Issued: 6/3/23

PLEASE NOTE:  Because Bible versions sometimes differ from each other in crucial ways, the version quoted here will be the one that best clarifies the point being made.  For a quick comparison between versions, please go to: http://www.biblehub.com.

   All bracketed material may be authorial comments, attempts at proper syntax, or minimal rewordings of Scripture for the sake of clarity and continuity.  These emendations will not be italicized.

   The “/” will be used to signify “and/or.”  The symbol “↔” is used to connect verses corroborating each other and so establishing doctrinal truths (Matthew 18:16↔2Corinthians 13:1).

   In differentiating between Yahweh of hosts [later Jesus] and Yahweh the Most High God, lower case letters have been used when discussing the former; upper case letters are reserved for the One and Most High God.  Since Jesus was at pains to differentiate himself from God the Father, we have followed his lead here.

   The term neo-Christians will be used to differentiate between false Christians and Jesus’ true followers.

   We have seen that the dual purpose of sex in the Old Testament was a) to populate the world (Genesis 10:5,32), and b) to establish Jesus’ mortal and spiritual genealogies.  In the spirit of Genesis 1:28, two ‘family’ trees for Jesus were thus outlined:  Matthew 1:1-17 according to the flesh, and Luke 3:23-38 according to faith.  It is of importance that Luke mentions Nathan, David’s son, as the nexus with Abraham (Luke 3:31-32), the father of faith and repository of God’s promise to raise him innumerable progeny (Genesis 15:5-6; Galatians 3:7; Hebrews 6:13-14).¹ Matthew, on the other hand, traces Jesus back to Adam through the apostate Solomon (Matthew 1:6; 1Kings 11), so that genealogy here is in terms of DNA—so to speak—rather than faith.  In both cases though, Joseph—Jesus’ supposed ‘father’— is traced back to Judah (Matthew 1:2,16; Luke 3:23,33), the shadow link between Jesus’ tribe (Hebrews 7:14) and its substance counterpart in Scripture:  Christendom/the Church.

   We have also seen that sexual intercourse is only allowed within the context of marriage:  To everyone, man or woman, who cannot control lustful desires, “let them marry. For it’s better to marry than to burn with passion” (1Corinthians 7:2,9↔Matthew 19:9-12; 1Thessalonians 4:4-7).  Out-of-wedlock sex is frowned upon; and sex after divorce with another partner while the original still lives amounts to adultery (Matthew 14:14; Luke 16:18).² Multiple sex partners is a marker for evil; and it is not without meaning that Genesis 6:2,5, the human condition prior to mankind’s destruction during the Flood, foreshadows the current state of affairs prior to end-times (Revelation 9:20-21).  No one can argue that modern promiscuity has become—for lots of men and women—a badge of pride rather than shame.

   Sexual norms operant in the Old Testament were upgraded in the New, so that intercourse became either a matter of ‘concession’ [i.e., a crutch (Matthew 19:11; 1Corinthians 7:5-6)] for those lacking self-control, or a spiritual means to raise spiritual progeny for Jesus—Paul alluded to the latter in Galatians 4:19 and Philemon 1:12.³  Come Jesus the world was populated enough—would continue to be and still is—so that there was no longer a need to breed mortal offspring, since the priority shifted from raising blood relatives to saving unrelated souls the world over.

Bi-Sexuality and Homosexuality

   The case against either practice is pretty straight-forward:   “Women exchanged the natural function [heterosexuality] for that which is unnatural [lesbianism], and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another [homosexuality], men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.  And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind” (Romans 1:26-28).  Two points of interest:  1) the ‘giving them over’ refers to God remanding willful transgressors over to Satan (Lamentations 3:64-66; Ephesians 2:2), so that they neither see the error of their ways nor realize its detrimental consequences to themselves; and 2) Paul’s arguments from the perspective of New Testament sexual norms.  What do we mean by this?  That since there is no gender differentiation in Christ (Galatians 3:28), what applies/is forbidden to men also applies/is forbidden to women.

   Not so in the Old Testament, where every criticism/prohibition is from the male point of view.  Since Woman was taken from Man and both identified by the Man’s gender (Genesis 2:23), God viewed them as one entity rather than as distinct individuals, so that His proxy Creator [Yahweh of hosts, the name-giver↔Genesis 2:19; Isaiah 65:15; John 1:42; Revelation 2:17, 3:12], called them Adam (Genesis 5:2).  A pattern was thus established to convey divine teachings/prohibitions through men, never through women, the reason why major and minor prophets, Apostles, Paul and his preaching-aides [Barnaby, Titus, Timothy, Philemon] were all male.

   Women are instructed to submit to men, just as the Church must obey her male ‘head of household,’ Jesus (1Corinthians 14:33-35; Ephesians 5:21-24; 1Peter 3:5-6).  Satan worked around this system and tempted Eve, whereupon she prevailed on Adam to disobey God.  If we wish to be technical about it, Eve’s subjugation to Adam (Genesis 3:16) should have been the other way around:  Adam should have been subjugated to Eve’s will; for applying Peter’s metric, “a person is a slave to whatever conquers him” (2Peter 2:19), Adam, who had the choice to refuse Eve and keep faith with God, chose to follow her lead.  By doing that, Adam became enslaved to Satan through Eve—the precedent Paul relied on to preempt further victories on Satan’s part by deploying female entities (1Timothy 2:13-14).

   But why did this not happen?  Because Adam, the one made in God’s image—meaning Yahweh of hosts’ (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16)—prefigured Jesus (Romans 5:12); and there had to be a gender correspondence between wrong-doer [Adam] and wrong-corrector [Jesus]:  As the first Adam disobeyed God (Genesis 3:11↔Isaiah 43:17), Jesus, the last Adam (1Corinthians 15:45), was obedient unto death (Philippians 2:8); and as Adam let sin into the world by bowing down to Eve, Jesus nullified it by keeping his ‘wife,’ the Church (Romans 5:12-19; Ephesians 5:23-24,29-30), obedient and submissive to God’s will.  This is in keeping with Scripture’s methodology regarding shadow and substance:  Reliance on male symbols as signposts leading to God, whereas female symbols denote detours leading to possible damnation (Proverbs 2:16-19, 7:10-27, 30:20; Ecclesiastes 7:26; Jeremiah 5:7, 44:15-27; Revelation 17:5-6, 18:2,7-8).

   Which brings to Leviticus 20:13:  “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them”; pretty straightforward and corroborated by Revelation 21:8:  “But for the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their part is in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”  Once again, Old Testament teaching from the male point of view [Leviticus] but equally applicable to women; for at least in historical records, lesbianism dates back to ancient Greece, which is not to say it had not been practiced earlier.  And while the Bible does not call lesbianism an abomination, it is sexually immoral in that it constitutes sex practiced out of the Biblical norm—i.e., marriage between a man and a woman; so that Revelation 21:8 includes them.

   Homosexuality, in contrast and within the Bible proper, dates back to Sodom and Gomorrah.  Practicing homosexual ‘Christians’—an oxymoron if there was ever one—have played semantic games with the word “know” as it occurs in Genesis 19:5:  “Where are the men who have come to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.”  A brief examination of assorted translations in that handy on-line resource, biblehub.com, will show readers how the suggestive “know them” has been rendered as ‘having sex with them’—another lamentable example of men putting their two bits into Scripture that should be inviolable and left as is (Ecclesiastes 3:14).  “To know” in the Bible implies sexual intercourse, as for example, in Matthew 1:25:  Joseph “did not know [Mary] until she had given birth to her firstborn son [whom she named] Jesus.”  Not only are we told that Mary and Joseph had not ‘done it’ prior to Mary’s pregnancy (Luke 1:34) and Jesus’ birth (Matthew 1:18); but Matthew 1:25 is telling us that Jesus was the eldest—firstborn—of Mary’s subsequent children (Luke 8:20; John 7:5; Galatians 1:19↔Mark 6:3, 15:40?); and that because she and Joseph eventually ‘did it,’ she was not the perpetual virgin posited by Catholic dogma.  [Remember Isaiah 8:20].

   Going back to Genesis 19:1-10, the lustful posse, “every man in Sodom, young and old, came and stood outside [Lot’s] house” (Genesis 19:4), had not gone there to socialize with the angels but for the specific purpose of raping them:  Note Lot calling their designs “wicked” [hardly characteristic of hospitality], and of offering his virgin daughters—whom the men of Sodom obviously knew socially—to do with them as they wished (Genesis 19:5-8).  Be it said in passing that though virgins, Lot’s daughters appear to have been “burning with passion,” ⁴ since they resorted to incest after no men were left “to come into us in the way [sexual intercourse] of all the earth” (Genesis 19:31).  They rationalized the act as an attempt to preserve the paternal family line, though instead of consulting with Lot, they plied him with wine to the point of stupor—not once, but twice (Genesis 19:32-35).

   The companion Scripture to Genesis 19:1-10 is Judges 19:22-26, wherein the men of Gibeah surrounded the house of the old man who was hosting an itinerant Levite and demanded of him to “bring out [his guest in order that we may] know him.”  As in Genesis the Gibeah men are characterized as “wicked,” not as a welcoming committee; like Lot the old host begged the lustful pack “not to do this vile thing”; and offered his virgin daughter plus the Levite’s concubine to the men to “use them and do with them as you wish.”  Mercifully, Yahweh spared the virgin’s ordeal; but the Levite’s concubine, who had been previously unfaithful to him and had left him (Judges 19:2) was raped within an inch of her life.  She only had strength to crawl back to the old man’s door; whereupon the Levite found her, put her on his donkey, and later cut her into twelve pieces (Judges 19:25-29).  No comment.

   In these two instances we see that homosexual tendencies—since the act was never consummated—or the desire to consort with males [wishing is as reprehensible as doing↔Matthew 5:28] are viewed as wicked and vile.  Leviticus calls carrying the act through “abominable,” so that the obvious question is, why so?  While there are no Biblical precedents to support the following analysis, let us resort to conjecture based on spiritual ‘sense’ (1Corinthians 2:14).

   Like all creators, God wants His work to be respected as is.  If He had wanted the human skin to sport tattoos, He would have conceived Adam as a walking billboard; yet we know that He is against marking the human body in any way (Leviticus 19:28).  If Yves would have been a more ideal companion to Adam, He would not have created Eve:   Man needed Woman to procreate the species; and two men could not manage that.  Furthermore, human sex was the means to procreate within the context of marriage; so any type of out-of-wedlock sex, homosexuality included, failed to cut the mustard.  Sexual intercourse is a concession given men to hold Satan at bay; the command is to procreate—at least in the present order of things, because following Jesus’ second coming, with the population [bodily and spiritually] of the Heavenly City in the bag, sex will become extinct (Matthew 22:30; Mark 12:25).⁵

   So when God was contemplating Creation before calling Jesus into being (Genesis 1:3↔John 1:9-11, 8:12; Colossians 1:15; Revelation 3:14), He had the choice to create sexless creatures of every shape and quantity that would worship Him unconditionally.  This He would not do because it is important to Him, as should be to any of us with a modicum of self-respect, that He be loved for attributes that warrant and deserve that love (Jeremiah 9:24).  People in power want to be obeyed unconditionally, and while they could not care less for their subjects, they want the latter to worship them.  This is typical of Satan and his minions, but not of God and His hosts:  The meaning of life, the whole purpose of going through the hell that is worldly existence, is for us to appreciate the value of what God gives us rather than taking it for granted; and not only to be grateful for it, but to realize the loving spirit in which it is given so that we should repay it in kind.

  Those are the perspectives that Adam and Eve lacked:  Their Eden had been handed them; they had done nothing to earn it, therefore failed to value it; yet the one thing God demanded of them was the one they denied Him (Genesis 2:16-17).  It is not that a technical mistake was made in creating Eve, for without her Adam would not have sinned; but that as Jesus would teach centuries later, God had to be prioritized above all things for His love and generosity—exactly what we expect from our loved ones.  Let us not forget that God is Deity and as such we have no inkling as to what makes Him ‘tick’; but what He has planned for those who love Him—to marvel them (1Corinthians 2:9), comfort them (Revelation 21:4), interact with them (Revelation 21:3,7) and satisfy their hearts’ content (Jeremiah 29:11), are all ‘human’ feelings we can relate to.

   Precisely because we suffer alienated from Him, we learn to understand how much better it is to subsume ourselves into Him (Ecclesiastes 7:14).  If He is the quintessence of Perfection, what business do we have separated from Him?  Is Satan and his global realm of death (Isaiah 14:16-17,20; John 14:30; 2Corinthians 4:4; Hebrews 2:14) better than God’s Kingdom?  Is Satan, who will drag his followers into the lake of fire which is Armageddon (Revelation 20:8-10), worthier of greater loyalty than the God who wants us to live eternally?  The answer is a resounding ‘no’; but it is an answer that must be branded into our brains through suffering rather than merely talked about.  God’s ‘discipline’ [i.e., scourges (Deuteronomy 8:5; Proverbs 3:11-12; Hebrews 12:6; Revelation 3:19], “cleanses the innermost being” (Proverbs 20:30); perfects the faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Jeremiah 29:12-13↔Deuteronomy 4:29-30; Zechariah 13:9; Hebrews 11:6; 1Peter 1:6-7); and establishes spiritual legitimacy (Hebrews 12:8).  Let us be honest, folks:  Nobody learns what pain means unless getting burned; which is the reason why God is all for harsh discipline to correct wayward behaviors (Proverbs 13:24; Hebrews 12:5-7).

   Homosexual sex is not conducive to any of these objectives:  It is practice solely to gratify carnal lusts.  As Solomon comments in Ecclesiastes 7:29, “God made humankind [potentially present in Adam’s loins, a concept introduced in Hebrews 7:10] upright, but they have sought many evil schemes,” one of which is perverted forms of sex; and ‘perverted’ in the sense that it contravenes God’s conception of it as an instrument for procreation.  It is an act designed to conceive life, whereas sex for sex’s sake, unquestionably enjoyable as it may be, results in wasted seed—i.e., non-life.⁶

   Two other acts related to gender ‘perversions’ are transvestism and transsexualism, which are mentioned in passing as ‘abomination’ and ‘grounds for damnation,’ respectively; but rather than discuss them in the absence of interrelated Scriptures, are cited here chapter and verse:  “A woman shall not wear men’s clothing, neither shall a man put on women’s clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination [remember Revelation 21:8] to Yahweh your God” (Deuteronomy 22:5); and Deuteronomy 23:1-2:  “No one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted into [Yahweh’s] assembly.”  People may question their gender orientation, but God has no doubts about it:  Male and female created He them (Genesis 5:2); and since they were conceived good and upright (Genesis 1:31; Ecclesiastes 7:29), whatever perversions men/women have pursued were of their own devising.  Having made those choices, God disowned them pending repentance and atonement (Psalms 81:12; Jeremiah 46:28; Romans 1:24-18).

Advice

   In the spirit of 1Corinthians 2:15, you readers make your own inner judgments, refraining from holier-than-thou posturing or casting damnation upon such transgressors.  Consider their lot and “show mercy with fear, hating even the clothes stained by their sinful lives” (Jude 1:23).

The Consequences of Forbidden Sex

  The forms of sex discussed above, indeed any sexual practice outside the norm of marriage, may result in dire consequences.  In 1Corinthians 7:5 Paul brings Satan into the picture:  Paul is telling us that unbridled passions provide Satan with the means to lead us astray.  Paul’s solution is to ‘to do it’ and get it over with to regain spiritual control; but the ‘doing it’ does not entail the sexual repertoire/acrobatics/enhancers/paraphernalia/scenarios which ‘spice up’ sex.  “For it is God’s will that you be sanctified [and] abstain from sexual immorality, that each one of you know how to control his own body in sanctification and honor, not with lustful passion like the Gentiles who do not know God; that no one should take advantage of and wrong a [Judeo-Christian] brother or sister in this matter…For God has not called us to impurity, but to holiness [see Hebrews 12:10]; therefore he who rejects this doesn’t reject man, but God, who has also given his Holy Spirit to you” (1Thessalonians 4:3-8).  Could it be any clearer than this?  We will come to modern sexual practices later on, but let us first consider some past consequences of illicit sex.

   If Sarah had not prevailed upon Abraham to bed Agar, she would have spared herself needless humiliation (Genesis16:1-5); Ishmael, the ancestor of Arabs (Genesis 16:11, 21:18), would never have been born; and Jews would never have been victimized by Arabs.  Paul, who understood the allegory implicit in these events (Galatians 4:21-31), saw them as the root cause of the enmity between flesh and Spirit, an enmity still festering to this day (Galatians 4:29).  It does not take rocket science to realize that the same applies to contemporary Judeo-Christians vis-à-vis  Muslim Arabs:  If Jesus was the ‘seed’ prophesied to issue from Isaac, the inheritor of God’s promises, then Ishmael’s issue—those who will never convert to Jesus—cannot share Jesus’ inheritance (Genesis 12:7, 15:3-4,  17:7, 21:10-12↔Galatians 3:16).⁷  In terms of Paul’s argument in Hebrews 12:8, Ishmael-ites are ‘bastard’ children on two counts:  Ishmael was conceived outside marriage [in terms of the flesh], and are not spiritual issue of Jesus’ relationship with his ‘wife,’ the Church [converts in terms of faith].  Isaac-ites, on the other hand, are ‘legitimate’ children on both counts.

   Consequence of Abraham’s out-of-wedlock sex:  Enduring Judeo/Christian enmity with Islam.

   If Lot’s daughters had not incurred in incestuous intercourse with their father, neither Moabites nor Ammonites, perennial thorns in Israelite flesh, would have been conceived (Genesis 19:31-38).

   Consequence of incest:  Accursed progeny slated for punishment for sins against God’s people (Deuteronomy 23:3-6; Ezekiel 25:3-6; Amos 1:13; Zephaniah 2:9).

   If David had not made it a habit of collecting women and sire children by them (1Chronicles 3:1-9), Tamar would not have been raped by lustful half-brother Amnon, and he would not have been murdered by half-brother Absalom (2Samuel 13:1-32).  After all David’s rightful wife was Michal, Saul’s daughter (1Samuel 18:27), who truly loved David and saved his life on one occasion to frustrate Saul’s evil designs against David (1Samuel 18:20, 19:11-17).  Nevertheless, David later cast her aside for disrespecting him (1Samuel 6:14-20); deprived her of further marital rights; and rubbed in her face that from then one he would ‘do it’ with servant girls (1Samuel 6:22-23).  Though David seems untroubled by his serial adultery, he was at least honest enough to recognize such acts as ‘vile’ (1Samuel 6:22).

  There was also the married Bathsheba, who David saw naked and set his hormones a-flowing; he “took her” and “slept” with her.  Bathsheba then ‘purified’ herself from her ‘uncleanness’ [post-coital fluids?] and returned home.  But David wanted encores beaucoup; so to make future trysts ‘kosher,’ he engineered the demise of Bathsheba’s husband, Uriah; and after the obligatory period of mourning, she became David’s squeeze du jour.  Yahweh [of hosts] put his foot down and demanded a life for a life (Deuteronomy 19:21↔2Samuel 12:13-14), so that their first child was stillborn.  In time, Solomon’s birth assuaged their grief (2Samuel 11:2-27, 12:1-24).

   Absalom was not through yet.  In the fashion of contemporary politicians, Absalom promised to make Israel a greater nation—as long as he was made head honcho (2Samuel 15:4-6); in time he secured a large following.  David decided to quit Jerusalem and went into exile, leaving behind ten concubines to guard his house, all of whom Absalom bedded to prove who was the alpha-male (2Samuel 16:21-22).  Despite Tamar’s rape; despite Amnon’s murder at Absalom’s hands; and despite Absalom’s campaigns to unseat him, it was Absalom for whom David grieved more piteously (2Samuel 18:33).  No comment.

   Bathsheba made a cameo re-appearance when the aging David declared her son, Solomon, as the rightful king of Israel (1Kings 1:28-31).  She probably was no longer a knock-out, nor David’s bed-warmer:  Abishag, a Shunammite, enjoyed that distinction.  Though we are told David never ‘knew’ Abishag, she was beautiful.  Old he may have been, but David’s eye for physical beauty never left him (1Kings 1:1-4).

   We have tarried on David for a variety of reasons.  On the obvious side, he seems to be one of those reviled in Genesis 6:2, for in terms of multiple sex partners, David was a recidivist practitioner.  In terms of Michal, he broke Commandment #7:  “You shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14).  In terms of Bathsheba, he broke Commandments #7 and #10:  Adultery plus “you shall not cover your neighbor’s wife”—which Uriah was figuratively and literally (2Samuel 11:2).

   Given David’s sexual transgressions, why is his person central to Jesus’ Messiahship?  It is not that God gave David a free pass, but that in matters spiritual, in his wholehearted worship of Yahweh, David fully lived up to Yahweh’s standards: whether in his certainty of Yahweh’s protection (1Samuel 17:34-37); his fear of God (1Samuel 26:9; 2Samuel 6:6-90); his self-abasement in the face of transgression (2Samuel 12:16-20; 24:10,17); his humility in disgrace (2Samuel 16:11-12); and his ardent desire to build an earthly temple for his God (1Chronicles 22:8↔2Samuel 7:13-16; 2Chronicles 3:1, 6:6-9↔2Samuel 24:21-25).  Needless to say Solomon’s and Jesus’ endeavors to build the Most High a Temple are jumbled up in these prophecies, which should be obvious since 2Samuel 7:14,16  speak of a Son (2Corinthians 6:18; Hebrews 1:5; Revelation 21:7) whose kingdom will be eternally stable—unlike Solomon’s, which was torn apart following his apostasy (1Kings 11:9-13,36,39).

   The point here is that while men try to make saints out of Scriptural exemplars, we should regard them as fallible human beings whose carnal passions may leave a lot to be desired but whose spirituality is commendable.  Abraham was heir to God’s promises because of his ability to believe in them wholeheartedly (Genesis 15:6)—Jesus’ golden standard (Mark 11:23-24); strictly in matters of the flesh, Paul for one found Abraham wanting (Romans 4:2):  He was married to his half-sister (Genesis 2:12), a decided no-no (Leviticus 18:6,9); and to save his own skin, he was willing to expose Sarah to sexual advances by men coveting her beauty (Genesis 12:11-13).  Sarah was fortunate that Yahweh of hosts continuously intervened to clean up Abraham’s shameful acts (Genesis 12:17-19, 20:3-15); but had he not, poor Sarah would have been ravaged by whomever desired her.  Another exemplar was Elijah, about whose sexual desires we are not made privy to, but who the Holy Spirit through James (2Peter 1:20-21) described “as a man subject to [human] passions as we are” (James 5:17).

   Despite all his sexual dalliances, David took care of his women and loved their children; so yes, he had an excessive sexual drive, but managed it without abdicating responsibility to partners and offspring.  The men in Genesis 6:2 went at it for the animal aspect of sex, the gratification of self-lust irrespective of dignity and respect for self, women, or God.  In point of fact men in Scripture who viewed sex as a way to achieve some personal agenda were unquestionably evil:  Absalom (2Samuel 16:21-22); Adonijah (1Kings 2:13-23); and Herod, who having the hots for Salome, ordered the beheading of John the Baptist (Matthew 14:1-10).  For all his wisdom, Solomon, a true chip of the lustful old block, collected women as well.  Despite two warnings from Yahweh of hosts, “his women turned his heart away,” meaning that unlike David (1Kings 11:4) but like Adam, he allowed females to prevail upon him (1Kings 11:1-10)—for which, needless to say, he paid a price (1Kings 11:11) ; and whose betrayal of God, like Adam’s, has repercussions for us all (1Kings 11:39).

   If David is the preeminent symbol for Jesus (Matthew 12:23, 15:22; Mark 10:48, 12:35; John 7:42; Romans 1:3; 2Timothy 2:8; Revelation 5:5), it is because David united all the tribes of Israel into one nation, exactly the objective Jesus is to accomplish with Jews and Christians (Ezekiel 37:19-22; Ephesians 1:10, 2:13-16; Titus 2:14; 1Peter 2:9-10; Revelation 5:9-10).  It was David who gave Israel peace from all its enemies, exactly what Jesus will accomplish everlastingly, but which David failed to do.  It was shepherd David who foreshadowed Shepherd Jesus, though the latter shepherds souls (1Peter 2:25), not animals; so that we see that the David Jesus is linked to is the spiritual David, not the fallible man tumbling from mishap to mishap due to cravings of the flesh which had no power at all over Jesus.

  But that is not to say Jesus did not have any.  We must read between the lines when we are told that the disciples were surprised to find Jesus alone talking with a woman (John 4:27).  Certainly Jesus had women who served him and with whom he socialized (Matthew 27:55-56; Luke 8:1-3); but the disciples’ reaction suggests that as a rule, Jesus steered clear of intimate one-on-ones with women.  Was that his way of avoiding temptation?  Was that his ‘imitation of Joseph,’ an early precursor of Jesus, the Patriarch who alone with Potiphar’s wife fled from her advances like a bat out of hell in order to resist his desires (Genesis 39:10-12)?  Surely Joseph did not want to betray his master (Genesis 39:7-9), but must we ignore his sexual drive in order to ‘canonize’ him?

   It is important that we should understand why Scripture makes us privy to these sexual ‘details’:  For us to realize that these ‘saints and sinners’ were people like ourselves; and that the way in which they dealt with their individual challenges give us perspectives into how to deal with our own; that the mindset which shaped their approach to sex serves to inform our own; and that the consequences of their errors give us pointers in how to avoid them.  But most importantly they tell us how God expects—nay, demands—that we deal with our passions.

   Sex can be enjoyed, eulogized even, but it should not be the metronome dictating the tempo, conduct, or fulfillment of our lives.  Sinful and rotten to the core we may be, but there is enough of the divine spark in us to invest sex with higher purpose and meaning, so that whether in body or spirit, we may use it to honor God the way He prescribed.  While Solomon argued that God allows impiety and iniquity for us to realize we are no better than irrational animals (Ecclesiastes 3:16-18), this observation is by way of perspective, not design.  If men were created good but sought perversions (Ecclesiastes 7:29), is it not possible that by fighting perversions, we may incrementally become good?

   Such was Jesus’ faith in his Apostles, none of which, until he died and resurrected, understood anything (Luke 24:25,45).  Three years of ministerial effort showing little for it; but when he washed their feet, except for Judas, Jesus declared them “clean” (John 13:10).  In which particular way, no one can ascertain.  But he who knew each of their hearts intimately also knew well enough that if given a lift, they would soar from the muck into inaccessible light. 

¹ Father of faith is understood to mean the first convert/practitioner of the faith that redeems the righteous (Romans 1:17).  But faith was the brainchild of Yahweh of hosts/Jesus (Hebrews 12:2), the proviso by which Son negotiated with Father the plan of salvation (Hebrews 10:5-10↔Isaiah 53:5-6↔Matthew 26:54; 1Peter 1:19-21) wherein the imitation of Jesus, by virtue of his crucifixion, led to citizenship in the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 19:29; Hebrews 9:13-15,22, 12:24; Revelation 7:9,14↔Isaiah 53:8).

² John the Baptist’s accusation against Herod for bedding Herodias (Matthew 14:1-4).  According to the Jewish historian Josephus, Herodias unilaterally “confounded the laws of our country” by divorcing her still living husband “Phillip,” Herod’s brother, to marry the latter (v. 3).  Herod himself divorced his first and still living wife in favor of Herodias.

   Thus we see that as God’s messenger, John the Baptist was reaffirming the divine stance against divorce (Malachi 2:16) and the adulterous nature of Herod’s and Herodias’ sexual relations.

³ Paul’s remark in 1Timothy 2:15 should not be taken at face value.  Breeding does not ensure salvation; otherwise unmarried, barren, or no longer fertile women would not stand a chance.  There is nothing wrong with childbearing within the context of ‘faith, love, and holy propriety’; but childbearing could also be interpreted as doing everything—except preaching—in women’s power to generate spiritual offspring for Jesus.  Catholic nuns have the right idea but the wrong approach.

⁴ They were betrothed but had not known sex (Genesis 19:8,14).

⁵ Matthew 22:30 specifically contradicts Genesis 6:1’s outlandish interpretation that angels [sons of God] were copulating with women [daughters of men].  Men are sons of God [particularly Yahweh of hosts, the proxy Creator, but by extension of the Most High God] because Man was the intended creation.  Woman was conceived as an afterthought; so she was made out of Adam’s flesh and so his symbolic ‘daughter’ (Genesis 2:18-22).

  Scripture cleverly suggests that link by stating all animals, except Adam, had their “suitable” partner for procreation purposes (Genesis 2:19-20).  As Adam was God’s human son (Luke 3:38), so by default were all males issuing from him.  Nowhere do we see Eve was accorded the same distinction; as she was taken out of man, so her female descendants were considered daughters of men.

  On a spiritual level, God the Man created Jesus, Son of Man (Psalms 2:7; Luke 19:10) and Jesus created male angels (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16); as corroborated by the gender of the Sodom and Gomorrah angels [one of which was Yahweh of hosts (Genesis 18:3,25↔John 5:22; Genesis 19:1); Michael; Gabriel (Daniel 8:15-16); the angels in front of Jesus’ tomb (Luke 24:4); and the two angels talking to the Apostles after Jesus’ ascent into Heaven (Acts 1:10). There is absolutely no place in Scripture depicting female angels.

   But it makes sense, does it not?  Except for His identification with the male gender, the Most High God, Who can call into being anything He wishes (Romans 4:17), and could raise men from stones if so desired (Matthew 3:9), has no need of sex to procreate:  He is sexless in the full extent of the term.  And so are his angels (Matthew 22:30), whose population need no increasing, though with the burning of Satan and his angels at Armageddon, those numbers will drop.  They too are sexless and were conceived without organs needed for procreation; so the suggestion that they copulated with women is just human prurience at work.

⁶ Technically, Onan’s sin (Genesis 38:8-9)—i.e., his unwillingness to raise issue to his departed brother by spilling his semen on the ground, which rendered the sexual act that preceded ejaculation ‘sex for sex’s sake,’ and therefore immoral.  Later satanic vectors gave a spin to the story to rail against masturbation, which although not what Onan was doing, is grouped with coitus interruptus under the term Onanism.

⁷ The reason for Paul’s advice not to fraternize with non-believers (2Corinthians 6:14-15) and his exhortation to anathematize writings like the Qur’ān (Galatians 1:8-9), Islam’s holy book ostensibly revealed to Mohammed by the Archangel Gabriel.  In Surah 4:157, ‘Gabriel’ denies Jesus’ death on the cross (Surah 4:157), thus negating Christian faith (1Corinthians 15:14-18) and contradicting his previous stance in Luke 6 1:26-33.

By the way, those readers advocating for Judeo/Christian-Muslim interfaith dialogue should know that the Qur’ān reviles Jews and Christians as enemies of Islam to be shunned at all costs; and that Allah will curse any Muslim befriending them.

You draw your own conclusions.