The Biblical Debate on Homosexuality
I’ve heard them. No doubt you have to. So has Jennifer Knapp. The so-called “clobber verses“–Bible passages used to “clobber” people in the debate surrounding same-gender sexual relations. It’s the Westboro Baptist Church-pitch dressed in polite language.
There’s Sodom and Gomorrah…
There’s the Levitical Law…
There’s the arsenokoitais debate…
But one passage is consistently left out of the same-gender sex discussion: Genesis 2. Specifically, verses 21 through 25. I’ve been thinking about this passage a lot lately. Struggling with it. Mostly because the logical end leads me to a conclusion that is less-than-popular.
The author of Genesis is describing the pattern of creation, specifically the creation of man and woman:
- Adam is formed from earth.
- Eve is formed from Adam.
- Adam and Eve form a union together.
- Life comes from this new union.
The “clobber verses,” to me, hold little water in the homosexuality debate. They’ve been degraded into weapons used to injure instead of bring life. But Genesis 2 … Genesis 2 is a very clear indicator of what God intends for intimate sexual relationships amongst human beings. Yes, this is a poetic look at the creation story, but the euphemisms and context make it clear that there is a pattern God is really keen on:
Man + Woman + Sex = Good.
Has anyone encountered these verses in the debate surrounding same-gender sexual relations? If so, how were they referenced? Did you find the argument compelling or not?
Discuss.
How would you categorize Matthew 19:4-6? It could hardly be categorized as a clobber verse and seems to pair well with the same idea being put forth in Genesis 2.
“Haven't you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” “
Justin, I think you are right to include Genesis 2. Honestly, I think this Biblical framework for marriage has everything to do with the homosexuality discussion going on in the Church today. It is the foundational passage relating to sexuality and intimacy in relationships. So YES. I wrote a post about this as well following the Jennifer Knapp announcement [ http://www.jskogerboe.com/?p=880 ], and wish I had thought to include Genesis 2.
One further thought… I'm starting to get uncomfortable with the term “clobber verses.” And I have used the term. I think I've seen that phrases several times now since Jennifer used it in her Christianity Today interview. But to label any part of God's Word “clobber verses…” It seems dismissive. Disrespectful. Dangerous. For all Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching and correcting, right? I'm starting to think that when we as Christians adopt that rhetoric (from the gay community) we are making those passages something that God never intended them to be. Sure, we can be theologically correct and jerks at the same time. But the way we HANDLE Scripture does not change what the Word actually says. So, I'm preaching to me and the rest of the Christian community: How about we not stick any part of scripture with a negative label, and take it all at face value?
Thanks for another great post, Justin. God bless!
Exactly. This is a great example of Jesus affirming the teachings of the Old Testament. Good eye!
Thanks for weighing-in, man!
I think the “clobber verses” terminology works because it's indicting the people who abuse them. God's Word is still God's Word… The message stands, regardless. The problem comes when people abuse them by perverting their intended meaning.
It's the difference between a prison shiv and a scalpel. Both cut flesh, but one is designed to kill and the other is designed to give life.
Have you ever heard a pro-same sex marriage interpretation of how these verses can apply to such a union? Would one re-frame the “one flesh” description or is it seen as present in that relationship? It would seem there would be some major biological hurdles for the type of union that Jesus is talking about.
I think the Matthew and Genesis texts are an articulation of why heterosexual couples shouldn't get divorced…but I'm not sure what they say (pro or con) about homosexual couples.
Justin, I have been waiting and wishing for someone to bring these verses up. I have been thinking amidst all of these debates that no one ever brings the creation account into it. So, thanks for bringing it up and helping everyone to take a new perspective on it.
Many heterosexual marriages that have been “blessed by God†could fall into a category of dangerous, hurtful, or harmful relationships – we are all sinners.
I think the Genesis text certainly represents God’s ideal “life-giving†relationship, and without making one relationship “less-than†another, I think the debate going on in the church is how we as Christians are to exist in this fallen world. There is no context of homosexual relationships, as we know them today, in the OT. Therefore, many in the church today agree that these so called “clobber verses†do not apply to us. So, while all scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching and correcting, we must understand context. Our society is not perfect, God knows this, and for this we’ve been given keys to the kingdom of heaven, and that whatever we hold true on earth He will hold true in heaven.
Loving relationships, whether homosexual or heterosexual can be affirming, lasting, nurturing relationships, and even a blessed marriage can be harmful, evil, and unaffirming.
Matthew 22:37-40
“Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.â€Â
Let us not be so concerned with judging each other. We are not called to determine which relationships the Father is “keen onâ€Â. We are called to feed His sheep, to love our neighbors, and to worship Him.
while i think it's right to bring up the creation of male and female in Genesis, i think Genesis 2 is less relevant than Genesis 1 in a discussion of human sex and gender.
The Genesis 2 account is less about the relationship between the sexes in general and more about the relationship between Adam and Eve specifically. You'll notice that in verses 24, the word is no longer woman, but wife. Surely you are not claiming that it is God's purpose for every man to be attached to a woman. Or every woman to be joined to a man.
Secondly, verse 24 suggests that the text is written with the intent of legitimizing marriage practices as they existed at the time of its writing. Adam had no parents to be separated from. I know there will be some who will hit the God's-ordained-Word-roof over me saying so, but the author's intent colors the way a story is told. We have two creation accounts precisely because each account is serving a different purpose. The Genesis 2 account is being written with heterosexual marriage in mind.
To look at the account in Gen 1, it suggests that the purpose of male and female in humans is NOT procreation. Just previous in the text, birds and fishes are commanded to multiply without an explicit account of the creation of their sexes. Therefore, the command for humans to multiply has more to do with the relationship between humanity and the world (in stewardship of) and less to do with the relationship between the sexes.
And i keep saying “sexes” because male and female here are anatomical words, not ones that speak about cultural roles. The only other place you'll find these words in Scripture is where animals are being sexed… “a male goat” or “a female dove.” It asks for a rethinking of our intellectual/relational interpretation of imago dei in humanity. God's image and likeness is somehow independently represented in both male and female physicality.
And these anatomical words are those that Paul employs in Galatians 3:28 when he remarks that there can be no male and female in Christ. Paul isn't talking about gender hierarchies being upset or gender roles being more equitable (allow these surely follow); he's claiming that our reidentification in Christ is so profound as to make our anatomy irrelevant. That's a much bolder claim than we are comfortable to give him credit for. But i think it's a claim that, taken seriously, more than allows for different gender orientations.
I've heard this argument before. To me, it's like saying that any relationship other than a heterosexual one is bad. What about the people who are single?
I've often heard Genesis 2 used to argue that God made man and woman because only they reproduce (no argument there), and that any relationship that can't is sinful. Again, what about the people who are single? Or are of old age? Or just don't want kids?
To me, it's a bad argument to use.
I'm not sure I follow. You seem to be indicating that not being in a heterosexual relationship is the same as being in a homosexual sexual relationship. Is this correct?
Genesis 2 seems to indicate that if you choose to engage in a sexual relationship with someone, it should be with someone of the opposite gender.
Bryne. As always, great thoughts.
Let's try this on for size …. Very crudely speaking, Genesis 2 seems to be a poem of how the genders “fit” together–emotionally (“At last! …”) and physically (“bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh …”). Again, crudely, males don't “fit” together with males the same way fit with females, and vice versa.
How do you see Paul's writings “de-bunking” this fundamental, biological fact? I always read Paul's words in Galatians the same way I read Jesus' words re: marriage in Matthew 19. No marriage in heaven because we'll be like the angels… But surely gender won't be “erased” in heaven, will it? Hopefully gender oppression will be erased, but surely not gender (“male” and “female”) itself…
What do you think?
Jason … I like what you're saying. Answer me this, though …. And forgive me for putting it so crudely, but what do we do with sex? That seems to be the intent behind Genesis 2–intimate, sexual, body-to-body, interconnected sexual intercourse.
The affirming relationship between a male and a male isn't necessarily the issue. It's what they're doing beneath the sheets. Not to be crass, but that's what it boils down to.
Word.
In retrospect, that probably wasn't the best way of saying what I meant. I live in the South, and I've heard many people use that verse to argue that since a homosexual relationship can't bare children, it's inherently sinful. I misinterpreted your post, and on top of that my earlier comment leaves much to be desired. My apologies!
Anyway, back on topic. I think it's saying that if you've chosen to create a new life, then find someone of the opposite gender, because only a heterosexual relation can create new life. I believe that a sexual relationship that is practiced out of love, regardless of the participant's genders, is honored by God.
justin, thanks for initiating good discussions. you're willingness to dialogue makes you one of my personal faves.
again let me suggest that making the sex vs. gender distinction here is very helpful.
first, you are now making the argument that in Gen 2 males and females “fit” according to both sex and gender. this is a deviation from your earlier argument that heterosexual relationships were deemed good by God because they produce life… which means you also sidestepped my criticism of human sexual differences being solely intended for procreative purposes. and i'm wondering what you think of that argument. further, what is the purpose of extra-procreative sexes? especially what does it have to do with our vocation as divine image bearers? i don't have any aces up my sleeve… i find it totally baffling, but for that, all the more important.
and is there any indication in the text that other “fits” are excluded? again, i argue that Gen 2 is a personal narrative account… like much of what we read in the history books of the Old Testament. the language shifts from Man and Woman as general categories to this man and this woman as personal characters. Adam and Eve had a “marriage” that was blessed by God, well and good. But does the text give any indication that other marriages are excluded? What about the fact that the text is apparently back engineered?
in Galatians 3:28, Paul runs down three sets of pairs. each of the pairs involves what the ancient world considered an essential distinction: greek/jew, slave/free, male/female. these weren't malleable categories in that context. they were considered inherent, bred-in-the-bone traits. His ancient audience heard the whole procession of pairs with the same shock as we hear the last. I think Paul is claiming that our sexual anatomy is irrelevant to our life in Christ. It no longer matters what you have below the belt. And if you'll grant me that our sexual physicality is (somehow) tied to our image bearing, then Paul is saying something about that changing as well…. maybe it's the difference between images and icons, i don't know. But i do know, if we are taking the text seriously (and we are!), we have to seriously grapple with the full import of the words Paul chose. What do you make of the completely conspicuous, anatomical words for male and female here?
And lastly, while Jesus may be talking about heaven, Paul is not. He is talking about our waking, walking, talking, Christian lives. There is neither/nor in Christ now… at least the way i read it.
I hope your not feeling ambushed. Being that I am both female and a student of theology, I have duked it out plenty with “clobber verses.” There is a lot of cross-over clobbers, the same verses that are often used to support exclusively heterosexual relationships are those that are used to keep women out of leadership and in their homes. I studied these texts as a Baptist with hard-core, Baptisty, bible-study methods. The texts alone converted me to position I hold now…. true story.
Justin, I appreciate the debate and opportunity for discussion you provide here – it's part of the reason why i dig this site.
I personally read Gen 2:24 to say that yes, Adam and Eve had a sexual relationship; they were intimate. I think it goes too far to say that this passage condemns any other sexual union as sinful.
you note that the pattern God shows in Genesis is “Man + Woman + Sex = Good.”
To take this to the conclusion “Man + Man + Sex = Bad” is not logical. It simply isn't in the text.
I think a lot of people do infer that same point, but it may be part of the reason that this passage gets “left out” of the debate, as you say.
And, since you asked: “What do “we” do with sex?” I think that based on the text, the Creator tells us that sexual intimacy is a gift so that we might create intimate bonds, lasting relationships, and to some extent, procreate (Gen 1:28). Is that what most people do in our post-modern era? No.
Jason You said that “I think it goes too far to say that this passage condemns any other sexual union as sinful.” The passage is not promoting homosexual relationships either. It only brings to us the union of a man and woman. Is there not, though, an argument from verse 24 about, specifically, the man leaving to become united with his wife? Does this have a reflection back on the woman being taken from man and then them being reunited again through the bonds of intimacy? If it does, it may be a strong argument against homosexuality.
The Genesis 1:28 passage of the call to procreate is also interesting because I have heard an argument from the homosexaul perspective that says since the world is now populated well, this command no longer is necessary and we are free to choose any partner that one would want. Has anyone heard this argument before?
Well to coin an oft-used phrase, “God created Adam and Eve NOT Adam and Steve.” In the creation story God tells Adam and Eve (and the animals) to be fruitful and populate the earth. Same-sex unions cannot do this.
Having said this, God's Word has much more to say about the misuse of the tongue. Unfortunately, many 'christians' have spewed some rather hateful remarks towards the gay community. Lots of judgement and condemnation towards gay people. I wonder if God finds this more of an affront than the act of homosexuality?
Procreation may not be our main 'purpose', but I believe it is what God was referring. Unsure what you mean by saying, “the command for humans to mulitply has more to do with the relationship between humanity and the world(in stewardship of) and less to do with the relationship between the sexes.
Also, it may not explicitly say God created 'male and female' animals, birds and fish, yet it states that each can produce offspring. I believe the implication is clear.
When we get to heaven, won't ALL be my father? ALL my mother? ALL my brother? ALL my sister? Isn't that what Jesus and Paul referred?? We will be of ONE family. The things of this world will have passed and thus any memories of it. Why would we want to be in remembrance of this life when we are living in the presence of God and in perfection??
What I meant by my comment is that the only significant different between the commands to multiply given to birds/fish and humans is that humans are to exercise authority over the earth.
Otherwise, you are missing my point entirely. I am not asking why there is an absense of an account of the creation in sex in animals. I am suggesting that the presence of an account of the creation of sex in humans is conspicuous in light of the fact that both groups are commanded to procreate. Let me restate my analysis of the text to clarify my position:
If animals and humans are commanded to procreate and
If there is no account of the creation of sexes in animals
Then we can assume that the creation of sexes in humans is not related to the command to procreate and
Therefore, we cannot exclude human sexual relationships on the basis that they cannot produce offspring.
Humans, unlike animals, birds and fish, are NOT created in God's image. This is exactly why the creation account of Man and Woman is conspicuous.
I agree that the creation of the sexes has more implications than just to procreate, but I think you are reading too much into the fact that God doesn't say he created a male such-and-such and a female so-and-so in regards to animals, birds and fish. The command to Man and Woman 'to be fruitful and multiply' could not happen if the creation of the sexes was irrelevant.
Whether this validates any other human sexual relationship or not will be decided by each individual. People have ALWAYS used/misused God's Word to support/condemn what they believe/understand.
You said, ” I believe that a sexual relationship that is practiced out of love, regardless of the participant's genders, is honored by God.” So, do you think that sex outside of a marriage relationship is permissible and pleasing to God?
Not at all. I was referring specifically to gender, not whether or not they're married.
What tends to be missing in all this sort of debate is an understanding of the minds of gay people. What struggles have they gone through? What is it like to walk in their shoes? How some have known, from the age of 3 or 4, that they were different. While others, at perhaps a different point on the spectrum, only realised and started to struggle, or not, much later. I recall that IVP many years ago published what was perhaps one of the first books to help in this area, 'The Returns of Love' by (pseudonym) Alec Peterson, or something like that.
It would surely help if someone would get together a reading list of Christian and secular books which help us understand the issues and conflicts that gay people, Christian or not, face.
The frustrating thing about this debate is that oftentimes it just ends up in circular rhetoric with each side presenting carefully paraphrased versions of talking points we've all heard before. The truth is that nothing I can say will convice people that my loving, long term relationship with a dynamic, fantastic, funny, sweet woman is just as blessed by God as any other marriage. And there is nothing anyone else can say that will convince me that my loving, long-term relationship with a dynamic, fantastic, funny, sweet woman is somehow wrong, dirty, less than human. But, yet we keep debating, and talking in circles and convincing nobody. But I'm sure, if you spent a day in our house and observed our relationship, it wouldn't look that much different than yours. We go grocery shopping, we care for our 3 dogs, we compliment each others cooking and support each other's interests and hobbys. We hang out with friends, go to bed early, kiss each other good night, work regular jobs. We take care of each other when we're sick, or sad, and celebrate each other's triumphs. We get stressed out. We rarely fight, but when we do it is about my hatred for housework or her impatience and we make a point to never go to bed or leave the house angry. To tell me that our relationship is somehow dysfunctional just because we are both women doesn't jive somehow, no matter how many bible verses you throw at it. Justin, you use the term God-breathed. Here's my take on God-Breathed scripture. Everyone, including God, must keep breathing to survive. I doubt highly, that God breathed only once and there was scripture. He continues to breathe just as we continue to breathe. In my studies with Shakespeare, we didn't call a breath in inhilation, we called it inspiration. With inspiration comes new ideas. So, if God continues to breathe into scripture, isn't it possible that new ideas are also inspired. Why is it that when we discuss scripture we must discuss it as though we still live in Ancient Israel. We don't. The world is always changing and growing, just as we are as humans. Is there truly no room in a God-breathed world for the kind of love I share with my partner? If the answer is yes, for you, then I only ask that you let me deal with those implications. I am confident that with the life I lead, I will be able to look St. Peter in the eye at the pearly gates and say “I have done my best to lead and be led, to love and be loved, to be the best daughter, lover, friend and (maybe someday) mother I can.” It isn't your job to get me into heaven. That journey is mine and mine alone.
One sensitive piece from the agony aunt on UK's Christianity Magazine:
http://www.christianitymagazine.co.uk/dearmaggi…
Well here is what Jesus said: Matthew 19:4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
So Jesus is taking it right back to Genesis. Man and woman becoming one flesh in marriage.
And again, I cannot stress enough that I am not talking about gay people in general. I am only talking about gay people who are Christian. You can be Christian and be gay. But you cannot say the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. It does. There is no debate on that. If you need more evidence, please just read Romans Chapter 1. That alone proves it.
The only debate is what it means to be a Christian. What it means is not being perfect. Every Christian will sin again. It means “surrender.” The Apostle Paul called himself a “slave” to Jesus Christ. We as Christians are to “crucify the flesh”, meaning let all of our past desires and wants go for the desire and will of Christ. This is what it means to say “Jesus is Lord.” Is really your Lord? Are you really following all of His commands and denying yourself? That is the challenge. “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” – 2 Corinthians 5:17.
Jesus Christ died for us. ALL of us. He loves ALL of us. He only asks that we all LIVE for Him. God bless.
Sure, Genesis gives a 'pattern of creation' as Justin argues.
But is that a commandment, or simply an explanation of how new life forms? It is clearly NOT a commandment.
To use that explanation of how new life forms as a way to “justify” homosexuality as a sin is quite a stretch.
Do we consider being single a “sin against the pattern of creation” the way that you are arguing homosexuality is a “sin against the pattern of creation”?
Of course not. So drop the double standards.
If being gay is a sin because of the Genesis story of creation, the so would being single.
That's bad logic, Justin.
Sure, Genesis gives a 'pattern of creation' as Justin argues.
But is that a commandment, or simply an explanation of how new life forms? It is clearly NOT a commandment.
To use that explanation of how new life forms as a way to “justify” homosexuality as a sin is quite a stretch.
Do we consider being single a “sin against the pattern of creation” the way that you are arguing homosexuality is a “sin against the pattern of creation”?
Of course not. So drop the double standards.
If being gay is a sin because of the Genesis story of creation, the so would being single.
That's bad logic, Justin.