12. Ethical Principles That Restrict Conception Control

This chapter will seek to demonstrate that there are Biblical principles that restrict the use of conception control methods. The methods used by Antinomian Birth Control (ABC) advocates often violate one or more of these principles. You will notice that I am not as dogmatic on certain principles as I am on others. This is because I have varying degrees of confidence in my understanding of certain passages of Scripture and varying degrees of confidence in what science has demonstrated. This book is not seeking to have the final say on the issues of conception control, but rather is seeking to further the discussion by digging deeply into the Scriptures. I am open to any criticism that people may wish to bring.

Casting off a fertilized egg is abortion, a form of murder

The general principle explained

The most fundamental principle related to conception control is that it must not cast off a fertilized egg. If the “birth control” method functions after fertilization, it is no longer legitimate to call it conception control. Instead, it is the killing of a conceived person within the womb. Though there is debate in prolife circles on the most recent evidence surrounding the IUD (see below on discussion of the various types of IUD), most pro-lifers have considered the IUD to have a primary abortifacient function. Christians need to evaluate the arguments pro and con. Likewise, many Christians naively use “natural birth control” herbs, little realizing that some are abortifacient.¹⁴² Likewise, there is a growing movement of feminists who use essential oils as abortifacients.¹⁴³ It is imperative that Christians educate themselves on the potential dangers of drugs, herbs, and essential oils.¹⁴⁴

Since the Bible also calls us to avoid anything that would tend toward the destruction of life,¹⁴⁵ any contraceptive that prevents implantation as a backup mechanism would also be ruled out. If the standard assumptions made by the FDA, the Physician’s Desk Reference, and the manufacturers of these hormonal “contraceptives” is correct, then the third mechanism of hormone methods (preventing implantation) would rule them out. In recent years the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists and other prolife organizations have debated whether abortions ever happen with these hormone contraceptives.¹⁴⁶ However, before we get into those debates, let us consider the Biblical principles of when life begins. Does it begin at implantation (as several ABC advocates claim) or does it begin at fertilization?

The Biblical vocabulary of conception & life

In ancient Hebrew literature, the vocabulary used for conception ties the beginning of life with

1. the timing of seminal discharge (shicavah - שְׁכָבָה),¹⁴⁷
2. with another term for seminal discharge (tzera’ - זרע) that in the Niphal means “for a woman to conceive,”¹⁴⁸
3. with being in heat (yacham – יָחַם – but usually used of animals conceiving upon mating in heat),¹⁴⁹
4. with generation (dor - דּוֹר) from the man,¹⁵⁰
5. with conceiving a child (harah - הָרָה),¹⁵¹ and
6. with the time at which the sperm is poured out like “milk” (Job 10:10).

Each of those terms seems to point to a time long before implantation, which usually happens around the 9^th day after fertilization (though it can range from 6-12 days after fertilization). In contrast, most sperm die within 1-2 days of ejaculation, though some may live as long as 7 days. However, science tells us that sperm are only capable of penetrating an ovum during the first 48 hours. So the vocabulary alone points to life beginning at conception, not implantation. The word הָרָה is especially clear in its distinction to the product in the womb and the baby that is born. The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament says,

Three words are used in relation to the birth process: הָרָה “conceive,” יָלַד “bear, give birth” and חוּל “to labor in giving birth.” Another word for conceive is יָחַם, used more, however, of animals in heat (but cf. Ps 51:7). The first describes the inception and the latter two the termination of the process.¹⁵²

The Greek is similar. Hebrews 11:11 uses two words to distinguish the “conception by casting [sperm]” (καταβολὴν) and the seed or fertilized egg that resulted (σπέρματος). William Lane explains in his commentary:

The phrase εἰς καταβολὴν σπέρματος is a fixed hellenistic idiom for the specifically male function of producing sperm … The sexual expression must be understood in its normal active sense of Abraham’s part in the generation of Isaac.¹⁵³

Likewise the terms for conception: γεννάω, συλλαμβάνω, and κοίτη, are all compatible with what happens at the time of sexual union. κοίτη literally refers to the marriage bed, and is not only translated “conceived” in Romans 9:10, but also is tightly connected to the various Hebrew words for emission of semen in Numb 5:20; Lev. 15:16ff; 18:20; 22:4. So the life produced cannot refer to implantation, but rather refers to the time of conception – when sperm is present. συλλαμβάνω, the word used for “conceived” in Luke 1:24,31,36 etc., translates the Hebrews terms in Gen. 4:1,25; 16:4; 2 Sam. 12:24; Psalm 51:7 and many other passages that use the Hebrew terms above. This usage makes it very difficult to make a case for implantation.

The Biblical theology of conception & life

Job

The broader theology based on this vocabulary also shows that life begins at conception. For example, Job spoke of an “I” and a “me” (that is personhood) while the sperm was still present in the womb (Job 10:10-11 – see “milk”), which doesn’t give much time frame since sperm die fairly quickly. This “me” was gradually being covered with material substance: “Did you not…curdle me like cheese, clothe me with skin and flesh, and knit me together with bones and sinews?” It is clear that the soul was created while the sperm was still present.

David

Also, David speaks of the “me” being “covered” with something in his mother’s womb (Psalm 139:13) which implies the presence of the soul/spirit as soon as there is physical matter (“substance being yet unformed,” “frame,” “parts”). Many Scriptures speak of personhood existing from conception. John Jefferson Davis says,

In a number of texts the biblical writers freely apply personal language to the unborn child. Genesis 4:1 says that “Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain.” The writer’s interest in Cain extends back beyond his birth, to his conception. That is when his personal history begins. The individual conceived and the individual born are one and the same, namely Cain. His conception, birth, and postnatal life form a natural continuum, with the God of covenant involved at every stage. Genesis 5:3 states that when Adam had lived 130 years he “begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth” (KJV). In the opening verse of this chapter, which constitutes the “book of the generations of Adam,” is a reference to man’s creation in the likeness of God. From Genesis 5:3 it seems clear that human reproduction was the means by which the image and likeness of Adam were transmitted to Seth. A personal continuity between father and son is here linked to bodily existence, sexuality, and prenatal life.¹⁵⁴

Old Testament

Obviously Jews knew that sex made babies, because over and over the Bible says, someone “knew his wife and she conceived” or “went into his wife and she conceived” implying an immediate sequence. However, the Scripture is even more specific on its definition of “conception.” With animal husbandry, conception was linked immediately to mating. For example, Genesis 30:38 shows Jacob’s foolish attempts to get striped and spotted animals by placing rods in front of the animals when they mated. Jacob put these rods “in the watering troughs where the flocks came to drink, so that they should conceive when they came to drink.” Notice the phrase, “when they came to drink,” not hours or days later. While it might be thought that Jacob’s opinion about immediate conception was as mistaken as his opinion about the influence of the rods, the inspired narrator makes it clear that this was not the case. God Himself makes this statement in verse 39: “So the flocks conceived before the rods.” It is impossible for this to mean anything else than that the fast sperm were fertilizing within minutes of being mated (while they were still drinking from the trough), and that fertilization is being defined as “conceived.”

This Biblical understanding of conception being at the time of mating is also found throughout the Scripture. Francis J. Beckwith says,

Job said, “Let the day perish on which I was to be born, and the night which said, ‘A boy [גָבֶר] is conceived’” (Job 3:3). This passage connects the individual born with the individual conceived. “Job traces his personal history back beyond his birth to the night of conception. The process of conception is described by the biblical writer in personal terms. There is no abstract language of the ‘product of conception,’ but the concrete language of humanity.” It is interesting to note that the Hebrew word גֶּבֶר is translated as “boy” and specifically applied to the unborn, although it is usually used to describe postnatal humans and is usually translated “male,” “man,” or “husband” (see Ps. 34:8; 52:7; 94:12; Prov 6:34).

Another passage, Psalm 51:5, states, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.” This verse too indicates that one’s existence begins with conception.¹⁵⁵

Incarnation of Jesus

The incarnation of Jesus also provides relevant information when sorting these things out. Jesus is seen as a living Person in the first week of being in Mary’s womb (Luke 1:42-43). Here is the chronology: Luke 1:24-38 shows six months of Elizabeth’s pregnancy. The angel then announces the imminent incarnation to Mary (Luke 1:28-37), which Mary embraces (v. 38). Within “days” (v. 39), Mary appears before Elizabeth, and Elizabeth by God’s inspiration announces “the fruit of her womb” and “the mother of my Lord.” (vv. 42-43). Mary then stays with Elizabeth for the next three months (Luke 1:56). Since there are only three more months before the birth of John, and since John is six months older than Jesus, and since the term of a baby is nine months, there is not much wiggle room for stretching the time when the announcement of Christ’s Lordship and personhood (recorded in Luke 1:42-43) happened – it had to have happened before implantation, which typically occurs between the 6^th and 12^th day after conception.¹⁵⁶ Of course, John’s leaping for joy in his mother’s womb (Luke 1:41) is another argument against abortion. Joy is a rational as well as emotional concept, and this leaping shows some kind of spiritual discernment that God gave to the fetus, John. Certainly Christ was fully incarnate at this point.

This concept is strengthened by the fact that Hebrews 2:16 describes the incarnation as God the Son “taking hold of the seed of Abraham.” This was not male seed, but female seed – the seed of the woman, a descendent of Abraham. So if the Person of God the Son took hold of (the Greek is epilambano) an egg of Mary, there was an immediate union of Spiritual Person and physical body at fertilization. Though the process was different, it corresponds exactly to the Biblical concept that conception happens at fertilization. If conception is the time that life begins, then any “birth control” method that prevents implantation is implicated as abortion.

Is Exodus 21:22-25 an exception

One passage that evangelicals have used to try to escape this conclusion is Exodus 21:22-25. Though Geisler later changed his opinion,¹⁵⁷ in his 1971 edition of the book, Ethics: Alternatives and Issues, he argued that abortion is justifiable for four circumstantial reasons: 1) therapeutic reasons, 2) eugenic reasons, 3) rape, and 4) incest. He used this passage to show that a fetus is potentially a person, but not yet, and many evangelicals have followed suit. The argument hinges on whether 1) the Hebrew for “her children come out” is a reference to a miscarriage or a live birth and 2) “no harm follows” has reference to the baby, the mother, or both. The text (in the NKJV) says,

“If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. (Exodus 21:22-25)

The claim of some evangelicals is that the term translated in the NKJV (as well as in the NIV, HCSB, WEB, and NET translations) as “gives birth prematurely” should be rendered as “has a miscarriage” (as in the NRSV, NAB, and JPS). The argument of these ABC evangelicals who defend abortifacient “contraceptives” is that the death penalty only applies if the mother dies, but not if the child dies. The Hebrew clearly speaks against that. First, the word for “born prematurely” (יָצָא) is not used of miscarriages, but is used of births. Second, there was a word for miscarriages that could have been used if Moses wanted to mean that.¹⁵⁸ Third, it speaks of children (יְלָדֶיהָ) being born. Fourth, even if their interpretation were right, it still makes the miscarriage a crime, punishable at law.¹⁵⁹ That this passage shows that abortion is murder deserving of the death penalty can be seen by Cassuto’s commentary, which says, “But if any mischief happen, that is, if the woman dies or the children die, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye.”¹⁶⁰

Arguments for abortifacient drugs are not grounded in Scripture. Life begins at conception, and any drug or device that prevents implantation or induces abortion is murder of a person. We will discuss specific forms of birth control that are abortifacient (or at least appear to be abortifacient given the scientific knowledge that we have) in chapter 13.

However, this theology of life at conception argues against Provan’s NCC view

However, this theology of life at conception also argues against the position of at least those NCC advocates who claim that conception control is murder or akin to murder. This position is so prevalent in NCC circles that it can no longer be ignored. Consider the following representative statements by NCC advocates.

Onan’s sin [of wasting seed was] a murder.¹⁶¹

The problem is not that I don’t understand Calvin, because he is quite easy to understand. The “problem” is really for D.A. to convince us that Calvin is in error when he viewed birth control as murder and abortion! For, if Calvin is correct, then the churches of today are filled to the brim with unrepentant murderers and abortionists.¹⁶²

This sin [of wasting seed] is really an advance murder of that which could have been born of it. Indeed, such filthy persons thereby offer a Molech-sacrifice to the god of the whorish spirit, as the heathen in previous times sacrificed their seed to the idol Molech.¹⁶³

Acts of self pollution were always held particularly criminal, even by heathen moralists. The Hebrew doctors looked upon them as a degree of murder.¹⁶⁴

There is a seminal vital virtue, which perishes if the seed be spilled; and by doing this to hinder the begetting of a living child, is the first degree of murder that can be committed, and the next unto it is the marring of conception, when it is made, and causing of an abortion¹⁶⁵

Birth control by means of anticonceptuals, coitus interruptus, etc. is ruthlessly interfering with God’s method of creating a living being. Hufeland, one of the most noted physicians of Germany, 1762-1836, says: “The first question undoubtedly is, When does life begin? There can be no doubt that the act of copulation is to be regarded at the beginning of the existence of the future being and that the very first, even though invisible, germ of this being has the same claim upon the care and protection of the physician as the later, fully developed man… A human being is being murdered in its incipiency… The product presupposes producing, and if it is wrong to kill the product, then it goes without saying that it is wrong to render futile the act whereby it is being produced, for thereby one actually kills that which is in process of being produced (das Werdende) in its beginning.”¹⁶⁶

Onan’s sin, a deadly wickedness… is a homicidal waste of the generative powers¹⁶⁷

For what is it to waste seed other than kill the foetus and the human being that is to be born from it?¹⁶⁸

Onan’s behavior was punished by God with death because it happened contrary to the purpose of marriage and out of devilish jealousy and was also murder.¹⁶⁹

So, just because God causes the vast majority of semen to die without causing the birth of a child, this does not prove that it is morally acceptable for us to cause semen to die by means of birth control.¹⁷⁰ …Our friendly opponent makes the overstatement, “The seed is not human life.” Though we of course do not think that millions of little people die when someone has a nocturnal emission, nevertheless this statement needs to be qualified. The fact of the matter is that each seed is alive in a different sense than that of an ordinary cell in the human body: each seed is self-propelled and can live even when separate from the body. No other types of cells in the human body have the ability to create new and separate human life, given the proper circumstances, except for the female egg, the female counterpart to the male seed. And if the seed is not “human life”, then, pray tell, what type of life is it? Both myself and my opponent once existed as a seed, and I would call both him and myself human. If one eliminated all the human semen from the earth, one would thereby eliminate all future humans also. So, there is a close connection between the two, so close that we do affirm that destroying semen is in effect destroying the children who would otherwise be born. And let it be plain to all, that those who practice birth control do so to eliminate children that they themselves do not wish to raise. They do not dislike the semen: they dislike the children the semen will turn into! In wartime, soldiers do not blow up trains because they don’t like trains; they blow them up because they don’t like what the trains deliver!¹⁷¹

We have already demonstrated that this is not the meaning of Genesis 38, cannot be established from the law of God, and is contrary to the clear Scriptural testimony that life begins at conception and personhood begins at conception. Without personhood, the death of sperm is not murder. When God declares on the night of coitus that “A boy [גָבֶר] is conceived” (Job 3:3), He is opposing both antinomianism and NCC legalism. To the antinomian I would say that on the very night of the conception God called what was conceived a boy, not a potential boy. To the NCC advocate I would say that until the boy was conceived, it was not a human with a soul. Biblical theology is quite clear that it takes both the woman’s egg and the man’s sperm to make a human being. Until there is a human being made in the image of God, it is inappropriate to speak of “killing” (when unintentional) or “murder” (when intentional) when seed “is wasted.” Indeed, it is Pharisaism since it adds to the law of God. Other arguments are needed to demonstrate that conception control is sin.

Menstrual sex not allowed, but not for reasons stated by NCC advocates

NCC advocates will frequently point out that sexual relations during a woman’s menstrual cycle is forbidden by the law of God. With this we agree. Leviticus 20:18 says,

If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has exposed her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from their people.

This prohibition is repeated three times in the law (Lev. 15:19-24; 18:19; 20; 20:18), reiterated in the prophets (Ezek. 18:6) and reiterated twice in the New Testament (Acts 15:20,29; 21:25). Our argument with NCC is not that menstrual sex is allowable, but rather we disagree with the reasons given by the NCC advocates.

The BLCC reasons for why menstrual sex is prohibited versus the NCC reason

Nowhere in the Scripture is the reason for this prohibition that the act is “wasting seed.” Instead, six other reasons are given:

1. Because it makes the person ceremonially “unclean” and therefore unfit to enter the temple (Lev. 15:19-24), a reason that we have already shown has no more relevance to New Testament Christians.¹⁷²
2. Because “he has exposed her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood” (Lev. 20:19), a provision that some relate to reason #1 and others relate to reason #6.
3. Because it is an “abomination” (תּוֹעֵבָה) or something “horrifying” (Lev. 18:19 with vv. 26-27,29).
4. Because God judged even pagans for it (Lev. 18:19 with v. 26-28).
5. Because it makes the land defiled (Lev. 18:19 with v. 26).
6. Because this is a blood law that the New Testament continues to uphold (Acts 15:20,29; 21:25).

There is no mention anywhere that wasting seed factored into the prohibition, and given the laws that explicitly allow us to waste seed (discussed in chapter 3), it is not even a credible theory.

Nevertheless, Provan insists that the reason for the prohibition is that menstrual sex is one of the “sterile forms of sexual intercourse … even though seed is emitted.”¹⁷³ Provan devotes an entire chapter to his claim that “all sterile sexual acts are forbidden, unless… they happen accidentally.”¹⁷⁴ However, he recognizes that he cannot ground his “sterile sex” argument in exegesis of the passages dealing with menstruation, and he cannot ground it in science.¹⁷⁵ Therefore he tries to make a logical connection between intercourse with a menstrous woman and four other crimes:

1. Male homosexual intercourse (Lev. 20:13)
2. Male/Animal bestiality (Lev. 20:15)
3. Female/Animal bestiality (Lev. 20:16)
4. Withdrawal (Wasting Seed) (Gen. 38:8-10)¹⁷⁶

He then draws an erroneous conclusion:

What is common to all these five sins? The answer is: they are all sterile forms of sexual intercourse. Children cannot be produced from male homosexual activity or bestiality, even though seed is emitted. Menstrous intercourse is the most easily identified sterile time of the woman’s cycle… Withdrawal is meant to be sterile, and is, most of the time. In all these cases the seed is wasted.

So we can see that the reason that these sins are condemned by God is because they are almost 100% sterile, and oppose the command of God to ‘be fruitful and multiply.’

What is particularly offensive about Provan’s chain of reasoning is that makes him trivialize the seriousness of lesbianism, female bestiality, male homosexuality, and male bestiality. So as not to be accused of misrepresenting him, I will quote him at length.

…there is no penalty prescribed for lesbian activities in the Old Testament. This of course does not mean that lesbianism is OK with God – it just means that there is no civil penalty… So we see that male homosexuals are to be executed, but female homosexuals are spared.

Some attempt the explanation that, “Well, God is just nicer to girls.” We would reply that God in the Old Testament has nothing against executing female evildoers, as is evident from the fact that God has decreed the death penalty for: female murderers (Gen. 9:6), female sorcerers (Lev. 20:27), female idolators (Deut. 13:6-9), females guilty of bestiality (Lev. 20:16), female adulterers (Lev. 20:10), etc. In fact, we are not aware of any sin for which God kills guilty males but spares guilty females, except in the case of homosexual activity…

The Bible prescribes death of the male homosexual and life for the female because only the male homosexual wastes seed. Which once again shows that wasting seed is an awful thing in the eyes of God…

Women who mate with animals are to be killed, while women homosexuals are to be allowed to live. And what can account for the difference? Again we see that the only explanation of the above law is that the difference is in wasting seed. In female bestiality, the animals seed is wasted. In female homosexuality, while sin is indeed committed, no seed is wasted.

So ends our examination of Old Testament perversions and their penalties. We may observe that all sterile sexual acts are forbidden, unless (as we have said) they happen accidentally. Therefore, since the very purpose of all methods of birth control is to make the sexual act sterile, they are forbidden too.¹⁷⁷

However, it is simply not true that lesbianism did not receive the death penalty. Paul lumps lesbians (Rom. 1:26) and male homosexuals (v. 27) together as a group and says of both groups, “that those who practice such things are deserving of death” (v. 27). Was Paul adding to the law or misinterpreting the law? No. He was rightly interpreting the Hebrew word for “perversion” (תֶּבֶל), which the dictionary defines as sexual “confusion.” That term is used to discuss male bestiality (Lev. 18:23a), female bestiality (Lev. 18:23b), and incest (Lev. 20:12), all three of which were said to be deserving of death in Leviticus 18:27-30. It was the sexual confusions listed in Leviticus 18 that violated or perverted the creation order. The commonality of all the crimes has nothing to do with wasting seed and everything to do with perverting or confusing the created order for sexuality. See our discussion below on the phrases, “any of these abominations” (Lev. 18:26,29,30) and “all these abominations” (v. 27).

Provan’s exegesis not only trivializes the seriousness of homosexuality, lesbianism, and bestiality, but it also ignores the true reasons for the prohibitions. Why were these crimes condemned? First, because they were “perversion” (תֶּבֶל). As we have already pointed out, that term is also used to describe a man having intercourse with his daughter-in-law – something that was not exactly sterile sex. Yet both were perversion. Obviously wasting seed had nothing to do with the label of “perversion.”

Second, Leviticus 18 lists all these crimes (including menstrual sex) as being an “abomination” (תּוֹעֵבָה) or something “horrifying.” The chapter ends by saying,

You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations, either any of your own nation or any stranger who dwells among you (for all these abominations the men of the land have done, who were before you, and thus the land is defiled), lest the land vomit you out also when you defile it, as it vomited out the nations that were before you. For whoever commits any of these abominations, the persons who commit them shall be cut off from among their people. (Lev. 18:26-29)

Note the phrases, “any of these abominations” and “all these abominations.” That includes many abominations that did not involve “sterile sex,” including incest with father or mother (v. 7), incest with step mother (v. 8), incest with sister (v. 9), incest with grandchildren (v. 10), step-sister (v. 11), aunt or uncle (vv. 12-14), daughter-in-law (v. 15), sister-in-law (v. 16). It included marrying a mother and her daughter (v. 17), or marrying two sisters at the same time (v. 18). Obviously the reason for treating everything in chapter 18 as an “abomination” or something horrifying had nothing whatsoever to do with sterile sex.

Third, the land is defiled (Lev. 18:27,28,29) because of all of these sexual practices (including sexuality during menstruation – v. 19). This implies that it is more serious than simply ceremonial uncleanness. It also implies (as Leviticus 18:26b explicitly says) that this was for both Jew and Gentile. Interestingly, God vomited the previous nations that existed before Israel out of the land for all of these sexual practices (vv. 27-28), but the land being defiled is a quite different reason than sterile sex.

Proof that Acts 15 continues to uphold the prohibition against menstrual sex

It is important to realize that five of the six reasons given in Scripture for avoiding menstrual sex continue to apply today.¹⁷⁸ While NCC advocates add a reason that is not found in the Bible, the ABC advocates typically dismiss the subject as being ceremonial law (reason #1) and ignore the Biblical evidence for its abiding relevance to both Jew and Gentile. Yet the prohibition is repeated three times in the law (Lev. 15:19-24; 18:19; 20; 20:18), reiterated in the prophets (Ezek. 18:6) and reiterated twice more in the New Testament (Acts 15:20,29; 21:25). It is the New Testament passages that we will now examine. Acts 15:3-16:5 says,

15:3 So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through Phoenicia and Samaria, describing the conversion of the Gentiles; and they caused great joy to all the brethren. 4 And when they had come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders; and they reported all things that God had done with them. 5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”

15:6 Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter. 7 And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.”

15:12 Then all the multitude kept silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul declaring how many miracles and wonders God had worked through them among the Gentiles. 13 And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, “Men and brethren, listen to me: 14 Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written: 16 “After this I will return And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down; I will rebuild its ruins, And I will set it up;

17 So that the rest of mankind may seek the LORD, Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name, Says the LORD who does all these things.”

15:18 “Known to God from eternity are all His works. 19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”

15:22 Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren.

15:23 They wrote this, letter by them: The apostles, the elders, and the brethren, To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: Greetings. 24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law”—to whom we gave no such commandment— 25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.

15:30 So when they were sent off, they came to Antioch; and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the letter. 31 When they had read it, they rejoiced over its encouragement. 32 Now Judas and Silas, themselves being prophets also, exhorted and strengthened the brethren with many words. 33 And after they had stayed there for a time, they were sent back with greetings from the brethren to the apostles.

15:34 However, it seemed good to Silas to remain there. 35 Paul and Barnabas also remained in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.

15:36 Then after some days Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us now go back and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they are doing.”… 39 … And so Barnabas took Mark and sailed to Cyprus; 40 but Paul chose Silas and departed, being commended by the brethren to the grace of God. 41 And he went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.

16:1 Then he came to Derbe and Lystra. And behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a certain Jewish woman who believed, but his father was Greek. 2 He was well spoken of by the brethren who were at Lystra and Iconium. 3 Paul wanted to have him go on with him. And he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in that region, for they all knew that his father was Greek. 4 And as they went through the cities, they delivered to them the decrees to keep, which were determined by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem. 5 So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and increased in number daily.

What it does not mean.

It is not a repudiation of the moral law of Moses (Rom. 13:9 and rest of NT).

This passage has been subjected to so many interpretations that it might be helpful to examine what the passage cannot mean before we examine its meaning and continuing application.

First, this is not a repudiation of the moral law. It might be thought that the phrase “sexual immorality” is a moral law. But the Greek word “porneia” can refer to non-moral marriage laws, such as “you can’t marry your sister or your cousin.” Consider the implications if it is taken as a moral law: If the law “sexual immorality” is the only moral law that we have to keep, does it mean that we can murder, lie and steal? Obviously not. Romans 13:9 says that the commandments “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” are all still binding. That passage is quoting the Old Testament. Paul continues by saying, “and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’” Since Paul agreed with the Assembly, it is evidence that the Assembly did not do away with the moral law.

It is not simply a sampling of both ceremonial and moral laws (with other laws being implied) (v. 28).

Some people try to get around that by saying that the rest of the moral law is assumed and that the Assembly simply gave one example of the moral laws that needed to be kept. This interpretation is frequently adopted because “sexual immorality” does indeed give the appearance of being a moral law, yet saying that it is the only moral law would lead to the absurdity mentioned in the previous point. Taking it as a representative law helps to avoid that problem.

However, there are two problems with that interpretation. First, verse 28 is quite clear that whatever these four laws are, there aren’t more of them. Verse 28 says, “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things.” That statement indicates that there is no requirement beyond those four laws. A second problem is that if there are more moral laws implied here, then by logical necessity there must be more ceremonial laws that are also implied. You could argue that they too are sample ceremonial laws that are binding, but that would be no solution against the Judaizers who were being opposed at the Assembly.

It is not simply a cultural adaptation to the Jews (vv. 28,29).

Other people say that (based on verse 21) this is a cultural adaptation to the Jews. They will cite James’ reason, “For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath” (v. 21). They say that the only reason for these laws is to accommodate Jews. Where Jews are not present, we can eat blood pudding to our heart’s content.

The main problem with that interpretation is that verse 28 calls these four laws “necessary things.” They are not just cultural adaptations. They are necessary. Furthermore, verse 29 gives no clue that they are simply talking about being around Jews. Instead, it makes it more general. It says, “If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.”

It is not simply three things that occur in temples (notice the contrast between verses 20 and 29).

A fourth creative interpretation looks at verse 20 and says, “the first thing in the list is “things polluted by idols” and it then gives three things that are so polluted: temple prostitution, strangled animals, and drinking blood in pagan temples. There are three problems with that interpretation. First, it doesn’t say or imply “temple prostitution” anywhere in the text. Second, the grammar doesn’t allow the last three to be modifying the first one. The words “and the” in the Greek precedes each of the last three laws, indicating that they are in addition to, not a subset of things polluted by idols. Thirdly, we will be seeing that verse 29 changes the order, and that is the strongest evidence that these are four separate things.

It is not a cowardly caving in to Judaizing pressure on the part of James (v.v. 22,23,25,30-35).

Finally, there are some who think that this was a cowardly caving in to the Judaizing pressure of James and that Paul either caved in or was outvoted. Given Paul’s letters both before (Galatians – written in 49 AD) and after this Assembly (all the rest), it is not conceivable that Paul caved in to the Judaizers. The text itself gives no hint that Paul was in a minority. Verse 22 shows a solidarity of Paul and Barnabas with the other delegates who are bringing this letter. Verse 23 makes it clear that this letter came from all the apostles. That includes Paul. Verse 25 again affirms Barnabas and Paul. Verses 30-35 show that this was a unanimously sent and received message.

Furthermore, the whole letter is attributed to the guidance of the Holy Spirit: “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things” (v. 28). Finally, chapter 16:4 shows the apostle Paul “delivered to them the decrees to keep, which were determined by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem.” This means that Paul himself mandated that this decree be kept long after the council had deliberated. Whatever the decision was, it is not saying anything different than Galatians has already said or than 1 Corinthians will later say. Paul was obviously in agreement with the decree.

What it does mean

It means that Gentile believers are not being required to keep anything more than the four requirements of Gentiles in Leviticus 17-18.

What does it mean? The solution to the apparent dilemma is that all four laws are the only Jewish non-moral laws that were required of Gentiles in the Old Testament. The Old Testament did not require circumcision of believing Gentiles like Uriah the Hittite or other Gentile “God-fearers” who were dwelling in the midst of Israel. Such men did not need to keep any of the ceremonial laws except for four, and those four were listed in Leviticus 17-18:

1. abstain from eating blood
2. abstain from eating meat of animals that had been strangled
3. abstain from meat that had been offered to idols
4. the non-moral sexual laws (such as laws of consanguinity,¹⁷⁹ laws of affinity,¹⁸⁰ and the law against menstrual sex).

That these were not moral laws can be immediately recognized by the answer to the question, “Where did Cain get his wife?” The obvious answer is, “He married his sister.” Where did Abraham get his wife? Abraham married his half-sister. There are other examples before the time of Moses. It wasn’t until the time of Moses that God added those laws for health and other purposes. Likewise, inadvertent touching of menstrual blood (such as can happen just before a menses begins – cf. Lev. 15:24) seemed to have none of the moral overtones that a deliberate humbling of a wife by uncovering her period would have (Lev. 18:19 with verses 26-28; 20:28; Ezek. 18:6). This hints that it is not a moral law, even though it was a requirement imposed on both Jew and Gentile (cf. Lev. 18:19 with 26-30). So the viewpoint I will be defending is that Acts 15 is stating which non-moral laws will continue to be binding for all time, even as they were binding on Gentiles long before Israel existed as a nation. This interpretation perfectly fits the context of James’ argument.

It is a logical necessity of the Scriptures cited in Acts 15:16-17

Though the main text that James cites is Amos 9:11-12, it should be noted that James is quoting “prophets” (plural) and therefore Acts 15:16-17 should be seen as a conflation of Jeremiah 12:15 (“After this I will return”), Amos 9:11 (“and will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will set it up”), Zechariah 8:20-23/Amos 9:12 (“So that the rest of mankind may seek the LORD, even all the Gentiles who are called by My name, says the LORD who does all these things”) with Zechariah 2:14-17 being a strong parallel passage.

In verse 15, James says, “And with this” [that is, with Peter’s statement that God has included Gentiles within the same body as the Jews] “the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written:” Notice that James is not quoting just one prophet. There were three prophets who spoke about exactly the same thing. You could get exactly the same applications from any one of those three passages. The slight variations in words between Amos and Acts 15 are completely reconciled when you compare the parallel passages. Amos 9:11-12, Jeremiah 12:15 and Zechariah 8:20-23 all speak of the time of Messiah as being a time when Gentiles will be saved and will dwell in the midst of Israel. They distinguish between observant Jews and non-observant Gentiles, yet the Gentiles are clearly saved and considered part of God’s people. It would likely have been a puzzle for Old Testament saints who read those passages. How can Jews and Gentiles be part of Israel? Even though it was not clear to Old Testament saints, you can clearly see that those passages were talking about the same thing that Peter was.

This is why in verse 19 he can make a logical deduction: “Therefore I judge that we should not trouble the Gentiles who are turning to God, but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.” The “therefore” shows that the observance of those four laws logically flows from Amos 9, Jeremiah 12 and Zechariah 8. One commentator said,

The proviso in Acts 15:20 is not an arbitrary qualification of this decision, but itself follows, with exegetical logic from Acts 15:16-18. If Gentile Christians are the Gentiles to whom the prophecies conflated in Acts 15:16-18 refer, then they are also the Gentiles of Jeremiah 12:16; [and] Zechariah … and therefore the part of the Law of Moses which applies to them is Leviticus 17-18.¹⁸¹

The reason this author says that Leviticus 17-18 is relevant is that it contains the same four laws James brings up, and applies them to Gentiles. So if the Gentiles being saved in Acts are the same as the Gentiles being saved in Amos 9, Jeremiah 12 and Zechariah 8, it follows of necessity that they must observe the ceremonial laws that the Old Testament imposed on all Gentiles who dwelt in the midst of Israel. That’s the logic of James’ argument. I think everyone would have immediately understood that because Israel already imposed those laws on Gentiles living in their midst.

These were ceremonial laws that were imposed upon Gentiles in the Old Testament. A brief history of these laws:

Next, let’s examine a brief history of these laws. First, in Genesis 9, as soon as Noah got off the ark, God gave those Gentiles a prohibition of blood. Genesis 9:3 said that they could eat pork. They weren’t bound by any of the kosher laws. Why? Because they were not Jews. God said to Noah, “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs.” So even though they didn’t have to follow other ceremonial laws, the next verse absolutely prohibits the eating of blood. It says in Genesis 9:4, “But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.” So the blood laws were applied to every human being. These are not laws that are restricted to Israel. Nor was it trying to be sensitive to the presence of Jews. Long before there were Jews, God forbad the eating of blood as food. It’s not an Old Testament ceremony designed to separate Jew from Gentile. There were a lot of laws that did that, including circumcision. That’s why Paul refused to let them impose circumcision, but he had no problem imposing laws that always applied to Gentiles.

Second, numerous passages make this prohibition of blood a “perpetual ordinance” (Lev. 3:17; 7:26-27; 17:12-16; 19:26; Deut. 12:16,23; 15:23). It was not just a time-bounded law for Israel. This is what makes me decline blood pudding. God prohibits it for all time.

Third, all four laws given in Acts 15 were imposed upon the “aliens who dwell among you” (Lev. 17:8,10,12,13; 18:26). This is the one place in the Levitical Law that made special requirements for Gentiles in the land. Consider the following Scriptures:

“Also you shall say to them: ‘Whatever man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell among you, who offers a burnt offering or sacrifice, and does not bring it to the door of the tabernacle of meeting, to offer it to the LORD, that man shall be cut off from among his people” (Lev. 17:18-19).

Notice that this prohibition of eating meat that had been offered to other gods was strictly prohibited to “the strangers who dwell among you.”

“And whatever man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell among you, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people” (Lev. 17:18-19).

This prohibition of blood to Gentiles is repeated again in verse 12:

“Therefore I said to the children of Israel, “No one among you shall eat blood, nor shall any stranger who dwells among you eat blood’” (Lev. 17:10-12). So that is clearly not just a Jewish law.

Next comes eating things strangled in verse 13:

“Whatever man of the children of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell among you, who hunts and catches any animal or bird that may be eaten, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with dust” In other words, even strangers were forbidden from eating things strangled. They were required to bleed the animal.

Then comes a bunch of moral and ceremonial laws related to sexual relations and marriage. And the reader should notice that in chapter 18:26-27 it applies every one of those laws (including the menstrual law of verse 19) to Gentiles as well as Jews.

Related to the laws of consanguinity, laws of affinity, law against menstrual sex, as well as the moral sexual laws mixed in, Leviticus 18:26 says, “You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations, either any of your own nation or any stranger who dwells among you.” These laws were required of all believing Gentiles who didn’t want to become Jews. They were called “strangers within the land” or “Gentiles in the midst of My people.”

The language used in Leviticus is exactly the same language used by the three prophets that James quotes. For example, Jeremiah 12:16 prophecies of Gentiles, “then they shall be established in the midst of My people.” The Zechariah 8 passage indicates not only that the Gentiles would seek the Lord, but they would somehow be considered to be in Jerusalem (v. 22) and would be in a synagogue learning from a Jewish man (v. 23). It wasn’t a clear revelation of the mystery of the one body that Paul talks about, but it was consistent with that new revelation. Isn’t that what James says? “And with this the words of the prophets agree.” Peter gave the new revelation and James says that this new revelation is consistent with what was prophesied, even though it wasn’t clearly prophesied. The parallel passage in Zechariah 2 says that “many nations shall be joined to the LORD in that day, and they shall become My people.” That’s as clear a testimony to the one body as you can get in the Old Testament, yet still not clear enough to understand the doctrine totally without the New Testament revelation of the mystery given to Peter, Paul, and all the apostles.

There is more evidence: notice that Acts 15:20 shows a different order of laws than verse 29. In Acts 15:20 James is talking off the top of his head, and he gives a different order than Leviticus does. The order in Acts 15:20 that is given from memory is:

1. Eating idol sacrifices (Lev. 17:7-9)
2. Sexual laws (Lev. 18:1-19)
3. Eating things strangled (Lev. 17:13-16)
4. Blood laws (Lev. 17:10-12

When it comes to actually writing the letter, James orders his thoughts, and he puts them in exactly the same order as given in Leviticus.

Order in Acts 15:29:

1. Eating idol sacrifices
2. Blood laws
3. Eating things strangled
4. Sexual laws

Order in Leviticus:

1. Eating idol sacrifices (Lev. 17:7-9)
2. Blood laws (Lev. 17:10-12)
3. Eating things strangled (Lev. 17:13-16)
4. Sexual laws (Lev. 18:1-19)¹⁸²
   • Cannot marry within the degrees of consanguinity listed.
   • Cannot marry within the degrees of affinity listed.
   • May not engage in marital relations during the monthly period.
   • (The previous Mosaic laws are then followed by a discussion of the sexual sins of adultery, homosexuality and bestiality in verses 20-23.)

This again confirms that Acts 15 is dealing with the four laws of Leviticus 17-18 that were always binding on both Jew and Gentile.

They were practiced under the monarchy (1 Sam. 14:34-35)

A history of those four laws also confirms our interpretation. These laws were practiced by Gentiles under the monarchy (1 Samuel 14:34-35). They continued to be considered abominations under Ezekiel after the exile (Ezek. 33:25; 18:6; 22:10). They continued to be enforced during New Testament times. For example, Mark 6:18 has John the Baptist telling King Herod, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.” Likewise, 1 Corinthians 5:1 says, “It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality [the same Greek word porneia] among you and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles – that a man has his father’s wife!” Paul was saying that this was applicable even to Gentiles. In other words, Paul not only enforced the decrees of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 16:4-5, but he also vigorously upheld the Jerusalem council’s edict in his epistles.

In terms of the use of the Greek term “porneia” for non-moral issues, one scholar cited “the Zadokite Documents [early Jewish writings], which define ‘fornication’ as polygamy, infringement of the Levitical prohibitions and about the menstrual period, and consanguineous marriage.” From earliest times the church has upheld these Levitical laws. The Dictionary of Religion and Philosophy says,

Diriment Impediment. A term used in canon law to denote a circumstance or fact that makes a person incapable of contracting a valid marriage, e.g., impotency, consanguinity, insufficient age. A marriage by anyone in such circumstances is not merely unlawful but invalid.¹⁸³

So the term “sexual immorality” (which is the Greek word porneia) can refer to any kind of moral sexual sin, or it can be used as a technical term for the Levitical prohibitions to Gentiles and Jews in Leviticus 18, such as the laws of affinity and consanguinity.

Things offered to idols (Acts 15:20,29; 21:25; 1 Cor. 10:19-22)

Paul also upheld the law against eating meat offered to idols or having anything whatsoever to do with idols. In 1 Corinthians 10 he said this:

What am I saying then? That an idol is anything, or what is offered to idols is anything?

Rather, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons.

You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord’s table and of the table of demons.

Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than He?

– 1 Corinthians 10:19-22

Some people point to chapter 8 and say that it is OK to eat meat offered to idols knowingly. In chapter 8 he had given an argument that even if the Corinthians were right about eating meat in a temple being OK (a hypothetical argument), it would still violate the conscience of a brother who did not believe that way and should be avoided for that reason alone. In chapter 10 he forbids it completely. He forbids it just as clearly as the Jerusalem council did.

In Acts 21:25 Paul agreed with the whole decree, including blood and things strangled. He submitted himself to some Jewish rituals, because he was a Jew, but the only four rituals he believed could be imposed on the Gentiles were the ones listed in Acts 15.

The problems God is sparing us from in prohibiting sex during menstruation

Some might wonder why God treats vaginal intercourse with a menstrual woman as such a serious problem. We may not know all of the reasons, but certainly the health of the woman needs to be considered. While there is still a lot of debate on the health risks of sex during menstruation, the next chapter will document five major health issues that have been statistically associated with intercourse during the menses. It is not at all surprising to me that the New Testament continues the prohibition – God cares about our health. He also cares about a woman’s sense of propriety and dignity, and some men are thoughtless enough that God showed his care for women by making it a mandate, not a suggestion.

God is interested in our liberty, and we must allow God’s law to define our liberty.

When we strictly govern our behavior by the law of God, we are not subject to the attempts of men to rob us of our liberties. Galatians 5:1 says, “Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.” Unless God defines our liberty, we will lose it. It is like railroad tracks. As long as the tracks are intact, the train has liberty. God’s commandments are the railroad tracks. James says that they are designed for our liberty. He speaks of it as being the perfect law of liberty (James 1:25). In Acts 15 James says that he doesn’t want us troubled by anything beyond what God has commanded. Verse 24 says, “Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, ‘You must be circumcised and keep the law’ — to whom we gave no such commandment.” When men add commandments beyond what the Old Testament or the apostles have given, we are immediately troubled. Such laws are not for our good. God wants us to have liberty, and He has only given as many laws as will produce maximum liberty. So verse 28 says, “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things.” These four Mosaic laws together with all the moral laws of the Old Testament are the perfect law of liberty and they reflect the Holy Spirit’s goodness. Let’s stand in that liberty and never give it up. Let’s not allow our consciences to be bound by anything other than what God has commanded, But let us also embrace all that He has commanded.

Principles related to the health of the mother

The ethics of “conception control” should also consider the health of the mother. In opposition to some NCC advocates, we would say that preventing conception may be necessary to achieve the goal of preserving the health and life of the mother. To ABC advocates, we would say that avoiding certain “birth control” methods may be necessary to achieve the goal of preserving the health of the mother, but it is not a simple matter of avoiding all risks. People with health problems sometimes need to balance one risk against another risk. So the principles laid out in this chapter do not necessarily translate into one solution. Though BLCC advocates avoid all hormonal “birth control” methods for the reasons outlined, they do not necessarily oppose the use of some of these same medications to treat diseases, PMS, or serious hormonal issues. For example, some single women have used certain hormonal pills to reduce heavy bleeding and cramping by up to 90%. Again, we do not want science to bind people’s consciences, but when deciding on what method of conception control to use, seeking to preserve the health of the mother is an important consideration.

General principles

The general principles are so well laid out in the Larger Catechism, that I will quote two of the questions and answers at length. Larger Catechism 135 asks, “What are the duties required in the sixth commandment?” The answer is,

The duties required in the sixth commandment are, all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves (Eph. 5:28–29) and others (1 Kings 18:4) by resisting all thoughts and purposes (Jer. 26:15–16, Acts 23:12,16–17,21,27), subduing all passions (Eph. 4:26–27), and avoiding all occasions (2 Sam. 2:22, Deut. 22:8), temptations (Matt. 4:6–7, Prov. 1:10,11,15–16), and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any (1 Sam. 24:12, 1 Sam. 26:9–11, Gen. 37:21–22); by just defense thereof against violence (Ps. 82:4, Prov. 24:11–12, 1 Sam. 14:45), patient bearing of the hand of God (James 5:7–11, Heb. 12:9), quietness of mind (1 Thess. 4:11, 1 Pet. 3:3–4, Ps. 37:8–11), cheerfulness of spirit (Prov. 17:22); a sober use of meat (Prov. 25:16,27), drink (1 Tim. 5:23), physick (Isa. 38:21), sleep (Ps. 127:2), labor (Eccl. 5:12, 2 Thess. 3:10,12, Prov. 16:26), and recreations (Eccl. 3:4,11); by charitable thoughts (1 Sam. 19:4–5, 1 Sam. 22:13–14), love (Rom. 13:10), compassion (Luke 10:33–34), meekness, gentleness, kindness (Col. 3:12–13); peaceable (James 3:17), mild and courteous speeches and behavior (1 Pet. 3:8–11, Prov. 15:1, Judges 8:1–3); forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil (Matt. 5:24, Eph. 4:2,32, Rom. 12:17,20); comforting and succouring the distressed and protecting and defending the innocent (1 Thess. 5:14, Job 31:19–20, Matt. 25:35–36, Prov. 31:8–9).

Likewise, Larger Catechism 136 asks, “What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?” The answer is,

The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves (Acts 16:28), or of others (Gen. 9:6), except in case of public justice (Numb. 35:31,33,) lawful war (Jer. 48:10, Deut. 20:1), or necessary defense (Exod. 22:2–3); the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life (Matt. 25:42–43, James 2:15–16, Eccl. 6:1–2); sinful anger (Matt. 5:22), hatred (1 John 3:15, Lev. 19:17), envy (Prov. 14:30), desire of revenge (Rom. 12:19); all excessive passions (Eph. 4:31), distracting cares (Matt. 6:31,34); immoderate use of meat, drink (Luke 21:34, Rom. 13:13), labor (Eccl. 12:12, Eccl. 2:22–23), and recreations (Isa. 5:12); provoking words (Prov. 15:1, Prov. 12:18), oppression (Ezek. 18:18, Exod. 1:14), quarreling (Gal. 5:15, Prov. 23:29), striking, wounding (Numb. 35:16–18,21), and whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any (Exod. 21:18–36).¹⁸⁴

I have emphasized the phrases that directly relate to conception control. God cares not just for the life of the baby, but also for the life of the mother. Exodus 21:22-25 indicates that God has an equal care for both. Once a baby is in the womb, we must not pit the mother’s life against the baby or the baby’s life against the mother. Both are precious in God’s sight and the life and health of both should be preserved. This means that when a woman must undergo radiation, chemotherapy, or other procedures that might be life-threatening to a baby, it is better that the couple practice conception control to try to avoid getting pregnant during this time.

Likewise, just as God did not want man to wear out the land, but to nurture it and give it rest (Lev. 25:4), God wants us to nurture and cherish (Eph. 5:29), protect and preserve (Eph. 5:23,28) our wives. If the woman “who has many children has become feeble” (1 Sam. 2:5), it might be time to let her strengthen. When a zeal to have maximum fertility trumps both the health of the mother and the discipleship of the children, that zeal has become a zeal without knowledge; a focus on one commandment at the exclusion of another. Just as failure to give the land rest (because of a zeal for fruitfulness) resulted in God’s discipline (Lev. 26:34,43; 2 Chron. 36:21), so too a failure to sexually “dwell with them [our wives] with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel” will make our prayers hindered (1 Pet. 3:7) and will hinder the blessing of an ideal marriage – loving life and seeing good days (v. 10). The rest of this book assumes the need to engage in conception control in a way that best stewards and balances the desires for fruitfulness, health, dominion, etc. While conception control should be used as a way of stewardship, we should be very careful that our methods of conception control do not in any way endanger the health of the mother. Consider the potential issues in the next chapter that supplement what we have already said about each type of “birth control” method and BLCC method.

Principles ruling out permanent solutions

Tubal ligation (“tying the tubes”), other forms of severing or cauterizing the female fallopian tubes, and vasectomy make the decision permanent and rule out children even should the current children die in a car accident or should a spouse die. The book of Job illustrates the wisdom of avoiding a permanent solution. He had several children. Imagine if he had undergone a permanent solution – he and his wife would have died alone in the end of the book. Most BLCC advocates have not been comfortable with such an absolute closing of the door to the future.

Deuteronomy 25:11-12 has sometimes been used to speak against permanent sterilization, but while it certainly speaks against forced sterilization, it may be stretching the text too much to apply it to voluntary sterilization. It is a passage that at least should be considered.

On the other hand, some have used Matthew 19:12 to support male sterilization. Jesus said, “There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.” As I have already mentioned, I am not convinced that Jesus is talking about permanent sterilization. The ancient Jewish prejudice against all sterilization makes that interpretation extremely unlikely. There is legitimate debate on the meaning of the passage.

However, while I am reluctant to judge those who have contemplated sterilization, I have strongly recommended against it based on Biblical principles of

1. risk management
2. having a backup plan should your children be killed like Job’s were
3. health considerations (see chapter 13 – there are major problems with men developing sperm allergies when they get vasectomies)
4. trusting God to overrule our plans, etc.

While I am not dogmatic on this question, the Biblical evidence has made me lean against it.