Archive: God Made Them Male & Female

Scripture’s Consistent Heterosexual Track

By David A. Seamands

For over nineteen hundred years the Church has refused to condone the practice of homosexuality and considered it incompatible with Christian teaching for two important reasons.

First of all, because of the positive biblical teaching on human sexuality in general. In some ethical issues, such as slavery or the place of women, specific moral directives vary according to the sociological and cultural context of the times. But in matters of sexual morality there is one common thread running throughout all Scripture which never varies—a clear, consistent heterosexual track. It begins with the two creation accounts in Genesis. These tell us that humans were made “in the image of God,” created as “male and female” (1:27), the complementarity of the sexes is part of what God pronounced “very good” (1:31), and sexual intercourse (becoming “one flesh”) is for reproduction (1:28), companionship (2:18), and relational fulfillment (2:18-24). One cannot say these are only beautiful stories which explain the attraction between the sexes but are without ethical implications—descriptive but not prescriptive. For they are immediately followed by a moral directive: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife,[1] and they become one flesh” (2:24).

The “therefore,” translated in the New Testament “for this reason,” indicates that because God created them as they are, “male and female,” this is the way they ought to be.

However, in accordance with the Reformation principle, “Scripture should be interpreted by Scripture,” it is the New Testament use of this passage which holds the most significance. The teachings of Jesus on divorce and marriage are found in Matthew 19:4-8 and Mark 10:6-8. The passage in Mark begins with the words, “But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female,’” and then quotes Genesis 2:24. Whatever the Genesis writers may have had in mind it is unmistakably clear that Jesus interprets the passage to mean there is a sacred order of the sexes which is grounded in creation itself, expresses God’s will for humankind—heterosexual, monogamous marriage—and provides the only context for sexual intercourse. Thus, marriage is the union of one man—male—with one woman—female. It:

• implies a public declaration—the leaving of the parents;
• involves a covenant—cleaving or being joined to his wife; and
• is consummated by sexual intercourse—becoming one flesh.

In I Corinthians 6:13-20 Paul quotes only, “The two shall be one” (v. 16), but in Ephesians 5:25-33 he repeats the entire verse of Genesis 2:24. In both instances he spiritualizes the one-fleshness of heterosexual intercourse to describe the believer’s union with Christ as being “members of Christ” (I Corinthians 6:15) and joined to His body. In Corinthians, Paul uses it negatively to condemn fornication as a misuse of the body which is “not your own” (v. 19). In Ephesians he uses it positively as a symbolic analogy of Christ’s love for the church. In both instances the sacred heterosexual order of creation is made the basis for moral imperatives.

Therefore, the church’s historic stance against the practice of homosexuality is not based on the story of Sodom or on the proof-texting of certain Bible verses. It is based on the consistent heterosexual track running through all Scripture, which is grounded in God’s will expressed in creation.

Secondly, we reject homosexual behavior because Scripture consistently condemns all other forms of sexual intercourse. From this it follows that the practice of fornication, adultery, incest, bestiality, and homosexuality is always condemned as being outside the divine intention and incompatible with it. That is why every Scripture addressing same-sex intercourse is clear, unambiguous, unequivocal, and unanimously negative. There are no exception clauses as in the case of divorce. And in spite of its central emphasis on compassion, grace, and acceptance, nowhere does the New Testament soften this stance.

This consistent Biblical perspective continued in the writings of the early Church fathers. In their comments on the relevant Scriptures, same-sex intercourse is always considered a form of immorality, incompatible with Christian behavior.[2] This same tradition continued throughout the Church until very recently. Revisionists now attempt to nullify these biblical references so as to make same-sex intercourse acceptable and commendable.

The Scripture clearly states: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. … If a man lies with a male as with a woman both of them have committed an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13).

We are told since this occurs in the Holiness Code its cultural context makes it irrelevant to our times. That to be consistent, we would also have to condemn the other things forbidden by it—eating shrimp, making garments from different cloth, having intercourse with a menstruating woman etc. Fortunately, Jesus did not follow this all-or-nothing principle. He carefully separated the temporary from the eternal, rejecting ceremonial and dietary “laws” but maintaining permanent ethical principles. In fact, Jesus took what may be the earliest occurrence of the command, “love your neighbor as yourself,” from this very code (Leviticus 19:18) and made it part of His “greatest commandment” teaching (Matthew 22:34-40). When one follows the “common thread of Scripture” principle, sorting out time-bound, cultural edicts from universal moral precepts it is not nearly as difficult as the critics suggest. There is an unchanging common thread of opposition to same-sex intercourse throughout all Scripture. But there is no such unvarying theme with regard to eating shrimp, mixing cloths in garments, or scores of other ceremonial and cultural matters. To repeal the former by equating it with the latter is questionable biblical scholarship.

Or take Paul’s well-known passage in Romans 1:18-32:

For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men.

This is the most important biblical reference because it places the issue in an explicitly theological context. Same-sex intercourse, both male and female, is clearly condemned. Paul does not say it is a greater sin than the others listed in vv. 29-31. But it is his major illustration of sin committed by human beings in rebellion against their Creator and the divine intention of creation. Homosexual practices are not the cause of the “wrath of God” but the consequence of it. “God gave them up” (vv. 24, 26, 28) to “a debased mind ” and to follow their own desires. As a result they “exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural” (vv. 26-27) and indulged in same-sex intercourse.

Once again we are taken back to the heterosexual order of creation. “Natural” here refers to the objective nature of what God intended for the sexes in creation. It does not describe something subjective which feels natural to an individual.[3] To engage in the “unnatural” is to go against the “natural” design and purpose of what God created.

Some say the biblical prohibitions do not apply because the writers knew nothing of homosexual “orientation,” or of same-sex intercourse practiced within the context of loving, caring, and committed relationships. The Scriptures, therefore, do not apply to these situations and such homosexual relationships are acceptable.

All of these are unsuccessful attempts to evade the unremitting opposition toward homosexual practices which runs unchanged throughout all Scripture. In those days homosexual practices were widespread, so the New Testament writers certainly knew about same-sex masturbation, and oral and anal intercourse. It is these practices they clearly condemn as a violation of God’s intention for the sexes. This is why Paul includes them in his lists of sinful behaviors unfit for the kingdom of God:

Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites,⁴ … none of these will inherit the kingdom of God (I Corinthians 6:9-10).

The law is laid down not for the innocent, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, … for murderers, fornicators, sodomites[4], … and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching … (1 Timothy 1:9-11).

However, the most serious result of the revisionist attempt is to remove the objective biblical basis for sexual union—heterosexual, monogamous marriage—and replace it with a subjective basis such as “orientation ” or “quality of relationships.” When this is done then any sexual relations which meet those standards can be approved—sex between unmarried singles, pre-marital or extra-marital sex, as well as same-sex intercourse. A careful survey of theologians and authors who take such a position confirms this fact. The list includes Roman Catholics, Protestants, and even the officially published sexuality study documents of several mainline denominations (United Church of Christ, United Church of Canada, Presbyterian, etc.) A recent example is the United Methodist group, Affirmation, which officially changed its stated purpose in early 1991 to include “the concerns of Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals. ” It appears that bisexuality is now to be considered another “orientation,” as an alternative Christian lifestyle. This is what happens when the Church departs from clear, consistent Biblical norms.

David Seamands is a professor of pastoral ministries and the dean of the chapel at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky. He has served as a United Methodist missionary and pastor. He is author of numerous books, most notably Healing for Damaged Emotions. Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture in this article is taken from the Revised Standard Version of the Holy Bible.

Reprinted by permission of the Circuit Rider, December 1991/January 1992.

Endnotes

[1] Some have attempted to weaken this by pointing out the Hebrew word here does not mean “wife” but “adult woman.” Actually there is no special Hebrew word for “wife,” as there is, for example, for “bride.” The meaning “wife,” in Genesis 2:24 is made unmistakably clear by speaking of “his woman.”

[2] It is significant that the pro-gay scholar, J. Boswell, is not able to cite a single early text which approves homosexual activity in his book, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality (1980). See J. Robert Wright, “Boswell on Homosexuality: A Case Undemonstrated,” in the Anglican. Theological Review, Vol. 66:1, pp. 79-84.

[3] J. Boswell claims Paul condemns “unnatural” homosexual acts only when they are committed by persons who are “naturally” heterosexual, and not when they are committed by someone of “natural” homosexual orientation. Fellow Yale Scholar, Richard Hayes, now of Duke Divinity School, in his widely acclaimed response to Boswell in The Journal of Religious Ethics, Vol. 14, No 1, Spring 1986, pp. 184-215, has brilliantly shown the fallacy of this argument. Unfortunately, the erroneous idea has been widely and uncritically accepted, and we now hear it propounded again and again as if it is a proven fact.

[4] The Greek word translated as “sodomites” is arsenokoitai, literally, male bed-males, or males who sleep with males. The word is obviously based on the Septuagint (Greek) version of the Leviticus phrase, “man (who) lies with a male.” See David F. Wright, “Homosexuals or Prostitutes? The Meaning of ARSENOKOITAI,” in Vigilae Christianae Vol. 38, pp. 125-153.