T he SINS of the Canaanites are now being accepted, honored, even praised! But do we (America in particular and the other liberal nations in general) genuinely comprehend the depth of Canaanite sins? Do we, as one Professor of a Christian apologetics Program stated, “...understand the significance of God’s having all but destroyed (ancient) Israel for committing Canaanite sins?”


I suggest that all Christians start out by reading Leviticus chapter 18 and chapter 20. Moses warned Israel of what Yahweh revealed to him about the nations of Canaan: “DEFILE not ye yourselves in any of these things (sex-sins) already mentioned, (incest being one of them): for in all these the nations are DEFILED which I CAST OUT (destroy!) before you” (18:24). God called Canaanite sex-sins ABOMINATIONS! (Vv, 26, 27, 29, 30).

It has become fashionable to openly commit the most GROSS sex-sins these days...the Church has not been spared. Could it be that because our culture today commits these very same Canaanite sins we are inoculated against the seriousness of these sins and so think God’s JUDGMENTS are unfair? This nation - USA - is certainly under His judgments (see our Youtube “Operation Devastation” and our “Words of the Spirit” publications, “God Declared World War 3")


Haters of God and His word calls what He did to those Canaanite nations, “Divine genocide”. You might say that! Since He made the RULES for men/women/nations to walk by, if they do not, judgment is forthcoming. These God-hating skeptics/atheists challenge God’s fairness, not on His evaluation of sinfulness, but on theirs. Since God is CREATOR and man is the created, He has the right to say and do according to the counsel of His own will. The corruptive/seductive power of the Canaanite nations’ sins eventually infected Israel when God allowed some to be spared. The Canaanization of Israel, and God’s subsequently calling for Israel’s own DESTRUCTION for their sex-sins, should be a sobering reminder of how He feels about ABOMINATIONS.


Obama, being the first “gay prez (he is more than “say” !), has opened up this nation for Canaanization. With little moral outrage, the Canaanization of America zooms on down the yellow brick road to disaster! I for one do not deny Divinely-mandated genocide of the Old Testament (OT) - it is there! And capital punishment is mentioned in Leviticus 20:9 (for cursing father/mother), 10 (for adultery), 15 (for incest), 12(for incest). Male homosexuality is mentioned in v.15, verse 14 puts the death penalty against “a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire...”, Verse 15 puts the death penalty against sex with animals (also v 16) and on and on it goes - the death penalty was God’s way of dealing with the sin problem for both the Canaanite nations and His nation, Israel.

Not only for sex-sins were the guilty punished, but for idolatry, e.g. Molech worship (20: 2-5). Not only this gros abomination of child sacrifice (a form of idolatry), but for occult practicing (20:6; Deut 18:9-14)


It has often been supposed that “getting back to nature” means the repudiation of ALL CONVICTIONS, conventions, and prohibitions in sexual matters; but, my dear ones, in fact primitive people tend to be exceedingly strict in marriage regulations and prohibitions, even before marriage. Promiscuity is not “natural” to human beings.

The list of sex-sins in Revelation deal with that which is unnatural and therefore VICE! (See Romans One). In fact, these OT prohibitions are still binding in the New Testament (NT), certain “unions” which man, by conscience, instinctively know is WRONG!

NOWHERE in the WHOLE BIBLE do we find the acceptance of or the honoring of, say, GLBTQ sex-sins. Yet, here in America, we find them in full bloom! The Bible teaches us that lifelong fidelity are the law of God as being the REAL meaning and ultimate intention of marriage in the light of the nature of man and women as made known to us in Christ.

This whole same-sex union/marriage is a complete violation of God’s intention, thusly, violation of His revealed law. Now, here we are (America) trying to downplay incest, along with transgenderism and next it will be the acceptance of pedophiles. Will the worship of Molech be next?


As time slips by, political legislation over the years, have frequently sought to make these laws of Leviticus invalid for the civil code in modern lands...with the liberal Church helping!

The corruption of sexual morals is much more than a number of private and individual offences against morality. It, as Lev. 18:25, 27 states, “DEFILES the land”, so that the land VOMITS forth its inhabitants, i.e., DESTROYS a civilization and leads to national DISASTER! America is ROTTING as I write!!


We find in God’s word vibrant/expressive language usage that captures the brazen experience of evil, e.g., “abomination”, “profane”, “vomiteth”, (Cpt 18); “kill”, “put to death”, “blood shall be upon them”, “die”, (Cpt 20). Lev, 20:10-22 captures some of these words that our liberal Church men/women find oh, so offensive! One such Churchite called God a “Moral Monster”! That’s his evaluation .

Others cry that God’s law(s) are “harsh and unloving”, “barbarous doctrine” etc. Well, when language becomes watered down, diluted, as it has here in the West, we have “Political Correctness” at work. In fact this is the culprit that has been responsible for the taming and pacifying of our OUTRAGE toward evil. With a truckload of verbiage, both Church and State have (almost) made God’s Word of no effect. “Away with asperities (rough/hard)”, these babies cry! And so, God’s Word has become nice! Thusly, we forget the seriousness of Canaanite sex-sins, their depravity.

There is Biblical precedence for using language that frankly talks about SIN/SINS (see Ezek. 23:20, 21) where Jerusalem is as a prostitute who “lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses”; see also Judges 19 where gang-rape, followed up with dismembering of a woman is written about, by Sodomites (Sodom, a Canaanite city).


Of course these liberal scholars try to downplay God’s Word by claiming (as one wrote) “the most accurate and up-to-date translations of the Ugaritic texts do not provide evidence of a particularly debauched or cruel culture.” Well, a non-liberal scholar points out that our liberal scholar did not look closely enough at what the two sources he reference actually said (see, Did God Command Genocide? By Prof. Wes Morriston, 2009, pp. 7-26).

This is what I have found when a scholar (liberal) downplays the seriousness of sin/sins, they CHEAT!! They downplay sexual depravity. Prof. John Boswell (who died of HIV/AIDS in the 80s) was such a professor (see our Gay Way booklets/magazines for proof). From other Ugaritic texts (other than the ones the liberals used) we learn that incest/bestiality are among their gods.

There is something disturbing about the Churches’ lack of being disturbed!! Prof. Clay Jones points out that “there is a historiographical temptation with the literature about Canaanite culture (or in its usage) to understate, sometimes deny, or even eliminate evidence of Canaanite evil.” (Philosophia Christi, Vol. 15, no. 1, 2009).


“Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thine heart, dost thou go to possess their land: but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD thy God dost drive them out....” - Deut 9:5. There we have it. It was because of Canaanite SINS that the Lord chose to smite them! The Word of God is unambiguous concerning what sin/sins they committed, including idolatry, incest, adultery, child sacrifice, homosexuality, and bestiality.


I read an article not long ago in which the mother of her son want to have his child!! She claimed “this is not incest!”. Really? What do we call this sickness then?

Like all ancient Near East pantheons, the Canaanite pantheon was incestuous. The god “El” (considered the father of the gods) had 70 children by Asherah- from that union came Baal (other texts say he came from Dagon). It is reported that after Baal reported to his father El that Asherah had tried to seduce him, El encouraged Baal to have sex with her to humiliate her, which Baal did (see “El Ashertu and the Storm-god”, J. B. Pritchard, 1969, p. 519). Baal also had as a consort his first daughter Pidrey ( see “Yahweh and the gods of Canaan” by W.G. Albright, 1968, p.145).

To be fair, early Canaanite laws proscribed either death or banishment for most forms of incest. After the 14th century BC, the penalties were reduced to no more that being fined (see the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) 51 , 2008: pp. 225-244).

As the Bible states, God is longsuffering, therefore punishment sometimes was delayed - “not yet reached its full measure” (see Gen. 15:16). In the E T S Journal (51), “Various cities and towns within Hittites’ sphere of control had different traditions regarding punishment of “hurkel” (sexual offense concerning incest or sex with animals).” Even God oversaw all these as well as His own nation.


Consider the Egyptian dream book (for men) that lists many types of dreams and the omens associated with them (having sex with mother, sister, etc.)


Sodom was destroyed for its sex-sins/crimes. After its destruction for its gross wickedness, we read that Lot’s daughters got their father drunk had sex with him, in Gen. 19:30-38 reads. Did incest, practiced in Sodom, affect this fleeing family? YES!! Lot and his daughters imitate the sexual practices of Canaanite culture, and the Canaanites ape their deities.


Lest we think that sex-sins were only condemned in the OT, let us turn to 1 Cor 5:1-15. Here the Apostle Paul deals with a case of incest, which was either being tolerated or condoned within the Ekklesia at Corinth. Verse 1 reads, “It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much normal among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.” Fornication is a word that covers all sex-sins. In Chapter 6 verse 18, Paul tells them to “Flee fornication”, which could be any number of sexual sins. Sexual immorality is particularly ABHORRENT to God. More than any other sinful act, it desecrates the body, which is the temple of the Holy Spirit (vv. 15-20). The use of the present tense here indicates that the believer must repeatedly flee fornication (write for our many publications on this subject -free).

 Paul tells us in 1 Cor 6:9 that those who practice sexual immorality “shall NOT inherit the kingdom of God”. That old LIE - “Once saved always saved” - must have been believed in this particular Ekklesia. They, like most today, probably thought that their salvation and inheritance in the Kingdom of God (KOG) were still SECURE (write for our trilogy on this vital subject).

However, Paul declares that spiritual death is the inevitable consequence of habitual sinning (see Rom 8:15 = “For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify (put to death!) The deeds of the body, (then) ye shall live”.) Paul gives the only assurance of eternal salvation here. “IF” one is consistently putting to death the sinful deeds of the body, “THEN” we are being LED by the Holy Spirit... “THEN ONLY” are we the sons/daughters of God!! (v. 14). We must deal with our natural inclinations (Gal. 5:17, 18; 1Peter 2:15). We must deal with Christ”s standards of righteousness, and God’s judgment against evil (Jn 16:8-15). We must persist in perseverance in the faith to keep from “falling away” (v. 15; Heb. 3:7-14). The longer we deny Spiritual warfare, the weaker we become.

Going back to Rom 8:15, we see, what is called “categorical syllogisms” , statements that related categories to other categories:

1- statements may be universal or partial;

2- statements may be inclusive or exclusive;

3- the only terms that identify quantity are all, some, and none;

4- the soundness of a categorical syllogism can be tested either by drawing Venn diagrams or by applying the rules of distribution. (The Teaching Company, 2005)

Note the “if” clause in v. 15; “if ye live after the flesh”. What follows this naturally is the “then” clause. Conditional syllogisms always begin with an “if-then” statement. The “if” clause is called the”antecedent”, and the “then” clause is called the “consequent”. The argument is sound if the antecedent is affirmed or the consequent is denied. Conversely, denying the “a” or affirming the “c” will not lead to a sound argument. Disjunctive syllogisms begin with “either-or” statement.


Paul wrote in 1 Cor 5:4 that he had already judged the man who was involved in incest. Verse 5 he writes, “to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved...” That meant - REMOVE THE IMMORAL person from the Ekklesia!! We are to “Purge out therefore the old leaven” (v.7)... We are to “keep the feast of love” (v.8) by putting out the leaven “of malice and wickedness,” i.e., fornication. How many churches practice this today?


Believers are to judge - yes, JUDGE - those inside the Ekklesias of God, as Paul writes in 6:1-8. Church courts should take care of these matters, not civil courts. They must judge, render a verdict, and discipline if needed (see Matt. 18:15). Blatant sinful action like heterosexual sex-sins and homosexual sex-sins (GLTBQ) must not be tolerated. But look at this pitiful mess called “Church”, accepting, even praising GLBTQ perverts. The same is done of the heterosexual offenders.

So, Paul deals with incest in 1 Cor 5:1-15, and its final remarks on “judging” sends him off on an aside in 6:1-15; but he returns to the theme in 6:12-20 with some general teaching on sexual sin. So, 6:12-20 is every bit as specific as 5:1-15 and deals with a different item altogether.


1 Cor 5:1-15 deals with an “incestuous” relationship that even pagans were repulsed by; but far worse, was the ekklesia’s relaxed attitude toward it. What’s new? Realize of course, Corinth was a pagan city that had sinful habits. Those coming to Christ had to CHANGE their habits... and fast. Prostitution was common, mistresses were kept, concubines were in numbers, sexual irregularity was the vogue. So, moral restrictions on human sexuality were not easily absorbed by pagan converts. But, my dear readers, this was not the reality here in America; America was highly Christianized, the Bible in its early days was THE BOOK!! The 15 colonies were established by pilgrims and puritans. Even though their influence was less strong when this nation became “America”, still, Christianity was THE RELIGION.

The Holy Bible was held as America’s guide Book - the same Book that Paul argues against sex-sins; the same Book that we find Moses and the prophets condemning sex-sins.

Paul therefore had to address this question (of what is lawful/unlawful) regularly in the Gentile Ekklesias (see 1 Thes 4:1-8; Col. 3:5-7; Eph 5:3-15; 1 Cor 5:1-15; 6:9-10; 7:2; 10:8; 2 Cor. 12:21, etc.) . Even Jesus puts forth a vice list that begins with, “...evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications...” (Mk 7:21).

The problem that the Apostle Paul faced in 1 Cor 5 was 2-fold: 1- incest, and 2 - the ekklesia itself; its lack of ethical/spiritual concern for that sin. Liberals believe (at least some do) that incest was not the issue. They say that, that is an illusion. The issue, they assert, was “spiritual marriage”. That’s right! They are willing to argue, as Prof. G.D. Fee points out, that no sexual aberration actually existed in Corinth at all, only “spiritual marriage”. Fee argues, as we here also do. To do so, liberals must not only overlook the implications of this text, especially 2 Cor 12:21 where Paul mentions those “which have sinned already, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed”, we can’t merely “spiritualize” this! Not only this, but they (liberals) must also interpret 1Cor. 6: 12-20 as hypothetical. Lest we forget, sexual prohibitions are binding on the Ekklesia in the NT.

But what of the woman, some ask? The man, being part of the ekklesia, was expelled; the woman, some claim, was not- she was merely a pagan, therefore, Paul had no right to judge her, that was the world’s duty.

Paul uses the word “brother” in 1 Cor 5:15. The woman was not called a “sister”. The report was “that there is sexual immorality among you” (i.e., the report is circulating among them, and from them is being noised abroad).


“Fornication” (sexual immorality) in Greek = “porneia”, which in that culture simply meant “Prostitution” (paying for sexual pleasure). The Greeks were ambivalent on about all this, depending on whether one went openly (to brothels) or discreetly and went with a paramour. But we can’t leave this with the Greeks; the word had been picked up in Hellenistic Judaism, always pejoratively, to cover all extramarital sex-sins and aberrations (like lesbianism and male homo-sex, et. al.). Incest was included. If one looks at the half dozen vice lists in the NT, “porneia” is almost always at the top. Why? Because in the Greco-Roman culture sex-sins were common.

Incest seems to have been one sin that was considered repugnant to the pagans - “A man has his father’s wife.” The language “father’s wife” is taken from the GK OT (LXX) of Lev 18:7,8, where this specific sin is forbidden ( since 18:7 forbids sexual relations with one’s mother, the “father’s wife” with whom sex is forbidden in v. 8 refers to a woman other than one’s mother, a second wife of some kind). Not only this, but the verb, “to have”, when used in sexual or marital contexts, is a euphemism for an enduring sexual relationship. So, by his “having” her, Paul means that the “brother” is “living with” (RSV) her sexually. (For Jewish law, see Lev. 18:7,8 and 20:15; Amos 2:7), “father and son sleeping with the same girl”. (See also Josephus, Ant. 3.274; Philo, Spec. Leg. 3:12-21; Sanh 7:4; b. Sanh. 54a; T. Reub. Passim. Etc.)


Since the Corinthians were “puffed up” (in pride), and “have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed(incest) might be taken away from you” (1 Cor 5:2), Paul’s revulsion was evident, “deliver such an one unto Satan...” (V.5). It may be that the reason for the Ekklesia’s laxness to deal with this SIN is suggested by D. Daube’s “In Jesus and Man’s Hope (2 vols., 1971, pp. 223- 227). He suggested that their attitude related to the rabbinic doctrine that in conversion, a proselyte is like a new-born child; hence all former relations are dissolved, and a man may take his father’s wife because ‘in Christ’ this old relationship does not exists since “all things have become new”. Daube points out, these is certainly a sense in which Paul himself believe this. What he would then be objecting to here is their taking it too far, so that they went beyond even pagan law. Other scholars have other takes on this of course.

The real issue folks is not “pagan law”, it is God’s ethical/moral law- SIN! Putting this “sinning” brother out is considered harsh and unloving by the liberals. But this only reflects their LACK of LOVE for those committing such sin. They do not appreciate God’s authority in these affairs. This whole issue deals with ekklesia discipline. The Corinthians missed the AWFUL character of God’s holiness and the deeply fallen character of human sinfulness- as does the EKKLESIA today. Just about every kind of sin is permissible! All one has to do is read the writings of those who are leaders in the Emergent Church. They have re-defined what sin, salvation, Satan, repentance, justification, faith, etc. etc. mean - they are put into “politically correct” terms. Not only this, they have re-imaged God, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Paul was dealing with this LACK of a sense of SIN, and therefore of any ethical consequences of their life in the Spirit.

Pride, my friends, BLINDS one to the sinfulness of human nature. This is why the NT is full of warnings to be sober, alert, on guard,... ready to “fight the good fight of faith”, 1 Tim. 6:12...”until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ”, v. 15.


Some, most! can’t believe v. 5: “to deliver such an one unto Satan”. Paul was ordering the ekklesia to do this. By doing this, this will, in turn, expose the sex offender to the punishments in order that he may repent and ultimately be saved (see Lk 15:15-24). This was not cruel but loving.

Remember what Paul wrote Timothy in 1 Tim 1:18-20? In v. 14, he admonishes Timothy to hold onto the faith and a good conscience - “which some having put away (denied) concerning faith have made shipwreck”. Paul warns of apostasy (see 4:1; 5:15-15; 6:9-10). Verse 20 he mentions the “some” of v. 19 to be Hymenaeus and Alexander, “whom I have delivered unto Satan”, To expel sinning members is Scripture, despite the HOWLINGS of liberals.


What did Paul really have in mind when he used that phrase in v.6? It is common to see the prepositional phrase “for the destruction of the flesh” as expressing purpose, followed by a final clause, “in order that the spirit might be saved”. Prof. Fee notes that as a matter of grammar the expressed purpose of the action, which alone qualifies the verb “to hand over”, is the final matter only , his salvation. He also notes that the preposition “eis” (“for”) sometimes expresses purpose, but it may also express anticipated result, which seems far more likely in v. 6 (Paul is not averse to doubling purpose clauses, but he does so by twin clauses, not by this preposition and a final clause). So, to excommunicate an unrepentant “brother” was to turn him over to Satan’s domain for the purpose that he might repent and be brought back into the ekklesia.

The ekklesias of today have long abandoned the remedial process, hence, the ekklesias are full of sinners and sin! “Flesh” and “Spirit” designate the whole person as viewed from different angles: :flesh” - the person away from God; “spirit” - the person with God. Gal. 5:24 speaks of “and they that are Christ’s have crucified (put to death!) the FLESH with the affections and lusts”. Verse 25 says, “If (antecedent) we live in the SPIRIT, let us also walk in the SPIRIT”. (The “then”, the consequent, is implied. Also see Rom 7:5,6 , where the flesh/Spirit is contrasted).

Paul had, I think, two things in mind: 1-excommunicate the incestuous man so he might be punished in Satan’s world in order that he might be repentant and restored in fellowship with God and the ekklesia; 2- to purge the ekklesia of leaven/corruption itself. 5:6-8 is his argument by analogy: “...the yeast (leaven) of malice and wickedness” vs “bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth”. The ekklesia at Corinth was to get RID of the “old leaven”, the incestuous man, so that they might become once again a “new batch of dough”, as it were. Paul’s metaphors fits well here, a splendid illustration of Pauline parenesis (ethical instruction).


After Paul reminds the ekklesia “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?”, referring to the whole ekklesia here, they were NOT to participate in evils prevalent in that society (incest being a very repugnant one!, 1 Cor 3:16), he goes on to deal with the incest problem. That sin was likened unto fermentation/ corruption: “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump” (Gal. 5:9). Paul now, in v. 9 “I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators”, reminds them that they MUST “put away from among yourselves that wicked person” (v. 15).

While Paul was at Ephesus, he wrote the previous letter to the ekklesia mentioned in 5:9, where he had dealt with sex problems, not sex alone but other sins (see the list). If in fact the previous letter dealt with at least two of the issues that resurfaces in Corinth, fornication/idolatry, Paul makes note that, “It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you” (5:1- KJV, the NIV uses the word “actually”). 1 Corinthians deals with a response by Paul from some persons at Corinth - the report was “that there is sexual immorality among you”.


Incest is on the rise!! This is a fact. It has never gone away but now this ABOMINABLE SIN is reaching the courts in order to legalize it - like the same-sex marriage sickness - so as to DEFILE the land more so. Will the Canaanite nations stand up at the last day judgment and condemn this generation?? (Consider Luke 10: 15-15, Tyre and Sidon were Canaanite cities).

Ancient Israel succumbed to Canaanite sins and was severely punished. Are we to believe that Spiritual Israel (the Ekklesia of God) will not likewise be punished? (Read Jer 2:8-15). The OT testifies over and over against of the idolatry and adultery that Israel committed. BE ASSURED, GOD IS THE SAME GOD - HE WILL PUNISH!!