sins.”—1 John 4:10; John 1:29; 3:16.

Not only love for Jehovah God but also love for our fellowman should make us want to serve Jehovah. The greatest possible good we can do for our neighbor is to help him take in knowledge of Jehovah God and Jesus Christ. Why? Because as Jesus himself said, “This means everlasting life”—and what greater blessing can one receive than the prospect of everlasting life?—“their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.”—John 17:3.

Truly, serving Jehovah God is the wise thing to do, for it offers many rewards both now and in the future. A better reason for serving Jehovah is that it is the right thing to do. And the best of all reasons to serve Jehovah is because of love, because of loving appreciation of who He is and what he has done and will yet do for us. These three basic reasons can truly serve as a threefold cord, both for causing one to serve Jehovah and for keeping our service to Jehovah unbroken regardless of the time remaining for this system of things.

Questions From Readers

● We have received quite a number of inquiries from married persons asking about sexual matters, as a result of views that have been widely publicized by worldly sources. These questions have dealt with conjugal acts, birth control, sterilization and abortion. We herein comment on such matters to the extent that we feel authorized to do so.

Marriage stems from a divine source, Jehovah God. It was man’s Creator who provided a wife as a complement for Adam. Was this just for platonic companionship, devoid of sexual acts between husband and wife? Not according to the Bible. It says that God instructed the first pair: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth.”—Gen. 1:28.

This helps us to see how Jehovah himself looks at marriage. It has as a primary purpose reproduction or childbearing. (Gen. 1:28; 2:18) This was not to be accomplished by parthenogenesis, the development of an egg without fertilization. Rather, obeying God’s instructions necessitated sexual relations or conjugal acts between the man and his wife. Thus, such chaste and pleasurable intimacy ought not be viewed as wrong or ignoble. It is honorable and sacred, a means to transmit human life. The Bible plainly shows, though, that among Christians intercourse must be restricted to between a husband and his wife. The Creator condemns sexual relations outside of this sphere: “God will judge fornicators and adulterers.”—Heb. 13:4.

Nonetheless, knowing that marital relations also serve to satisfy passionate desires, some persons have asked about certain sexual practices. We have been obliged to respond that it is not the place of outsiders to dictate to a married couple as to what they will do in this intimate aspect of their marriage.

The male and female sex organs were provided by God to be used in fulfilling the noble assignment to be “fruitful and become many.” We need not describe how these organs cooperate to that end. Their design is quite apparent. Married persons recognize the obvious way in which the husband’s organ fits into his wife’s birth canal to serve the serious purpose of reproduction.

Some have contended, however, that absolutely anything done between husband and wife is permissible. However, that view is not supported in the Bible. In Romans 1:24-32, where it speaks of both men and women who participated in immoral sex practices, including lesbian and sodomite acts, the Bible mentions a “natural use of the female.” Thus it shows that to indulge in such perverted use of the reproductive organs so as to satisfy a covetous desire for sexual excitement is not approved by God. This would also be true in connection with married couples; they should not pervert this “natural use of the female.” In many places even the law of the land backs this up, making certain acts between husband and wife illegal. For example, speaking about the United States, Time of August 8, 1969, observed: “Sodomy is illegal in nearly every state, even between spouses.” (Those who have not learned how such perversions are practiced ought to be grateful for that, for Jehovah God urges Christians to “be babes as to badness.”—1 Cor. 14:20.)

In view of their mutual needs marital relations are a way for husband and wife to express tender love and deep affection for each other. Would it be consistent with that selfishly to ask one’s mate to share in a degradation of the reproductive organs, acting in a way that the mate found to be repulsive, just so as to gratify one’s own senses? Would that be the tender, loving course? No sane person would abuse his or her own human body, or force upon it a practice that was revolting. The Scriptures speak of husband and wife as one flesh. (Eph. 5:28-31) So would a sane and loving husband or wife request sex acts that the other mate rightly regarded as unnatural and disgusting? Obviously authority over the body of one’s mate is not unlimited or unaffected by Bible principles.—1 Cor. 7:1-5; Prov. 5:15-19.

Sometimes individuals feel that self-control as to sex is necessary for a single person but that once one is married it is not needed. This view, however, is not correct. Self-control is a fruit of the spirit and it should be manifested in all of one’s dealings. (Gal. 5:22, 23) The fact that usually the male has the greater sexual desire suggests that he display a greater measure of self-control, even though his wife lovingly wants to satisfy him. He should assign her “honor as to a weaker vessel, the feminine one.” (1 Pet. 3:7) And in part he can do this by recognizing that her sexual nature is different from his. Dwelling with her “according to knowledge,” he ought not think only of quickly satisfying himself however and whenever he wants, but he should be considerate of her both physically and emotionally.

However, beyond the above observations about conjugal acts we cannot go. With love, respect and unselfishness, marriage mates themselves must decide what they will do. They can keep in mind the importance of self-control and that “there is more happiness in giving than there is in receiving.”—Acts 20:35.

Related to this matter is the question of birth control. As we mentioned at the outset, reproduction is a prime purpose of marriage, according to the Bible. We firmly believe that children are a blessing, or as Psalm 127:3 puts it: “The fruitage of the belly is a reward.” Does this mean, though, that all Christians are obliged to marry and produce children? Are God’s servants today responsible to apply personally the instruction God gave Noah and his sons, “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth”?—Gen. 9:1.

No, the Bible does not say that this is an obligation today. Jesus himself pointed out that certain disciples would avoid marrying “on account of the kingdom of the heavens.” (Matt. 19:10-12) And under inspiration the apostle Paul specifically explained that singleness affords greater freedom for serving the Lord. (1 Cor. 7:32-34, 38) Some married Christians, too, in order to enjoy greater freedom to serve God, or for health or economic reasons, have decided to limit the size of their families by practicing birth control. The Bible does not directly discuss birth control, and so each couple can consider the above points and reach their own conclusion. Those who seek to avoid having children now are not violating any command of God to Christians, but neither are those who do have offspring now acting improperly in doing so.—Gal. 6:5.

There are numerous birth-control methods. It is not our place as a Bible society to recommend or endorse any of these. If a married couple want to practice birth control—and let us emphasize that this is entirely a personal decision—they have to conclude how to do that. There might be physical side effects from certain contraceptive methods. Hence, that should be considered. Another aspect to evaluate is whether a particular method might violate Christian principles in some way.

For instance, scientists themselves are not sure of the mode of operation of the intrauterine device (IUD), sometimes called the “loop” or “coil.” A 1968 report from the United Nations World Health Organization stated: “Whether or not the presence of an IUD affects fertilization in the human female has not been conclusively demonstrated. . . . The findings in other species suggest that the prevention of egg-sperm union [conception] in the [fallopian] tube is not the explanation of the antifertility action of IUD’s in mammals.” (Technical Report Series No. 397, page 11) IF this device