A Culture in Chaos: A Bibical Response to Gender & Sexuality-Session 5

How would define freedom?

“How would you define true freedom?” And the typical answer is, “Freedom is doing whatever you want to do.” But I don’t think that’s true freedom. I think true freedom is living according to God’s design for our life. You can take a computer and say, “I’m going to make waffles with this,” “I’m going to surf on it,” “It’s a weapon.” It’s not designed for that, so you’re not free unless you know the truth and you live it accordingly.

Freedom: Knowing and Living the Truth

God’s Law Is for Our Good

That’s why David, who understood that God’s law and His design was good—even though he didn’t follow and he fell short like all of us do—in Psa 19:7 David rejoices in the law of the Lord. It says, “The law of the Lord is perfect, refreshing the soul. The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy, making wise the simple.” In fact, Psalm 1:2 said, “Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; but”—here it is!—“his delight is in the law of the Lord, and on his law he meditates day and night.”

Friends, God has given us rules and commandments and guidelines for our good, and that’s really the central question, isn’t it? Is there a God who has designed sex for a purpose, designed this world for a purpose? And are we willing to follow His guidelines?

What question is at the heart of the issue of homosexuality?

You see, the question about homosexuality isn’t a question about the existence of God. At its heart it’s kind of a question about the goodness of God, and we need to have the willingness to trust that God is good and knows what He’s doing with the design. That’s why Moses writes in Deut 10:12–13, it says, “And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require you, but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to keep the commandments and statutes of the Lord, which I am commanding you today for your good?”[4]

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Ten Truths from Flame of Yahweh

Introduction

Now it’s time to start specifically looking at some of the biblical passages. Let’s begin where the Bible begins, in Gen 1:26–27 and in Gen 2:24. To frame, as we jump into these particular passages, it’s important to understand some underlying theology that’s taking place here.

Ten Truths

Old Testament scholar Richard Davidson, in his book the Flame of Yahweh, which is a very seminal text on ot ethics, in particular the area of relationships and sexuality, he says there is

“a growing consensus within biblical scholarship that Gen 1–3 provides the interpretive foundation for the rest of Scripture.… In particular, the profound portrayal of God’s original design for human sexuality at the beginning of the canon constitutes the foundation for the rest of the biblical narrative and discourse on human sexuality and encapsulates the fundamental principles of a theology of sexuality.”

I think he’s absolutely right. If you want to understand the whole portrait of sexuality in the Bible, it’s important to begin with these beginning chapters. He gives ten truths that we’re going to highlight and focus on from his book the Flame of Yahweh.

Sexual Differentiation a Creation of God

The first one, he says, sexual differentiation is presented as a creation by God, and not part of the inherent nature of divinity itself. In the ancient Near Eastern gods, sexual differentiation was a part of the character of god; rather, biblically, sexual differentiation is something that God creates Himself.

Gender Essential to Humans

Second, humans were created as gendered beings—male and female. Gender is at the heart of what it means to be human.

Now Justin Lee, again, the author of Torn, he pushes back on this and he says,

But suppose two people loved each other with all their hearts, and they wanted to commit themselves to each other in the sight of God—to love, honor, and cherish; to selflessly serve and encourage [one another]; to serve God together; to be faithful for the rest of their lives. If they were of opposite sexes, we would call that holy and beautiful and something to celebrate. But if we changed only one thing—the gender of one of those individuals—while still keeping the same love and selflessness and commitment, suddenly many Christians would call it abominable and condemned to hell.

How would describe what he is saying?

Now, this is a pretty powerful rhetorical argument, but he seems to be saying, “If you have commitment and love and sacrifice everybody would be on board, but if you just change one thing, then all of a sudden it’s abominable.” He’s assuming that one thing, gender, is kind of inconsequential and it’s not important, but this is not what Genesis teaches. Yes, we’re to have self-sacrifice. Yes, we’re to be selfless. But the context that Genesis teaches clearly is that sexual relations is designed to be between people of opposite sexes coming together as one.

Marriage Is Monogamous

The third point that Davidson points out is that the divine design for marital form is monogamy. You have one man and you have one woman. That’s the pattern that is set up.

Equal but Different Roles

Fourth, there is equality of the sexes. Now, there are different roles between the man and the woman. They’re created at different times. But even though the woman Eve is described as a helper, this doesn’t mean a subordinate; it means an equal helper to him.

Humans Made in God’s Image

Fifth, males and females are both in the image of God. Women are in the image of God. Men are in the image of God. Every human being reflects the imago Dei. You see, the holistic nature of mankind is complete only with male and female. That’s why the one-flesh experience of husband and wife involves not only the sex act but also a oneness, a wholeness, in all the physical, sensual, social, intellectual, emotional, and spiritual dimensions of life.

Marriage Is an Exclusive Relationship

Sixth, the marriage relationship is exclusive. In Genesis 2:24 it describes the leaving of the man from his family, [indicating] the necessity of absolute freedom from outside interference in the sexual relationship. So it’s an exclusive relationship between those two.

Marriage Is Permanent

Seven is the marriage relationship is permanent. The term “clings”—”the man will cling to his wife”—signifies the strong personal attachment that’s meant to last for a lifetime.

Marriage Is Heterosexual

Eighth, “man and his wife” indicates that the union is heterosexual. It’s not a person and another person. It’s not a man and a spouse. We see gender worked into the nature of marriage in the early Genesis chapters. The household is seen as a male and female, and the son leaves the household of his mother and father and bonds to his wife. The implication is they will start their own household, have kids, and the pattern will continue on.

A Primary Purpose of Human Sexuality Is Procreation

Nine, says Davidson, one of the primary purposes of human sexuality is procreation. In Genesis 1:28 it says, “Be fruitful and multiply.” Now marriage and sex is not just about having kids; it has many purposes beyond that, but sex itself is a procreative act. We can’t separate the act of sex from its end, which is producing children, which is part of the command in Genesis.

Human Sexuality Is Good

And then ten, sex is good, and it’s beautiful. In Genesis 1:31 it says, “And it was very good.” So, friends, if we’re going to look at this passage—and we’re going to look closely in a minute at Gen 1 and 2 and others throughout the rest of the Bible—it’s important to see that Genesis provides the backdrop and the pattern for how God views sex in the ot, in the nt, and even still today.[2]

*************************************************************************************

Is the Genesis Account Still Applicable?

Introduction

We’ve begun to look at the biblical teaching on sexuality from Gen 1 and 2, but the pushback often is, “Wait a minute, that’s the ot. That doesn’t apply anymore. That’s not applicable to how we approach the issue today.” Jesus actually did weigh in on this issue.

In Matthew 19:3–6 He’s asked about the issue of divorce, which relates to marriage. Let’s read this passage and see exactly how Jesus responded, keeping Gen 1 and 2 in the back of our minds. It says

Matthew 19:3–6 ESV

3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

In Matthew 19:3–6 He’s asked about the issue of divorce, which relates to marriage. Let’s read this passage and see exactly how Jesus responded, keeping Gen 1 and 2 in the back of our minds. It says,

Jesus Regards Creation Account of Marriage Binding

What’s fascinating about this passage is Jesus, in the context of a marriage issue, quotes Gen 1 and 2 and puts them together. In other words, Jesus still sees this pattern from the otof creation, going back at least a few thousand years, as still being normative in the present. He quotes Genesis 1, which says that God made them male and female, so He affirms this gender creation account, but then He also quotes Gen 2:24, where He says God will take the two of them and they shall become one. So Jesus saw this creation account as still being applicable today.

Objections to the Traditional Interpretation

Importance of Eve’s Similarity to Adam

Now, there are some objections that often come back to this. For example, Matthew Vines in his book God and the Gay Christian, here’s what he writes: “But what’s remarkable about Genesis 2 is that, despite the need for procreation, the text doesn’t focus on the gender differences between Adam and Eve. Rather, it focuses on their similarity as human beings.”

So what he is saying is that the Genesis chapters [aren’t] highlighting the need for gender distinctions. Really what mattered is that Eve was not like the animals. Eve was like Adam.

Importance of Adam and Eve’s Complementarity

In his very thoughtful book called Is God Anti-Gay? Sam Allberry provides an apt, important response to this. He says,

She [referring to Eve] is like him in the right way (made of the same stuff) and unlike him in the right way (woman, rather than man). She is a different example of the same kind of thing as him—she shares his nature, his vocation, and his very life. It is this complementarity that leads to profound unity between them when they eventually come together in sexual union.

And he’s right! Sometimes in the account with Adam and Eve we focus just on the difference or just on the similarity. But what Allberry is saying is there were both—she was different than him in a different gender, but similar when it came to the issue of being human.

“One Flesh” as Kinship Relationship

James Brownson, in his book Bible, Gender, Sexuality, he pushes back as well. He argues that same-sex relations can actually constitute one-flesh unions. One-flesh union doesn’t require a man and a woman; rather it could just be two humans who come together. And he gives a very interesting example. He talks about the Israelites when they wanted a king in 1 Samuel. They wanted a king of their own flesh. So maybe “one flesh” has nothing to do with gender differences and just has to do with this kinship relationship.

“One Flesh” as Procreative Union

I think there is something that’s missing out here. For example, if you take any individual human being, male or female, then that individual can perform any biological process as an individual—respiration, digestion, their muscular system, etc.—except for one. There is one biological function that a male has half and a female has the other half, and it’s only when the two of those come together like a lock and a key that we have a whole system together, and that’s reproduction.

Clearly the one-flesh union in Genesis is assuming that males and females can come together and populate the earth as they’re commanded to in Gen 1. It’s not just about this kinship relationship. For example, my wife and I are one flesh. My daughter is of my same flesh, but we are not one flesh. So this is a very important distinction that’s left out in Brownson’s arguments.

Hebrew Term Emphasizes Physical Oneness

Scott Rae, in his book Moral Choices, makes very important distinction. He says,

The term “one flesh” is widely considered to refer to sexual oneness. Since the Hebrew term basar, translated “flesh,” is used, it appears to emphasize the physical side of the married couple’s relationship. Though it certainly also refers to a spiritual and emotional oneness experienced by couples, had the author wanted to stress that and downplay the sexual aspect, he could have used the term nephesh, translated as “soul.”

You see, the one-flesh union is a comprehensive union between a man and between a woman that is physical. Although it’s more than physical, it also involves that sexual union between the two of them.

“One Flesh” Relates to Christ and the Church

Matthew Vines pushes back one more time, and he says, “In Ephesians 5:31–32, the phrase “one flesh” is said to be a mystery that relates to Christ and the church. The relationship between Christ and the church doesn’t involve sexual union or anatomical difference.”

Analogy Depends on Marriage

Friends, he’s right that the “one flesh” refers to the mystery of relationship, but if you read Eph 5, you can’t get away from the fact that the analogy between Christ and the church depends upon marriage, comparatively so, being a man and between a woman, that gender is worked into this. Let me just read it for us.

Ephesians 5:25–32 ESV

25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.

Gender Differences Needed for Analogy to Work

Friends, Paul is comparing the one-flesh union between man and the wife with the mystery of Christ and the church. The point is that it is an analogy, a parable of Christ’s love for the church, and that analogy only works if there, in fact, are gender differences between male and between female.[2]

[1]McDowell, S. (2017). AP371 A Biblical Response to Homosexuality. Lexham Press. [2]McDowell, S. (2017). AP371 A Biblical Response to Homosexuality. Lexham Press.