(Taking a Non-Traditional view of Sexuality (Revisionist View), arguing for it and then providing a Biblical critique)
Introduction
Sexual orientation is neither mentioned nor limited in the creation narrative. Genesis 1:27-28 and 2:18-25 focus on procreation and companionship; therefore, these passages should not be used to condemn homosexuality. As sexual orientation is not limited in creation, it should not be limited in modern society. This paper will layout the foundations of the Genesis revisionist argument and will measure its strength against other revisionist viewpoints. To conclude, a biblical critique will be given, outlining the orthodox consideration of sexuality.
The Revisionist Case: Genesis
The theme of sexuality is threaded throughout the Old Testament, with Scripture presenting “sex and sexuality as vital, powerful elements of human nature.”[1] Traditionalists, using the creation narrative have sought to restrict this powerful element of human nature to heterosexual relationships. However, when carefully considered, these passages do the opposite – they establish an expansive view of sexuality and provide evidence that loving homosexual relationships are not contrary to Scripture. Here are five principles supporting this view:
The first is a lack of reference to sexuality (specifically homosexuality) within the creation narrative. Robert Gagnon states clearly “Genesis 1-3 do not speak directly to the issue of homosexual practice.”[2] Fundamentally, the creation narrative is focused on procreation and companionship, not sexuality, hence the lack of mention. James Hanigan provides clarity by writing, “it is true that the Genesis creation story does not provide explicit commands about sexuality.”[3]
The second principle is that there is no prohibition of homosexuality in the creation narrative. A focus on the heterosexual relationship between Adam and Eve should not be seen as an automatic condemnation of homosexuality.[4] Further to this, Thomas Schmidt, who holds to a traditionalist view, concedes that the writer of Genesis was not prohibiting homosexual relations when writing the creation account.[5] For this reason, any attempt to condemn homosexuality is founded on assumption and conjecture. In the words of Hanigan, “there is no clear biblical or rational warrant,”[6] to condemn all homosexual relations based on these two chapters.
The third principle recognizes the procreation command (Gen 1:28) as contingent on under-population.[7] As the opposite issue of overpopulation is now being experienced, the command to procreate no longer stands. Further to this, having children is not expected of everyone,[8] nor is marriage defined by children.[9] Although revisionists concede that procreation must involve both female and male, sexuality and marriage need not be limited due to this.
The fourth principle is one of appropriate companionship. There was only one element of creation deemed not good – Adam was alone (Gen 2:18).[10] In response, God created Adam a “helper fit for him.” It is not that this helper, a woman, was appropriate for all men, but rather she was created specifically for the companionship that Adam desired. Karen Keen is helpful here in stating that the discussion should not be one of sexual differences but of covenant love.[11] An identifying homosexual best finds companionship, through covenant love, with another homosexual. It is for this reason that Johnson declares Genesis 2:18 as “the most important verse in all of Scripture for the gay marriage debate.”[12]
The final principle firmly declares that all humans are created in the image of God and are lovingly blessed by God. Each human being has an intrinsic value and sanctity to their life. The life gifted by God is not contingent on gender or sexuality.[13] The creation narrative is not about anatomy, nor is it about sexual identity, but rather about the universal blessing of all humans. In understanding this, the homosexual is loved and blessed by God, therefore their sexuality cannot be limited by other created beings.
These five principles form the foundation on which an expansive view of sexuality and companionship can be seen in the creation narrative. Homosexuality, experienced in loving, covenant relationships is not condemned in Genesis and therefore should be allowed and accepted in modern society.
The Revisionist Case: Strengths in Genesis
There are several other passages that traditionalists have used to limit sexuality, and progressives have argued against. In each, there is a focus on wrongdoing, or a crime committed. Due to this, they form weaker arguments for promotion of a differing sexual orientation. The passages in question deal with judgement of sin, not the development of loving covenant relationships. Note the following revisionist considerations of common passages and the core issues they address.
In Genesis 19, we find Lot violating the hospitality code. He had taken responsibility for angelical beings but was unable to protect them from the threat of gang rape.[14] In Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 homosexuality is forbidden not because it is inherently sinful, but because of its association with idolatry.[15] The ban no longer stands for it was based on “cultic behaviors not relationship ethics.”[16] In Romans 1:26-28, Paul declares homosexual prostitution, rape, and sexual abuse as sinful. These sins are against the natural order of companionship and intimacy. He further declares in 1 Corinthians 6:9–11 and 1 Timothy 1:8–10 that prostitution and evil sexual desires that lead to pedophilia should be condemned.[17]
As described, these revisionist views deal with an evil act that needs to be punished, or completely forbidden. Although sexuality is discussed, the association with such evil acts makes it difficult to affirm any loving covenant relationship, for the primary purpose of these passages is judgement of sin.
When we consider Genesis 1 and 2 in the light of these passages, we recognize the positive nature of its content. God made humans. He blessed them. He loves them. He makes companions fit for them. Love is developed in covenantal relationship. There is no sin, no iniquity to be judged, for this is perfect creation. It is both this positive and relationship affirming nature that makes Genesis 1 & 2 a foundational passage for the revisionist view.
Biblical Critique
The two passages in question form a “basis for biblical commands and for subsequent reflection”[18] on the matter of sexuality.
Jesus affirmed the importance of the creation narrative when in answer to a question about divorce, He uses Genesis to state foundational truths about relationships. A connection is made between two genders,[19] a covenant,[20] and the becoming of one flesh. Neil Peterson explains that the joining together of male and female was more than kinship, it anticipated sexual coupling and procreation (in reference to one flesh).[21] Sexual coupling, bringing pleasure and intimacy, cannot be separated from the command to be fruitful and multiply. God blessed sexual intercourse, between man and woman, ensuring that they could be obedient to the command to procreate,[22] a command that continues to stand today.[23]
We consider the aloneness of Adam in light of the connection that Jesus makes in Matthew. In Genesis, there is a lack of suitable companion for Adam, none can be found amongst all the animals, they are incompatible for sexual intimacy and for obedience to procreate. Therefore, God declares the situation as not good. It is not that it is sinful, rather Adam is said to be unfinished or incomplete.[24]God seeks to finish His work by creating a helper fit for him (Gen 2:18). In the Hebrew, this phrase is ‘ezer knegdo’ with ezer meaning helper, and knegdo being understood to mean “that is opposite.”[25]
There was none in the animal kingdom that could fulfil the fit of one that is opposite to Adam. God created Eve with physical complementarity in mind.[26] This is the sexuality that revisionists deny in Genesis – male and female anatomy is opposite, so that in coming together, they fit as if one flesh. James Brownson argues that it is these bodily differences that are key to the fullness of being made in the image of God (male and female).[27] Bryan Murphy goes further, declaring that these gender distinctives are required for the one flesh to be complete.[28]
Finally, it is noted that prohibition of homosexuality is not mentioned, but it is implied in God’s creative design of gender and marriage as has been discussed.[30] Disobedience to the norm of sexuality is not discussed as obedience is expected.
God was not only solving the issue of loneliness, but was providing marriage, in the context of male and female, for sexual pleasure and procreation. Gagnon concludes that it is vital to be obedient to Gods command to procreate, for this is central to His design of marriage (with medical hindrances noted).[29]
Conclusion
The creation narrative makes clear that God made male and female, with physical complementarity, to be joined together in covenant marriage, for the purpose of sexual coupling and procreation. There is no room, in the context of Genesis 1 and 2, to argue for an expansive view of sexuality beyond the limitations that God has placed.
[1] Lexham Bible Dictionary. Edited by John D. Barry (Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2016).
[2] Robert A Gagnon, The Bible, and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Nashville Abingdon Press, 2001), 56.
[3] James P Hanigan, Homosexuality: The Test Case for Christian Sexual Ethics (New York: Paulist Press, 1988), 41.
[4] William S Johnson, A Time to Embrace: Same-Sex Relationships in Religion, Law, and Politics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 120.
[5] Thomas E Schmidt, Straight & Narrow? Compassion & Clarity in the Homosexual Debate (Downers Grove: IVP, 1995), 41.
[6] Hanigan, 40.
[7] Richard E Whitaker. Creation and Human Sexuality: Homosexuality and Christian Community (Louisville: Presbyterian Publishing Corporation, 1996), 10-11.
[8] Johnson, 122.
[9] Karen R Keen. Scripture, Ethics, and the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018), 49.
[10] Unless otherwise specified, all Bible references in this paper are to the ESV (Crossway, 2011).
[11] Keen, 56.
[12] Johnson, 123.
[13] Johnson, 123.
[14] Genesis 19:8. Lot specifically mentions that the angels have “come under the shelter of his roof.”
[15] Leviticus 18:21. It is forbidden to offer child sacrifice to the idol Molech.
[16] Pim Pronk. Against Nature? Types of Moral Argumentation Regarding Homosexuality (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1993), 270.
[17] John S Feinberg, and Paul D Feinberg. Ethics for a Brave New World (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010), 409.
[18] Schmidt, 41.
[19] Genesis 1:27 is quoted in Matthew 19:4.
[20] Genesis 2:24 is quoted in Matthew 19:5, with the phrase “leave and hold fast to” signifying the covenant language of marriage.
[21] Neil Brian Peterson. “Does Genesis 2 Support Same-Sex Marriage? An Evangelical Response.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 60, no.4 (2017), 689.
[22] D. A. Carson and R. T. France, eds. New Bible Commentary (Nottingham: IVP, 2011), 61.
[23] Henry M Morris. The Genesis Record: A Scientific & Devotional Commentary on the Book of Beginnings. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999), 95.
[24] Morris, 95.
[25] Peterson, 687.
[26] Andrew E Steinmann. Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove: IVP, 2019), 67.
[27] James V Brownson. Bible, Gender, Sexuality: Reforming the Church’s Debate on Same-Sex Relationships (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 26.
[28] Bryan Murphy. “Is Same-Sex Marriage a Sin?” The Master’s Seminary Journal 28, no.2 (2017), 135-144.
[29] Gagnon, 58.
[30] Richard P Belcher. Genesis: The Beginning of God’s Plan of Salvation. 2nd ed (Glasgow: Christian Focus Publications Ltd., 2017), 66.