I thought it would be good and helpful to present a positive position on sexual behaviour and practice from scripture. So many of us know the prohibitions on homosexual (and other) behaviour and the exegetical arguments have been adequately made (but not listened to by those proposing that we all "listen"). Nevertheless there is, I believe, a far more powerful argument for sexual morality and behaviour that stems out of the positive assertions on sexual behaviour and identity that scripture gives us.
My method will be simple, going through the scriptures in order to show the growing and developing picture on this subject and the implications that scripture derives therefrom. There may be other implications but, for the moment, I want to restrict myself to those set out in scripture.
This is, then, a scriptural argument and doesn't pretend to be anything else. I trust, though, that it will be of use to you all as you continue to graciously engage with our honourable opponents.
The Foundation in Creation
Sexual identity and behaviour is set out almost from the word go (or, more accurately, from the words, "let there be...").
In the first Creation account we read the following:
Gen 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth." 27 God created humankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them. 28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply! Fill the earth and subdue it! Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and every creature that moves on the ground."
Immediately a number of things to note:
- Humanity is made in the image of God. Much is made of this simple statement but do note how the scripture itself understands this statement: "God created humankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them." Thus, at this stage all we can say about being "in the image of God" is that mankind is made male and female. From the outset we have 2 assertions. Mankind is deliberately created with distinctions between male and female. These distinctions are, somehow, a reflection of the very nature of God. Later, theologians will explore the Trinitarian nature of this statement.
- This male and female mankind are immediately commanded to "be fruitful and multiply". While it is clearly not the totality of their raison d'etre it is obviously a significant part and it presupposes what has immediately preceded - that humanity is male and female and thus reproductive.
From the start, then, we see mankind viewed in terms of a sexual reproductive heterosexual couple. Indeed the very "image of God" in humanity is defined in these terms.
The second, anthropocentric, Creation account expands upon these details. (This is obviously not the place to begin a discussion about the 2 Creation accounts. At this point all I want to note is that they have 2 very different foccii - the first is very much concerned with the good order of God's Creation and the second is far more centred on mankind).
Gen 2:18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a companion for him who corresponds to him." 19 The LORD God formed out of the ground every living animal of the field and every bird of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man named all the animals, the birds of the air, and the living creatures of the field, but for Adam no companion who corresponded to him was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, and while he was asleep, he took part of the man's side and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the part he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said, "This one at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one will be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man." 24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and unites with his wife, and they become a new family. 25 The man and his wife were both naked, but they were not ashamed.
Here we see a single man, Adam, who is alone and needs companionship. None of God's good creatures are suitable for the task and so another is formed. She is altogether different since she is from him. Bruggemman notes that the language of "bone" and "flesh" may very well denote both strength and weakness. Here, then, is one with whom Adam can share both weakness and strength. There is a true union. Immediately we are given a pradigmatic statement on marriage - the first institution in the Bible. Finally there is a closeness of relationship spoken of in terms of unashamed nakedness.
What do we make of this? Well, the point surely is clear. Humanity as the image of God is made up of males and females in relationship with each other. Do you want to see humanity or the image of God? Then there is no better place to look than a good heterosexual marriage. This does, of course, raise interesting issues about the role of singleness and so on - again I don't propose to address them here (although they are necessarily important questions). My purpose here is to speak about how the Bible proposes sexual relationships should be positively understood.
It is, perhaps, too simplistic to speak of God creating "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve", but the argument is still a strong one. It takes the most incredible blindness not to see this basic pattern of male/female partnership as instrinsically fundamental to how God has ordered his very good Creation, before anything happened to spoil it.
The effect of the Fall
The description of the Fall in Gen. 3 is well known. I don't intend to repeat it here but want to draw out the implications of that event upon the framework that has already been established.
Adam was left with a duty of husbandly care for Eve. That much is clear from the timeline of Gen 2. where he is given instructions about the Garden (2:16-17) prior to Eve's creation (2:18 et seq). The point is more forcefully made in the text. Have you ever wondered why Adam is given the blame for the entry of sin (Rom. 5:12) when it was Eve who took the fruit? The answer is right there:
Gen 3:6 When the woman saw that the tree produced fruit that was good for food, was attractive to the eye, and was desirable for making one wise, she took some of its fruit and ate it. She also gave some of it to her husband who was with her, and he ate it.
Adam was there with her! He stood by the whole time and watched as Eve was led astray by the serpent. The one who had been given the instruction about the fruit stood by as the instruction was ignored. It was his task to husband Eve and stop her. Instead, he "listened" to his wife and thus is the one responsible.
Gen 2:17 But to Adam he said, "Because you obeyed your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you...
The word here for "listen" or "obey" encompasses both the hearing of something and obedient response. Adam was led by Eve when he should have been leading her. The relational curse because of this action is declared by God:
Gen 3:16 To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your labor pains; with pain you will give birth to children. You will want to control your husband, but he will dominate you."
It is a frightening thing. Childbirth, the very centre of their first command from God, is now painful. And their relationship is now strained. Eve's willing submission to the husband who cares for her has become a desire to control (the same word used in Gen 4:7 where God speaks of sin seeking to control Cain. She will now nag him, manipulate him, do everything that married women have done since then to bend their husbands to their will.
Not that this is simply an indictment upon women, though. Adam' s loving husbandry will now become domination. Where before he would have given his all for his bride now he seeks to simply pull her into line.
Those of us who are married or who have watched marriages will not bother pretending that this is not reality. Way before we learned that Men were from Mars and Women were from Venus it could clearly be seen that these are default positions amongst sinful people. Wives nag, husbands dominate. It may not be a politically correct observation but it is the truth.
Thus, God's very good creative intent is now cursed by God Himself as a punishment for wrongdoing.
As an aside, I am constantly amazed by Christians who get married but have never had these fundamental descriptions of human nature laid out to them in their marriage preparation. Right at the start of all we are told about God's actions in the world is the fundamental unit of the family and male/female relationships. That we would not go there with people who want to be married and show them both God's intention and then the basic pattern of sin inside marriage is beyond me.
So where are we? We have seen from the start that sexual behaviour is placed solidly in heterosexual monogamous marriage. This is not just a description of one way of ordering things but the very climax of Creation - more than that it gives us an insight into the very nature of God. There is a unity in marriage ("the two will become one flesh") that is echoed in the language of God' s self-revelation elsewhere, "the LORD your God is One" (Dt. 6:4). The language is the same - that of fundamental unity.
Marriage as a picture of God's relationship with His people
While the idea of marriage in some way being "the image of God" is a theme initially, it is another idea that begins to take over as scripture progresses, that of the marriage relationship mirroring that between God and His people.
This comes to fruition in the time leading up to the Exile, where the nation is repeatedly portrayed as an adulterous wife. So, for example,
Hosea 3:1 The LORD said to me, "Go, show love to your wife again, even though she loves another man and continually commits adultery. Likewise, the LORD loves the Israelites although they turn to other gods and love to offer raisin cakes to idols."
Jeremiah 3:1 "If a man divorces his wife and she leaves him and becomes another man's wife, he may not take her back again. Doing that would utterly defile the land. But you, Israel, have given yourself as a prostitute to many gods. So what makes you think you can return to me?" says the LORD.
and so on.
Again and again the analogy is the same - God is the faithful husband who has cleaved to his bride. The bride, however, is adulterous and whores after other lovers. The picture sheds new light upon Gen. 2 for we see the same model there. It is the husband who cleaves to his wife in a unilateral manner. It is his devotion to her, not hers to him (although it may certainly exist) that holds the marriage together. In the same way it is the cleaving of God to His people that guarantees the relationship. Just as the husband is given primary responsibility and husbandry, so God takes the same place in the matrimonial relationship with His people.
Here, then, is the first major flaw in the heterodox suggestion that homosexuals may be "married". Marriage in scripture reflects the relationship between God and His people. They are asymmetrical partners. One is the loving leading husband, the other the loved led wife. Homosexual marriage removes this distinction leaving 2 symmetrical partners. The parallel thus collapses. It is simply false to view the relationship between God and His people in this way. On the very basis on which the parallel is asserted the model actually breaks down for homosexual partnerships. There is no God and His people, husband and his wife - there is simply husband and husband or wife and wife; God and His God or the Church and their Church.
The pattern continues in the New Testament
The Incarnation of our Lord brings no change to this understanding. Jesus Himself affirms the Created order of marriage (Matt. 19, Mark 10). He deliberately quotes the foundational texts in Gen. 2 that we have seen above with the scathing introduction "have you not read...".
The metaphor of bride and husband is also readily picked up in Jesus's parables. Jesus is the bridegroom that has come to His people (Luke 5:34), and the Second Coming is spoken of in terms of a wedding day with the bridegroom going to get his bride (Luke 12:36ff; Matt. 22, 25 etc.).
The Apostle Paul makes the same link when he speaks to Christians about their marriages (Eph. 5:22ff). Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves the Church, giving themselves up for her. Wives are called to submit to this. Again, it is an assymetrical relationship. Indeed, it is striking that there is no command (as far as I can tell) for a wife to love her husband - the onus is on the husband to love the wife.
Some would reject Paul's teaching here as cultural - but it is noteworthy that he does not argue from culture - quite the opposite. He consistently urges Christians "not to be conformed" (Rom 12:1-2) to the pattern of this world. His argument from marriage is not from culture but from Creation - this is how God has always intended it.
Eph5:31 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and will be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. 32 This mystery is great– but I am actually speaking with reference to Christ and the church.
This picture is taken up, again, in the apocalyptic vision of the Consumation in Rev. 19.
Paul also makes the link back to intra-Trinitarian relationships (i.e. that man and woman together are, somehow, the image of God). In a striking piece of exegesis he blows apart the idea of a completely symmetrical relationship between husband and wife.
1Cor. 11:3 But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.
...
7 For a man should not have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for man. 10 For this reason a woman should have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 In any case, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman. But all things come from God.
It is staggering for we see both mutual dependence and an order, an asymmetry. This is not an argument from culture, not even from Creation (although it draws upon it), but from deep within God Himself. In that same way that God (the Father) is the head of Christ, so a man is the head of his wife. There is equality yet also order.
Some claim that the word "head" here simply means "source". But that would be to suggest that Christ was created from out of the Father. But that is certainly not true - they are co-eternal. Rather, headship is what is intended. We may also see, then, that just as Christ has a head over Him so does the man and equally so the woman. It is certainly no shame to Christ that the Father has headship over Him, so then it should not be reckoned by the wife to be shameful either.
Some first conclusions - a devastating position for homosexual marriage
We have seen that the essence of marriage in scripture is that a man cleaves himself to a woman who is different to him and yet of the same flesh and bone. There is an intrinsic asymmetry that begins in biology but goes far deeper. This asymmetry is further reinforced by the tight metaphors and models which scripture gives us for marriage - the headship of the Father over the Son and the Husbandry of God in the person of Jesus over His church. In each schema the realtionship is one of love and submission with a priority given to the husband to love and care and lead the wife.
The application of homosexual marriage to this template does more than simply ignore the pattern set out in Creation and evidenced in our physiology and psychology. It insists that the Father and Son would mutually submit to one another - that the Father would submit to the Son. For Him to do so, of course, would mean that He would no longer be the Father for the very essence of that relationship is expressed by the Son's willing submission to all the Father asks of Him.
Not only does it, then, deny the very nature of God Himself - it also undermines the efficacy of Christ's work for us. If the relationship between Christ and Church is symmetrical (as the homosexual model must insist it is) then who saves who? Does Christ submit to the Church? Do they take it in turns to save the other? Does the Church wash Christ in the word? It is, of course, a ridiculous notion - the very asking of the question displays how far from a Biblical understanding of marriage we would have come.
This, then, is the positive model of marriage in scripture. We have not begun to look at the prohibitions - nor do we even really need to. The prohibitions are simply extensions of what we have already seen. We may, however, have begun to see how homosexual behaviour is such a destructive thing because it makes heterodox statements about the very nature of God and His work to save us.
I have yet, to this day, seen any liberal response to this sort of integrated theology. Nor have we ever been presented with anything like such a robust integrated theology of homosexual relations. Rather, we read of abstracted principles of "love" or "vulnerability" (so, for example, Rowan Williams in "The Body's Grace") stripped from their context of heterosexual marriage. It is only by ignoring the framework within which such principles are expounded that the liberal can even attempt to mount an argument. It is not for no reason, then, that they have moved from attempting such an argument to, rather, attempting to undermine our confidence in the text itself.
I trust this has been useful for you. I am thoroughly persuaded that this sort of thought is far more profitable than the incessant repetition of prohibitions. We have more than prohibitions to offer people - we have an understanding of our very nature and the God who created us. That is, surely, much more attractive to those we seek to win and, in the long run, far more edifying for us.
60 Comments •
Comments:
well, Matt will be glad to hear he’s not the only one.
David - Thanks for this. It is good to see that Moore College training put to good use…
And now - in my first post here at StandFirm - I’m wandering off topic ever so slightly. Only slightly, mind you.
David - can you do a similar post about the Law of Moses? Let me phase it as a more detailed question. What is a biblical-theological response to the ‘shellfish arguement’ that sticks to the story of the Bible and DOESN"T RESORT to mediaeval categories like moral, civil and ceremonial in its dealings with the Law? I know that Jesus fulfilled the whole Law in himself, but what then for us?
Those sort of issues. Nothing major
Is there some paper/article on-line that deals with this issue in the way that I’ve outlined? I’d be grateful for any response.