Saved In Childbearing

Saved in Childbearing

(Part I).

Our website and mission is aiming to bring families of the Faith together; however, our articles are not always child appropriate, given that Biblical sexuality is discussed in this article, we suggest parents keep this fact in mind and perhaps consider reading this article as a couple apart from the kiddos, but this shall be left to the discretion of the parents.

All of the distinctives of our community are controversial in their own right, as the distinctives of our community are altogether viewed as the remedy to the errors which Christendom indulged leading to its own destruction; however, of all of the distinctives, none can be more offensive to those in the developed world than the one discussed in this brief article.

The reason this is the case, is because we are challenging a sacred cow in the developed world, the role of a woman and her body. Indeed, nothing is more antithetical and opposed to the Faith we defend than the mantra “my body, my choice,” not because of that slogan’s relation to abortion, but more fundamentally, because it is the opposite of what Christianity teaches regarding the body of a woman. Feminism has taught that female bodily autonomy implies that they are to control their own sexual decisions as they so see fit, sleeping with whom they will and denying whom they will, choosing whether they can or will be pregnant, and if becoming pregnant, choosing whether to have the child, or kill it. That’s a lot of choosing (and carnal men have been entirely supportive of it), but Christianity has never taught an emphasis on our choosing, but rather that we have been chosen and called to a divinely appointed purpose (Eph 1:4).

Sadly, many Christian women ONLY oppose the slogan “my body my choice” because they view an already conceived child as having its own body and deserving of life, and though this is absolutely true and is basic biblical teaching, the reality is that these “Christian” women only take exception to that slogan for that reason and that reason alone. Rather, the slogan is wrong in its entirety, as God has made the woman and her body for a specific Kingdom purpose and it is not her own. Indeed, no Christian can claim themselves, for we are not our own as we were bought with a price:

“Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God's.” (1 Corinthians 6:19-20)

To understand the body of a woman, we must understand why woman was made both body and soul. It is a fact of true religion that the woman is equal to the man in spiritual worth and dignity being made, like man also, in the Image of Almighty God:

“So God created man in his ownimage, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” (Genesis 1:27)

God in the beginning made man first and then he made woman for the man because his loneliness was not good and because he needed a mate suitable to him; hence, it was in God’s plan to make man first and show forth his need for a helper, an assistant, a woman.

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. (Genesis 1:27)

And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. (Genesis 2:20-25)

Make no mistake, woman was made for man, man was not made for the woman. Woman was made from man; man was not made from the woman. Patriarchy is the created order, and no other order of the sexes is of God but can only be of the Devil.

“For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.” (1Corinthians 11:7-8)

Not only this, but the woman was tempted and fell first (Genesis 3:1-6, 1Timothy 2:14) and though it is true that through Adam’s sin was death and sin reckoned to all mankind (Romans 5:12-15 ), the woman’s first transgression was not without due punishment, for though she was made under her husband she will always suffer the temptation to desire his authority and constantly buck it, the battle of the sexes exists because the woman was cursed to seek it (Genesis 3:16).

So what is the woman to do then with her body? She, like her male counterpart, is not to engage in fornication and idolatry and all sorts of wickedness, debauchery, or the corruptions of it with poisonous drugs and foods, but rather to cherish and nourish it as the Temple of the Holy Spirit (1Corinthians 6:12-20); however, unique to her sex, is that she is desired by the dominant sex often to his own detriment and destruction. This is a fact of the fallen world and of human nature. Hence, women are commanded by God to dress modesty and unadorned (1Timothy 2:8-12), they are to cover their heads in the worship of God and in all things act in submission to their husbands (1Corinthians 11:1-16, Ephesians 5:21-33, 1Peter 3:1-7) and they do this so that God might be exalted and their husband preserved from all sin both of lust and emasculation lending toward effeminacy[1].

Your body is not your own.

Men often have various callings, some men make great black smiths, others carpenters, fisherman, and famers, and they fulfill this role in pursuit of being good husbands and fathers in providing for their offspring, but women, all women, have but one absolute vocation to which all their

other duties are subordinate, and that is motherhood and wifedom (1Timothy 2:15, Titus 2:4-5, Proverbs 31:10-31).

The necessity and importance of this role comes from the Biblical fact, as maintained by all orthodox Christians until 1930)[2], that the practice of preventing pregnancy is contrary both to the Law and the Gospel. It is contrary to God’s law for the sin of Onan was nothing more than willfully preventing offspring that would otherwise be born; indeed the Hebrew is quite clear; that he murdered his offspring on the ground and this was the occasion for why God killed him, for translators with an axe to grind have butchered the original language, and the text actually reads as so:[3]

“ And Onan knew that the offspring should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he destroyed his offspring on the ground, lest that he should give the offspring to his brother. ” (Genesis 38:9)[4]

Whether Reformational or Ancient, this is the universal belief; take these examples from John Calvin (Reformed/Presbyterian), Martin Luther (Lutheran), St. Augustine(Ancient Latin), and St. John Chrysostom(Ancient Byzantine)[5]on the issue of pregnancy prevention in the context of this text:

“In truth, all men know that they who are under the power of this disease [covetousness] are wearied even of their father’s old age; and that which is sweet and universally desirable, the having children, they esteem grievous and unwelcome. Many at least with this view have even paid money to be childless, and have mutilated nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live” (St. John Chrysostom)

“…Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen might fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring. This impiety is especially condemned, now by the Spirit through Moses’ mouth, that Onan , as it were, by a violent abortion, no less cruelly than filthily cast upon the ground the offspring of his brother, torn from the maternal womb. Besides, in this way he tried, as far as he was able, to wipe out a part of the human race. If any woman ejects a fetus from her womb by drugs, it is reckoned a crime incapable of expiation and deservedly onan incurred upon himself the same kind of punishment…” (John Calvin)

“And why has Paul said: “if he cannot control himself, let him marry? ” Surely, to prevent incontinence from constraining him to adultery. If, then, he practices continence, neither let him marry nor beget children. However, if he does not control himself, let him marry enter into lawful wedlock, so that he may not beget children in disgrace or avoid having offspring by a more degraded form of intercourse. There are some lawfully wedded couples who resort to this last, for intercourse, even with one’s lawfully wedded spouse, can take place in an unlawful and shameful manner, wherever the conception of children is avoided. Onan, the son of Judah, did this very thing, and the Lord slew him on that account. Therefore, the procreation of children is itself the primary, natural, legitimate purpose of marriage. When it follows that those who marry because of their inability to remain continent ought not to so temper their vice that they preclude the good of marriage, which is the procreation of children.” (St. Augustine)

“Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is the most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes into her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive….Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him. (Martin Luther)

That Scripture regards wicked sexual immorality of an intentionally anti-procreative kind as a capital crime is likewise seen explicitly under the Law, for not only is abortion a capital crime, but among all of the sexual acts worthy of death (homosexuality, bestiality, etc) you also see child sacrifice listed among them as if it were a sexual crime (Leviticus 18:20-23)[6].

As was said already, no orthodox Christian denomination accepted the practice of contraception, but it was not simply for the reason that the Law of God prohibits it, but also because the Scripture teaches that to prevent Children is also contrary to the Gospel. Indeed, in Malachi, the Prophet argues that this was the REASON which God actually put His Holy Spirit into the marital union, for the growing God’s people with a Godly offspring:

“Did He not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth. ” (Malachi 2:15)

Many Christians already know, that children are blessing from God not to be willfully denied;

“Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one's youth. Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate.” (Psalm 127:3-5).

”You shall eat the fruit of the labor of your hands; you shall be blessed, and it shall be well with you. Your wife will be like a fruitful vine within your house; your children will be like olive shoots around your table. Behold, thus shall the man be blessed who fears the LORD.” (Psalm 128:2-4)

But the New Testament also confirms the connections with a woman bearing offspring for the Kingdom with her salvation.

“Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.”

(1 Timothy 2:15)

St. Paul is not claiming that a woman is justified by her action here apart from actual faith in the Gospel, but he is teaching that these good works are definitive of her working out her own salvation with fear and trembling according to her calling (Philippians 2:12).

Indeed, one of the only times that lying or deception is permitted, is in order to protect the producing of children when such was illegal. Indeed, even though having children became illegal under the Pharoah (which he instituted because their blessed fruitfulness put him in fear), the midwives that lied to him to protect the birthing of children were blessed with children themselves as well (Exodus 1:15-21)!

Holy Mary, Mother of God, sets forth the example of this Godliness, for she is not the patron of virgins only, but of all mothers, for in spite of the stigma that would come by those who did not know or believe in the miracle of the incarnate Son of God in her womb, she nonetheless by faith trusted God and preserved the child within her in spite of great lack which led her to the manger and great danger which caused them all in the holy family to flee to Egypt. So too Christian women should, in service to God, desire to bring forth a Godly offspring in the church that will advance God’s kingdom. Holy Mary is the archetype and pattern of all women (Luke 1:46-55), thus our women should seek above all to model her example in bringing forth “little Christs” to be raised in the faith and to grow our number, for in marriage wherein the relationship of Christ and the church is exemplified, the bearing of children is a type of evangelism wherein the church is grown by those who are raised in the fear and admonition of the Lord (Ephesians 6:1-4, Proverbs 22:6).

Fighting The Devil (Part II).

Some might say here; “well this sounds like the errors in medieval times, where women were viewed as evil temptresses good for nothing but childbearing, to be locked up with chastity belts the rest of the time!”

It is true that there was a pernicious platonic asceticism in the history of the church which even persists to this day in the Ancient church traditions, and the devil used these abuses as fodder to bring forth the wicked reaction of the Feminist response. Note the very anti-women and anti-pleasure tones in the early church father Tertullian (who is nonetheless brilliant in many other areas):

“woman is the gate to hell, and her gaping genitals the yawning mouth of hell.” (Tertullian)

Indeed, the error of the “my body my choice” over-reaction in feminism not only opposed the producing of children as the central role of the Christian wife, but it also focused the idea of sexual pleasure in a way as to direct it towards fornication and for use as social-leverage, for free-sex instead of sex-for-marriage, altered the social contract of the sexes in order liberate women from being homemakers, for if men could get sex without marriage, then women could pursue careers instead of getting married. Likewise, within marriage, women influenced by this thinking were taught to use “sex” in order to get their husbands to do things for them, like a sort of extortion. A man who does not behave as his liberated wife thinks he ought to behave can be entirely cut off from sex, because, after all, its her body, her choice. Ironically, religious Christians statistically have better sex lives than unbelievers because religious Christians understand that such attitudes are opposed to Scripture[7].

So then, do Christians have a problem with sexual behaviors in marriage for the purposes of pleasure as an ends and not merely a means? Absolutely NOT, for the Scriptures do not denounce or condemn sexual pleasure for either the husband or the wife, nor does the Scripture limit sexual expression to procreation only, so long as procreation is not prevented in any one act.

We do not argue that sexual activity for pleasure is to be ipso facto prohibited, and we deny that non-penetrative acts[8] are to be condemned, for we believe that Holy Scripture teaches and encourages such activity (Song of Solomon 2:3, 4:16); however, the main point in Scripture is not about what we can and cannot do, it is that each partner is satisfied, and especially the husband who is burdened with a far more dangerous (as being prone to temptation) sex drive.

On this, Solomon the Wise, the wisest men to have ever lived among the entire human race (1 Kings 3:12); states quite clearly that having one’s own wife for sexual satisfaction is essential and necessary in preventing the dangers of adultery;

“Drink water from your own cistern, flowing water from your own well. Should your springs be scattered abroad, streams of water in the streets? Let them be for yourself alone, and not for strangers with you. Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth, a lovely deer, a graceful doe. Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight; be intoxicated always in her love. Why should you be intoxicated, my son, with a forbidden woman and embrace the bosom of an adulteress?” (Proverbs 5:15-20).

Indeed, this phraseology, “to be intoxicated always with her love”, is repeated again in the Songs of Songs (Songs 5:1); hence, there is no season, whether during pregnancy, after menopause, or holidays, wherein a wife should view her own body and sexuality as unavailable for her husband’s aid. The imagery of the Songs of Solomon is not carnal, it is not debauched, and though sexual behavior and anatomy is discussed and referred to, such is done poetically and pointedly to make clear the point, that the woman was made to help save the man from sin.

Some might say then; “well it seems to me that pursuing sex in marriage for pleasure, and not just childbearing, and engaging in practices like oral sex, is dirty and impious.”

Well, besides the fact that the Song of Solomon was given as Divine advice for the blessings of sexual pleasure and joy and that such a book can both describe acts like oral sex in one sense, but also the relationship of Christ and His Church in another sense, without the former defiling the beauty of the latter, we might also ask; “can you and do you pray before sex and about sex to God Almighty?” Why can’t you do such a thing? In asking this question, consider for a moment that perhaps the problem is not so much with what Scripture teaches, but with the failure of your own heart to say boldly with the Apostle;

“Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.” (Hebrew 13:4)

Some might say then; “Well then, is the woman but an object used for the man’s carnal desires? Does she not have needs as well in many cases?”

Indeed, the protagonist in Song of Songs is a woman, NOT a man; it is her desire and satisfaction which is the focus of the entire narrative, much more than the man[9]. Indeed, St. Paul makes clear in 1 Corinthians 7, that due to the danger of unclean sexual behavior, that every woman should have her own husband and every man his own wife (1Cor 7:2). Besides the fact that such words echo the concerns of King Solomon, such also makes clear that neither the body of husband or wife is their own, but belongs to the other spouse.

“…… to avoid fornication, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise, the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.

Do not deprive one another, except by mutual agreement, and that for a season, so that you may devote yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, lest Satan tempt you because of your lack of self-control.” (1 Corinthians 7:2-5)

But some might object here and say, “let's get real right? What man doesn’t willingly give his body if his wife would want it?”

Perhaps there are some, but the point is well taken and is true, but why should this be a problem? Do you not love your men? Do you not want them to be kept pure from sin and shameless hussies of all stripes? From pornography and lust? If you are a Christian the answer is and should be “Of Course!” but you might say again; “well shouldn’t he just learn some self-control?”

But this is not GOD’s solution. God’s solution is for spouses to not deny each other sexual pleasure under any circumstance except those times which Scripture forbids; namely, (1) menstruation (Leviticus 20:18, 18:19), and (2) a period of weeks after childbirth (40 days for a boy and 80 days for a girl--Leviticus 12:1-5) and that is, of course, only for penetrative acts and says nothing of other means (such as fellatio). Indeed, sex is not even to be abstained from during fasts unless both partners agree to do so (1 Corinthians 7:5).

Beyond this, the bottom line remains the same for both sexes which is true of the Christian life in general, your body is not your own, you belong to your spouse and you are to love your neighbor as yourself and who is a closer neighbor to your than your own husband? (Matthew 7:12, 22:37-39 ).

Wives are to love and submit to their own husbands (Titus 2:4-5, Ephesians 5:21-33), and such loving and submitting especially includes sexual love and submission. This is not to say that a husband should not use common sense when his wife is ill, or that couples should not mutually agree to fast if possible (for they should learn such suffering at those appointed times), but the feminist ideal of “my body my choice” which invariable leads to the belief “that I can put my husband in the doghouse” is the source of all sorts of evil and marital strife, and such has absolutely NO PLACE in a Christian community. There is no doghouse in Christian marriages and our bodies are not our own. St. Paul says that such pleasurable activity in marriage is not to be abstained from long because of the threat and temptations of the Devil (1Cor 7:5), and so let our speech on this be this, “my body is my husbands, for it his armor that he might fight the devil and win.” Wives are saved in childbearing, and they are the armor of their husband’s purity, let them take pride in this and rejoice in their cherished and essential role.

-Joshua Johnson

Footnotes

[1]The practice of head coverings in the public worship was a universal practice until 20th century and is based in St. Paul’s theological and natural reasoning and not in cultural arguments. It is a matter of historic fact that the practice only disappeared through a vigorous campaign by the Feminist organization known as the National Organization for Women (NOW); in traditional ancient churches head coverings are still worn and as also among the Anabaptists, and the testimony in favor of the practice can be seen extensively by both the Protestant Reformers and the Church Fathers (East and West). Our dress code for the community, being a monastic-style community, requires women to wear a head scarf or bandana at all times as we worship so frequently and pray corporately so frequently, that it would be impractical to do otherwise, though Scripture only REQUIRES one to do so during the actual corporate worship.

[2]The Lambeth Conference of the Anglican Church in 1930 marked the first time Christians, either ancient or reformational, accepted the practice of pregnancy prevention (contraception for Christian marriages). Prior to this time, no Christians accepted the practice of any orthodox denomination.

[3]The Hebrew word often translated “spill” actually means “destroy” in an ethically violent and intentional sense, it can also mean spoil, bring to ruin, decay, etc., “spillage” only as a secondary meaning in this as in “to spill blood” etc, but not in the sense of merely dropping liquid as English versions often render it. Likewise, the word seed here is the same word for offspring. See Botterwick’s Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament as well as Strong’s Concordance.

[4]Some foolish persons have attempted to say that Onan’s sin was in the fact that he did not raise offspring for his brother according to the levirate custom; however, the levirate custom was not instituted into law until the time of Moses and even then the punishment for its violation was not death. Thus, Onan was not punished for violating a proto-levirate custom for such according to God’s unchanging holiness is not a capital offense, but murder is.

[5]Many many more examples could be given of every denomination and era, and indeed even the official annotations of the Bible commissioned by the Westminster Divines to accompany the Westminster Confession of Faith, likewise comments on this text that onanism was the same as contraception and that such was a type of murder.

[6]Leviticus 18:1-30 lists sexual crimes and immoralities, but listed among them, is child sacrifices and such is sandwiched between adultery and bestiality. Why? Because God views all willfully anti-procreative sexual acts as a form of murder (hence why such are capital crimes) for to willfully prevent a life that could otherwise exist, is the same as destroying a person before they could be born, not unlike the plot of the Terminator (1984). Thus, homosexuality is worthy of death because it’s an anti-human and anti-life (murderous) activity.

[7]Studies on this have been done several times, sometimes decades apart, and the results are always the same. The ultra-religious or devout Christians of the United States have always been shown to have greater sexual satisfaction then their secular counterparts, not to mention more children. Both of these conclusions reinforce what we know by faith: that the Christian way according to Scripture is superior to the ways of the world.

[8]Oral sex, etc.

[9] Cunnilingus is actually referred to or mentioned at least twice as much if not three times as much as fellatio in the inspired poem.