Leanpub: Publish Early, Publish Often

Notes

Answers in Genesis sells a wonderful video that documents the stunning processes involved from conception to birth. It is the multimedia presentation by Dr. David Menton, Fearfully And Wonderfully Made.↩

Monergism is a term ordinarily used for regeneration – that only one (mono) work (ergos) in creating a new nature in the believer. I am using the term here to mean “God alone is at work in the creation of a new life.”↩

Synergism, from the Greek for together (sun) and work (ergos), refers to two agents working together in an interplay of activity.↩

Here is a sample statement that could be multiplied hundreds of times over: “What I wrote was [that]… asking God about it [infertility], or even asking God to change it, [is]… proper to do, as stated also in the Word. What is improper is not waiting on the Lord in it and going to the doctor about it and trying treatments for it, for in so doing we have ignored God in it, no matter what we say to the contrary: what we have then done in no way fits the Word of God” (http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/general-discussion-forum/fertility/).↩

Though this paper is only interacting with three views (Biblically Limited Conception Control [BLCC], No Conception Control [NCC] and Antinomian Birth Control [ABC]), there are several quite distinct views on birth control within evangelical circles. 1) No Conception Control, 2) “Natural Birth Control,” which includes Rhythm, mucus method, natural breast feeding, etc. 3) “Natural Birth Control” plus condom, but no spermicides. 4) Any barrier method plus spermicides, 5) No pill or similar hormonal technology that could have a remote chance of being abortifacient if ovulation is not prevented, but anything else, including tubal ligation and vasectomy. 6) allowing the Pill but not the IUD, 7) allowing the IUD but not allowing for anything that casts off the fertilized egg post-implantation. While my ethical principles make me feel most comfortable with either 2 or 3, they firmly rule out 5-7, and make me speak with caution about 4 (though 4 was practiced by the ancient Jews – see below). Those who advocate Biblically Limited Conception Control (BLCC) could be anywhere in the 2-4 range.↩

Some of the books from the NCC camp are:

Provan, Charles D. The Bible and Birth Control. Zimmer Printing, Monongahaela, PA: 1989.

Hess, Rick and Jan. A Full Quiver: Family Planning and the Lordship of Christ. Wolgemuth & Hyatt Publishers, Brentwood, TN: 1990.

Houghton, Craig. Family UNplanning. Xulon Press, Longwood, FL: 2006.

Owen, Jr., Samuel A. Letting God Plan Your Family. Crossway Books, Wheaton, IL: 1990.

Campbell, Nancy. Be Fruitful and Multiply. Vision Forum, San Antonio, TX: 2003.

Adams, Shelly and Morgan. Arrows in His Hand (children’s book). Monument Pub., Monument, CO: 2007.

Pride, Mary. The Way Home: Beyond Feminism, Back to Reality. Good News Pub, Wheaton, IL: 1985.↩

See chapter 1 for a clear definition of what is meant by BLCC.↩

Here are some examples that this book will later demonstrate to be forms of legalism: 1) some NCC people have convinced post-menopausal women that sexual relations for them would be sin since they are “wasting seed,” 2) and have convinced pregnant moms that it is sinful to have sexual relations any time during the pregnancy. This has left both the husbands and wives sexually starved (in violation of 1 Corinthians 7:1-5,9). 3) I know one case where a mom who came to a fertility clinic in Omaha to try to get pregnant was told that she was in sin since she wasn’t “trusting God to open her womb.” 4) When the issue was further discussed, it became clear that it wasn’t simply a judgment of this individual’s assumed lack of faith, but was a general approach to life - this NCC advocate believed that surgery to repair fallopian tubes was always sin because it was a lack of trust just as much as using birth control to space babies was a lack of trust. While consistent with the NCC paradigm, I find this misinformed opinion to be in violation of other Biblical principles. 5) I know of another situation where a mom going through chemotherapy was told to abstain from sexual relations completely during chemotherapy. What was even more confusing was that another NCC said that the couple should have unprotected sexual relations in obedience to 1 Corinthians 7:4-5 and “trust God” to protect any resulting baby from the chemotherapy. Though these breaches of Christian Liberty are sincere, they are very misinformed. It is my hope to at least bring some moderation into the NCC camp through these discussions.↩

I have found that BLCC people tend to keep their views to themselves for the most part (unless asked), but NCC tend to have a missionary zeal in promoting their views. Some have been extremely insensitive to the situations of others. Examples I have witnessed: 1) Assuming that people are using birth control when they only have three or four children. Certainly such parents can say, “We are trying. Pray for us.” It is insensitive to judge people in this way. 2) Telling a mother of seven who has enormous health problems and is alive (as Job would have worded it) “by the skin of her teeth” that she was in sin for using birth control (in this case Rhythm and condom). 3) I have had more than one NCC advocate tell me that even if he knew for sure that both the baby and the mother would die if he tried for a sixth child, that he would do so anyway out of obedience to God. He described this as her act of love – laying down her life for the possibility of another child. This is insensitivity to the mother’s life.↩

For NCC claims that even Natural Family Planning methods of conception control are “murder,” see the quotes documented in footnotes 20-30 in chapter 12. Not all NCC writers follow Charles Provan or other writers cited in saying this, but there have been enough who have accused BLCC advocates of murder (and being worthy of death) even when they have used Natural Family Planning methods, that I have no choice but to defend them. The books that I have read have cited both Onan and the Talmud as describing birth control as “worthy of the death penalty” – but see my comments on Onan (below) and see my comments on the Talmud being taken out of context in footnote 36 in chapter 3 and footnote 1 in chapter 4. If a father of ten is guilty of murder for beginning to use a condom to avoid having an eleventh child, then we should be consistent and bring him up for charges of murder in a church court. But as we will see later in this book, the Scriptures used to bring the charges are completely misinterpreted, and simply would not stand the test of cross examination in a church court. Such charges are rash, and constitute using their tongue like a sword to damage (Ps. 57:4; 64:3) and not to build up (Eph. 4:29). If such extreme rhetoric could be curtailed, NCC and BLCC people could be allies in promoting large families.↩

Many of the previous examples would fall into this category, but so would repeated statements made by friends who have had a habit of judging heart motives (as if they could know those motives). Despite our desire for twelve children, and attempts at adopting large sibling groups, our motives for birth control have been judged as being 1) rejection of God’s blessings, 2) lack of love for children, 3) lack of trust in God, 4) selfishness, etc. Despite assuring them that those are not our motives, they continue to assume that they are. I have sought hard to lovingly assume the best intentions in these people, but hopefully this book will help to avoid such misconceptions. Biblically Limited Conception Control (BLCC) should be motivated by unselfish love for wife and children and should be founded on God-glorifying Biblical principles.↩

Paul hints at those conditions in 1 Timothy 2:15. See discussion in footnote 6 of chapter 1.↩

As will be noted below, when Paul says, “Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control” (1 Tim. 2:15), Paul is not referring to the portion of salvation known as “justification,” but the portion of salvation known as “sanctification.” Salvation begins in eternity past (election), is historically applied by the Spirit throughout our life time (calling, regeneration, conversion, justification, adoption, and sanctification), and will be culminated in eternity (resurrection, glorification, confirmation). Paul is giving one illustration of what is typical of a woman’s sanctification – her calling to raise children. But he conditions the blessing on the fact that such bearing of children must be accompanied by a persevering “faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.” However, this establishes the command to bear children within the purposes of redemption.↩

There are almost as many Scriptures that speak of the curse of many children (Gen. 3:16; Eccl. 6:3; Is. 49:19-21; Deut. 28:18-19; Ezek. 5:7-8 [KJV]; Jer. 15:9; Job 27:13-15; Luke 23:29) as there are that speak of the blessings of having many children (Gen. 17:2,20; 22:17; 26:24; 28:3; 35:11; 48:4; Ex. 32:13; Deut. 7:14; Ps. 17:14; 113:9; 127:1-5; 128:1-6; Prov. 17:6; 1 Tim. 5:14). The blessing of children is within a context of covenantal faithfulness, and to absolutise the blessing is to miss the fact that raising children for hell is hardly a blessing (see next point).↩

The “fruitfulness Psalm,” Psalm 127 is quite clear that “Unless the LORD builds the house, they labor in vain who build it.” To raise children for hell is hardly a blessing. God says of the wicked, “Cursed shall be the fruit of your body” (Deut. 28:18). See previous footnote.↩

Provan gives many quotes that show the extreme distaste that the church fathers and reformers had for any kind of attempt to prevent conception. Even Natural Family Planning (now approved by the Roman Catholic Church) was disapproved of by the early church fathers. For example, Augustine opposed the Natural Family Planning of the Manichaeans, when he said,

Is it not you [the Manichaeans] who used to counsel us to observe as much as possible the time when a woman, after her purification, is most likely to conceive, and to abstain from cohabitation at that time…? This proves that you approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. (NPNF 1.4.86)

↩

For example, Clement of Alexandria (c. 195) said, “If a man marries in order to have children, he ought not to have a sexual desire for his wife. He ought to produce children by a reverent, disciplined act of will.” He also said, “Intercourse performed licitly is an occasion of sin, unless done purely to beget children.” Keep in mind that the dictionary defines “licitly” as in full conformity with the law. He is adding a qualification to being lawful – it cannot have any function beyond producing a baby. This is legalism. In another place Clement said, “To… a spiritual man, after conception, his wife is as a sister and is treated as if of the same father” (ANF 2.503). Justin Martyr (c. 160) writes, “If we marry, it is only so that we may bring up children” (ANF 1.172). Lactantius (c. 304-313) writes, “Whatever is sought beyond the desire of procreation is condemned by God” (ANF 7.143). Athenagoras the Athenian (c. 175) forbad any sexual relations between a couple once the couple had achieved conception (ANF 2.146). Augustine said,

In Eden, it would have been possible to beget offspring without foul lust. The sexual organs would have been stimulated into necessary activity by will-power alone, just as the will controls other organs. Then, without being goaded on by the allurement of passion, the husband could have relaxed upon his wife’s breasts with complete peace of mind and bodily tranquility, that part of his body not activated by tumultuous passion, but brought into service by the deliberate use of power when the need arose, the seed dispatched into the womb with no loss of his wife’s virginity. So, the two sexes could have come together for impregnation and conception by an act of will, rather than by lustful cravings”. (Saint Augustine, 354 – 430 (City of God, Book 14, Chapter 26))

The Apostolic Constitutions (compiled c. 390) say, “Nor, indeed, let them have relations when their wives are with child. For [in that case] they are not doing it for the begetting of children, but only for the sake of pleasure. Now a lover of God should not be a lover of pleasure.” (ANF 7.463). Thomas Aquinas wrote,

Consequently there are only two ways in which married persons can come together without any sin at all, namely in order to have offspring, and in order to pay the debt. Otherwise it is always at least a venial sin… If a man intends by the marriage act to prevent fornication in his wife, it is no sin, because this is a kind of payment of the debt that comes under the good of “faith.” But if he intends to avoid fornication in himself, then there is a certain superfluity, and accordingly there is a venial sin, nor was the sacrament instituted for that purpose, except by indulgence, which regards venial sins. (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Benziger Bros./Accordance electronic ed. (Altamonte Springs: OakTree Software, 2004), n.p.)

↩

As has already been noted, Chrysostom, Augustine, and other fathers had to oppose this viewpoint. But it persisted despite scholars such as Thomas Aquinas refuting it. Huguccio said,

…can never be without sin, for it always occurs and is exercised with a certain itching and a certain pleasure; for, in the emission of the seed, there is always a certain excitement, a certain itching, a certain pleasure. (See footnote 17 in chapter 4 for reference.)

↩

So many authors have documented this influence of the Greeks that it is not much contested. John T. Noonan writes, “Stoicism was in the air the intellectual converts to Christianity breathed. Half consciously, half unconsciously, they accommodated some Christian beliefs to a Stoic sense” (John T. Noonan, Jr., Contraception (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1966), p. 46). The Stoic philosopher Ocellus Lucanus, “We have intercourse not for pleasure but for the purpose of procreation….The sexual organs are given man not for pleasure, but for the maintenance of the species.” Ocellus Lucanus, text and commentary by Richard Harder (Berlin, 1926), quoted in Noonan, p. 47. This of course could have been said verbatim by any number of church fathers.↩

For example, when Augustine wrote to Jerome, he said, “I have learned to hold the Scriptures alone inerrant.” (Cited by Boice & Packer in, Does Inerrancy Matter? [Oakland, CA: ICBI, 1979]). In his Preface to the Treatise on the Trinity Augustine said, “Do not follow my writings as Holy Scripture. When you find in Holy Scripture anything you did not believe before, believe it without doubt; but in my writings, you should hold nothing for certain.”↩

David G. Hunter, Marriage, Celibacy, and Heresy in Ancient Christianity: The Jovinianist Controversy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), p. 34.↩

Augustine and Ambrose both present Susanna as a model of chastity within marriage. Jerome was particularly troubling in his insistence that married clergy be celibate. See Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds. Jerome: Select Works and Letters. vol. VI of A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series. Accordance electronic ed. (New York: Christian Literature Publishing, 1890), n.p.↩

Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, eds. Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian. vol. III of The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Accordance electronic ed. (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1885), n.p. David G. Hunter points out about Tertullian,

Nevertheless, Tertullian’s starkly eschatological outlook led him to denigrate sex, marriage, and procreation in a manner that resembled traditional encratite theology.

Another parallel between Tertullian and the encratite tradition is that Tertullian, like Tatian, argued that a radical divide lay between the morality of the Old Testament and that of the New. Although he acknowledged that God had originally established marriage for the propagation of the human race, Tertullian held that with the coming of Christ the command to ‘increase and multiply’ had been abrogated by Paul’s warning that ‘the time is short; from now on let even those who have wives be as though they had none.’ In these last days the only reasons for marrying even once are disreputable ones: sexual desire, a wish for comfort and security, or the desire to live on in one’s children. While some Christians might argue that procreation is a civic duty, Tertullian complained, children are in reality troublesome burdens that distract their parents from preparing for martyrdom and the approach of the kingdom of God. Although Tertullian did not completely reject first marriages, thereby remaining technically ‘orthodox’ on this question, his emphasis on the profound gulf between the old dispensation and the new reiterated the traditional encratite contrast between the Old Law and the New. (David G. Hunter, Marriage, Celibacy, and Heresy in Ancient Christianity: The Jovinianist Controversy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 118, http://www.questia.com/read/119351407/marriage-celibacy-and-heresy-in-ancient-christianity.)

↩

Two examples are Justin, 1 Apol. 15, 29; Athenagoras, Leg. 33.4–6.↩

Babylonian Talmud, Soncino edition, Barakoth, Folio 60a is one of dozens of places I have found where both the man and the woman are said to emit seed, and the child is the combination of the man’s and the woman’s seed.↩

While masturbation is universally condemned by the rabbis as “wasting seed,” and sterilization was universally condemned, most ancient rabbis allowed for moderate birth control within marriage, even though this too would waste seed. The general principle is stated in the Mishna thus: “A man may not desist from the duty of procreation unless he already has children… G’mara: If he has children he may desist from procreation, but not from further marriage” (Talmud, Yebamoth 61b). The method of birth control most discussed was a barrier method of a cotton pessary that blocked the cervix. Jewish authorities say that this was sometimes mixed with vinegar or lemon, both of which were spermicides. However, the Rhythm method was also practiced (Babylonian Talmud, Soncino edition, Niddah, 31b). Coitus Interruptus seems to be condemned. Many people speak of the condemnations of “wasting seed,” such as that by Rabbi Johanan, who is quoted as saying: “Whoever emits semen nonprocreatively deserves capital punishment” – which is a very poor paraphrase and summary of the section. They also quote Rabbi Eliezer in Yebamoth 63b-64a, to the effect that failure to procreate is equivalent to murder. They fail to read those quotes in context, which clearly are against solo masturbation and refusal to get married and which allow for our BLCC position. See footnote 36 in chapter 3 for details and places in the Talmud where birth control was discussed.↩

My favorite introduction to this subject is Rushdoony, R. J. (1969). The Myth of Over-Population. Fairfax, VA, Thoburn Press. For a penetrating analysis see Jacqueiline Kasun, The War Against Population: The Economics and Ideology of World Population Control (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999). Even secularists have recognized that the real danger is a massive “birth-dirth” or population decline. The prolific Julian Simon was one of the early authors to successfully debunk the arguments of the Malthusians. He also co-authored a worthwhile essay - Julian Simon and Karl Zinsmeister, Population Growth and Progress,” in Michael Cromartie, ed., The 9 Lives of Population Control (Grand Rapids, Mich: William B. Eerdmans, 1995), p. 68.P. T. Bauer has also provided a wealth of case studies and statistical analysis from all continents in P. T. Bauer, Equality, the Third World, and Economic Delusion (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1981). See especially his chapter 3, “The Population Explosion: Myths and Realities.” See also Ian Angus and Simon Butler, Too Many People? (Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2011). John Ibbitson & Darrell Bricker, Empty Planet: The Shock of Global Popularion Decline (New York: Crown Publishing Group, Penguin Randon House, 2020). Two other small treatments of the subject that are worth reading from a Christian perspective are Osterfeld, D. (1994). Overpopulation: The Perennial Myth. The Christian Educator. Arlington Heights, IL, Simon, J. L. (1990). “Earth Worship and Population Growth.” Chalcedon Report(300): 4-5.↩

Margaret Sanger claims that she coined the term “birth control” for her first issue (June, 1914) of The Woman Rebel. (https://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app/documents/show.php?sangerDoc=101826.xml) Many scholars concur that she did.↩

See Linda Gordon, The Moral Property of Women: A History of Birth Control Politics in America (London: Penguin Books, 1990), p. 150.↩

As will be seen later in this book, I am not labeling all “birth control” advocates antinomian, but only those who refuse to consider the Bible for their birth control practices. Many use the Pill with not a thought about the possibilities of its health risks and/or its secondary function as an abortifacient. While there is still debate on the subject, it is an issue that needs to be thought through. I have known Evangelical doctors who prescribe IUDs, not having realized that IUDs produce abortions.↩

D. James Kennedy, Led By the Carpenter: Finding God’s Purpose for Your Life (Thomas Nelson, 1999), p. 7.↩

Dr. John Barber, http://www.cornerstone-presbyterian.org/culturalmandate.php ↩

Ibid.↩

Rick & Jan Hess, A Full Quiver (Omaha: Hess Family, 1989), pp. 1, 141.↩

Hess & Hess, p. 92.↩

Hess & Hess, p. 94.↩

Kimberly Wagner, at http://www.truewoman.com/?id=848 ↩

http://makinghome.blogspot.com/2007/11/nfp-and-1-corinthians-73-5.html ↩

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/nl238.htm ↩

http://www.raisingarrows.net/2006/08/becoming-quiverfull-part-4/↩

Charles D. Provan, The Bible and Birth Control (Monongahela, PA: Zimmer Printing, 1989). See especially pages 16-43.↩

Provan, p. 39.↩

Provan, pp. 38-39.↩

Provan, p. 64.↩

Consider the following very active characteristics of faith in this great faith chapter:

By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain… But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. By faith Noah, …moved with godly fear, prepared an ark… By faith Abraham obeyed … And he went out, … By faith he dwelt in the land … By faith Abraham, … offered up Isaac, By faith Isaac blessed …By faith Jacob, … blessed each of the sons of Joseph, and worshiped, …By faith Moses… was hidden three months by his parents… By faith Moses… refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin,… By faith he forsook Egypt, … By faith he kept the Passover … By faith they passed through the Red Sea … By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they were encircled for seven days. By faith the harlot Rahab … received the spies with peace…. who through faith subdued kingdoms, worked righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, became valiant in battle, turned to flight the armies of the aliens. Women received their dead raised to life again. Others were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection… Therefore we also, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us.” (Heb. 11:4-12:1)

↩

This last phrase is variously translated, “or a husband’s decision,” (New English Translation), “nor by a man’s decision” (NAB), “or a husband’s will” (NIV). All translations draw out the analogy that human birth involves a human decision or intentionality.↩

Gary North, The Dominion Covenant: Genesis (Tyler, TX: ICE, 1982), p. 436.↩

Kent Crockett, The 911 Handbook, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003, 139↩

One book that relies too heavily upon the opinions of men is Charles Provan’s book, The Bible and Birth Control. His treatment of homosexuality, lesbianism, and bestiality is a case in point. His treatment of spilling seed as murder is another example of the opinions of man trumping rational exegesis. We will have more to say about him below. No matter how esteemed the church fathers and Reformers may be, if they add commandments to the Bible or subtract liberties from the Bible, they come under the condemnation of Jesus who spoke vehemently against the Pharisees, who were “teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Mark 7:1-13). Though “the commandments and doctrines of men… have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, [they] are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh” (Col. 2:22-23). It is my hope that this study book will help Christians to avoid the rocks of legalism on the one hand and the shoals of antinomianism on the other. This book will later show how a cross-centered perspective avoids both extremes.↩

I got the substance of this next paragraph from the Book of Church Order of the Presbyterian Church in America, who in turn got it from their Presbyterian forbearers. Most of the text is theirs, and the proof-texting is mine.↩

“…He who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords” (1 Tim. 6:15); “There is one Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy. Who are you to judge another?” (James 4:12); “one Lord” (Eph. 4:5); “You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve“ (Matt. 4:10); “the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ” (Jude 4); “The statutes, the ordinances, the law, and the commandment which He wrote for you, you shall be careful to observe forever; you shall not fear other gods.” (2 Kings 17:37); “Now this is the commandment, and these are the statutes and judgments which the LORD your God has commanded… be careful to observe it… Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!.” (Deut. 6:1-9)↩

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim. 3:17); “that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6); [In the context of the church discipline of verses 3-11, Paul says,] “For to this end I also wrote, that I might put you to the test, whether you are obedient in all things” (2 Cor. 2:9); “Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant” (2 Cor. 3:6); “…has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue” (2 Pet. 1:3); 1 Cor. 6:1-6; 1 Cor. 3:18-23; “That you may stand perfect and complete in all the will of God” (Col. 4:12); “rejoicing to see your good order and the steadfastness of your faith in Christ…rooted and built up in Him and established in the faith… Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. For … you are complete in Him” (Col. 2:5-10).↩

Jus Divinum was the Latin expression for “divine law” used by the Scottish Reformers to speak of Presbyterianism as being regulated in all it did by the Scripture alone. Christ received “all authority” (Matt. 28:18) and a deposit (paradosis) of truth from the Father (Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:22; John 15:15), which He in turn gave to the apostles (Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:22; 1 Cor. 11:23; John 14:26; 15:15; 16:12-13; 20:21), which they in turn gave to the church in the Scriptures and its doctrine (1 Cor. 11:2, 23; 15:3; 2 Thes. 3:6; 2 Pet 2:21; Jude 3). The church is built on this revelational foundation (Eph. 2:19-22). The Puritan theology can be summed up in the phrase that “The only voice that should be heard in the church is the voice of Jesus speaking through the Scriptures.” As Morton Smith worded it, Presbyterianism “affirms that the ‘regulative principle’ applies to doctrine, government, discipline and worship. Christ as King has given His Word concerning each of these areas to the Church, and nothing is to be added or taken from His Word. The Church should always be most careful as to how it frames its rules and guidelines for each of these areas, that they are in accord with the inspired Word of God at every point” (Commentary on the PCA Book of Church Order, Preface).↩

In connection with judgments to settle conflicts, Moses was instructed, “And you shall teach them the statutes and the laws, and show them the way in which they must walk and the work they must do… And let them judge the people at all times” (Ex. 18:16-22;) “So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty” (James 2:12); “All Scripture… for reproof, for correction” (2 Tim. 3:15-17).↩

“I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth “ (1 Tim. 3:15); “for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?” (1 Tim. 3:5); “But you have carefully followed my doctrine, manner of life, purpose” (2 Tim. 3:10); “we did not consult Him about the proper order. “ (1 Chron. 15:13); “For our boasting is this: the testimony of our conscience that we conducted ourselves in the world in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom but by the grace of God, and more abundantly toward you” (2 Cor. 1:12); “All Scripture … is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:17); “You know, from the first day that I came to Asia, in what manner I always lived among you“ (Acts 20:18); “speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine” (Tit. 2:1); “Let him show by good conduct that his works are done in the meekness of wisdom” (James 3:13); “do not inquire after their gods, saying, ‘How did these nations serve their gods? I also will do likewise’” (Deut. 12:30); “to make ourselves an example of how you should follow us” (2 Thes. 3:9); “for the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God” (James 1:20); 2 Cor. 7:11; etc.↩

“for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:17); “For Christ is the end (telos) of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (Rom. 10:4); “Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith” (1 Tim. 1:5); “But you have carefully followed my doctrine, manner of life, purpose” (2 Tim. 3:10); “you ought rather to forgive and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one be swallowed up with too much sorrow” (2 Cor. 2:7); “Now I rejoice, not that you were made sorry, but that your sorrow led to repentance. For you were made sorry in a godly manner, that you might suffer loss from us in nothing” (2 Cor. 7:9); “For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death” (2 Cor. 7:10); “For observe this very thing, that you sorrowed in a godly manner: What diligence it produced in you, what clearing of yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what vehement desire, what zeal, what vindication! In all things you proved yourselves to be clear in this matter” (2 Cor. 7:11); “for the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God” (James 1:20).↩

Patterned after the Bible’s use of “it is written” or other direction quotations.↩

Patterned after the Bible’s use of deductive reasoning. On the use of deductive logic in the theology and practice of the church, see WCF 1:5; 1:6; 1:9; LC 4,105,113; WCF 1:6 says that such principles “by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.” WCF 1:5 and LC 4 both speak of the “consent of all the parts” of Scripture. All laws of logic are affirmed in Scripture, as for example, the Law of Identity (Ex 3:14, John 6:35, 41; 10:7, 11; 14:6; 15:1), the Law of Non-Contradiction (James 5:12, Matt. 12:33, 1 Cor. 14:33, Heb. 6:18), the Law of Excluded Middle (Matt. 12:30, Mark 9:40), etc. Romans is a masterpiece of logical reasoning, and the thousands of logical arguments (“if… then”; “therefore,” conflations of Scripture, etc.) that are found in Scripture clearly support the Confession’s stance on deductive reasoning in theology and polity. Indeed, the following statements are meaningless if logic is not valid: “Thy Word is truth” (John 17:17); “For all the promises of God in Him are Yes, and in Him Amen, to the glory of God through us.” (2 Cor. 1:20); “He cannot deny Himself” (2 Tim. 2:13); “God, who cannot lie, promised…” (Tit. 1:2); etc.↩

“that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6); “has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue” (2 Pet 1:3); “Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.” (Prov. 30:6); “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their own craftiness”” (1 Cor. 3:19); “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you” (Deut. 4:2).↩

“You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you” (Deut. 4:2); “Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it” (Deut. 12:32).↩

“Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life? If then you have courts concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge? I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers!” (1 Cor. 6:1-6); 1 Cor. 3:18-23; “we conducted ourselves… in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom” (2 Cor. 1:12); “To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” (Is. 8:20); “… that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6); “bound by the law… at liberty” (1 Cor. 7:39).↩

“Let all things be done decently and in order.” (1 Cor. 14:40); “rejoicing to see your good order” (Col. 2:5); “that you should set in order the things that are lacking“ (Tit. 1:5); “our authority, which the Lord gave us for edification and not for your destruction” (2 Cor. 10:8); “let it be for the edification of the church that you seek to excel” (1 Cor. 14:12); “we do all things, beloved, for your edification“ (2 Cor. 12:19); “Therefore I write these things being absent, lest being present I should use sharpness, according to the authority which the Lord has given me for edification and not for destruction “ (2 Cor. 13:10); “For you indeed give thanks well, but the other is not edified.” (1 Cor. 14:17); “Let all things be done for edification.” (1 Cor. 14:26); “Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers” (Eph. 4:29).↩

“You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you” (Deut. 4:2); “Therefore you shall be careful to do as the LORD your God has commanded you; you shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left.” (Deut. 5:32); “So you shall not turn aside from any of the words which I command you this day, to the right or the left, to go after other gods to serve them.” (Deut. 28:14); “Only be strong and very courageous, that you may observe to do according to all the law which Moses My servant commanded you; do not turn from it to the right hand or to the left, that you may prosper wherever you go” (Josh. 1:7); “Therefore be very courageous to keep and to do all that is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, lest you turn aside from it to the right hand or to the left” (Josh. 23:6).↩

Once again, the substance of this summary is taken from the PCA’s Book of Church Order, though the Scriptural proof texts were supplied by me.↩

“Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.” (Rom. 14:4); “But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.” (Rom. 14:10); “But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by a human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. For I know of nothing against myself, yet I am not justified by this; but He who judges me is the Lord. Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the counsels of the hearts. Then each one’s praise will come from God. Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.” (1 Cor. 4:3-6); “Do not speak evil of one another, brethren. He who speaks evil of a brother and judges his brother, speaks evil of the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is one Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy. Who are you to judge another?” (James 4:11-12); “Do not grumble against one another, brethren, lest you be condemned. Behold, the Judge is standing at the door!” (James 5:19); “But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren” (Matt. 23:8).↩

“And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men“ (Matt. 15:9); “For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do” (Mark 7:8); “Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations— ‘Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,’ which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men? These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh” (Col. 2:20-23); “But Peter and John answered and said to them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge” (Acts 4:19); “These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11); “Ephraim is oppressed and broken in judgment, because he willingly walked by human precept” (Hos. 5:11).↩

“For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men…All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition… making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down” (Mark 7:8,9,13); “Why do you transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?… Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition.” (Matt. 15:3,6); “But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29); “But Peter and John answered and said to them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge” (Acts 4:19).↩

WCF 20.2; “You shall not worship the LORD your God in that way… Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it or take away from it” (Deut. 12:31-32); “Not that we have dominion over your faith, but are fellow workers for your joy; for by faith you stand” (2 Cor. 1:24); “And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men“ (Matt. 15:9); “All Scripture is given … that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17); “Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations— ‘Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,’ which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men? These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.” (Col. 2:20-23); “These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11).↩

Throughout this book we use the terms “rights” and “right,” not in an absolute sense, but in the sense that humans have certain God-given (and therefore lawful) expectations that constitute a just claim or title to something, as for example: “her marriage rights” (Ex. 21:10); “He shall have no right (לא־יִמשל) to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her” (Ex. 21:8); “For a full year he shall have the right of redemption (גְּאֻלָּה).” (Lev. 25:29 ESV; cf. 25:33; Ruth 4:6; also מִשְׁפָּט in Jer. 32:7,8); “one kind of legal right (דִּין) or another” (Deut. 17:8 ESV); “the right (מִשְׁפָּט) of the firstborn is his” (Deut. 21:17 ESV); “you have no portion or right (צְדָקָה) or claim in Jerusalem” (Neh. 2:20 ESV); “who acquit the guilty for a bribe, and deprive the innocent of his right (צְדָקָה)!” (Is. 5:23 ESV); “to rob the poor of my people of their right (מִשְׁפָּט)” (Is. 10:2 ESV); “Do we have no right (ἐξουσία) to eat and drink?“ (1 Cor. 9:4); “Do we have no right (ἐξουσία) to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?” (1 Cor. 9:5); “Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right (ἐξουσία) to refrain from working?” (1 Cor. 9:6); etc.↩

“But let each one examine his own work, and then he will have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another“ (Gal. 6:4); “I speak as to wise men; judge for yourselves what I say” (1 Cor. 10:15); “Judge for yourselves” (1 Cor. 11:13 ESV); “Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat… For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged” (1 Cor. 11:28,31); “Let each be fully convinced in his own mind” (Rom. 14:5); “However, there is not in everyone that knowledge” (1 Cor. 8:7); “And by this we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before Him. For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things. Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence toward God” (1 Jn. 3:19-21); “For why is my liberty judged by another man’s conscience?” (1 Cor. 10:29); “These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11); “‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me” (John 6:45); “All your children shall be taught by the LORD, And great shall be the peace of your children” (Is. 54:13); “For You render to each one according to his work” (Ps. 62:12); “So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths” (Col. 2:16)↩

“For why is my liberty judged by another man’s conscience?” (1 Cor. 10:29); “how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” (Heb. 9:14); “For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ” (Gal. 1:10); “And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage), to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you” (Gal. 2:4-5); “Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage” (Gal. 5:1); “To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Is. 8:20); “that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6); “bound by the law… at liberty” (1 Cor. 7:39); “having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth” (1 Tim. 4:2-3); “That You may be justified in Your words, and may overcome when You are judged” (Rom. 3:4); “You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men” (1 Cor. 7:23); “Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand” (Rom. 14:4); “But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ” (Rom. 14:10); “But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by a human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. For I know of nothing against myself, yet I am not justified by this; but He who judges me is the Lord. Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the counsels of the hearts. Then each one’s praise will come from God. Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other” (1 Cor. 4:3-6).↩

The reason this is important to understand is that almost all NCC advocates have assumed a Regulative Principle of Living for the individual – that we must justify everything, including birth control, before we can do it. Even the Amish could not consistently live by a Regulative Principle of Life for individuals. The reason the law is called “the Perfect Law of Liberty” (James 1:25) is precisely because the individual has maximum liberty and it is church and state alone that must justify their every move from Scripture.↩

There is no significance to my arbitrary number of seven. Interestingly, the ancient Jews defined an absolute minimum of being fruitful and multiplying. The Talmudic interpretation of Genesis 1:28 is that every Jewish man should father at least one boy and one girl (See Yebamoth 61b). Just in case the boy and girl die before they can reproduce, Rabbi Yohanan said that it is best to try for more. They were certainly opposed to using birth control before two were born, except in very carefully defined circumstances that required a rabbi’s permission. Those circumstances are discussed elsewhere in this outline. The general consensus was that parents should desire to have large families. To see the context of their discussion on this question, see Babylonian Talmud, Niddah 13b; Yebamoth 62a,b; the Codes L’vush; Tosafoth Baba Batra 60b; Megillah 27a.↩

In chapter 4 I will give detailed exegetical analysis of Leviticus 15, where the law actually mentions sterile emission of semen within a marriage relationship (Lev. 15:16-17) as being no different than normal sexual intercourse (v. 18). Thus we have positive evidence of BLCC practice.↩

See chapter 4.↩

For thousands of years, lactation has been known to prevent ovulation and has been widely practiced as a form of conception control in Africa and the Middle East to space out children. It produces estrogen which suppresses ovulation. Though it is not a “safe” method for many people, science shows that our bodies were designed to normally suppress ovulation when regular breastfeeding occurs. We will deal with this in a later chapter.↩

Contrary to popular opinion, the ancients were very aware of the time when conception was most likely to occur. Even Augustine wrote to the Manicheans, saying, “Is it not you who used to counsel us to observe as much as possible the time when a woman, after her purification, is most likely to conceive, and to abstain from cohabitation at that time…?” Augustine; Philip Schaff (Editor) (1887). A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Volume IV. Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, On the Morals of the Manichaeans, chapter 18. Likewise, the Babylonian Talmud mentions birth control by the Rhythm method – see for example, Niddah, 31b.↩

Obviously Onan was aware of this method (Gen. 38). Vern L. Bullough shows that this was widely used in the ancient near east. See documentation in Encyclopedia of Birth Control. Santa Barbara, CA, pp. 74-75.↩

Cervical caps have been used for thousands of years. The preferred method of birth control mentioned in the Jewish Talmud was inserting a sponge or cotton wad into the vagina so that it covered the cervix (and some say that the sponge was optionally soaked in lemon juice). The lemon juice annihilated the sperm and the sponge acted as a pessary. Ancient Southeastern Asian cultures used the squeezed out peel of a lemon as a cervical cap, where the lemon acted as a barrier and the juice acted as a spermicide. The Ebers Papyrus (1550 BC) gives a recipe of ground dates, acacia tree bark, and honey applied with a fabric pessary. The acacia acted as a spermicide, but the fabric acted as a pessary to block the sperm. The earliest reference to a male condom is the 13^th century BC when Egyptian tribesmen used oiled animal gut. Though dubious in my mind, others cite a painting in the French cave, Grotte des Combarrelles, as evidence of condom use much earlier. See Aine Collier. The Humble Little Condom: A History. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, p. 371. The same book also gives evidence for the use of condoms in ancient Greece and Rome.↩

Punica Granatum (Pomegranate) seeds were ground and eaten to prevent ovulation. These seeds contain an oestrone identical to the genuine hormone estrogen, which suppresses ovulation in the same way that breastfeeding does. Some of the herbs that I list under abortifacients (below) acted almost identically to the Pill. The same controversy exists on whether all of these herbs are abortifacients, or if their primary (and possibly only) function is to suppress ovulation and to thicken the mucus of the vagina to make sperm mobility difficult.↩

Lemon juice is a very effective spermicide used both by pagans in the ancient near east, as well as by Jews – see below. In South Asia and Southeast Asia, Papaya seeds were eaten by males as birth control for males. Science has discovered that these seeds do indeed reduce sperm count in the male to zero, is safe to use, and the sterility is reversible. Once the male stops eating the seeds, the sperm count returns to normal. The Ebers Papyrus (1550 BC) recommended a pessary with a mixture of ground dates, acacia tree bark, and honey, where the acacia acted as a spermicide.↩

Hippocrates made mention of female sterilization, though he did not detail the procedure.↩

Pliny the Elder recorded the abortifacient properties of Silphium. Copper IUDs were used in the Middle East to prevent pregnancies in camels, and so the function of copper was already understood to some degree, though its abortifacient properties may not have been understood. Hippocrates also made mention of a kind of “morning after” potion made from Queen Anne’s Lace: “The seeds, harvested in the fall, are a strong contraceptive if taken orally immediately after coitus.” The seed of that plant blocks progesterone synthesis and disrupts implantation. As quoted in John M. Riddle, 1997. A History of Contraception and Abortion in the West., Cambridge, Ma., Harvard University Press. The ancient Greeks and Romans used Pennyroyal as an abortifacient. Blue Cohosh is another plant that is abortifacient through two substances: one that mimics oxytocin and the other that contracts the uterus. Common Rue, Dong Quai (Chinese Angelica) is yet another abortifacient known to the ancient world. One ancient recipe (also used by American slaves) was to chew the root of the cotton plant. This has substances that interfere with the Corpus Luteum (the hole left in the ovrary when ovulation occurs), thus preventing progesterone. However, this also has risks of being abortifacient. I have not listed the numerous forms of abortifacient used in the ancient world that were highly toxic to the woman.↩

See George Grant’s wonderful book on the successes of opposing abortion in all of its forms: Third Time Around.↩

Many people speak of the condemnations of “wasting seed,” such as that by Rabbi Johanan, who is quoted as saying: “Whoever emits semen nonprocreatively deserves capital punishment” – a very poor paraphrase summary of the whole section. They also quote Rabbi Eliezer in Yebamoth 63b-64a, to the effect that failure to procreate is equivalent to murder. They fail to read those quotes in context, which are condemnations of solo masturbation and not condemnations of sterile sexual intercourse. Furthermore, to fail to read those statements in light of the many statements where the Talmud allows for birth control similar to our BLCC position is not honest scholarship. The Talmudic interpretation of Genesis 1:28 is that every Jewish man should father at least one boy and one girl (See Yebamoth 61b), though preferably trying for many more. Beyond that, the general principle is stated in the Mishna thus: “A man may not desist from the duty of procreation unless he already has children… G’mara: If he has children he may desist from procreation, but not from further marriage” (Talmud, Yebamoth 61b). The Babylonian Talmud records traditions preceding the time of Jesus, and it records the teachings of rabbis who clearly allowed for birth control without any censure. See discussion in John T. Noonan, Jr., Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1966), pp. 10-12. My own reading of the Talmud has found numerous references that allowed for birth control. The most common method was a sponge or a cotton wad inserted into the vagina and covering the cervix. Authorities say that this cotton or sponge was optionally soaked in lemon juice. The lemon has been proven to be a very effective spermicide, and the cotton acted as a pessary, soaking up the sperm and preventing it from entering the womb. The Rhythm method was used: Niddah, 31b. Also, Hosea 1:8 is referenced with the understanding that breastfeeding prevents pregnancy. (We know that when breastfeeding alone is used that it does indeed suppress ovulation through the production of estrogen.) Major discussions were given on whether birth control was allowable in the first months of a marriage, and it was generally thought that it would only be permitted in rare situations such as the life or health of the mother, endangerment of the baby, or where it was unknown if the woman had had intercourse with someone else before the marriage. See Babylonian Talmud, Soncino edition, Kethuboth, Folio 37a for the convoluted reasoning. In Folio 39a it is stated “Three categories of women may use an absorbent [pessary]…to prevent conception,” those being “a minor, and an expectant and nursing mother… is permitted the use of an absorbent.” The reasoning seems to be the safety of mother and baby. See also Babylonian Talmud, Soncino edition, Nedarim 35b; Niddah Folio 45a; Yebamoth 100b. In Yabamoth 12b another general permission is given, “because she might become pregnant and as a result might die” in contrast to unprotected intercourse “when pregnancy involves no fatal consequences.” So any condition that endangered the life of the mother was considered valid. Likewise several of the previously noted locations allow the use of birth control if a baby’s life is in danger (either a nursing baby or a new resulting baby), in which case the parent “takes every possible precaution to avert danger.” Yebamoth Folio 42a. Yebamoth Folio 35a gives a statement by rabbi Jose that might be taken that he did not believe in birth control, but the discussion went on to give several exceptions where a mother would “exercise care” to temporarily prevent conception. An ancient Midrash on Genesis speaks of an herb that prevented ovulation: “In the early time of creation, in the time of Lemech, a medicine was known, the taking of which prevented a woman’s conception.” Genesis, Rabbah 23, p. 56. For an online version, go here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/mhl/mhl05.htm. For a discussion of clinical trials on the effectiveness of lemon juice as a spermicide, see Roger Short, Scott G. McCoombe, Clare Maslin, Eman Naim and Suzanne Crowe (2002), “Lemon and Lime Juice As Potent Natural Microbicides.” Retrieved with iLivid 2006-08-13.↩

“If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the widow of the dead man shall not be married to a stranger outside the family; her husband’s brother shall go in to her, take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. And it shall be that the firstborn son which she bears will succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. But if the man does not want to take his brother’s wife, then let his brother’s wife go up to the gate to the elders, and say, “My husband’s brother refuses to raise up a name to his brother in Israel; he will not perform the duty of my husband’s brother.’ Then the elders of his city shall call him and speak to him. But if he stands firm and says, “I do not want to take her,’ then his brother’s wife shall come to him in the presence of the elders, remove his sandal from his foot, spit in his face, and answer and say, “So shall it be done to the man who will not build up his brother’s house.’ And his name shall be called in Israel, “The house of him who had his sandal removed’ (Deut. 25:5-10).↩

Some people claim that Onan wouldn’t have known the laws we cite as being violated because those laws were not given until the time of Moses. However, it is a faulty hermeneutic to limit the revelation that the saints of Genesis 1-11 had to only the revelation recorded for us in Genesis 1-11. Jude records a prophecy made by Enoch that is nowhere recorded in the Old Testament. Likewise, it is faulty thinking to say that the patriarchs only had the limited information about God and ethics that are recorded in the next few chapters. God says of Abraham, “Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws.” That phrase is a technical phrase used several times to speak of Mosaic Law. Where would Abraham have found those commandments, statutes, and laws? They are not recorded in Genesis. The answer is simple: Hebrews 1:1 makes clear that God spoke to Old Testament saints in many different ways, and that they were not limited to our canon. Indeed, God gave many inspired books to Old Testament saints that were not intended for our canon. Because they were inspired guidance for their generation, they were sufficient for their ethics. These inspired books that are not in our canon include the Book of The Wars of Jehovah (Numb. 21:14), the Book of Jashar (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18), another Book of Samuel on the Kingdom (1 Sam. 10:25), the Book of the Chronicles of David (1 Chron. 27:24), the Book of the Acts of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41), Solomon’s three thousand proverbs and 1005 songs (1 Kings 4:32), the book of Solomon’s Natural History (1 Kings 4:32-33), the Book of Samuel the Seer (1 Chron. 29:29), the Book of Nathan the Prophet (1 Chron. 29:29; 2 Chron. 9:29), the Book of Shemaiah the Prophet (2 Chron. 12:15), the Book of Gad the Seer (1 Chron. 29:29), the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite (2 Chron. 9:29), the Visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chron. 9:29; 12:15), “the annals of the prophet Iddo” (2 Chron. 13:22), a full history of king Uzziah written by Isaiah (2 Chron. 26:22), the Book of Jehu the Son of Hanani (2 Chron. 20:34), and an extrabiblical (but reliable) history of the Kings (1 Kings 14:19,25; 2 Chron. 20:34; 33:18).↩

Note that in this extended passage, a husband is bound by the vows made by his wife (vv. 10-11) unless he annuls them on the day that the vows were made (vv. 3-16). Verse 15 states, “But if he does make them void after he has heard them, then he shall bear her guilt.” Likewise the husband is always bound by his own lawful vows and may never annul them. “If a man makes a vow to the LORD, or swears an oath to bind himself by some agreement, he shall not break his word; he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth” (v. 2). Again, note the facts stated in the previous footnote.↩

“If a man has two wives, one loved and the other unloved, and they have borne him children, both the loved and the unloved, and if the firstborn son is of her who is unloved, then it shall be, on the day he bequeaths his possessions to his sons, that he must not bestow firstborn status on the son of the loved wife in preference to the son of the unloved, the true firstborn. But he shall acknowledge the son of the unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his” (Deut. 21:15-17).↩

Martin Luther, Commentary on Genesis, in Genesis 38:8-10.↩

Charles Provan, The Bible And Birth Control, pp. 13ff.↩

Philo, The Works of Philo, Laws 3:34.↩

Pseudo-Clementine Literature, Book VI, chapter XII – Importance of Chastity. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, eds. The Twelve Patriarchs, Excerpts and Epistles, the Clementia, Apocrypha, Decretals, Memoirs of Edessa and Syriac Documents, Remains of the First Ages. vol. VIII of The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Accordance electronic ed. (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1885), n.p.↩

Clement, “On Marriage,” Book III, chapter 11, Legis Et Christi Mandatum de Non Concupiscendo Exponit. The editors did not translate this chapter, but the translation of the Latin can be found at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-stromata-book3-english.html

The reasoning of Clement is rather strange. He argues his case from the month of waiting before a man could marry a captive, from the mistaken idea that the law prohibited sexual intercourse with a pregnant wife, and from the fact that the tribe of Levi was smaller than other tribes (presumably because they followed the law more strictly). His exegesis of the captive wife is as follows:

You have heard that the law commanded, ‘Though shalt not commit adultery.’ But I say, ‘Thou shalt not lust.’ That the law intended husbands to cohabit with their wives with self-control and only for the purpose of begetting children is evident from the prohibition which forbids the unmarried man from having immediate sexual relations with a captive woman. If the man has conceived a desire for her, he is directed to mourn for thirty days while she is to have her hair cut; if after this the desire has not passed off, then they may proceed to beget children, because the appointed period enables the overwhelming impulse to be tested and to become a rational act of the will.

↩

He believed that it needed to be engaged in without desire as an act of the will – a very common view among church fathers. In this quote he cautions people not to be skeptical that it is possible to emit without such strong passions:

But those of ours who have wives we advise, with all our power, that they dare not to judge of those holy fathers after their own weakness, comparing, as the Apostle says, themselves with themselves; and therefore, not understanding how great strength the soul hath, doing service unto righteousness against lusts, that it acquiesce not in carnal motions of this sort, or suffer them to glide on or advance unto sexual intercourse beyond the necessity of begetting children, so far as the order of nature, so far as the use of custom, so far as the decrees of laws prescribe. (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Benziger Bros./Accordance electronic ed. (Altamonte Springs: OakTree Software, 2004), n.p., section 34.)

↩

Ibid.↩

For the science on this, see World Health Organization, WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination of Human Semen and Sperm-Cervical Mucous Interaction, 3^rd ed. Cambridge, UK: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, 1992. U. Berg, C. Brucker, and F. Dieter Berg. “Effect of Mobile Sperm Count after Swim-up on Outcome of Intrauterine Insemination.” Fertility/Sterility 67 (1997). J. Macleod and R. A Gold, “The Male Factor in Fertility and Infertility: VI, Semen Quality and Certain Other Factors in the Relation to the Ease of Conception.” Fertility/Sterility 4 (1953).↩

Keep mind mind that I am using the term “wasted” in quotation marks. Since God has other purposes for sperm and eggs than fertilization, they obviously are not wasted.↩

John Calvin comments on verse 3:

But Moses further declares, that uncleanness is contracted, not only when the seed is emitted, but when it is retained… Therefore he who was conscious of no sin in the seminal-flux, still must be reminded by this sign of the corruption of his nature; and at the same time be an example to others, that all should diligently take heed to themselves, because corruption cleaves to the whole human race. In the ablution the remedy of the evil was proposed, since the mark of ignominy induced them to repentance. It is expedient that whosoever is infected with any stain should be brought to shame, so as to be displeased with himself; but the acknowledgment of the evil would produce despair, unless the hope of pardon were associated with it. Therefore, those to whom purification was necessary, are always sent to water; and, whenever water is mentioned, the passage in St. John should be brought to mind, that Christ came “by water and blood,” to purge and expiate all uncleanness (1 John 5:6). Besides the water, a sacrifice of turtle doves, or two young pigeons is added; and this has reference to the same thing; viz., that purification for the unclean must be sought for elsewhere, which we have at length obtained by the sacrifice of Christ. (Calvin, J., & Bingham, C. W. (2010). Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony (Vol. 2, pp. 31–33). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.)

↩

100

The Gnostics described sex as abominable. In the Acts of Thomas, Christ, in the likeness of the apostle Thomas, makes this promise to a newlywed couple on their wedding night:

If ye abstain from this foul intercourse, ye become holy temples, pure, being quit of impulses and pains, seen and unseen, and ye will acquire no cares of life or of children, whose end is destruction… Ye shall be without care, leading a tranquil life without grief or anxiety, looking to receive the incorruptible and true marriage, and ye shall be therein groomsmen entering into that bride-chamber which is full of immortality and light.

Accepting “Christ’s” counsel, the bride gratefully says,

[the] mirror of shame is removed from me… I have set at nought this husband and this marriage that passeth away from before mine eyes, … because I am yoked unto a true husband.

Likewise the groom gives thanks to God,

who has rid me of this disease that is hard to be healed and cured and abideth for ever.

All from M. R. James, trans., The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford, 1924, reprint 1966), pp. 369-370.↩

101

Thomas Aquinas spoke forcefully against church fathers who held to this view that sin was unavoidable in marital love. He said,

Some say that whenever pleasure is the chief motive for the marriage act it is a mortal sin; that when it is an indirect motive it is a venial sin; and that when it spurns the pleasure altogether and is displeasing, it is wholly void of venial sin; so that it would be a mortal sin to seek pleasure in this act, a venial sin to take the pleasure when offered, but that perfection requires one to detest it.

↩

102

Summa 2.32.2.1. Only excerpts of Huguccio’s Summa on Gratian’s Decretum have been edited. See J. Roman (ed.) Smma d’Huguccio sur le Décret de Gratueb d’apres le Manuscrit 3891 de law Bibliotheque Nationale. For an introduction, see Kenneth Pennington, DMA, 6:327-328.↩

103

David Hunter says,

Jerome replied to Helvidius’ appeal to Genesis 1:28 by maintaining that the moral standards which applied to people in the Hebrew dispensation were no longer acceptable to Christians. The command to ‘increase and multiply’ was now abrogated by 1 Corinthians 7:9 (‘The time is short; from now on let those who have wives live as though they had none’). The world is already full, Jerome argued; now is the time to reap (not to sow) the population.

Holy Scripture teaches us that pleasure was suggested to Adam and Eve by the crafty enticements of the serpent. If the serpent itself is pleasure, then the passions of pleasure are changeable and slippery, and are infected, as it were, with the poison of corruption (veneno quodam corruptelarum). It is certain, then, that Adam, deceived by the desire of pleasure, fell away from the command of God and from the enjoyment of grace. How, then, can pleasure call us back to paradise, when by itself it deprived us of paradise?

In contrast to the lives of married people, marked as they are by sex and sin, the virginal life provided a return to paradise. The virgin could become like Adam and Eve before their fall and before their shame. (David G. Hunter, Marriage, Celibacy, and Heresy in Ancient Christianity: The Jovinianist Controversy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 167)

As Peter Brown (Body and Society, 361) has observed, in this letter ‘voluptas was made to overlap almost entirely with sexual pleasure.’↩

104

But those of ours who have wives we advise, with all our power, that they dare not to judge of those holy fathers after their own weakness, comparing, as the Apostle says, themselves with themselves; and therefore, not understanding how great strength the soul hath, doing service unto righteousness against lusts, that it acquiesce not in carnal motions of this sort, or suffer them to glide on or advance unto sexual intercourse beyond the necessity of begetting children, so far as the order of nature, so far as the use of custom, so far as the decrees of laws prescribe. (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Benziger Bros./Accordance electronic ed. (Altamonte Springs: OakTree Software, 2004), n.p., section 34.)

↩

105

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Benziger Bros./Accordance electronic ed. (Altamonte Springs: OakTree Software, 2004), n.p. Granted, Aquinas goes on to take away some of the encouragement that he has given by↩

106

He said,

But let us see in what sense “Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled.” Because (he means) it preserves the believer in chastity. Here he also alludes to the Jews, because they accounted the woman after childbirth polluted: and “whosoever comes from the bed,” it is said, “is not clean.” Those things are not polluted which arise from nature O ungrateful and senseless Jew, but those which arise from choice. For if “marriage is honorable” and pure, why forsooth dost thou think that one is even polluted by it? (Philip Schaff, eds. Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of Saint John and the Epistle to the Hebrews. vol. XIV of A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Accordance electronic ed. (New York: Christian Literature Publishing, 1886), n.p.)

↩

107

It is impossible to read Proverbs 5:18-20 without realizing that it is God’s will for husband and wife to have intense pleasure in sexual relations. The focus is not just on making babies – it is on being satisfied, enraptured, and enamored with the woman’s body.

Let your fountain be blessed, And rejoice with the wife of your youth. As a loving deer and a graceful doe, Let her breasts satisfy you at all times; And always be enraptured with her love. For why should you, my son, be enraptured by an immoral woman, And be embraced in the arms of a seductress?

The Song of Songs is filled with references to a man and a woman who are lost in the wonder of sexual bliss. Some sample references:

Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth— For your love is better than wine. A bundle of myrrh is my beloved to me, That lies all night between my breasts. Like an apple tree among the trees of the woods, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down in his shade with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste… I am lovesick. His left hand is under my head, and his right hand embraces me… My beloved put his hand by the latch of the door, and my heart yearned for him. I arose to open for my beloved, and my hands dripped with myrrh, my fingers with liquid myrrh, on the handles of the lock. I opened for my beloved… his head… his locks…his eyes, cheeks… lips… his body… his legs… his mouth is most sweet, yes altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend… The wine goes down smoothly for my beloved, moving gently the lips of sleepers. I am my beloved’s, and his desire is toward me… His left hand is under my head, and his right hand embraces me. Set me as a seal upon your heart, as a seal upon your arm; for love is as strong as death, jealousy as cruel as the grave; its flames are flames of fire, a most vehement flame. Many waters cannot quench love, nor can the floods drown it. If a man would give for love all the wealth of his house, it would be utterly despised. (1:2,13; 2:3,5; 5:4-6; 7:9-10; 8:3,6-7

Or consider these words:

Behold, you are fair, my love! Behold, you are fair! You have dove’s eyes … teeth… lips… mouth… breasts… You have ravished my heart, my sister, my spouse; you have ravished my heart with one look of your eyes, with one link of your necklace. How fair is your love, my sister, my spouse! How much better than wine is your love, and the scent of your perfumes than all spices! Your lips, O my spouse, drip as the honeycomb; honey and milk are under your tongue; and the fragrance of your garments is like the fragrance of Lebanon… Turn your eyes away from me, for they have overcome me. your hair… your teeth… your temples… How beautiful are your feet in sandals, O prince’s daughter! The curves of your thighs are like jewels, the work of the hands of a skillful workman… your navel… your waist… your two breasts… How fair and how pleasant you are, O love, with your delights! This stature of yours is like a palm tree, and your breasts like its clusters. I said, “I will go up to the palm tree, I will take hold of its branches.” Let now your breasts be like clusters of the vine, the fragrance of your breath like apples, and the roof of your mouth like the best wine. The wine goes down smoothly for my beloved, moving gently the lips of sleepers. I am my beloved’s, and his desire is toward me. (4:1-5, 9-11; 6:5-7; 7:1-9

↩

108

For example, “a wicked thought” (Deut. 15:9), a “wicked deed” (Josh. 20:3). “committed a great sin” (Ex. 32:31), etc. In terms of moral uncleanness it is the same: “a man of unclean lips” (Is. 6:5); “But we are all like an unclean thing, And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags” (Is. 64:6).↩

109

Matthew 15:19 says, “For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.” Proverbs 6:15 says, “Perversity is in the heart.”↩

110

The touch cause …unclean result is repeated throughout Leviticus. Consider the following examples in chapter 15: “And whoever touches his bed shall … be unclean until evening… he who touches the body of him who has the discharge shall … be unclean until evening… Whoever touches anything that was under him shall be unclean until evening. He who carries any of those things shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until evening… whomever the one who has the discharge touches, and has not rinsed his hands in water, he shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until evening… If a woman has a discharge, and the discharge from her body is blood, she shall be set apart seven days; and whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening. Whoever touches her bed shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until evening… And whoever touches anything that she sat on shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. If anything is on her bed or on anything on which she sits, when he touches it, he shall be unclean until evening. Whoever touches those things shall be unclean; he shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until evening” (vv. 5,7,10-11,19,21-23,27).↩

111

“the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:7); “how much more shall the blood of Christ… cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” (Heb. 9:14); cf. 2 Cor. 6:17. Thus “unclean spirits” (Matt. 10:1; 12:43; etc.) cannot be saved because Jesus didn’t die for demons.↩

112

“wash his clothes and bathe in water… shall wash his clothes and bathe in water… wash his clothes and bathe in water… wash his clothes and bathe in water… wash his clothes and bathe in water… rinsed his hands in water, he shall wash his clothes and bathe in water… wash all his body in water” (Lev. 15:5-8,10,11,16). In terms of semen, notice the language is the same: “If any man has an emission of semen, then he shall wash all his body in water, and be unclean until evening. And any garment and any leather on which there is semen, it shall be washed with water, and be unclean until evening. Also, when a woman lies with a man, and there is an emission of semen, they shall bathe in water, and be unclean until evening” (15:16-18).↩

113

Lindsey, F. D. (1985). Leviticus. In J. F. Walvoord & R. B. Zuck (Eds.), The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Vol. 1, p. 195). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.↩

114

Even the way the book of Leviticus is structured shows this to be the case. In the Journal of Evangelical Theology, Joe M. Sprinkle notes,

Indeed, the largest body of laws of clean and unclean, Leviticus 11–15, is bracketed (forming an inclusio) first by the account of the death of the two sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, for improperly approaching the sanctuary (Leviticus 10), and second by the Day of Atonement ritual (Leviticus 16) where reference to the death of Aaron’s two sons (v. 1) is part of a warning against arbitrary entrance into the sanctuary (v. 2). That in turn leads to a prescription to conduct an elaborate sacrificial ritual to cleanse the priest first, and then to remove sin and uncleanness from both sanctuary and people (vv. 3–19). (JOE M. SPRINKLE, “THE RATIONALE OF THE LAWS OF CLEAN AND UNCLEAN IN THE OLD TESTAMENT ” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43, no. 4 (Dec 00): 641.)

↩

115

We will deal with the exception of sexual relations during menstruation below when we look at Acts 15.↩

116

Poole, M. (1853). Annotations upon the Holy Bible (Vol. 1, p. 230). New York: Robert Carter and Brothers.↩

117

Levine, B. A. (1989). Leviticus (p. 96). Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society.↩

118

Bruce Waltke explains the difference between the Qal and the Niphal stems in these words:

1a. בָּקַע יָם He (God) split (Qal) the sea. Ps 78:13

1b. יְבַקּע צֻרִים בַּמִּדְבָּר He (God) split up (Piel) rocks in the desert. Ps 78:15

The first of these two utterances represents a situation with God as the agent and the sea as the object of the splitting action. The second utterance represents God as the agent and the rocks as having been caused to be put into the state of being split up

2. וַתִּבָּקַע הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר תַּחְתֵּיהֶם׃ The ground under them split open (Niphal). Num 16:31

The Qal example represents the subject as the agent, implicitly answering the question ‘What is God doing?’ The Niphal by contrast answers the question ‘What happened to the ground?’ It does not represent the subject as the actor or agent. It rather represents the subject as having been acted upon by an unstated agent; the subject is merely participating in the action.

↩

119

See next objection for the exegesis that shows verses 16-17 occurring within the confines of a husband’s and wife’s mutual sexual relationship.↩

120

Commentators point out that there was no sacrifice of doves required, as was the case with some ceremonial uncleanness. All three sexual situations were so common as to require a cleansing that could take place at home without any provision of a priest.↩

121

Masturbation will be defined strictly as any kind of self-satisfaction of the sexual impulse that does not depend upon a partner. Manual satisfaction of a husband by a wife or of a wife by a husband is not condemned in the law of God. Indeed, the Song of Solomon implies the mutual stimulation of each manually: “My beloved put his hand by the latch of the door [stimulation of the clitoris?], and my heart yearned for him. I arose to open for my beloved [she was now ready for intercourse], and my hands dripped with myrrh, my fingers with liquid myrrh [literal myrrh, or figurative of body fluids?], on the handles of the lock. I opened for my beloved, but my beloved had turned away… [Premature ejaculation? Inability to service the woman? Clearly she was ready but ends up sexually frustrated. See remainder of verses.]” (5:4-6a). This passage and other similar passages in Song of Solomon seem to be what is in the background of Leviticus 15:16-17. Such mutual stimulation of each married partner draws couples together in mutual dependence whereas self-satisfaction (true masturbation) shows no dependence upon the spouse and drives partners apart in terms of psychological need. Paul’s instructions about sexuality in 1 Corinthians 7 indicate that one must depend upon one’s spouse for sexual enjoyment or release. But Song of Solomon shows that there are more ways than penetration in which this can be done.↩

122

To help follow the argument, the difficult Hebrew is placed below:

↩

123

For example, Genesis 30:15-16 speaks of Rachel having sexual relations with Jacob, and this word שִׁכְבַת is translated “he lay with” her. Likewise in 2 Samuel 11:11, it is translated “to lie with,” with obvious sexual connotations.↩

124

Thus BDB defines it as “copulation” and TWOT gives as is only definition, “copulation.” Kohlenberger/Mounce Hebrew defines it as “sexual relations, sexual intercourse.” There is no idea of solo-sex in this word. The Concise Dictionary of Classical Hebrew defines it as “lying down of seed, in ref. to sexual intercourse Lv 15:18.” CDCH, s.v. “[שִׁכְבָּה] [שְׁכָבָה],” 459. NIDOTTE defines it as, “discharge of seed, copulation, lying with a woman, sexual intercourse (with a woman or animal).”↩

125

Καὶ ἄνθρωπος, ᾧ ἐὰν ἐξέλθῃ ἐξ αὐτοῦ κοίτη σπέρματος, καὶ λούσεται ὕδατι πᾶν τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀκάθαρτος ἔσται ἕως ἑσπέρας·↩

126

Liddell and Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, s.v. “κοίτη,” n.p. Mounce defines it as “a bed, Luke 11:7; the conjugal bed, Heb 13:4; meton. sexual intercourse, concubitus.” NIDNTT defines it as “bed, marriage bed, intercourse.” Thayer’s defines it as “specifically, the marriage-bed, … cohabitation, whether lawful or unlawful … plural sexual intercourse.” UBS Lexicon defines it as “bed; marital relationship (He 13:4); sperm (κοίτην ἔχω conceive Ro 9:10); sexual impurity (Ro 13:13).” Newman Greek defines it as “bed; marital relationship.”↩

127

See footnote 36 in chapter 4.↩

128

See footnotes 24 and 36 in chapter 3 for the ancient Jewish interpretation Genesis 1:28. The Jewish rabbis wanted people to try for more than two, but they considered Joseph’s two to be a sad but technical fulfillment of the dominion mandate in Genesis 1:28. While there is much on which I disagree with the Talmud, it is simply not true for the NCC people to say that the Jewish concept of being fruitful and multiplying means to never stop. The NCC position is the modern concept.↩

129

Granted, people can abuse any legitimate reason for spacing babies. I have known people who think they have no money for children, yet who seem to have plenty of money for Starbucks, restaurants twice a week, expensive clothes, new cars every three years, etc. On the other hand, I have known people who expect the midwife to deliver their baby for free because they have not been able to save up enough money to pay her. This is a form of theft from the midwife.↩

130

For much more on this point, see the appendix by Peter Allison, “Some Thoughts on the Legitimacy of Conception Control.” It was Peter who got me to use the term “conception control.”↩

131

Note: though this is indeed a part of the curse, it does not necessitate conception control. Even those of us who have spaced babies have found it tiring (yet satisfying) to have large families. Tiredness is not an adequate reason for conception control in and of itself, but it is certainly a part of the curse that needs to be considered.↩

132

See Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament.↩

133

The following quote was brought to my attention by Peter Allison. Dr. Henry Krabbendam correctly notes,

“God begins by addressing the woman, “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your childbirth” (Gen. 3:16). The meaning of this statement appears puzzling to many, including translators of the Bible. This is evident from the NASV and the NIV. Both change the coordinating conjunction “and” into the preposition “in,” “I will . . . multiply your sorrow in your conception.” This supposedly removes the seeming awkwardness of having “sorrow” and “childbirth” as a compound object of “multiply,” and gives the sentence an unambiguous, straightforward and understandable meaning. However, neither the original Hebrew, admitted by the NASV in the margin, nor any rule of grammar, syntax or semantics, when properly applied, supports such a change.”

“On the contrary, it totally obscures a much needed, vitally important, and incisive truth from view. God informs the woman bluntly and in no uncertain terms that sorrow will be part of the warp and woof of her life. It will be her ever-present companion that cannot be dismissed or ignored. The pain of childbirth, subsequently, functions as a persuasive symbol, and a constant reminder, that the sorrow will be pervasive, inescapable and at times seemingly unbearable. This interpretation appears preferable on three counts.

First, it cannot lead to the unacceptable conclusion that a woman without children thereby would escape the judicial effect of sin. Second, it does not allow for the implication that the judicial effect is merely a slap on the wrist in view of the relative infrequency of childbirth in the individual woman. Third, it paves the way for the much more natural explanation of the next sentence, “In sorrow you shall bring forth children,” as not merely a repetition of what has just been said, but as a further elaboration of the reality of the sorrow symbolized in childbirth. While after all each woman experiences the symbol of sorrow as a relatively infrequent occurrence, the substance of sorrow has a prevailing presence!”

“The judicial effect of sorrow, in short, is not a peripheral, intermittent, problem. It has a place in the very center of a woman’s life. It colors the totality of her existence. And it persists throughout her life span.” (Dr. Henry Krabbendam, A Biblical Preparation for Marriage [unpublished, 2003, expanded from an earlier edition])

↩

134

http://www.askdrsears.com/topics/breastfeeding/faqs/breastfeeding-fertility ↩

135

The full text says, “Prepare your outside work, make it fit for yourself in the field; and afterward build your household.”↩

136

As already mentioned in footnote 17, the ancient Jewish understanding of Genesis 1:28 was to have a minimum of one boy and one girl, but preferably to achieve more.↩

137

Paul is not referring to the portion of salvation known as “justification,” but the portion of salvation known as “sanctification.” Salvation begins in eternity past (election), is historically applied by the Spirit throughout our life time (calling, regeneration, conversion, justification, adoption, and sanctification), and will be culminated in eternity (resurrection, glorification, confirmation). Paul is giving one illustration of what is typical of a woman’s sanctification – her calling to raise children.↩

138

For more details, see chapter 3 and chapter 4.↩

139

Aquinas opposed many church fathers who (he claimed) said it was “a venial sin to take the pleasure [of sexual relations] when offered, but that perfection requires one to detest it.” See pages 37 and following for quotes from fathers who believed pleasure must be removed.↩

140

For more detail on this point, see chapter 2.↩

141

See discussion of breastfeeding in chapter 13.↩

142

As noted in footnote 34 of chapter 3, there are many herbs that are abortifacient.↩

143

The impact of some essential oils has been hotly contested by some researchers, but I list the following items as worth evaluating. For some contradictory evidence, see Robert Tisserand and Rodney Young’s book, Essential Oil Safety: A Guide For Health Care Professionals (Churchill Livingstone Elsevier, 2014). Since there is at least some pharmacological evidence that they could contribute to an abortion, the reader should do their own study and come to their own conclusions.

Angelica/Dong Quai, which is a uterine stimulant that can induce contractions and help the uterus to expel its contents.

Black Cohosh – helps the cervix to relax and open.

Blue Cohosh – also a uterine stimulant that can start contractions

Cotton Root Bark – interferes with progesterone and the corpus luteum; stimulates contractions. Chinese and US research connection to abortion. A study in New Mexico shows that it can be effective in starting menstruation.

Evening Primrose (Oenothera hookeri) – claims that it “ripens the cervix” and can assist in the birthing process.

Juniper Oil – This is contested by Tisserand & Young (Essential Oil Safety) in one place, yet in another place they admit that ethanolic extract of juniper berries is clearly abortifacient.

Parsley – often used to bring on a late period; there is controversy on whether it can bring on an abortion. However, some have used it as a cervical pessary (or vaginal suppository) to prepare the cervix for release. Research is lacking.

Pennyroyal – very toxic as an oil, less toxic as a tea; causes the uterine muscles to contract. Often combined with Blue Cohosh or Mugwort as an abortifacient.

Tansy – very toxic, but also a very lengthy history of being used as an abortifacient.

No claims are made by me on the truthfulness of this list – only that there is a long history of connecting these herbs to potential abortion.↩

144

Our family uses herbs and essential oils, and I do not want to be construed in any way as attacking these useful tools. I am simply encouraging pregnant women to use with caution and to engage in due diligence via research before using things that have claims to danger.↩

145

Notice the Scriptures included in the Larger Catechism’s exposition of the sixth commandment below (#135 & 136). They prohibit not just explicit murder, but also anything that tends toward the destruction of life. Especially note the phrases, “avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any… all taking away the life of ourselves, or of others… or… the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life.”↩

146

http://www.aaplog.org/position-and-papers/oral-contraceptive-controversy/hormone-contraceptives-controversies-and-clarifications/↩

147

See Genesis 19:32↩

148

See Numb. 5:28 where some translate it “to conceive with sperm.” See Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament.↩

149

See its use also of humans – “my mother conceived [יָחַם] me” (Ps. 51:7).↩

150

Interestingly, in the Septuagint, the Hebrew word דּוֹר is most frequently rendered γενεά (what is begotten), rarely γένεσις (coming into existence at a specific moment – see BDAG); never γέννημα (that which is born) or γένημα (Hatch and Redpath, Concordance to the Septuagint).↩

151

See Gen. 4:1,17; 16:4,5; 21:2; Job 3:3; etc.↩

152

Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, s.v. “הָרָה,” n.p.↩

153

William L. Lane, Hebrews 9–13, vol. 47B of Word Biblical Commentary. Accordance/Thomas Nelson electronic ed. (Dallas: Word Books, 1991), 354.↩

154

http://www.abortionfacts.com/books/abortion-and-the-christian ↩

155

“A Critical Appraisal of Theological Arguments for Abortion Rights.” Bibliotheca Sacra 148, no. 591 (Jul 91): 338.↩

156

A. J. Wilcox, D.D. Baird, C. R. Weinberg (1999). “Time of implantation of the Conceptus and loss of pregnancy”. New England Journal of Medicine 340 (23): 1796–1799.↩

157

See his 1989 revised edition. Norman Geisler, Ethics: Alternatives and Issues (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971), pp. 218ff.↩

158

For example, Moses said in Exodus 23:26, “There shall be no one miscarrying (שָׁכַל - shakal) or barren in the land” See the same word used in Hos. 9:14.↩

159

Thus Meredith Kline (who like Geisler changed his views on this passage), explains that even on the softer view of punishment, the full personhood of the baby is upheld and thus abortion would be murder. He states,

This law found in Exodus 21:22–25 turns out to be perhaps the most decisive positive evidence in scripture that the fetus is to be regarded as a living person…. No matter whether one interprets the first or second penalty to have reference to a miscarriage, there is no difference in the treatments according to the fetus and the woman. Either way the fetus is regarded as a living person, so that to be criminally responsible for the destruction of the fetus is to forfeit one’s life…. The fetus, at any stage of development, is, in the eyes of this law, a living being, for life (nephesh) is attributed to it…. Consistently in the relevant data of Scripture a continuum of identity is evident between the fetus and the person subsequently born and Exodus 21:22–25 makes it clear that this prenatal human being is to be regarded as a separate and distinct human life.

Meredith G. Kline, “Lex Talionis and the Human Fetus,” The Simon Greenleaf Law Review, 5 (1985–1986), 75, 83, 88–89. This article originally appeared in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (September 1977).

Also see H. Wayne House, “Miscarriage or Premature Birth: Additional Thoughts on Exodus 21:22-25,” Westminster Theological Journal, Vol. 41, No. 1 (Fall 1978), 108–123.↩

160

The full quote is as follows:

The statute commences, And when men strive together, etc., in order to give an example of accidental injury to a pregnant woman, and…the law presents the case realistically. Details follow: and they hurt unintentionally a woman with child—the sense is, that one of the combatants, whichever of them it be (for this reason the verb translated “and they hurt” is in the plural) is responsible—and her children come forth (i.e., there is a miscarriage) on account of the hurt she suffers (irrespective of the nature of the fetus, be it male or female, one or two; hence here, too, there is a generic plural as in the case of the verb “they hurt”), but no mischief happens—that is, the woman and the children do not die—the one who hurt her shall surely be punished by a fine, [BSac 148:591 (Jul 91) p. 346] according as the woman’s husband shall lay—impose—upon him, having regard to the extent of the injuries and the special circumstances of the accident; and he who caused the hurt shall pay the amount of the fine to the woman’s husband with judges, in accordance with the decision of the court that will confirm the husband’s claim and compel the offender to pay compensation, for it is impossible to leave the determination of the amount of the fine to the husband, and, on the other hand, it is not with the husband’s power to compel the assailant to pay if he refuses. 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, etc.: you, O judge (or you, O Israel, through the judge who represents you) shall adopt the principle of “life for life,” etc.

U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1983), p. 275.↩

161

Friedrich W. J. Schroder (1817-1876), Reformed commentator.↩

162

Charles D. Provan, The Bible and Birth Control, p. 55↩

163

Conrad Dannhauer (1603-1666), a Lutheran minister.↩

164

William Dodd (1729-1777), an Anglican minister.↩

165

John Ley, Westminster Annotations (1657), in commentary on Genesis 38:9.↩

166

Theodore F. K. Laetsch (1877-1962), Lutheran minister.↩

167

Johann Peter Lange (1802-1884), a Reformed minister.↩

168

David Paraeus (1548-1586), a Calvinist minister.↩

169

J. Heinrich Richter (1799-1847), Lutheran minister.↩

170

Provan, p. 41.↩

171

Provan, pp. 42-43↩

172

See discussion of temple and ceremonial law in chapter 3.↩

173

Provan, pp. 16-19.↩

174

Provan, p. 18.↩

175

For example, he admits on page 56 that it is possible to get pregnant through sexual relations during the menstrual cycle.↩

176

Provan, The Bible and Birth Control, p. 17.↩

177

Provan, pp. 17-18.↩

178

See page 134-135 for a listing of the six reasons.↩

179

The laws of consanguinity are laws against marrying near-relatives who are blood relations.↩

180

The laws of affinity are laws against marrying near-relatives of a spouse.↩

181

Richard Bauckham, “James and the Gentiles (Acts 15.13-21),” in History, Literature and Society in the Book of Acts (ed. Ben Witherington; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 177.↩

182

Note that verses 20-25 continues with moral sexual perverions such as adultery, but it was the non-moral laws that were in question.↩

183

Geddes MacGregor, Dictionary of Religion and Philosophy 1st ed., (New York: Paragon House, 1989), 189, http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=96898747 ↩

184

The Westminster larger catechism: with scripture proofs. (1996). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.↩

185

https://www.familyplanning.net/sites/default/files/achieving-pregnancy-study_0.pdf ↩

186

“Postponing Pregnancy study Guatemala 2007 – 2010” Presented at International Institute of Restorative Reproductive Medicine in July 2010, showing 99.3% effectiveness. 506 Couples, 3341 cycles. https://www.familyplanning.net/en/recent-studies ↩

187

https://www.familyplanning.net/sites/default/files/Libros/china_study.pdf ↩

188

https://www.familyplanning.net/sites/default/files/achieving-pregnancy-study_0.pdf ↩

189

Mercedes A. Wilson, Natural, Scientific and Highly Effective Treatment For Infertility, paper presented at the conference of the International Institute of Restorative Reproductive Medicine in New Orleans on August 7, 2013.↩

190

Downloadable at https://www.familyplanning.net/sites/default/files/achieving-pregnancy-study_0.pdf ↩

191

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/periodic-abstinence-natural-family-planning-stm-as-effective-as-the-contraceptive-pill/↩

192

http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/rhythm-method/basics/risks/prc-20013489 ↩

193

Here are some:

↩

194

The requirements for effective LAM are:

Breastfeeding must be the baby’s only (or almost only) source of nutrition. Pumping does not qualify, and reduces the effectiveness of LAM.
The infant must breastfeed at four hour (or less) intervals during the day and at least every six hours at night.
This is only recommended for the first six months (though some say that there are many who can go much beyond six months).
Though the mother can bleed postpartum for the first 56 days, if there is a period after 56 days, LAM will not work.

See the booklet offered here for eight variations. http://www.popline.org/node/286313 ↩

195

For example, http://www.popline.org/node/286313 ↩

196

The six month figure seems to be the safest part. Labbock et al say,

LAM is recommended for up to six months postpartum for women who are fully or nearly fully breastfeeding and amenorrheic, and relies on the maintenance of appropriate brastfeeding practices to prolong lactational infertility, with the concomitant delay in menses return. A recent clinical trial confirmed the theoretical 98% or higher effectiveness of the method and field trials are demonstrating its aceptability. Nonetheless, some demographers and family planning organizations continue to debate its value. The development, efficacy, and sequelae of the method are presented using data from several studies by the authors. (“The Lactational Amenorrhea Method (LAM): A postpartum introductory family planning method with policy and program implications,” in Advances in Contraception, June, 1994, volume 10, issue 2, pp. 93-109)

↩

197

Labbock, Cooney, and Coly give a study showing 99.5% effectiveness in the first six months (http://www.popline.org/node/286313). Labbock, Hight-Lockaran, Peterson, Fletcher, Hertzen, and Look produced a study that showed 98%+ success rate. They state, “The 98+ % efficacy of LAM is confirmed in a wide variety of settings. In addition, the results yield insight on the possibility of continued use beyond 6 months. LAM is found to be highly effective as an introductory postpartum method when offered in a variety of cultures, health care settings, socioeconomic strata, and industrial and developing country locales” (“Multicenter study of the Lactational Amenorrhea Method (LAM): I. Efficacy, duration, and implications for clinical application,” in Contraception, volume 55, issue 6, June 1997, pp. 327-336). Kennedy and Visness also produced a 98% protection rate (“Contraceptive efficacy of lactational amenorrhoea,” The Lancet, volume 339, issue 8787, 25 January 1992, Pages 227–230). Veckemans also states a 98% effectiveness rate in “Postpartum contraception: The lactational amenorrhea method,” in The European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care, 1997, Vol. 2, No. 2 , Pages 105-111. Numerous other academic papers and journal entries can be found that show the effectiveness of LAM.↩

198

Trussel J., “Contraceptive Efficacy,” in Contraceptive Technology, 19^th edition. (New York: Ardent Media, 2007); Kost K., et al. “Estimates of contraceptive failure from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth,” Contraception (2008, volume 77, pp. 10-21.↩

199

See footnotes 30, 32, 36 in chapter 3 and footnote 19 in chapter 1 for examples.↩

200

For a discussion of clinical trials on the effectiveness of lemon juice as a spermicide, see Roger Short, Scott G. McCoombe, Clare Maslin, Eman Naim and Suzanne Crowe (2002), “Lemon and Lime Juice As Potent Natural Microbicides.” Retrieved with iLivid 2006-08-13. Also see Nwoha P (1992). “The immobilization of all spermatozoa in vitro by bitter lemon drink and the effect of alkaline pH”. Contraception 46 (6): 537–42.↩

201

A study by Wang, Zhu, and Jiang came to the conclusion, “Sperm exposure during menses is a risk factor for ASA production in female. Although a precisely causal linkage between ASA and infertility in these women cannot be drawn from the present data, the potential disadvantages of sexual activity during menses should still be given importance.” Y. S. Wang, W. J. Zhu, H. Jiang, “Sperm Exposure During Menses is a Risk Factor for Developing Antisperm Antibody (ASA) in Female.” In Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 2013 Nov;288(5):1145-8. doi: 10.1007/s00404-013-2883-z. Epub 2013 May 10. The full article can also be read here: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00404-013-2883-z#page-1 ↩

202

See for example, Gynecology and Obstetrics Investigation 2002; 54(2):64-65 (ISSN 0378-7346). Some scholars believe that Biblical law did not prohibit a man from manually bringing a woman to orgasm during her menses, believing that it was uncovering the “fountain” (מָקוֹר) of her blood flow that was prohibited. In other words, nothing should be inserted to where the fountain is. I have not been able to verify the meaning of this.↩

203

In addition to the Stanford study, the following article gives some rather convincing evidence of these risks: W. B. Cutler, E. Friedman, N. L. McCoy, “Coitus and Menstruation in Perimenopausal Women,” in Journal of Pscyhosomatic Obstetrics and Gynecology (New York: Parthenon Publishing Group, 1996). Here are two sample summary statements:

“A review of our data as well as the literature led us to explore whether perimenopausal women who engaged in coitus during menstruation were more likely to experience heavier or longer duration of menstrual flow. Considering the uterine physiology, altered uterine contractions during menstruation could lead to a more forceful expulsion of menses from the uterine cavity as well as retro-grade menstruation. The increase in the duration of flow may be a reflection of the slow regeneration of the endometrium caused by these contractile forces. Since increased menstrual flow is a recurrent problem in the menopausal transition years, the Stanford Menopausal Study population offered a logical population in which to explore this question.”

“Increases in heavy flow and the increases in uterine contractility could provide an adverse combination leading to retrograde menstruation. This may be an important consideration regarding the etiology of endometriosis and would support the findings of Filer and Wu… The precise mechanisms involved need elucidation. However, the relative hypermenorrhea associated with coitus during menses, as well as the increased incidence of endometriosis¹² point to potential mechanical processes that exacerbate menstrual flow. This could support the philosophy expressed by the Moslem-Judaic Codes that proscribed coitus during menstruation. Data on the flow habits of these groups have not been published.”

Article can also be accessed at http://www.athenainstitute.com/candm.html.↩

204

R. A. Hatcher, “Counseling Couples About Coitus During Menstrual Flow,” in Contraceptive Technology Update, 1981 Dec; 2(12):167.↩

205

See “Causes of Pelvic Inflammatory Disease” (2003), [On-line], URL: http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/p/pelvic_inflammatory_disease/causes.htm. “Pelvic Inflammatory Disease” (2001), Joseph F. Smith Medical Library, [On-line], URL: http://www.chclibrary.org/micromed/00060140.html. “Pelvic Inflammatory Disease” (1998), National Institutes of Health, [On-line], http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/stdpid.htm. “PID” (2004), Health Communities, [On-line], URL: http://www.womenshealthchannel.com/pid/index.shtml.↩

206

http://drtanandpartners.com/sex-during-menstruation-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/↩

207

http://afterjujuman.com/2013/07/24/what-science-tells-us-about-gay-sex/↩

208

American College of Pediatricians: Facts About Youth - http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/male-homosexual-behavior/↩

209

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1894022 ↩

210

The studies I have accessed are: Edith M. Lord, George F. Sensabaugh, and Daniel P. Stites, “Immunosuppressive Activity of Human Seminal Plasma,” The Journal of Immunology, May 1, 1997, vol. 118, no 5, 1704-1711. Keith James and Timothy B. Hargreave, “Immunosuppression by seminal plasma and its possible clinical significance,” Immunology Today, volume 5, issue 12, December 1984, pages 357-363. Jon M. Richards, J. Michael Bedford, and Steven S. Witkin, “Rectal Insemination Modifies Immune Responses in Rabbits,” Science, 27(224): 390-392 (1984). A. J. Quayle, R. W. Kelly, T. B. Hargreave, and K. James, “Immunosuppression by seminal prostaglandins, Clin.exp. Immunol. (1989) 75, 387-391. R. W. Kelly, P. Holland, G. Skibinski, C. Harrison, L. McMillan, T. Hargreave, and K. James, “Extracellular organelles (prostasomes) are immunosuppressive components of human semen,” Clinical and Experimental Immunology: the Journal of Translational Immunology volume 83(3); S. S. Witkin and J. Sonnabend, “Immune Responses to Spermatozoa in Homosexual Men,” Fertility and Sterility, 39(3): 337-342, pp. 340-341 (1983).1991 Dec. R. W. Kelly, “Contraception: Immunosuppressive mechanisms in semen: implications for contraceptions,” Oxford Journal of Human Reproduction, volume 10, issue 7, pp. 1686-1793.

For example, the Journal of the American Medical Association said, “Based on these findings, we suggest that chronic, repeated exposure to sperm during anal intercourse results in a high frequency of allogeneic immunization and may play an important role in the development of acquired immune dysregulation” (G. M. Mavligit, M. Talpaz, F. T. Hsia, W. Wong, B. Lictiger, P. W. Mansell, and D. M. Mumford, “Chronic immune stimulation by sperm alloantigens. Support for the hypothesis that spermatozoa induce immune dysregulation in homosexual males,” in Journal of the American Medical Association, 1984 Jan 13;251(2):237-41 found at http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=390965), Gary F. Clark and Danny J. Schust, “Manifestations of immune tolerance in the human female reproductive tract,” Frontiers of Immunology 2013; 4: 26.↩

211

Natasha Trenev, Probiotics: Nature’s Internal Healers, Your Body’s First Line of Defense Against Most Common Diseases (New York: Penguin Putnam Inc, 1998), p. 69↩

212

http://afterjujuman.com/2013/07/24/what-science-tells-us-about-gay-sex/↩

213

Gary F. Clark and Danny J. Schust, “Manifestations of immune tolerance in the human female reproductive tract,” Frontiers of Immunology 2013; 4: 26. For the full article, go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3570961/↩

214

The whole article by Clark and Schust makes one stand in amazement at God’s incredible design of the human body. Here is an excerpt:

Like other mucosal surfaces (e.g., the gastrointestinal tract, the respiratory tract), the human female reproductive tract acts as an initial barrier to foreign antigens. In this role, the epithelial surface and subepithelial immune cells must balance protection against pathogenic insults against harmful inflammatory reactions and acceptance of particular foreign antigens. Two common examples of these acceptable foreign antigens are the fetal allograft and human semen/sperm. Both are purposely deposited into the female genital tract and appropriate immunologic response to these non-self antigens is essential to the survival of the species. In light of the weight of this task, it is not surprising that multiple, redundant and overlapping mechanisms are involved. For instance, cells at the immunologic interface between self (female reproductive tract epithelium) and non-self (placental trophoblast cells or human sperm) express glycosylation patterns that mimic those on many metastatic cancer cells and successful pathogens. The cytokine/chemokine milieu at this interface is altered through endocrine and immunologic mechanisms to favor tolerance of non-self. The “foreign” cells themselves also play an integral role in their own immunologic acceptance, since sperm and placental trophoblast cells are unusual and unique in their antigen presenting molecule expression patterns. Here, we will discuss these and other mechanisms that allow the human female reproductive tract to perform this delicate and indispensible balancing act. (Gary F. Clark and Danny J. Schust, “Manifestations of immune tolerance in the human female reproductive tract,” Frontiers of Immunology 2013; 4: 26. For the full article, go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3570961/)

↩

215

American College of Pediatricians: Facts About Youth - http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/male-homosexual-behavior/↩

216

Jon M. Richards, J. Michael Bedford, and Steven S. Witkin, “Rectal Insemination Modifies Immune Responses in Rabbits,” Science, 27(224): 390-392 (1984)↩

217

S. S. Witkin and J. Sonnabend, “Immune Responses to Spermatozoa in Homosexual Men,” Fertility and Sterility, 39(3): 337-342, pp. 340-341 (1983).↩

218

See footnote 26 in chapter 13.↩

219

David K Gardner, Ariel Weissman, Colin M. Howles, Zeev Shoham, Textbook of Assisted Reproductive Techniques: Laboratory and Clinical, (Boca Raton, FL: CTC Press, 2012), p. 69↩

220

Tobiasz Szajerka and Jerzy Jablecki, Kaposi’s Sarcoma Revisted, a pdf published by Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland. Full pdf available here: http://aidsreviews.com/resumen.asp?id=981&indice=200794&u=unp ↩

221

David K Gardner, Ariel Weissman, Colin M. Howles, Zeev Shoham, Textbook of Assisted Reproductive Techniques: Laboratory and Clinical, (Boca Raton, FL: CTC Press, 2012), pp. 69-70. See Manikandan R, Srirangam SJ, Pearson E, Collins GN, BJU Int. 2004 Mar; 93(4):571-4: “Early and late morbidity after vasectomy: a comparison of chronic scrotal pain at 1 and 10 years.”↩

222

Anthony R. Ellis, M.D., and Joseph E. Scherger, MD., M.P.H., “Post-Vasectomy Pain Syndrome: Common But Hidden,” at http://www.vasectomy-information.com/post-vasectomy-pain-syndrome-scientific-review/ See also https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4854072/↩

223

See Christiansen C.G., Sandlow J.I. (2003) “Testicular pain following vasectomy: a review of postvasectomy pain syndrome.” in J Androl 24: 293–297. McMahon A.J., Buckley J., Taylor A., Lloyd S.N., Deane R.F., Kirk D. (1993) “Chronic testicular pain following vasectomy,” in BR J Urol 69: 188–191 See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3126083/↩

224

Ancora 375 Ag. Silver core. Lasts five years
Ancora 375 Cu. Similar, but no silver. Lasts three to five years
Novaplus T 380 Ag. Silver core. Lasts five years
Novaplus T.380 Cu. Identical except no silver. Lasts five years
Flexi-T 300. T shaped. Lasts five years
Flexi-T 380. Similar to the one above, but for slightly larger wombs. Lasts five years
GyneFix. Different from the rest, because it isn’t T-shaped and just consists of six copper tubes on a polypropylene thread. Lasts five years
Load 375. U-shaped. Lasts five years
Multiload Cu 375. Lasts five years
Nova-T 380. Copper and silver. Lasts five years
T-Safe 380A QL. Yet another T shape. Manufacturers say it lasts 10 years
TT380 Slimline. Currently intended to last 10 years
Mini TT380 Slimline. For smaller wombs. Lasts five years
UT 380 Short. For the shorter womb. Lasts five years
UT 380 Standard. For the larger womb. Lasts five years
Multi-Safe 375. Lasts five years
Neo-Safe T380. Lasts five years

↩

225

A study published by the Department of Radiology at the Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical center found that this is a “frequently encountered complication.” DrugWatch says, “When the IUD migrates, it can perforate the uterus and enter the abdominal cavity, pelvis, bladder, or blood vessels. It can cause pain, infection, and damage to intestines and other nearby organs. This is a serious condition and requires surgery to correct. In some cases, emergency surgery is necessary to prevent further damage” (http://www.drugwatch.com/mirena/).↩

226

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Pelvic+inflamatory+disease ↩

227

http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/mirena/basics/risks/prc-20012867. See also http://www.rxlist.com/mirena-side-effects-drug-center.htm ↩

228

Ansari, et. Al, Journal of Medical Case Reports, 2009, 3:7007↩

229

For example:

↩

230

The full warning letter can be read here: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/EnforcementActivitiesbyFDA/WarningLettersandNoticeofViolationLetterstoPharmaceuticalCompanies/UCM197229.pdf ↩

231

http://www.mirena-us.com/about-mirena/how-mirena-works.php ↩

232

See footnote 47 in chapter 13.↩

233

http://www.mirena-us.com/safety-considerations/↩

234

See footnote 47 in chapter 13.↩

235

http://www.mirena-us.com/safety-considerations/↩

236

http://www.mirena-us.com/about-mirena/how-mirena-works.php ↩

237

See footnote 47 in chapter 13.↩

238

There have been many studies on this issue, but one could start here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4716393/↩

239

Bahamondes L, Hidalgo M, Petta CA, Diaz J, Espejo-Arce X, Monteiro-Dantas C. (2003), “Enlarged ovarian follicles in users of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system and contraceptive implant”, Journal of Reproductive Medicine, 48 (8), pp. 637–640. For electronic version, see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12971147 ↩

240

http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/unintendedpregnancy/usmec.htm ↩

241

http://www.rxlist.com/skyla-side-effects-drug-center.htm ↩

242

For a discussion of various types of “birth control” pills, see http://www.webmd.com/women/guide/comparing-birth-control-pill-types-combination-mini-pills-more ↩

243

Hagan C, Froland A. Depressed lymphocyte response to PHA in women taking oral contraceptives. Lancet 1972; 1: 1185; Barnes EW, Maccuish AC, Landon NB, Jordan J, Irvine WJ. Phytohaemagglutinin-induced lymphocyte transformation and circulating autoantibodies in women taking oral contraceptives. Lancet 1974; 1: 898–900. ↩

244

http://www.nature.com/icb/journal/v76/n6/full/icb199865a.html ↩

245

See Science Daily (October 30, 2006), “Oral Contraceptives Increase Risk of Breast Cancer in Some Women, Meta Analysis Finds.” Even those arguing that the risks are worth it, admit that the evidence indicates an increase in cancer. See for example, Nelson HD, Zakher B, Cantor A, et al. Risk factors for breast cancer for women aged 40 to 49 years: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 156(9):635-48, 2012; Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. Breast cancer and hormonal contraceptives: collaborative reanalysis of individual data on 53,297 women with breast cancer and 100,239 women without breast cancer from 54 epidemiological studies. Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. Lancet. 347:1713-27, 1996; Hankinson SE, Colditz GA, Manson JE, et al. A prospective study of oral contraceptive use and risk of breast cancer. Cancer Causes Control. 8:65-72, 1997; Gierisch JM, Coeytaux RR, Urrutia RP, et al. Oral contraceptive use and risk of breast, cervical, colorectal, and endometrial cancers: a systematic review. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 22(11):1931-43, 2013.↩

246

See for example the discussion at http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/cancers-in-general/cancer-questions/the-contraceptive-pill-and-cancer-risk ↩

247

http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/hormones/oral-contraceptives-fact-sheet ↩

248

STOPP International, “New Study: The Pill Doubles Risk of Brain Cancer” (American Life League, 2015), http://www.stopp.org/article.php?id=14582 ↩

249

Science Daily article (October 26, 2009) titled, “Increased Stroke Risk from Birth Control Pills, Review Finds,” points out that “birth control pills increase the risk (of stroke) 1.9 times.”↩

250

http://www.polycarp.org/how_does_the_pill_work.htm ↩

251

Craig H. Kinsley and Elizabeth A. Meyer, “Women’s Brains on Steroids,” in Scientific American, September 28, 2010. These two professors drew on findings by Brain Research.↩

252

WebMD “Comparing Birth Control,” accessed April 17, 2015 at http://www.webmd.com/women/guide/comparing-birth-control-pill-types-combination-mini-pills-more. WebMD, “Birth Control Pills,” accessed April 17, 2015 at http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/birth-control-pills.↩

253

254

http://www.drugs.com/sfx/benzalkonium-chloride-topical-side-effects.html ↩

255

See “Drug Information: Noxoxynol-9 cream, film, foam, gel, jelly, suppository,” Medical University of South Carolina. March 2006. http://www.muschealth.com/cds/CPDrugInfo.details.aspx?cpnum=1477&language=english ↩

256

Some studies have suggested that there is a 24% failure rate with diaphragms, but the study handed out “one size fits all” (60mm) rather than being fitted by a physician. “Nonspermicide fit-free diaphragm trial reported”. Network 5 (3): 7. 1984 - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12279800. The following two studies have conflicting results (thus, my unwillingness to allow science to dictate ethics). Ferreira A, Araújo M, Regina C, Diniz S, Faúndes A; Araújo; Regina; Diniz; Faúndes (1993). “Effectiveness of the diaphragm, used continuously, without spermicide”. Contraception 48 (1): 29–35 at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8403903; Bounds W, Guillebaud J, Dominik R, Dalberth B; Guillebaud; Dominik; Dalberth (1995). “The diaphragm with and without spermicide. A randomized, comparative efficacy trial”. J Reprod Med 40 (11): 764–74 at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8592310 Thus the current wisdom is that they are not effective without spermicide - Cook L, Nanda K, Grimes D; Nanda; Grimes (2001). Lopez, Laureen M, ed. “Diaphragm versus diaphragm with spermicides for contraception”. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2): CD002031 at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11406025 ↩

257

S. Fihn, R. Latham, P. Roberts, K. Running, W. Stamm (1985). “Association between diaphragm use and urinary tract infection”. JAMA 254 (2): 240–5. C. Heaton, M. Smith; (1989). “The diaphragm”. American Family Physician 39 (5): 231–6.↩

258

Richard Allen (January 2004). “Diaphragm Fitting”. American Family Physician (American Academy of Family Physicians) 69 (1): 97–100.↩

259

http://femcap.com/faq/#sthash.3v9TdnRZ.dpuf ↩

260

https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/004002.htm ↩

261

Though science alone cannot prove something to be sin, I consider the evidence to be strong enough that I am convinced that the Pill is abortifacient. To be fair, let me share evidence presented by prolife people who claim that it is not:

Association of Prolife Physicians, “Do Oral Contraceptives Cause Abortions,” http://www.prolifephysicians.org/abortifacient.htm (accessed 11/6/09); Susan A. Crockett, Joseph L. DeCook, Donna Harrison, and Camilla Hersh

“Using Hormone Contraceptives Is a Decision Involving Science, Scripture, and Conscience,” in The Reproduction Revolution: A Christian Appraisal of Sexuality, Reproductive Technologies, and the Family, 192–201; Susan A. Crockett, Joseph L DeCook, Donna Harrison, and Camilla Hersh

“Hormone Contraceptives: Controversies and Clarifications,” http://www.aaplog.org/PositionsAndPapers/OralContraceptiveControversy.aspx?fileID=3 (accessed 11/10/09)

Cutrer and Glahn, The Contraception Guidebook, 101–11

Michael Frields, “Birth Control: A Biblical Perspective,” http://www.faithandreasonforum.com/index.asp?PageID=34&ArticleID=417 (accessed 11/06/09)

Grace Community Church pastors and elders, “Planned Parenthood? Birth Control, In Vitro Fertilization, and Surrogacy,” in Right Thinking in a World Gone Wrong (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2009), 87–96

Dennis M. Sullivan, “The Oral Contraceptive as Abortifacient: An Analysis of the Evidence,” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith vol. 58, no. 3 (September 2006): 189–95. Based on their research, The Association of Pro-Life Physicians has concluded that the “‘hormonal contraception is abortifacient’ theory is not established scientific fact. It is speculation, and the discussion presented here suggests it is error.”

“Do Oral Contraceptives Cause Abortions?,” http://www.prolifephysicians.org/abortifacient.htm (accessed 11/2/09); Crockett, Susan; DeCook, Joseph; Harrison, Donna; Hersh, Camilla.

“Hormone Contraceptives: Controversies and Clarifications.” Fennville, MI: ProLife Obstetricians, April 1999.↩

262

For an excellent treatment of “the pill” and its abortifacient function, see Randy Alcorn, Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions? (Sandy, OR: Eternal Perspective Ministries, 2011). For a summary of the findings in the book, see http://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Feb/17/short-condensation-does-birth-control-pill-cause-a/ For numerous other articles on this subject see http://www.lifeandlibertyministries.com/archives/000356.php Also see, Larimore and Alcorn, “Using the Birth Control Pill Is Ethically Unacceptable,” in The Reproduction Revolution: A Christian Appraisal of Sexuality, Reproductive Technologies, and the Family, 180–82.↩

263

Westminster Larger Catechism 135.↩

264

http://www.aaplog.org/position-and-papers/oral-contraceptive-controversy/↩

265

http://www.positivepharmacy.org/index.php/contraception/2-uncategorised/25-do-contraceptive-pills-cause-abortion ↩

266

http://www.polycarp.org/how_does_the_pill_work.htm ↩

267

There are hundreds of scholarly articles (both Christian and non-Christian) that take this position, but here is a non-technical paper that argues this point from the medical literature: http://www.polycarp.org/how_does_the_pill_work.htm ↩

268

He says, “Thus the possible abortion rate induced by BCP’s is 18,946,200 x .06 = 1,136,772 or 18,946,200 x .1 = 1,894,620 per year. We are convinced that the reasoning with regard to the math on this issue is sound.” For the doctors who signed this letter, see http://www.aaplog.org/position-and-papers/oral-contraceptive-controversy/birth-control-pill-abortifacient-and-contraceptive/↩

269

http://www.aaplog.org/position-and-papers/oral-contraceptive-controversy/hormone-contraceptives-controversies-and-clarifications/↩

270

Their footnote references Zanartu, J.: “Long term contraceptive effect of injectable progestogens: Inhibition and reestablishment of fertility,” International Journal of Fertility Oct-Dec 1968 Vol 13 No 4 pp. 415-426.↩

271

For footnote references he cites, see http://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Feb/16/longer-condensation-does-birth-control-pill-cause-/↩

272

Many causes of a thin endometrium have been cited in studies including, 1) Low oestrogen.
2) Inadequate blood flow from a tilted uterus, fibroids, polyps, and even a sedentary lifestyle.
3) A D&C often removes the functional basal layer of endemetirum called basalis, in which case the new endometrial lining cannot grow and the endometerium stays thin. This is called Asherman Syndrome and is very difficult to treat. 4) Excessive use of Clomid (an ovulation stimulant) that can cut off oestrogen supply, which in turn leads to thinning of the lining.
5) Birth control pills. Numerous studies have shown that the pill thins the lining of the uterus, thus making implantation difficult. Here is a sample study on rats: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20084388/ Randy Alcorn gives a very brief introduction to this subject here: https://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Feb/17/short-condensation-does-birth-control-pill-cause-a/ ↩

273

I looked at the labels for the following drugs. Ortho Evra states that “alterations include changes in… the endometrium (which reduce the likelihood of implantation).” Paragard lists “prevention of implantation” as a backup mechanism. OrthoTriCyclen Lo (combination oral contraceptive) states, “alterations include changes in… the endometrium (which reduce the likelihood of implantation).” Depo-Prevera states under “mechanism of action” that it “results in endometrial thinning. These actions produce its contraceptive effect.” Implanon states under its mechanism of action that it results in “alterations in the endometrium.” Ortho Micronor, the progestin only pill (the minipill) states the same “mode of action” as including “altering the endometrium.”↩

274

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229552991_Effect_of_Long-Term_Combined_Oral_Contraceptive_Pill_Use_on_Endometrial_Thickness ↩

275

For the footnotes in this quote, see the full paper at http://www.polycarp.org/how_does_the_pill_work.htm ↩

276

http://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Apr/20/progestin-only-pill-form-birth-control/↩

277

For example, the Christian Medical and Dental Association says,

Because this issue cannot be resolved with our current understanding, CMDA calls upon researchers to further investigate the mechanisms of action of hormonal birth control. Additionally, because the possibility of abortive effects cannot be ruled out, prescribers of hormonal birth control should consider informing patients of this potential factor. (http://cmda.org/resources/publication/possible-post-conceptional-effects-of-hormonal-birth-control)

Likewise, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists has studied the issue and stated,

Thus we find ourselves in a situation where speculation, deduction, and educated guessing must be employed. There are times when our knowledge of the truth is incomplete, and we must peer through the fog to make, and act upon, judgments about the information available to us. In these settings, individuals wholeheartedly committed to the truth can come to different conclusions (http://www.aaplog.org/position-and-papers/oral-contraceptive-controversy/)

↩

278

For an interesting discussion, see http://www.polycarp.org/larimore_stanford.htm. Also http://www.epm.org/resources/2004/Oct/01/growing-debate-about-abortifacient-effect-birth-co/. Original research papers on this subject: Cavanagh AC. Identification of early pregnancy factor as chaperonin 10: implications for understanding its role. Rev Reprod 1996;1:28-32; Cavanagh AC. An update on the identity of early pregnancy factor and its role in early pregnancy. J Assist Reprod Genet 1997;14:492-495; Bose R. An update on the identity of early pregnancy factor and its role in early pregnancy. J Assist Reprod Genet 1997;14:497-499.↩

279

{#chapter-13-footnote-95} A. C. Cavanagh, “Identification of Early Pregnancy Factor as Chaperonin 10: Implications for Understanding Its Role,” in Reviews of Reproduction 1, no. 1(1996):28-32↩

280

Cavanagh, “Identification of Early Pregnancy…”↩

281

The full paper can be purchased here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0897.1982.tb00093.x/pdf See also the paper by Halle Morton, “Early Pregnancy Factor (EPF): a Link between Fertilization and Immunomodulation, Aust. J. Biol. Sci.,, 1984, 37, pp. 393-407, available here: http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=BI9840393.pdf ↩

282

See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25698840. The same paper is available for free here: http://www.pcuc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Linacre-Quarterly-for-Feb-2015-electronic-version-Dec-5-2014.pdf. The authors state that the newest research studies “support the hypothesis that preovulatory administration of LNG-EC has significant potential to work via abortion.”↩

283

See the Journal of the Society for Reproduction and Fertility - http://ror.reproduction-online.org Each issue of the journal can be searched here: http://www.reproduction-online.org/content/by/year Also see Cavanagh’s research at the Journal of Reproductive Immunology - http://www.jrijournal.org. Also, check for updates at the various Wikipedia sites. You can start with this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GroES. See also http://www.pfli.org.↩

284

See https://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Feb/17/short-condensation-does-birth-control-pill-cause-a/ This is a condensation of Rand Alcorn, “Does The Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions?” (Sandy, OR: Eternal Perspective Ministries, 2011) available for $3 at https://store.epm.org/does-the-birth-control-pill-cause-abortions/ or at Amazon.↩

285

http://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(06)04732-7/pdf ↩

286

See discussion of Larger Catechism 135 & 136 in chapter 12.↩

287

http://www.aaplog.org/position-and-papers/oral-contraceptive-controversy/hormone-contraceptives-controversies-and-clarifications/↩

288

http://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Feb/16/longer-condensation-does-birth-control-pill-cause-/↩

289

http://www.livescience.com/21866-iud-gynecologists-birth-control-myths.html ↩

290

http://www.contracept.org/iud-paragard.php ↩

291

http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/mirena/basics/definition/prc-20012867 ↩

292

http://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-163305-1518/skyla-intrauterine/levonorgestrel-releasing3yearsystem-intrauterine/details ↩

293Some change this to helpmate, but that is not quite what this word means. It means a helper that is meet in the sense of suitable for him. John the Baptist told the Pharisees to bring forth fruits meet for repentance, meaning fruits that were fit or suited for repentance.↩

294The new heavens and the new earth are described in Revelation 22:3 as having no more curse: “And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him.”↩

295Theodore Laetsch, Arguments Against Birth Control, quoted in Charles D. Provan, The Bible and Birth Control (Monongahela, PA: Zimmer Books, 1989).↩

296See for example The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, Second and Revised Edition, 1920. Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province.

This active force which is in the semen, and which is derived from the soul of the generator, is, as it were, a certain movement of this soul itself: nor is it the soul or a part of the soul, save virtually; thus the form of a bed is not in the saw or the axe, but a certain movement towards that form. Consequently there is no need for this active force to have an actual organ; but it is based on the (vital) spirit in the semen which is frothy, as is attested by its whiteness. In which spirit, moreover, there is a certain heat derived from the power of the heavenly bodies, by virtue of which the inferior bodies also act towards the production of the species as stated above (115, 3, ad 2). And since in this (vital) spirit the power of the soul is concurrent with the power of a heavenly body, it has been said that “man and the sun generate man.” Moreover, elemental heat is employed instrumentally by the soul’s power, as also by the nutritive power, as stated (De Anima ii, 4).
— Question 118, Art. 1, Reply to Objection 3.

In perfect animals, generated by coition, the active force is in the semen of the male, as the Philosopher says (De Gener. Animal. ii, 3); but the foetal matter is provided by the female. In this matter, the vegetative soul exists from the very beginning, not as to the second act, but as to the first act, as the sensitive soul is in one who sleeps. But as soon as it begins to attract nourishment, then it already operates in act. This matter therefore is transmuted by the power which is in the semen of the male, until it is actually informed by the sensitive soul; not as though the force itself which was in the semen becomes the sensitive soul; for thus, indeed, the generator and generated would be identical; moreover, this would be more like nourishment and growth than generation, as the Philosopher says. And after the sensitive soul, by the power of the active principle in the semen, has been produced in one of the principal parts of the thing generated, then it is that the sensitive soul of the offspring begins to work towards the perfection of its own body, by nourishment and growth. As to the active power which was in the semen, it ceases to exist, when the semen is dissolved and the (vital) spirit thereof vanishes. Nor is there anything unreasonable in this, because this force is not the principal but the instrumental agent; and the movement of an instrument ceases when once the effect has been produced.
— Question 118, Art. 1, Reply to Objection 4.

↩

297New English Translation, Note 47 on Genesis 3:16, http://bible.org/netbible/. Accessed May 8, 2017.↩

298Ibid.↩

299Dr. Henry Krabbendam, A Biblical Pattern of Preparation for Marriage, 1974.↩

300Krabbendam, 2003. Unpublished text.↩

301Leupold, Herbert Carl, Exposition of Genesis, Vol 1, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1950,) 171. (“conception will be multiplied”)↩

302John MacArthur, The Curse on the Woman, Part 1, June 11, 2000, https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/90-243/the-curse-on-the-woman-part-1. Accessed May 8, 2017.↩

303Children murdering their parents is a great tragedy that happens with some regularity. Kathleen M. Heide claims 2% of murders in the US are patricide or matricide (Kathleen M. Heide, Understanding Parricide: When Sons and Daughters Kill Parents (Oxford University Press: New York, 2013), 5).↩