Theological Implications of Marriage Blueprints

Introduction

By way of introduction, let me draw your attention to a few newspaper articles from this week. First, a Christian college in Missouri sues the Biden administration, and secondly, a conflict between the students and faculty of Seattle Pacific University as they confront the board of trustees.[1]

Regarding the first conflict, Brandon Showalter, of The Christian Post, writes the following:

A Missouri Christian university is suing the Biden administration over a federal directive that its lawsuit claims requires religious schools to open their dormitories and showers based on “gender identity.” The College of the Ozarks … filed a lawsuit in response to a February order from the Department of Housing and Urban Development that forces any entities that receive federal dollars … to place transgender-identified biological males into female dormitories and assign them as females’ roommates.[2]

The College of the Ozarks is responding to the memorandum sent out on February 11, 2021 by Jeannine Worden (Acting Assistant Secretary) of The Office of Fair Housing & Equal Opportunity. Worden “determined that the following actions are necessary…[the government] shall accept for filing and investigate all complaints of sex discrimination, including discrimination because of gender identity or sexual orientation … [and]organizations and agencies that receive grants … must interpret sex discrimination … to include discrimination because of sexual orientation and gender identity.” This memorandum includes “public and private not-for-profit entities.”[3]

The legal nonprofit, Alliance Defending Freedom represents the school and argues that “the government cannot and should not force schools to open girls’ dorms to males based on its politically motivated and inappropriate redefinition of ‘sex.’”[4]

Secondly, Religion News reported Tuesday, this week, of the students and faculty of Seattle Pacific University confronting the board of trustees over the boards refusal to hire LGBTQ staff and faculty. Yonat Shimron wrote the following in Religion News.

The faculty of Seattle Pacific University, a Christian school associated with the Free Methodist Church, has taken a vote of no confidence in its board of trustees after members of the board declined to change its policy prohibiting the hiring of LGBTQ people. The no-confidence vote, approved by 72% of the faculty, was the latest in a series of escalating clashes between faculty, students and the school’s governing board.[5]

Elise Takahama of the Seattle Times reported “the SPU community have voiced concerns about the policy for years.” Although the school has experienced the conflict for years, “a turning point in the conversation came in January, when adjunct nursing professor … Rinedahl sued the university, saying it did not hire him for a full-time position because he’s gay.”[6]

To my point. Christians can no longer consider these discussions as distant or abstract or disconnected. Too long have we thought – too bad liberal Europe must deal with these issues (oh yeah! And Canada, eh!) – then, too bad liberal secular universities must deal with these issues – then suddenly, we realize our private, religious institutions and churches are being sued and closed because they refused to ever engage the topic. Topics such as the above are resulting in Christian universities suing the government – Christian university professors resigning – Christian college students protesting outside the homes of university leadership, etc. If we, as believers, are not purposeful in solidifying our position in these areas, culture will happily define them for us and direct our actions and institutional practices accordingly. As believers who hold Scripture as our final authority, we must be willing to align our opinions and practices to the dictates of Scripture.

The Framework

Now on to Genesis. Last week I ended the message with a few questions concerning the implications of Genesis 2:18–25 on topics such as homosexuality, singleness, and transgenderism. While I intend to address those topics, I have clearly realized that not only can I not answer all the questions posed, but my message will also likely raise other questions. Therefore, I desire to offer a framework by which we will answer some of those questions, and you will be able to hopefully answer additional questions that arise.

The Framework. (1) First, understand and accept the teaching of the text (in this case, Genesis). (2) Secondly, as you draw an inference from the text, consider additional Scripture passages to determine the accuracy of your inference. (3) Finally, if Scripture offers little or no additional evidence, the teachings from the original text must stand.

To flush out this framework, I want to first state the truth found in Genesis 2:18—25 and then address three different inferences drawn from the text – singleness, homosexuality, and transgenderism.

Genesis 2 summation. Let us start with a definition of marriage drawn from Genesis 2:18—25.[7] Marriage consists of one man and one woman covenanting together in a monogamous, heterosexual, committed, life-long relationship, resulting in a one-flesh union. I draw this definition from the inherent meaning of the words within “God created man in his own image … male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27), “a helper fit for him” (Gen 2:18,20), and “a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Gen 2:24).

Implications

Let me now address three different implications that might naturally be drawn from this definition and the text of Genesis 2.

God denigrates singleness.

Naturally from this text, someone might infer that singleness is bad or that a single person is not whole or complete. Our established framework now requires us to consider other biblical texts that might illuminate further understanding.

Old Testament understanding. Throughout the Old Testament, God primarily interacted and blessed his covenant people through physical means and blessings. The building and forming of His people came primarily through physical procreation.[8] The blessings of obedience to God manifest in physical means – marriage, children, material prosperity (land, animals, etc.), and an inheritance (which symbolized “the location of God’s provision of rest”[9]). “Thus, for an individual in Israel to be devoid of spouse, children, and land, such as Naomi on her return to Israel, was to feel the weight of divine judgment (Ruth 1: 20– 21).”[10]

Danylak. To marry and have offspring was, to an individual, a mark of God’s covenantal blessing, and by extension a validation of his obedience to the covenant stipulations. Conversely, to be devoid of children with the result of having one’s name “blotted out” of Israel was a mark of his subjection to the covenant curses and by implication a sentence of divine disapproval.[11]

Therefore, in coming to the end of the Old Testament, we might not conclude that singleness is inherently sinful, but it most certainly is not a good thing or a blessed state.

New Testament understanding. The initial observation of Jesus and Paul’s single status would indicate some potential paradigm shift. While both Jesus and Paul happily acknowledge the blessing of marriage, Paul as well indicates that it may be better for some to not marry at all (1 Cor 7:1, 7–9). If marriage play such a key role in God’s covenant relationship with his people, and if the covenant blessings are primarily passed down through one’s offspring, why were Paul and Jesus never married? Why did Paul encourage others to remain single?

Throughout the New Testament, Paul on several occasions offers a paradigm shift in that heirs of the covenant relationship are no longer defined by a physical relationship but instead a spiritual union in Christ (Rom 8:17; Gal 4:7; Eph 3:6; Titus 3:7; James 2:5; 1 Pet 3:7).[12] Prior to this transition, the people of God grew by means of physical reproduction. However, following Christ’s earthly ministry and the formulation of the church, the people of God became spiritual and grew by means of spiritual birth. Danylak writes, “in the New Testament we are not given any explicit mandate to marry and procreate physical human beings, we are given a new mandate to create more spiritual human beings.”[13]

Therefore, in coming to the end of the New Testament, we conclude marriage remains a blessing and single people are whole and complete as they fulfill God’s mandate of producing a spiritual offspring and finding companionship within the body of Christ.[14]

This reality does not diminish the inherent joy and fulfillment that come in marriage and children, nor does it diminish the profound gospel witness potential that a Christian marriage can exhibit to the unsaved world. But it does mean that marriage itself is not fundamental to our life in the new covenant in the way it was under the old Sinai covenant of the Old Testament.[15]

Might I go so far as to acknowledge that we each stand as single people before God’s throne and live in this state throughout eternity.[16]

God forbids homosexuality.

Secondly, we might naturally infer from Genesis 2 that homosexuality conflicts with God’s determined design (ie. God made a woman for the man; she was a proper fit for him; and they became one flesh)[17]. Once again, let us go to additional scriptural passages that might help us further understand.

Leviticus. Moses addresses many behaviors that conflict with God’s perfect design in Genesis 2. He first addresses (by means of 13 verses) the sinfulness of incest. He acknowledges the sin of adultery in commanding them to not sleep with “your neighbor’s wife.” Moses finishes the section by commanding the men to not “lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to life with it: it is perversion” (Lev 18:22–23). [18]

Moses, as well, writes in 20:13, “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them” (Lev 20:13). This passage is clear but disturbing. We must be careful that this law was to be carried out by Israel under their theocratic government. Therefore, the punishment should not be carried out in any other context, but the weight of the sin remains.

Sodom and Gomorrah and Gibeah. In Genesis 18 and Judges 19, two stories unfold in which homosexual rape occurs (or at least attempted) and this behavior underlies the destruction of these towns (Jude 1:7 corroborates that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed due their homosexual behavior[19]). The weight of evidence due these two stories lessen in that other reasons for their destruction (ie. inhospitality) are introduced and the inclusion of rape.

Therefore, in coming to the end of the Old Testament, we conclude that God condemns homosexual behavior. Yet, the evidence lies within text that are part of the Mosaic law and two dramatic stories involving homosexual rape. With that we venture into the New Testament texts.

Jesus discusses marriage. Both Matthew and Mark unfold a story of Jesus interacting with the Pharisees about marriage – specifically about divorce. The Pharisees ask Jesus “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” (Matt 19:3). The Pharisees are asking Jesus about his understanding of Moses statement in Deuteronomy 24:1, in which Moses allows for the writing a certificate of divorce.[20] Jesus, however, somewhat evades the question and jumps beyond Deuteronomy and reiterates God’s original design in Genesis 2. Jesus says the following:

Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 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’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate. (Matt 19:4–6; cf. Mark 10:1-10).

In so doing, Jesus reaffirms the ideal of one man and one woman but also adds that the marriage between one man and one woman should be permanent. Powell draws the same conclusion when he writes, “specifically, by quoting Gen 1:27, Jesus is teaching that marriage is to be strictly monogamous and heterosexual. Any relationship that cannot be classified by these two foundational characteristics do not agree with Jesus’ teaching on marriage.”[21]

Paul addresses homosexuality. Paul offers a more direct and clear discussion concerning homosexuality. Paul refers to homosexuality, in Romans 1, as “contrary to nature” and “giving up natural relations” and “committing shameless acts” (Rom 1:26–27).[22] Additionally, Paul condemns homosexual behavior in his first letter to the Corinthians. He writes, “do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality” (1 Cor 6:9).

On two other occasions, Paul connects his theology of marriage back to Genesis 2. (1) In 1 Corinthians 6:16, Paul quotes Genesis 2:24 in his condemnation of sex with a prostitute because it defiles the “one flesh” nature of marriage. (2) Secondly, Paul links the idea of “one flesh” to his discussion to marriage in Ephesians 5. Husbands should love their wives, “for no one ever hated his own flesh but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church” (Eph 5:28–29). Two verses later he adds to the narrative note of Genesis 2 by quoting Genesis 2:24 and then adding, “This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church” (Eph 5:32).

By example, Paul and Jesus frequently connect their discussions about marriage back to the ideal established by God in Genesis 2. Therefore, Genesis continues to be the ideal and goal to which every marriage (and sexual relationship) should conform.

Sidenote: argument regarding nature. Let me address one potential argument that plays an important role in multiple discussions. What about those who claim their homosexual lifestyle is natural to them? For example, Matthew Vines proposes, “Paul might have taken a different view of same-sex behavior practiced by those who were naturally attracted to those of the same sex.”[23] So then, what about those who would resolutely declare their same sex attraction has existed as long as they can remember? Is homosexuality natural for some people? If homosexuality is natural to some people, how can we expect them to be anything other than they naturally are?

Two text initially come to mind. Paul refers to homosexuality in Romans 1 as “contrary to nature” and the “giving up natural relations.” Jude discusses the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and attributes their destruction to their sexual immorality in which they “pursued unnatural desire” (Jude 7).

However, Paul clearly connects his discussion in Romans to the words used by Moses in Genesis 1-2.[24] In doing so, Paul defines “natural” as God’s pre-Fall ideal order. However, most people, when defining “natural,” describe their natural state after the Fall.

If by nature, someone means their natural disposition to sin, same-sex attraction may come naturally to someone as part of our broken and fallen state. Homosexuality (and even same-sex attraction) is not natural in light of God’s original design, pre-Fall. However, same sex attraction may come naturally to fallen man, post-Fall. Even if this is true, Scripture never justifies an action simply because it comes natural in our fallen state. It is exactly our fallen state that condemns us and needs to be made new in Christ. So, if someone naturally possesses same sex attraction, or naturally possesses gender confusion, or is naturally motivated by greed, or anger, or lust or dishonesty – acting on those inclinations[25] is still sinful and requires God’s forgiveness through Christ.

Therefore, as we culminate Scripture’s discussion on homosexuality, the inferences drawn from Genesis 2:18–25 remain true. Homosexuality conflicts with God’s original design. As culture has and will continue to push hard against God’s biblical design, we need to be committed to Scripture.

God rejects transgenderism.

Let me address one final inference drawn from Genesis. We might naturally infer, from Genesis, the current cultural understanding of transgenderism conflicts with God’s ideal design. Moses writes, “God created man in his own image … male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27). The most direct statement to the binary nature of men and women can be found in Genesis. God created men and women.

Unlike the other two discussions on singleness and homosexuality, the rest of Scripture says little about the transgender discussion. No biblical authors outright condemn or even discuss the transgender debate as articulate in our present circumstances.

Two Old Testament texts. Although no biblical texts directly address the current transgender discussion, a couple of texts indirectly touch on related topics. First, Moses, in Deuteronomy, addresses cross-dressing as “an abomination to the Lord your God” (Deut 22:5).

Some ask, “Why is cross-dressing such a big deal? All we are discussing is clothes.” While many people think the biblical prohibition of cross-dressing is obscurantist, the clothing of the cross-dresser acts as a proxy for embodiment and a corresponding rejection of God’s will. The body’s appearance is transformed by the clothing, cosmetics, or other accessories and paraphernalia. God desires for men and women to carry themselves in such a way so that each particular gender is celebrated and easily identifiable, while taking into account certain cultural differences for gender-appropriate apparel.[26]

Moses’ condemnation seems to indicate God’s desire for stark distinction between genders – which directly conflicts with the core ideology among transgender advocates.

Additionally, Moses presents genital mutilation in a negative light. He writes, “No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord” (Deut 23:1). In ancient times, men would castrate themselves to appear more feminine. J. Alan Branch quotes Stephanie Dalley’s translation of the “Erra and Ishum” which criticizes,

the party-boys and festival people who changed their masculinity into femininity to make the people of Ishtar revere her. The dagger-bearer, bearers of razors, pruning knives and flint blades who frequently do abominable acts to please the heart of Ishtar.[27]

Both texts appropriately connect to various transgender topics, but neither offer a clear condemnation similar to texts regarding homosexuality. Therefore, when we find little evidence in the rest of Scripture for a biblical principle, we go back to the original clear passage and embrace its’ teaching. In this case, we go back to Genesis clear teaching that God distinctly created male and female. God designed two genders, and we reject God’s good and ideal design when we reject this distinction.

Conclusion

A summation of our three topics. (1) We infer from Genesis 2 that singleness conflicts with God’s ideal order. However, in going through the rest of Scripture, we find that an unmarried person can become one with Christ and with other believers through a spiritual union, and within this one body (the church), fulfill God’s mandates for our lives. (2) We infer from Genesis 2 that homosexuality conflicts with God’s ideal order. Additionally, that implication consistently rings throughout Scripture. Therefore, in submission to Scripture we accept that God does not bless or condone homosexuality or homosexual marriage. (3) We infer from Genesis 2 that the current transgender ideology conflicts with God’s ideal order. While a couple passages throughout Scripture touch on related issues, we find little on this topic in contrast to the other topics. Therefore, we go back to the implications of Genesis 2 and conclude that God did in fact create only two genders – male and female.

A restatement of our framework. This morning we addressed only a few of the implications from the text in Genesis 2. So then, we must apply the framework discussed to the additional topics that may derive from this study. What about polygamy, divorce, bestiality, or pre-marital sex. God’s ideal, as laid out in Genesis 2, conflicts with each of these areas (and more).

In each of these we must apply the framework to these varied discussions. (1) Mine the initial text for its clear teachings and implications. (2) Search the rest of Scripture for text that would either refute or support the implications and meaning you find. (3) At that point, either embrace the teachings found spread throughout Scripture or accept the teaching of the initial text.

A final challenge. Likely, most of us agree on these areas today. However, I would like to leave you with one challenge. I think the church, at large, has done a poor job of loving people who fail to meet up to the ideal – while failing to realize we all fail to meet up to the ideal. We are good at determining whether people are right or wrong – and telling them they are right or wrong. However, we are not good at offering them hope. Condemnation? Yes. Hope? Not so much.

What about the young man who has only ever experienced same-sex attraction? Do we extend Christ to him and commit to walk with him? What about the 25-year-old who has gone through gender reassignment surgery? She comes to our church looking for hope. How do we love her well? What about the gay man who has faithfully lived with his male partner for 2 decades? He comes to church desiring truth and spiritual relationships. How do we love him well?

Obviously, an important step in this discussion is to first determine what we believe. But equally important – we must learn how to love well and extend the hope found only in Christ.

Resources for Bible Study

Branch, J. Alan. Affirming God’s Image: Addressing the Transgender Question with Science and Scripture. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2019, Chapter 3, “Scripture and Transgenderism.”

Jr, James M. Hamilton, Denny Burk, Owen Strachan, and Heath Lambert. God and the Gay Christian?: A Response to Matthew Vines. Edited by R. Albert Mohler Jr. Louisville: SBTS, 2014. Chapter 3, “Suppressing the Truth in Unrighteousness: Matthew Vines Takes on the New Testament.”

Peterson, Brian Neil. “Does Genesis 2 Support Same-Sex Marriage?: An Evangelical Response.” JETS 60, no. 4 (2017): 681–96.

Questions for Bible Study

1. While Scripture may be clear on many of these issues, what expectation should we have as believers that culture will conform to God’s design? Should we desire to promote advocacy in order to have laws reflect our biblical understanding? Can we hold to marriage between a man and a woman while simultaneously accepting gay marriage laws?

2. How do I love my family member that is homosexual?

3. What about the transgender man who comes to Christ and doesn’t know how to move forward?

4. What about the gay man that comes to church and wonders what he should do about his partner of 2 decades?

5. What about the single person who feels alone and that the church has made them feel like they are less than whole?

Footnotes

[1]Al Mohler drew my attention to these two articles via his Friday podcast of The Briefing. I did not quote from his podcast, but his podcast was the inspiration for this introduction. https://albertmohler.com/2021/04/23/briefing-4-23-21 [2]Showalter, Brandon. “Christian University sues to block HUD order forcing male student placement in female dorms,” The Christian Post, April 20, 2021. https://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-university-sues-to-block-hud-trans-housing-order.html [3]Worden, Jeanine. “Implementation of Executive Order 13988 on the Enforcement of the Fair Housing Act,” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. February 11, 2021. Accessed April 23, 2021. https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/FHEO/documents/WordenMemoEO13988FHActImplementation.pdf Worden responds or expounds on President Bidens “Executive Order on Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation,” January 20, 2021. Accessed April 23, 2021. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-preventing-and-combating-discrimination-on-basis-of-gender-identity-or-sexual-orientation/ [4]Blake, Julie Marie. “The School of the Ozarks dba College of the Ozarks v. Biden.” Alliance Defending Freedom (blog) April 15, 2021. https://adfmedia.org/case/school-ozarks-dba-college-ozarks-v-biden [5]Shimron, Yonat. “Seattle Pacific University faculty vote no confidence in board over LGBTQ exclusion.” Religion News, April 20, 2021. https://religionnews.com/2021/04/20/seattle-pacific-university-faculty-vote-no-confidence-in-board-over-lgbtq-hiring-exclusion/ [6]Takahama, Elise. “Nursing Professor sues Seattle Pacific University, says he was denied full-time job ‘because he’s not heterosexual.’” Seattle Times, January 15, 2021. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/nursing-professor-sues-seattle-pacific-university-says-he-was-denied-full-time-job-because-hes-not-heterosexual/ [7]I am personally drawing this somewhat concise definition from my own study of Genesis 2:18—25. However, many authors offer varied definitions for marriage that differ from my own – specifically in that most of them include the idea of marriage somewhat depending on what the social group allows. Thomson argues “that in the OT polygamy is not sexually immoral, since it constitutes a recognized married state; though it is generally shown to be inexpedient.” Additionally, Bower and Knapp conclude marriage consists of a committed relationship between those who live in a “sexual relationship under conditions normally approved and witnessed to by their social group or society.” Finally, Elwell and Comfort write, “The joining together of male and female in matrimony, as practiced by various cultures.” Thomson. Marriage is the state in which men and women can live together in sexual relationship with the approval of their social group. Adultery and fornication are sexual relationships that society does not recognize as constituting marriage. This definition is necessary to show that in the OT polygamy is not sexually immoral, since it constitutes a recognized married state; though it is generally shown to be inexpedient. ISBE. Marriage may be defined as that lifelong and exclusive state in which a man and a woman are wholly commited to live with each other in sexual relationship under conditions normally approved and witnessed to by their social group or society. Elwell and Beitzel do not include the culturally component and define marriage as a “Union between man and woman, sanctified by God as a means of maintaining family life.” J. G. S. S. Thomson, “Marriage,” I. Howard Marshall et al., eds., New Bible Dictionary, 3rd ed. (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1996), 732. Walter A Elwell and Barry J Beitzel, Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988), 1405. R. K. Bower and G. L. Knapp, “Marriage; Marry,” Geoffrey W. Bromiley, ed., The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised (Chicago: Eerdmans, 1979), 261. Walter A. Elwell and Philip Wesley Comfort, Tyndale Bible Dictionary, Tyndale Reference Library (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 2001), 861. [8] Barry Danylak, Redeeming Singleness: How the Storyline of Scripture Affirms the Single Life (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2010), 76. [9] Danylak, 63–66. [10] Danylak, 81. [11] Danylak, 62. [12] Danylak, 126. [13] Danylak, 148–49. [14]“In addition, we must realize that marriage is not the only way in which the unity and diversity in the Trinity can be reflected in our lives. It is also reflected in the union of believers in the fellowship of the church—and in genuine church fellowship, single persons (like Paul and Jesus) as well as those who are married can have interpersonal relationships that reflect the nature of the Trinity. Therefore, building the church and increasing its unity and purity also promote the reflection of God’s character in the world.” Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine(Leicester, England; Grand Rapids: Inter-Varsity; Zondervan, 2004), 456. [15] Danylak, Redeeming Singleness, 139. [16] Danylak, 165–66.“There is sometimes a tendency, especially among the idealistic young who presume to have most of their years yet before them, that singleness is a temporary period of one’s life until one finds an eternal soul mate in marriage. This passage is a reminder that in the scope of eternity the opposite is actually the case; marriage is for a season and time, until, as the traditional marriage vow reads, “death do us part.” It is as single and free individuals that we will stand before his throne and live for all eternity.” [17]Peterson explains a counterargument to the position that Genesis 2 inherently requires a heterosexual relationship. He writes, “Because Gen 2:18–25 focuses on the aloneness of Adam, marriage, at least as presented in Genesis 2, was basically ordained by God to combat this condition. Marriage, in this context, was not for procreation, as some propose, but to establish a “family” through the bonds of kinship ties. As such, any pairing of individuals (male-male; female-female, male-female) can meet the criteria set forth in Genesis 2 to eliminate loneliness and establish a kinship bond which in turn reflects a nuclear “family.” (Brian Neil Peterson, “Does Genesis 2 Support Same-Sex Marriage?: An Evangelical Response,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 60, no. 4 (2017): 683.) [18]“While homosexuality and bestiality are very different sins, they both are similar in that they create one flesh within a category that God never intended. Since God created the one flesh union in the context of a monogamous, heterosexual, permanent marriage, it is a sin for a person to have sex with another person of the same gender.” (Gregory H. Powell, “Coming Together: The Ethical Implications of the One Flesh Union” (Dissertation, Wake Forest, NC, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2015), 34.) [19]“just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire” (Jude 7). [20]“When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house, (Deut 24:1). [21] Powell, “Coming Together,” 47. [22]“For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error” (Rom 1:26–27). Matthew Vines, a self proclaimed “Gay Christian” addresses each of the passages in Scripture that condemn homosexuality. Specifically, I offer here a few quotes to show his train of thought in recasting the traditional view of Romans 1. Vines writes, “So how should we understand Paul’s words? Do they apply to all same-sex relationships? Or only to lustful, fleeting ones? (99) … Paul might have taken a different view of same-sex behavior practiced by those who were naturally attracted to those of the same sex. (101) … same-sex relations in the first century were not thought to be the expression of an exclusive sexual orientation. (103) … Remember, the most common forms of same-sex behavior in the Greco-Roman world were pederasty, prostitution, and sex between masters and their slaves.” (104) (Matthew Vines, God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships (New York: Convergent Books, 2014), 99–104.) [23] Vines, 101. [24]“For Paul, nature is not defined by secular sources (as Vines suggests) but by the Old Testament. In fact, there are numerous linguistic links between Romans 1:26-27 and the creation narratives of Genesis 1-2. For example, Paul’s use of the relatively unusual words thelys for females and arsen for males strongly suggests he is relying on the creation account of Genesis 1 where the same two words are used…. Thus for Paul, “against nature” means that homosexuality goes against God’s original design.” (James M. Hamilton Jr et al., God and the Gay Christian?: A Response to Matthew Vines, ed. R. Albert Mohler Jr (Louisville: SBTS, 2014), Kindle location 447.) [25]I am purposefully making a distinction between a tendency or proclivity to a certain behavior and the actual act of committing the behavior. For instance, someone may possess same-sex attraction and never choose to act on that temptation or proclivity. Someone may possess gender dysphoria but never choose to function as another gender or have transition surgery. [26] J. Alan Branch, Affirming God’s Image: Addressing the Transgender Question with Science and Scripture (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2019), 44–45. [27] Branch, Affirming God’s Image, 45–46.