with Bathsheba for the purpose of covering up King David’s impregnation of Uriah’s wife, and David and Bathsheba’s conception of Solomon (2 Samuel 11:11; 2 Samuel 12:24). 

SCB appears four times in Isaiah. Isaiah and Zechariah use SCB for rape (Isaiah 13:16; Zechariah 14:2). Ezekiel speaks of the sacred sex trade using SCB, and Micah uses the word in a sense of lack of trust within a romantic relationship (Ezekiel 23:8; Micah 7:5).

The Writings

Ruth mentions SCB five times. All references connect to sexual health. Ruth appears in the genealogy of Jesus (Matthew 1). Beginning in Ruth 3:4, the word SCB ranges in meaning from lying down for rest to genital sexual intercourse. The author uses the word skillfully, weaving it through the account of Boaz and Ruth becoming sexually intimate and ultimately married. The euphemism “uncovering the feet” is used to mean genital sexual intercourse in the narrative of Ruth (Ruth 3:7). All 5 citations refer to sexual health.

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 a single 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 neural 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, 2015; 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.” (Genesis 26:8) 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. The Online Blue Letter Bible citing Brown Driver and Briggs Lexicon defines this word as ‘conjugal caresses’ (BLB, Genesis 28:6). Clearly, intimate sexual contact or foreplay is meant.

Sexually Transmitted Infections-NGA:(Genesis 12:17)

Circumcision-NML: (Genesis 17:11)

Sexually Transmitted Infections-NGA:(Genesis 12:17)

NGA, נָגַע, pronounced na-GAH,can mean to touch or lay a hand on, as in genital sexual intercourse, to reach violently, to strike, punish, defeat, destroy, or to plague (Strong, H5060). In the context of Genesis 12:17, Pharaoh took Sarah, Abraham’s wife, into the royal harem as a consort for heir-making. Immediately Pharaoh’s harem experienced a plague, disease, or possibly sexually transmitted infection. The Hebrew text is emphatic. Genesis 12:17 uses the word NGA twice. The first use of NGA sets the tone with the action verb ‘to plague.’ The second use is the plural noun with the adjective ‘great.’ The text says, “The Lord plagued Pharaoh with great plagues….” The use of plural nouns can mean comprehensive or complete infection in this context.

When Abram came to Egypt, the Egyptians saw that Sarai was a very beautiful woman.

And when Pharaoh’s officials saw her, they praised her to Pharaoh, and she was taken into his palace.He treated Abram well for her sake, and Abram acquired sheep and cattle, male and female donkeys, male and female servants, and camels.But the LORD inflicted serious diseases on Pharaoh and his household because of Abram’s wife Sarai. (Genesis 12:14-17)

Circumcision-NML: (Genesis 17:11)

Circumcision, NML, נָמַל in Hebrew (pronounced nah-MAL), appears 36 times in 32 verses within the Hebrew Old Testament (Strong, H5243). NML means to circumcise, hang down, wither, languish, destroy, or cut in pieces. NML is the outward symbol of relationship intimacy between God and humankind. 

The Greek New Testament uses the word peritome, περιτομή (pronounced peri-tow-MAY) twenty times, literally meaning ‘to cut around.’  In the New Testament peritome, can mean the rite of circumcision, a designation for Jewish Christians, those devoted to God, and the spiritual maturity of regulating emotion (Strong, G4059).

Unhealthy Genital Sexual Intercourse-SCB: (Genesis 19:32)

One of the common Biblical Hebrew words for sexual intercourse is SCB, שָׁכַב, pronounced shaw-KAV (Strong, H7901). SCB appears 213 times in 194 verses of the Hebrew Old Testament. The range of meaning includes: to lie down, genital sexual intercourse, to rape,  to die, to sleep, or to stay. Genesis uses SCB twenty times, fifteen of which refer to unhealthy sexuality. All uses of SCB in the book of Genesis connect to the unhealthy sexuality of incest, non-consensual intercourse, bartering for sexual favors, rape, and coercive seduction for sexual intercourse. 

“Let’s get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father.” (Genesis 19:32)

That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and slept with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up. (Genesis 19:33)

The next day the older daughter said to the younger, “Last night I slept with my father. Let’s get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him so we can preserve our family line through our father.” (Genesis 19:34)

So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up. (Genesis 19:35)

Then Abimelek said, “What is this you have done to us? One of the men might well have slept with your wife, and you would have brought guilt upon us.” (Genesis 26:10)

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.” (Genesis 30:15)

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. (Genesis 30:16 )

When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, the ruler of that area, saw her, he took her and raped her. (Genesis 34:2)

Meanwhile, Jacob’s sons had come in from the fields as soon as they heard what had happened. They were shocked and furious, because Shechem had done an outrageous thing in Israel by sleeping with Jacob’s daughter—a thing that should not be done. (Genesis 34:7)

While Israel was living in that region, Reuben went in and slept with his father’s concubine Bilhah, and Israel heard of it. Jacob had twelve sons. (Genesis 35:22)

…and after a while his master’s wife took notice of Joseph and said, “Come to bed with me!” (Genesis 39:7)

And though she spoke to Joseph day after day, he refused to go to bed with her or even be with her. (Genesis 39:10)

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. (Genesis 39:12)

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.” (Genesis 39:14)

Exodus uses SCB three times in chapter 22. Two reference unhealthy sexual intercourse related to seducing a virgin, sex with an animal, and once in a compassion statement for the poor. The term drops out of usage by the time of the prophets and the word ZNH, meaning ‘sacred sex trade,’ appears.

Leviticus cites SCB fourteen times in a sexual hygiene section. Hygiene instruction appears for male discharge without intercourse (Leviticus 15:4), and intercourse hygiene during menstrual cycle (Leviticus 15:18, 20, 24a, 24b, 26, 33, and 20:18). SCB appears three times for the unhealthy sexuality of incest (Leviticus 20:11,12, 20). Two citations refer to male with male intercourse (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13), and intercourse with a betrothed female slave (Leviticus 19:20). All citations connect to sexual hygiene and/or unhealthy sexuality.

SCB appears fifteen times in Deuteronomy. Ten citations connect to sexual health conversation. SCB describes adultery twice (Deuteronomy 22:22), has four references for rape (Deuteronomy 22:23-24, 25, 28:28-29), three incest passages (Deuteronomy 27:20, 22, 23) and one reference to sex with an animal (Deuteronomy 27:21).

The Prophets

The books of 1 and 2 Samuel feature SCB 27 times. SCB in sexual health contexts appears seven times. Eli’s sons used their position of authority to seduce women for sex who serve at religious worship services (1 Samuel 2:22). The term SCB, meaning rape, appears three more times in King David’s seduction of Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11:4), and twice for Amnon’s rape of his sister Tamar (2 Samuel 13:11-14). SCB has one reference to the future sexual assault of King David’s concubines by his son Absalom (2 Samuel 12:11). SCB as genital sexual intercourse occurs twice in reference to Uriah’s resistance to having intercourse with Bathsheba for the purpose of covering up King David’s impregnation of Uriah’s wife, and David and Bathsheba’s conception of Solomon (2 Samuel 11:11; 2 Samuel 12:24). 

SCB appears four times in Isaiah. Isaiah and Zechariah use SCB for rape (Isaiah 13:16; Zechariah 14:2). Ezekiel speaks of the sacred sex trade using SCB, and Micah uses the word in a sense of lack of trust within a romantic relationship (Ezekiel 23:8; Micah 7:5).

The Writings

Ruth mentions SCB five times. All references connect to sexual health. Ruth appears in the genealogy of Jesus (Matthew 1). Beginning in Ruth 3:4, the word SCB ranges in meaning from lying down for rest to genital sexual intercourse. The author uses the word skillfully, weaving it through the account of Boaz and Ruth becoming sexually intimate and ultimately married. The euphemism “uncovering the feet” is used to mean genital sexual intercourse in the narrative of Ruth (Ruth 3:7). All 5 citations refer to sexual health.

Abraham and Sexually Transmitted Infection

The Abraham snapshot begins with sexual health images, reconnecting to the 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, conceiving 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, 1992, 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 I call 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 will repeat this method of self-preservation again, resulting in sexual disease with infertility 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 D.

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 (Tannehill, 1980). 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 (Code of Hammurabi, 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 passed on to children through stories in the oral tradition of story telling. Although word repetition may seem cumbersome to the reader, in oral poetry and storytelling a narrator 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 preamble, 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 reconciling the 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 by the author 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.” (Genesis 19:4) 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. 

The symbolism of Sodom is one of violent sexual assault. This fits well with the pathogenesis to sexual nihilism and incestuous assault of the Noah snapshot in Genesis 6-9.  Again, this theme has potential to protect children from sexual abuse. So, based on the text, is Sodom a case study in same sex attraction or homosexuality? The evidence points to the perpetrators of Sodom as heterosexuals from all regions of the geographic vicinity. The intent of the author appears to be abuse prevention for children within the sexual politics of the ancient Near East rather than a promotion of sexual politics. It is concerning for any student of the Bible that a translator edited a text which facilitated legislation and hate crimes against any group, in this instance the same sex community. Both Christ and Paul the Apostle are clear that orthodox believers in Scripture neither judge nor condemn the sexuality of any community. Full treatment of the nonjudgment and noncondemnation Scriptures can be found in the Biblical theology section of Part 3.

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 of Part 3. 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.” (Genesis 19:8) This is the same term appearing in the sexual health big picture for the seven blessings of God highlighting the goodness of human sexuality in Genesis 1. Could this use be paradox? The Sodom 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.” (Genesis 19:14) 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 taking 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 orhave 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 paints 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 as an ambiguous moral transgression, but as a disease state. Perhaps this snap shot reflects a sexually transmitted infection?  Might this have value in the teaching of pubescent children about sexual health?

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 (Code of Hammurabi, 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 coercion 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” (Genesis 21:22-34). Intimacy and sexual health connect to reconciliation, one of the seven forms of intimacy within the sexual health big picture of Genesis 1–5. 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.

Abraham and Sexually Transmitted Infection

The Abraham snapshot begins with sexual health images, reconnecting to the 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, conceiving 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, 1992, 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 I call 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 will repeat this method of self-preservation again, resulting in sexual disease with infertility 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 D.

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 (Tannehill, 1980). 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 (Code of Hammurabi, 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 passed on to children through stories in the oral tradition of story telling. Although word repetition may seem cumbersome to the reader, in oral poetry and storytelling a narrator 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 preamble, 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 reconciling the 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 by the author 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.” (Genesis 19:4) 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. 

The symbolism of Sodom is one of violent sexual assault. This fits well with the pathogenesis to sexual nihilism and incestuous assault of the Noah snapshot in Genesis 6-9.  Again, this theme has potential to protect children from sexual abuse. So, based on the text, is Sodom a case study in same sex attraction or homosexuality? The evidence points to the perpetrators of Sodom as heterosexuals from all regions of the geographic vicinity. The intent of the author appears to be abuse prevention for children within the sexual politics of the ancient Near East rather than a promotion of sexual politics. It is concerning for any student of the Bible that a translator edited a text which facilitated legislation and hate crimes against any group, in this instance the same sex community. Both Christ and Paul the Apostle are clear that orthodox believers in Scripture neither judge nor condemn the sexuality of any community. Full treatment of the nonjudgment and noncondemnation Scriptures can be found in the Biblical theology section of Part 3.

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 of Part 3. 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.” (Genesis 19:8) This is the same term appearing in the sexual health big picture for the seven blessings of God highlighting the goodness of human sexuality in Genesis 1. Could this use be paradox? The Sodom 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.” (Genesis 19:14) 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 taking 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 orhave 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 paints 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 as an ambiguous moral transgression, but as a disease state. Perhaps this snap shot reflects a sexually transmitted infection?  Might this have value in the teaching of pubescent children about sexual health?

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 (Code of Hammurabi, 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 coercion 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” (Genesis 21:22-34). Intimacy and sexual health connect to reconciliation, one of the seven forms of intimacy within the sexual health big picture of Genesis 1–5. 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.

Unhealthy Genital Sexual Intercourse-To Come Into-BO: (Genesis 6:4)

Evil-RA: (Genesis 6:5)

Covenant-BRT: (Genesis 6:18)

Incest-ARWAH: (Genesis 9:22)

Infertility-AQR: (Genesis 11:30)

Unhealthy Genital Sexual Intercourse-To Come Into-BO: (Genesis 6:4)

The Biblical Hebrew BO, בּוֹא, is pronounced BO as in BO-tox. BO appears as an unhealthy sexuality term in 29 of the 2,591 times used in the Hebrew Old Testament. The range of meaning for BO includes to go, to come, abide, befall, bring, call, send, strike, and unhealthy genital sexual intercourse (Strong, H935).

Genesis uses BO 16 times. All BO citations in Genesis connect to unhealthy sexuality. BO does not appear in chapters 1-5 of the Genesis sexual health big picture. BO first occurs in the pathogenesis section of chapter 6, the coercive intercourse with Hagar and Bilhah the concubine, the incest of Lot’s daughters with their biological father, Laban coercing his son-in-law Jacob to have sex with Leah, the bartering of mandrakes for sexual favors between rival sisters, the fatal Onan coitus interruptus snapshot, and Tamar’s incestuous seduction of her father-in-law. Deuteronomy uses BO twice to refer to marriage customs. 

The Prophets

BO appears once in Judges and Samuel. The Samuel passage refers to the rape of a concubine. Ezekiel cites BO three times for the sacred sex trade. Ezekiel repeats the use of BO  three times: “And they slept with her. As men sleep with a prostitute, so they slept with those lewd women, Oholah and Oholibah” (Ezekiel 23:44).

The Writings

Proverbs cites BO asa warning against adultery in a sexual health section of chapter 6. The Song of Solomon uses BO in a sexual health context. I hold the view that the Song of Solomon is actually a pathogenesis piece showing the decline of sexual health to the idolatrous addict behavior of Solomon’s reign. The Ruth citation appears in the strange marriage and conception snapshot of Ruth and Boaz. Chronicles seems to be a grief narrative of Ephraim having intercourse and conceiving with his wife after death of a son.

Evil-RA: (Genesis 6:5)

The word RA, meaning ‘evil’ appears 666 times in the Hebrew text. 666 may reflect the literary device of Hebrew numerology. Six often means evil in the Bible and three can signify completion. 666 most likely connotes comprehensive evil. The writer of Revelation uses 666 as the mark identifying the coercive apocalyptic beast in Revelation 13:18: “This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man. That number is 666” (Revelation 13:18). 666 also occurs in 1 Kings to refer to Solomon’s wealth, which may infer the pathogenesis of his apostasy to idolatry: “The weight of the gold that Solomon received yearly was 666 talents, not including the revenues from merchants and traders and from all the Arabian kings and the governors of the territories” (1 Kings 10:14-15).

RA, רע, meaning evil and pronounced RAW as in ‘rocket,’ ranges in meaning: bad, disagreeable, malignant, unpleasing, pain or painful, unhappiness, unhealthy, agony, negativity, comparison in terms of bad to worse, sad, without compassion, hurtful, vicious, ethically: bad thinking, or actions; adverse, injury, or wrongdoing (BLB/RA, 2021; Strong, H7451).
RA occurs 34 times in Genesis, appearing seven times in the sexual health big picture of Genesis 1-11. RA appears five times along with the intimacy word, YDA, meaning ‘to know,’ in Genesis 1-5. RA may therefore connect to a sense of loss of knowing God. When humankind disregards the boundaries of Eden, Adam and Eve immediately experience shame and distance from God by hiding. The Creator seems to track down Adam and Eve, asking, ‘Where are you?’ This may set the stage for the meaning of RA as the loss of intimacy with God. RA appears three times in chapters 6-8, tracking the decline of conscious awareness to sexual abuse. If one moves backward from Genesis 6-8, reverse engineering all uses, RA most likely means a loss of intimacy with God that results in coercive behavior. 

The next use of RA forms an inclusio with Genesis 6 and 8. The judgment for the RA of sexual nihilism begins in Genesis 6 with the flood. The inclusio ends with the RA relating to incest between Ham and his biological mother. The two uses of RA in Genesis 6-8 connect directly to coercive sexual assault, perhaps intended to teach children appropriate boundaries to prevent abuse.

The next two occurrences of RA form an inclusio with the Sodom unhealthy sexuality snapshot (Genesis 13:13-19:19). The RA of the Sodom community formed around violent sexual assault and gang rape. The disaster, RA, of 19:19 is the judgment for the erotic violence of Sodom. The reader may note that the Sodom inclusio of 13:13 to 19:19 is similar in length to Genesis 1-5 and the pathogenesis section in Genesis 6-11. These three sections of similar length may demonstrate intentional organization by the author around sexual health themes. 

RA weaves through the Jacob snapshot, expanding in meaning from coercion and sexual abuse to physical or emotional harm. RA refers to unhealthy sexuality, where it is used when Esau marries a Canaanite bride (Genesis 28:8). Canaan was the incestuous child of Ham and his mother (Genesis 9). 

The Joseph snapshot completes the Genesis sexual health big picture. Beginning with the RA report of Joseph against his brothers, an inclusio forms with Joseph forgiving his brothers in chapter 50 (Genesis 37:2; Genesis 50:20). Joseph compassionately exclaims that the RA the brothers intended, God makes meaning for good. Joseph’s betrayal of his brothers in the opening scene of chapter 37 is a RA report. The RA of chapter 50 touches the intimacy of reconciling family abuse. The report in the chapter 50 reconciliation snapshot reflects the intimacy of compassionate presence and reconciliation. Joseph isolates from his brothers in chapter 37, then makes amends with his family once again in chapter 50 with forgiveness.

The Onan unhealthy sexuality snapshot of Genesis 38 uses the word RA, perhaps in a sexual abuse context. Unnamed evil acts brought the death sentence to Er by God. Onan’s unspecified coercive behavior killed him. Both incidents use the word, RA, meaning evil.
The use of RA in the Joseph snapshot ranges from his brothers’ murder conspiracy, Joseph’s emphatic rejection of the RA threat of an affair with Potiphar’s wife, the depressed demeanor of prisoners, the dream of emaciated livestock, the alleged evil of stealing, the misery of grief, God’s deliverance from harm, and reflection on the brothers’ coercive plot against Joseph. In all, the number of uses of RA that connect directly to sexual health snapshots totals eight. The use of RA to refer to coercion totals eight. RA meaning the antithesis of intimacy with God occurs four times, while RA appears to describe the Pharoah’s dream sequence predicting famine six times. This seems to be a strategic literary organization of RA using Biblical numerology in the book of Genesis.

The LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (Genesis 2:9)

…but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die. (Genesis 2:17)

“For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Genesis 3:5)

And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” (Genesis 3:22)

The LORD saw how great the wickedness (sexual abuse) of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. (Genesis 6:5)

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 (sexual abuse) of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done. (Genesis 8:21)

Now the people of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the LORD. (Genesis 13:13)

Your servant has found favor in your eyes, and you have shown great kindness to me in sparing my life. But I can’t flee to the mountains; this disaster will overtake me, and I’ll die. (Genesis 19:19)

Laban and Bethuel answered, “This is from the LORD; we can say nothing to you one way or the other.” (Genesis 24:50)

…that you will do us no harm, just as we did not harm you but always treated you well and sent you away peacefully. And now you are blessed by the LORD. (Genesis 26:29)

Esau then realized how displeasing the Canaanite women were to his father Isaac. (Genesis 28:8)

Then God came to Laban the Aramean in a dream at night and said to him, “Be careful not to say anything to Jacob, either good or bad.” (Genesis 31:24)

I have the power to harm you; but last night the God of your father said to me, “Be careful not to say anything to Jacob, either good or bad.” (Genesis 31:29)

This heap is a witness, and this pillar is a witness, that I will not go past this heap to your side to harm you and that you will not go past this heap and pillar to my side to harm me. (Genesis 31:52)

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. (Genesis 37:2)

“Come now, let’s kill him and throw him into one of these cisterns and say that a ferocious animal devoured him. Then we’ll see what comes of his dreams.” (Genesis 37:20)

He recognized it and said, “It is my son’s robe! Some ferocious animal has devoured him. Joseph has surely been torn to pieces.” (Genesis 37:33)

But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death. (Genesis 38:7)

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 38:9-10)

“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?” (Genesis 39:9)

So he asked Pharaoh’s officials who were in custody with him in his master’s house, “Why do you look so sad today?” (Genesis 40:7)

After them, seven other cows, ugly and gaunt, came up out of the Nile and stood beside those on the riverbank. (Genesis 41:3)

And the cows that were ugly and gaunt ate up the seven sleek, fat cows. Then Pharaoh woke up. (Genesis 41:4)

After them, seven other cows came up—scrawny and very ugly and lean. I had never seen such ugly cows in all the land of Egypt. (Genesis 41:19)

The lean, ugly cows ate up the seven fat cows that came up first. (Genesis 41:20)

But even after they ate them, no one could tell that they had done so; they looked just as ugly as before. Then I woke up. (Genesis 41:21)

The seven lean, ugly cows that came up afterward are seven years, and so are the seven worthless heads of grain scorched by the east wind: They are seven years of famine. (Genesis 41:27)

They had not gone far from the city when Joseph said to his steward, “Go after those men at once, and when you catch up with them, say to them, ‘Why have you repaid good with evil?’” (Genesis 44:4)

If you take this one from me too and harm comes to him, you will bring my gray head down to the grave in misery. (Genesis 44:29)

How can I go back to my father if the boy is not with me? No! Do not let me see the misery that would come on my father. (Genesis 44:34)

And Jacob said to Pharaoh, “The years of my pilgrimage are a hundred and thirty. My years have been few and difficult, and they do not equal the years of the pilgrimage of my fathers.” (Genesis 47:9)

…the Angel who has delivered me from all harm—may he bless these boys. May they be called by my name and the names of my fathers Abraham and Isaac, and may they increase greatly on the earth.” (Genesis 48:16)

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?” (Genesis 50:15)

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. (Genesis 50:17)

You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives. (Genesis 50:20)

RA appears four times in the Book of Exodus. All occurrences connect to sexual health narratives. Exodus 21 appears with legislation on servants and slaves. Verse eight states that if a servant/slave commits RA toward her master, he can release her with some form of payment. Exodus 32 and 33 represent the pathogenesis of one of the most tragic declines of spirituality in the Bible. Moses meets with God to receive the Ten Commandments. The people of Israel pressure Aaron, Moses’ brother in law and second in command, to craft an idol. The people of Israel relapse into unhealthy sexuality with co-occurring addict behaviors. The use of the word RA in Exodus 32 and 33 reflects the judgment of God on the grounds of idolatrous unhealthy sexuality.

RA appears three times in two verses within the Book of Leviticus. All occurrences connect to animals: the reference is to wild or RA animals (Leviticus 26:6) and the passage that compares good animals to RA animals (Leviticus 27:10).

RA appears in the Book of Numbers eight times. The range of meaning includes hardships of the people, a personal sense of ruin, comparison of good and terrible land, a negative scouting report, bad conduct, and injury with evil intent. One of the occurrences connects to the unhealthy sexuality history of the Israelites in Numbers 32:13. The evil the Israelis did in the sight of God included unhealthy sexuality. “The LORD’s anger burned against Israel and he made them wander in the wilderness forty years, until the whole generation of those who had done evil in his sight was gone” (Numbers 32:13).

RA appears 32 times in Deuteronomy. The phrase ‘you must purge the evil from among you’ appears nine times. The range of meanings include evil generations choosing idolatrous unhealthy sexuality and inheriting the land of Israel, idolatry, signs from God, disease, sacrificial animals, unhealthy sexuality in marriage, disease, and disaster. Deuteronomy 7:17 begins the nine “you must purge the evil from among you” phrases, covering court matters, testimony, addict family members, rape, and kidnapping. Nine occurrences of RA in Deuteronomy connect to unhealthy sexuality in terms of marriage, idolatry with sacred sex trade, and rape. Fifteen uses of the word RA connect to sexual health passages.

The Prophets

RA appears twice in the Book of Joshua. The first citation can be found in Joshua (Joshua 23:15), describing the judgment of God on the Israelis. The final scene features Joshua pledging his commitment to the Lord. He uses the term RA, translated as ‘undesirable,’ to communicate whether the people of Israel should choose to worship the Lord or the deities of the Near East. The Joshua 24:15 citation can be considered a sexual health term since worship of these deities included participation in the sacred sex trade. 

The Book of Judges records Israel’s decline of conscious awareness or loss of intimacy with God, resulting in genocide. The word RA occurs 17 times in Judges. Not only does the term HLL appear for loss of intimacy with God, the reader may see unhealthy sexuality escalating from the erotic rage of rape to murder with dismemberment. The phrase, “The Israelites did evil in the eyes of the Lord” emerges as a significant theme of traumatic repetition. The phrase appears six times in Judges, six is often a Biblical symbol of evil (Judges 2:11,15, 3:7,12, 4:1, 6:1). 

This phrase reflects the loss of intimacy theme within the sexual health big picture. In Genesis 6-11, humankind declines to sexual abuse and engages in incest. All ‘the Israelites did evil in the sight of the Lord’ phrases connect directly to unhealthy sexuality. When the Israelites do RA in the eyes of the Lord, it connects specifically to idolatry by participating in the sacred sex trade and surrendering political military power. 

The balance of the use of RA means emotional distress, treachery, waging war, physical harm, rape, murder with dismemberment, and physical disaster. The number of sexual health uses for RA totals 10 of the 17 passages in Judges (Judges 2:11, 3:7, 12, 4:1, 6:1,10:6, 13:1, 20:3,12,13). All ten uses of RA connect to unhealthy sexuality, or the RA that resulted from the sacred sex trade, rape and murder. 

1 and 2 Samuel utilize the term RA 44 times. The word appears four times in a sexual health context: King David’s abuse of Bathsheba (2 Samuel 12:9), the judgment on King David for the murder conspiracy of Uriah and adultery (2 Samuel 12:11), addressing the incestuous rape of Tamar by Amnon (2 Samuel 13:22), and connecting to David’s murder/adultery conspiracy (2 Samuel 16:8).

The other uses of the word RA include references to wicked deeds, disaster, inappropriately asking God for a king, Saul’s misuse of his office, an evil spirit which came upon Saul, the threat of physical harm, and the discerning of good and evil.

Isaiah uses the term RA 19 times. One verse speaks of RA as being like Sodom in Isaiah 3:9. Jeremiah uses the term RA in unhealthy sexuality contexts five times. Four of the citations connect to the sacred sex trade with adultery. One reference occurs in the term, ‘…did evil in the eyes of the Lord….’  This phrase is a common theme in the books of Judges and Kings. Ezekiel utilizes the term RA 22 times. Three references connect to unhealthy sexuality. It is possible  many more references to RA and unhealthy sexuality occur, but I desire to err on the side of conservatism. None of the Minor Prophets use RA in a direct unhealthy sexuality context.

The Writings

RA appears 64 times in the Psalms. The writers of Psalms record one connection of RA with unhealthy sexuality: “Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight; so you are right in your verdict and justified when you judge” (Psalms 51:4). Proverbs also records one usage of the term RA related to unhealthy sexuality: “…keeping you from your neighbor’s wife, from the smooth talk of a wayward woman” (Proverbs 6:24).

Ezra and Nehemiah record five unhealthy sexuality uses of the word RA, and four directly connect to the unhealthy sexuality of idolatry involved in the sacred sex trade. One reference reflects the practice of marrying outside of the tribe of Israel. The phrase ‘evil in the sight of’ connects to the idolatry of Israel with participation in the sacred sex trade.

The New Testament

The word evil in the Greek New Testament is poneros, πονηρός,  pronounced pawn-eh-ROS. Poneros connects to a derivative of Strong G4192, meaning hurtful, in result or influence. This differs from Strong G2556, which touches essential character. Strong G4550 means decline of conscious awareness from original virtue, calamitous, diseased, morally culpable, derelict, vicious, mischief, malice, guilt, the devil, sinners, bad, evil, harm, lewd, malicious, or wicked (Strong, G4191).

Poneros appears 78 times in 72 verses of the Greek New Testament. Eight times poneros occurs in a sexual health context. Matthew 12-16 form an inclusio of Jesus’ defense against the attacks of the religiously conservative Pharisees. The beginning of the inclusio features “a wicked and adulterous generation”and 16:4 brings the inclusio to close with the same words. The citations within the inclusio identify the source of evil: a hardened heart. The term hard heart neurologically may mean the dysregulation of the PFC that is the disabling of the part of the brain that regulates anger, greed, and sexual neural pathways. When the anterior cingulate located within the PFC is deprived of blood flow, compassion is disabled. This neurological state cannot regulate anger, rage, fear, or sexual neural pathways. Is this state a hard heart? Mark 7:23 refers to poneros, meaning “evil,” connecting to the Matthew passages. Luke 3:19 records the arrest of John the Baptist by Herod. The incarceration leads to beheading when the preacher calls the ruler to task for the evil of incestuous adultery. 

The General Epistles

Revelation 6:2 completes the sexual health use of poneros with the description of festering sores breaking out on those who worship the Beast and by context participated in the sacred sex trade. Could festering sores be sexually transmitted infections?

Covenant-BRT: (Genesis 6:18)

Intimacy between God with humankind forms the big picture or meta-narrative among all the books of the Bible. The seven kinds of intimacy in Genesis 1-3 can be tracked through the entire revelation of the Bible through the life of Christ, the early church, and eternal destiny. The word the Bible uses to describe intimacy between God and humankind is covenant, BRT, בְּרִית, pronounced buh-RITH, occurring 284 times in 264 verses in the Hebrew Old Testament (Strong, H1262). The range of meaning includes a sense of cutting, an agreement made by walking between pieces of sacrificial flesh, a contract, or covenant, whether between God and humankind, marriage, family, or business. The word BRT appears 24 times in Genesis. Nineteen of the citations connect to intimacy between God and humankind. Fourteen of these connect specifically to Abraham. Twelve of the Abraham citations appear in Genesis 17. Five times BRT references treaties between humans (Genesis 14:13, 21:27, 32, 26:28, 31:44). 

The word covenant first appears in Genesis 6:18 with the promise to Noah and his family. BRT appears eight times in the Noah snapshot, the same number as the eight ark survivors. Twelve times BRT occurs in the Abraham snapshot, perhaps connecting to the twelve tribes of Israel?

But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife and your sons’ wives with you. (Genesis 6:18)

“I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you.” (Genesis 9:9)

“I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.” (Genesis 9:11)

And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come.” (Genesis 9:12)

“I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth.” (Genesis 9:13)

“I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life.” (Genesis 9:15)

“Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.” (Genesis 9:16)

So God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth.” (Genesis 9:17)

A man who had escaped came and reported this to Abram the Hebrew. Now Abram was living near the great trees of Mamre the Amorite, a brother of Eshkol and Aner, all of whom were allied with Abram. (Genesis 14:13)

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 15:18)

“Then I will make my covenant between me and you and will greatly increase your numbers.” (Genesis 17:2)

“As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations.” (Genesis 17:4)

I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. (Genesis 17:7)

Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come.” (Genesis 17:9)

This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. (Genesis 17:10)

You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. (Genesis 17:11)

Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. (Genesis 17:13)

“Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.” (Genesis 17:14)

Then God said, “Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.” (Genesis 17:19)

“But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year.” (Genesis 17:21)

So Abraham brought sheep and cattle and gave them to Abimelek, and the two men made a treaty. (Genesis 21:27)

After the treaty had been made at Beersheba, Abimelek and Phicol the commander of his forces returned to the land of the Philistines. (Genesis 21:32)

They answered, “We saw clearly that the LORD was with you; so we said, ‘There ought to be a sworn agreement between us’—between us and you.” (Genesis 26:28)

Come now, let’s make a covenant, you and I, and let it serve as a witness between us.” (Genesis 31:44)

New Testament

The New Testament term for covenant diatheke, διαθήκη, pronounced diah-THEY-kay, matches Strong G1242 appearing 33 times within 30 verses in the Greek New Testament. The meaning of diatheke parallels the Hebrew word BRT. Fifteen of the 33 uses of the word diatheke in the New Testament connect directly to the Old Testament. The balance of the passages reflect new covenant in Christ. If the BRT of the Old Testament bases on intimacy with God and sexual health, it seems reasonable the diatheke of the New Testament establishes the same foundations of intimacy with God and sexual health.

Infertility-AQR: (Genesis 11:30)

The sexual health term infertility AQR, עָקָר, pronounced aw-KAR, appears twelve times in eleven passages of the Hebrew Old Testament. Three times the word occurs in Genesis. AQR occurs once in Exodus and Deuteronomy, twice in Judges, and once each in 1 Samuel and Job. All citations connect to infertility (Strong, H6135).

Now Sarai was childless because she was not able to conceive. (Genesis 11:30)

Isaac prayed to the LORD on behalf of his wife, because she was childless. The LORD answered his prayer, and his wife Rebekah became pregnant. (Genesis 25:21)

When the LORD saw that Leah was not loved, he enabled her to conceive, but Rachel remained childless. (Genesis 29:31)

Genesis 6-11

After the sexual health-positive images of Genesis 1-5, chapters 6-10 contrast the pathogenesis or decline to abuse. This too may be a literary device of paradox highlighting the stark contrast of sexual health with sexual abuse. 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 positive developmentally appropriate images. Genesis 6-11 teaches children about boundaries for abuse prevention. 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 positive foundational principles and chapters 6-11 frames boundaries preventing abuse specifically incest.

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

The pathogenesis section or decline of sexual health, 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 pathogenesis or 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 pathogenesis 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 of the blood spatter from 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).

The NIV translation uses unfortunate warm words like “going into, beautiful women, marriage to heroes of renown”(Genesis 6:4) 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 dramatically differ from the NIV translator’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 pathogenesis or decline of sexual health 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. Friedrich Nietzsche 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 U.S. 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). RA 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.” (Genesis 2:17) 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 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, Incest Boundaries

Chapters 9 and 10 end with the Noah inclusio 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 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. (Genesis 8:20) 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 seems 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.” (Leviticus 18:6)

The prohibitions which follow 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 pathogenesis 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 Book of Genesis features 7 kinds of intimacy in chapters 1-4. Before sexual intercourse appears in Scripture the author of Genesis crafts the neural architecture of sexual arousal and long term relationships with the intimacies of: Spirituality, beauty, rest/regulation, pleasure, compassionate presence, reconciliation, and sexual intimacy.

7 Types of Intimacy Assessment: Parts 1 and 2

In the following assessment please write down one of three options for each question. 1 means low importance, 2 is moderate significance, and 3 means very important. Noble will then connect you to other clients based on similar intimacy traits. 

7 Types of Intimacy Assessment: Part 1

1.The Intimacy of Spirituality

Spiritual connection with a higher power is the core of my important relationships.

2. The Intimacy of Beauty

I enjoy beauty in nature, humanity, and art.

3. The Intimacy of Leisure and Rest

Leisure and rest are a high value for me in a long term relationship.

4. The Intimacy of Pleasure

I am satisfied with my life and simple pleasures.

5. The Intimacy of Compassionate Presence

Being with a partner in compassionate awareness is a value to me. 

6. The Intimacy of Sexual Health

Sexual health with a long term partner is essential.

7. The Intimacy of Conflict Resolution

Healthy conflict resolution is key for my long term relationships.

7 Types of Intimacy Assessment: Part 2

Part 2 takes a deeper dive for a couple seeking intimacy. In the following assessment please select one of three options for each question. 1 means low importance, 2 is moderate significance, and 3 means very important. This may help you strengthen a connection.

I find myself praying several times a day other than at mealtime.

My social media posts have many pics of beautiful images.

I took a vacation last year.

I take pleasure in delicious food.

My friends report that I show them compassion when they feel trauma.

Sharing private parts without shame in a long term committed relationship is important.

I made valid amends with my exes.

Last year I attended my house of worship in person or online for more than holy days.

I find joy in  the precision and balance of nature.

I get at least 6 hours of sleep each night and feel rested in the morning.

I am grateful for health, my home, my friends.

When my partner is hurting, I want to give comfort.

I feel no shame about my sexuality.

My partners report that I need to win every argument.

I feel comfort sharing the story of my higher power to others.

I have art pieces in my home.

Planning fun and recreation was part of my routine last week.

I enjoy hobbies like reading, gardening, fishing or golfing without feeling guilt.

I am aware when my partner is sad and I try to meet the need.

Sexual health conversations with my partner including boundaries with consent are easy for me.

I forgive and forget past hurts with my partner.

I give money and time serving spiritual causes.

Watching a sunset, smelling Spring flowers, sitting still listening to birds make me happy.

I calmed myself by resting last week.

I enjoy sexual feelings without acting upon them.

I have compassion for my partner and my own personal sexual trauma history.

I take responsibility for my own orgasm.

I can receive refusals for sexual intimacy without anger or hostility.

I reflect upon sacred texts of my faith and apply them to my life.

I enjoy blue cloudless skies and the beauty of a baby’s toothless grin.

I took time off from work without guilt last year.

Last week I took pleasure in reading, crafting, listening to music, or a simple inexpensive hobby.

Though painful, I willingly attend funerals to bring comfort to the grieving.

Awareness of my partner’s sexual arousal during intercourse is important for sexual health.

My belief helps me to mitigate guilt and shame.

Add up the 7 colors representing the intimacies. Then compare with your partner. This can help with compatibility, and visioning for the future.

Blue=

Pink=

Green=

Black=

Orange=

Red=

Gray=

Copyright Glen B. Maiden 2022

A.W. Tozer 

At an Evangelical Press Association convention  the great theologian Tozer reflected:

1. Evangelicals need to produce a 20th century brand of Christianity “manifestly superior” to any other way of life. Only a realistic application of that faith to present day life can make it effective.
2. Evangelicals must cease “spiritual inbreeding” and reach out beyond traditional theological and denominational lines for new life giving streams of thought and action. 
3. Evangelicals need to stop imitating and begin initiating. The world may look to Christian leadership when new heights of vision and accomplishment present.
4. Evangelicals must emphasize the “‘interiority” of the Chrstian faith with less attention to externals and superficial modernity and more focus on the deeper life hidden with Christ in God. (Lebar, 1981, pp. 47-48)

Página de inicio de Suicide.org
Página de información sobre contratos de no suicidio

Contrato de no suicidio
por Kevin Caruso
suicidio.org
Fundador, Director Ejecutivo, Editor en Jefe
Yo, _________________________, por la presente acepto que no me dañaré a mí mismo de ninguna manera, intentaré suicidarme ni moriré por suicidio.

Además, acepto que tomaré las siguientes medidas si alguna vez tengo tendencias suicidas:

1) Me recordaré a mí mismo que nunca, bajo ninguna circunstancia, puedo dañarme a mí mismo de ninguna manera, intentar suicidarme o morir por suicidio.

2) Llamaré al 911 si creo que estoy en peligro inmediato de lastimarme.

3) Llamaré a cualquiera o a todos los siguientes números si no estoy en peligro inmediato de lastimarme pero tengo pensamientos suicidas (enumere los nombres, números de teléfono, direcciones y cualquier otra información de contacto relevante a continuación):

1-800-SUICIDE: línea de prevención del suicidio disponible las 24 horas a la que se puede llamar desde cualquier lugar de los EE. UU.

4) Seguiré hablando por teléfono con tantas personas como sea necesario durante el tiempo que sea necesario hasta que los pensamientos suicidas hayan disminuido.

Fecha de firma___________________

Testigo______________________________ Fecha______________________

Copyright Kevin Caruso. Reservados todos los derechos.
suicidio.org
Página de inicio de Suicide.org
Página de información sobre contratos de no suicidio

Mankato professor taking heat for tweet that God is guilty of #MeToo violation

TV host Tucker Carlson among those criticizing Mankato psychology professor. 

By David Chanen Star Tribune DECEMBER 7, 2018 — 9:59PM

MINNESOTA STATE, MANKATO (LEFT) AND ASSOCIATED PRESS

Prof. Eric Sprankle and Fox News Channel host Tucker Carlson.

A psychology professor at Minnesota State University, Mankato is taking heat from conservative TV talk show host Tucker Carlson for tweeting that God is guilty of a #MeToo violation for the Virgin Mary’s pregnancy.

Eric Sprankle, who specializes in sexuality studies, angered Carlson and guest commentator Mark Steyn on Thursday on Carlson’s Fox News show with his tweet from earlier in the week: “The virgin birth story is about an all-knowing, all-powerful deity impregnating a human teen. There is no definition of consent that would include that scenario. Happy Holidays.”

In response to a critical tweet, Sprankle responded with a tweet saying that “the biblical god regularly punished disobedience. The power difference (deity vs mortal) and the potential for violence for saying ‘no’ negates her ‘yes.’ To put someone in this position is an unethical abuse of power at best and grossly predatory at worst.”

The virgin birth story is about an all-knowing, all-powerful deity impregnating a human teen. There is no definition of consent that would include that scenario. Happy Holidays.

10:55 AM · Dec 3, 2018

Replying to @believeandobey3

The biblical god regularly punished disobedience. The power difference (deity vs mortal) and the potential for violence for saying “no” negates her “yes.” To put someone in this position is an unethical abuse of power at best and grossly predatory at worst.

2:32 PM · Dec 4, 2018

On Carlson’s show. Steyn expressed his displeasure with what Sprankle wrote.

“Fifty years ago, this kind of shallow banality would be something in the province of a drunk undergraduate at three in the morning,” he said.

‘Stupid, Banal and Shallow’: Steyn Blasts MN Prof Who Criticized God For ‘Impregnating’ Mary Without ConsentMark Steyn blasted a Minnesota State University-Mankato professor who criticized the Biblical Christmas story as one in which God wrongfully “impregnated” St. Mary without “consent.”

Fox News Insider/Dec 6, 2018

Sprankle didn’t return e-mails or telephone calls Friday seeking comment. The university issued the following statement:

“As a public institution of higher education, Minnesota State University, Mankato respects the rights and privileges associated with the U.S. Constitution, including in this case the First Amendment right of freedom of speech and religion.”

A spokesman said the university wasn’t aware of parents or donors who may have contacted the school about Sprankle’s tweets. He added that the school had received a handful of complaints.

In addition to being a college professor, Sprankle also is a licensed psychologist and certified sex therapist. He leads the university’s Sexual Health Research Team, which examines sex work stigma, the effects of sexually explicit material and older adult sexuality.

On his Twitter bio, he said he reads Edgar Allan Poe and advocates for sex workers’ rights. The bio also includes the words “Ave Satanas,” Latin for “Hail Satan.”

Sprankle has nearly 17,000 followers on Twitter. A few posted critical tweets this week: “This idiot clearly is an atheist! Has no clue of scripture. Just spewing hate & lies!” said one. Another read, “Eric Sprankle the professor who thinks God is a sex predator? We should not want to see anyone go to hell and we all only have a limited time in this world. So with any luck God will work on him and lead him to Jesus Christ.”

Sprankle’s tweet was discussed only briefly on Carlson’s show, but Steyn got his point across.

“The idea that God has got the Virgin Mary back to his pad, and she’s saying ‘I really must go,’ and he’s saying ‘Baby, it’s cold outside’ … I miss the days when atheists were at least intelligent enough to take seriously what they were purporting to knock down,” he said.

¿Abuso de los padres?

Profesor de Mankato criticado por tuitear que Dios es culpable de violación de #MeToo
El presentador de televisión Tucker Carlson entre los que critican al profesor de psicología de Mankato.
Por David Chanen Star Tribune 7 DE DICIEMBRE DE 2018 — 9:59 p. m.

ESTADO DE MINNESOTA, MANKATO (IZQUIERDA) Y PRENSA ASOCIADA
El profesor Eric Sprankle y el presentador de Fox News Channel, Tucker Carlson.
TAMANO DEL TEXTO
166
EMAIL
IMPRIMIR
MÁS
Mankato, profesor de psicología en la Universidad Estatal de Minnesota, recibe críticas del conservador presentador de televisión Tucker Carlson por tuitear que Dios es culpable de una violación de #MeToo por el embarazo de la Virgen María.

Eric Sprankle, que se especializa en estudios de sexualidad, enfureció a Carlson y al comentarista invitado Mark Steyn el jueves en el programa Fox News de Carlson con su tuit de principios de semana: “La historia del nacimiento virginal trata sobre una deidad omnisciente y todopoderosa que embaraza a un adolescente humano. No existe una definición de consentimiento que incluya ese escenario. Felices vacaciones.”

En respuesta a un tuit crítico, Sprankle respondió con un tuit que decía que “el dios bíblico castigaba regularmente la desobediencia. La diferencia de poder (deidad versus mortal) y el potencial de violencia por decir ‘no’ niega su ‘sí’. Poner a alguien en esta posición es un abuso de poder poco ético en el mejor de los casos y extremadamente depredador en el peor”.

ANUNCIO PUBLICITARIO

En el programa de Carlson. Steyn expresó su descontento con lo que escribió Sprankle.

“Hace cincuenta años, este tipo de banalidad superficial sería algo propio de un estudiante borracho a las tres de la mañana”, dijo.

ANUNCIO PUBLICITARIO

‘Estúpido, banal y superficial’: Steyn critica al profesor de MN que criticó a Dios por ’embarazarse’ de Mary sin su consentimiento
Mark Steyn criticó a un profesor de la Universidad Estatal de Minnesota-Mankato que criticó la historia bíblica de Navidad como una en la que Dios “embarazó” injustamente a Santa María sin “consentimiento”.

Fox News Insider/6 de diciembre de 2018
Sprankle no devolvió correos electrónicos ni llamadas telefónicas el viernes en busca de comentarios. La universidad emitió el siguiente comunicado:

“Como institución pública de educación superior, la Universidad Estatal de Minnesota, Mankato respeta los derechos y privilegios asociados con la Constitución de los EE. UU., incluido en este caso el derecho de la Primera Enmienda a la libertad de expresión y religión”.

Un portavoz dijo que la universidad no estaba al tanto de padres o donantes que pudieran haber contactado a la escuela sobre los tuits de Sprankle. Agregó que la escuela había recibido un puñado de quejas.

Además de ser profesora universitaria, Sprankle también es psicóloga licenciada y terapeuta sexual certificada. Dirige el Equipo de Investigación de Salud Sexual de la universidad, que examina el estigma del trabajo sexual, los efectos del material sexualmente explícito y la sexualidad de los adultos mayores.

ANUNCIO PUBLICITARIO

En su biografía de Twitter, dijo que lee a Edgar Allan Poe y aboga por los derechos de las trabajadoras sexuales. La biografía también incluye las palabras “Ave Satanas”, en latín “Hail Satan”.

Sprankle tiene casi 17.000 seguidores en Twitter. Algunos publicaron tuits críticos esta semana: “¡Este idiota claramente es ateo! No tiene ni idea de las escrituras. ¡Solo arrojando odio y mentiras!” dijo uno. Otro decía: “¿Eric Sprankle, el profesor que piensa que Dios es un depredador sexual? No deberíamos querer ver a nadie ir al infierno y todos tenemos un tiempo limitado en este mundo. Entonces, con un poco de suerte, Dios obrará en él y lo guiará a Jesucristo”.

El tweet de Sprankle se discutió solo brevemente en el programa de Carlson, pero Steyn entendió su punto.

“La idea de que Dios hizo que la Virgen María volviera a su casa y ella dijera: ‘De verdad debo irme’, y él ‘Bebé, hace frío afuera’… Extraño los días en que los ateos eran al menos lo suficientemente inteligentes como para tomen en serio lo que pretendían derribar”, dijo.