robwilkerson.net

The Gospel on Homosexuality: Jonathan and David as a Picture of Gospel-Driven Love

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

When God created Adam, was His original design androgyny?

Did God intend to create an asexual being without reference to anything related to being "male" or "female"?

When God created Eve, was heterosexuality between them "an afterthought designed to give back the man what he had lost"?

Per scholar and pastor, Jennifer Wright Knust, in her recent CNN Belief Blog post, this is just what the creation accounts in Genesis are supposed to teach us. The account in Genesis 1 of God creating male and female in His image is supposed to teach us that "God’s original plan was sexual unity in one body, not two...that God’s blessing was first placed on an undifferentiated body that didn’t have sex at all." And the second account of creation in Genesis 2 is supposed to teach us that "when the androgynous, dually-sexed person was placed in the garden, s/he was divided in two." Therefore, heterosexuality must have been an "afterthought," as referenced earlier.

In my previous post on this series, I attempted to deal with Knust's interpretation of the Genesis creation accounts, as well as her understanding of sexuality based on those accounts. The primary issue I took there was the underlying challenge she presents to the historicity, reliability, and integrity of the Bible as a historical record. Assuming that because Genesis 1 and 2 is primarily poetry, she is driven to divorce history from the equation, thereby relegating what is written there to philosophy about sex. In turn, this allows Knust, as well as many others in this line of thought, to redefine sexuality so that all versions of sex are eventually allowable by God. In other words, if one redefines what God originally intended about sex, then whatever I conceive about sex could conceivably fit into the trajectory of His original intention.

This is just what Knust does in the remainder of her article, which begins with the conclusion regarding God's original design of sexuality in Genesis 1 and 2. She believes that, "Despite common misperceptions, biblical writers could also imagine same-sex intimacy as a source of blessing." After all, if God's original design was androgyny, and if heterosexuality was simply an "afterthought," then one could argue that homosexuality is just as much of an afterthought. Yet Knust seems to go further in implying that it may be more legitimate - perhaps a before-thought - than heterosexuality.

Were David and Jonathan Gay?

She uses several biblical examples to argue her point. The first comes from the friendship David had with Jonathan. For Knust, "the seemingly intimate relationship between the Old Testament's David and Jonathan, in which Jonathan loved David more than he loved women, may have been intended to justify David’s rise as king." It would have been good to see that point footnoted, as Knust did a couple of other times in her blog post, because as a theological student of exegesis for two decades now I have not come across an interpretation such as this, described here by Knust: "Jonathan, not David, was a king’s son. David was only a shepherd. Yet by becoming David’s 'woman,' Jonathan voluntarily gave up his place for his beloved friend." So in essence, David became the heir to the throne by becoming a princess to the kingdom via his homosexual relationship with Jonathan. Interesting...and far-fetched to say the least...but not because I'm a heterosexual.

The reason it is far-fetched is more a biblical one than it is a sexual one. Perhaps David's relationship with Jonathan is intended by the biblical writers to "justify David's rise as king" in ways other than those related to sexuality. But such an interpretation seems foreign to me - at least, right now - in light of the more obvious readings, like the ones in 1 Samuel 13 and 16 where the reason for David's rise to become king is plainly stated.

13:13-14 And Samuel said to Saul, “You have done foolishly. You have not kept the command of the LordLord would have established your kingdom over Israel forever. But now your kingdom shall not continue. The Lord has sought out a man after his own heart, and the Lord has commanded him to be prince over his people, because you have not kept what the Lord your God, with which he commanded you. For then the commanded you.”

16:1 The Lord said to Samuel, “How long will you grieve over Saul, since I have rejected him from being king over Israel? Fill your horn with oil, and go. I will send you to Jesse the Bethlehemite, for I have provided for myself a king among his sons.”

16:6 When they came, he looked on Eliab and thought, “Surely the Lord’s anointed is before him.” But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.”

A plain reading of the texts shows that Saul was a disobedient king who did not follow God's will. The biblical writer then seeks to contrast that to the kind of king God wanted to rule over His people all along, someone "after His own heart," which in light of Saul's disobedience is translated, "a man who will follow My will." The rise of David to become king then, in light of a simple reading of the texts, seems far more clear than Knust's assertions regarding David's sexuality. And this is just what we found in the creation accounts of Genesis 1 and 2, discussed in my last post.

Handling the Bible With Integrity

This whole issue leads us right back again to the bulls eye of handling the Bible with the same kind of integrity Knust desires us readers to handle her writings. This is not a judgmental or critical or ill-willed statement, by any means. Again, I would love to sit down and enjoy several conversations with Dr. Knust on these issues, as well as her own personal life. But "rightly dividing the Word of truth" is essential if we are properly understand this issue of sexuality.

This issue aside, we still have not addressed Knust's obvious main point that she believes David and Jonathan enjoyed a homosexual love for one another. While her implications of their relationship are inherent in her conclusion, her actual statement is one I agree with, yet for different reasons and purposes.

"Sealing the covenant, David swears his devotion to Jonathan, 'for he loved him as he loved his own life' (1 Samuel 20:17). When Jonathan is killed, King David composes a eulogy for him, praising his devotion: 'greatly beloved were you to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women' (2 Samuel 1:26).

In light of the explicit contrasts between Saul's throne and David's throne, and in light of the fact that God declared David to be a man after His own heart, is it more believable that Jonathan's love for David is expressed by the biblical writer to show us that love for God's will is a stronger bond between two people than natural love for a woman (or for a man)? Jonathan knew God had anointed David. And Jonathan knew how wicked his father was. Yet Jonathan, the man of integrity that he was, honored his father's throne to the point of dying with him, while at the same time honoring God's will regarding David's throne. Equally a man of integrity, David honors Saul's throne while Saul is alive, even refusing opportunities to kill Saul when he had the chance, while at the same time doing everything he could to stay alive by the promise of God's will for him to be king.

It is in this way that I think perhaps the biblical writer used David and Jonathan's love for one another to justify David's rise to become king. It wasn't sexual. It was spiritual. It went beyond the natural bonds of sexual love. And that's explicitly what the text says, right? "very pleasant have you been to me; your love to me was extraordinary, surpassing the love of women." Notice that the love spoken of here is "surpassing the love of women."

Essentially Knust is basically saying that homosexual love surpasses heterosexual love. But the biblical writers, in light of the context, seem to be plainly trying to say that the love that existed between them surpassed heterosexual love as a spiritual one, and not as a another form of sexual love. In other words, their relationship surpassed the natural bonds that existed in any sexual relationship, because it was spiritual, rooted in their love for God's will and plan over and above any other thing that existed on earth.

Knust's take on this relationship between Jonathan and David does not seem to flow from the plain reading of the Scriptures. I have attempted to offer one that does, essentially pulling the rug out from beneath the claims of those who believe homosexuality was a part of God's original design. Reading the Bible with integrity eliminates this understanding when it comes to Genesis 1 and 2, and it does the same with a reading of 1 and 2 Samuel. Tomorrow, I will attempt to examine her claims regarding Sodom and Gomorrah.

Gospel-Driven Love Goes Beyond Heterosexual...or Even Homosexual Love

For now, the gospel is the root of this issue. Jonathan and David shared a love for each other that far exceeded any natural or even sexual love in other relationships. The reason for this kind of love is plainly revealed in 1 John 3:16. "By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers." The story in 1 Samuel reveals clearly and plainly that Jonathan laid down his life for his brother, David. He did this in order that God's will would come to pass. Jonathan's love for God and His will is reflected in his love for David. The Apostle John commented further on this matter in chapter 4 of his first epistle.

So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so also are we in this world. There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love. We love because he first loved us. If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother. (1 John 4:16-21).

If it's "love" we want to discuss in Jonathan and David's relationship, it is this kind of love...a supernatural one that definitely and completely and overwhelmingly surpasses any love a man can have for a woman...or even for another man. The homosexual community must deal with this issue of gospel-driven love. If gospel-love is supernatural, far surpassing any love they claim to have for each other, then Jonathan and David's relationship can no longer be used as a justification for the lifestyle.

Instead, the rest of the Bible on gospel-driven love must control the paradigm and lifestyle so that it is seen to be a message of good news about the regeneration of a heart like King Saul's, into a heart like David and Jonathan's, as well as a reversal of the effects of sin's contamination of the human race, culminating in a renewal of the image of God originally intended at creation.

bible reading

The Gospel on Homosexuality: What Was God's Original Design When He Made Adam & Eve?

Friday, February 11, 2011

On CNN's recent Belief Blog, pastor and scholar, Jennifer Wright Knust, wrote her "Take" entitled, "The Bible's Surprisingly Mixed Messages on Sexuality." Her thoughts, while delivered with amicable spirit, do expose at least one of the issues I pointed out in yesterday's post, namely dealing with the historicity, integrity, and trajectory of the Bble. And consequently, it repeats the call I also made then to see this issue of homosexuality and the Church as one of THE significant issues to be dealt with in this generation.

Knust begins her piece with this conclusion:

"We often hears that Christians have no choice but to regard homosexuality as a sin - that Scripture simply demands it.

"As a Bible scholar and pastor myself, I say that Scripture does no such thing.

" 'I love gay people, but the Bible forces me to condemn them' is a poor excuse that attempts to avoid accountability by wrapping a very particular and narrow interpretation of a few biblical passages in a cloak of divinely inspired respectability.

"Truth is, Scripture can be interpreted in any number of ways. And biblical writers held a much more complicated view of human sexuality than contemporary debates have acknowledged."

This opening statement is what needs to be briefly addressed in this post, because when read as any other book, without the cultural-interpretive layers placed over the subject of sexuality, the Bible seems pretty clear about the issues. Knust has conclusively determined that the Bible sends mixed messages about sexuality, but the arguments she makes do not arise from the very texts she tries to use to make those arguments. Let me demonstrate a few helpful examples which emphasize the need for Christians to not just know their Bibles, but also to be able rightly interpret it.

Originally, as I reflected on the experience Knust must have as a pastor and scholar, I began by assuming that the twenty-year-plus church leader in me, as well as the eight-year-plus theological training I've had will equip me to deal adequately with the subject. But then as I began reflecting on the texts, I'm not so sure it was my training that necessarily helped me as much as simple observation. I say this to bring the issue off the top shelf, which is where it almost always tends to be placed, and put it at eye-level, where you can see it and reach for it with little trouble. It is my presupposition that the most of the Bible is intended to be read normally, as we read pretty much anything else, and therefore can be interpreted with some ease, though there are some pretty deep issues out there.

The whole issue is birthed in the very first book of the Bible. It is Genesis where Knust, and others as well, believe that, "for example, it would seem that God’s original intention for humanity was androgyny, not sexual differentiation and heterosexuality." She rightly sees that there are in fact two creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2, but subsequently concludes the following.

"Genesis includes two versions of the story of God’s creation of the human person. First, God creates humanity male and female and then God forms the human person again, this time in the Garden of Eden. The second human person is given the name Adam and the female is formed from his rib."

She unnecessarily bifurcates the stories by arguing that,

"Ancient Christians and Jews explained this two-step creation by imagining that the first human person possessed the genitalia of both sexes. Then, when the androgynous, dually-sexed person was placed in the garden, s/he was divided in two. According to this account, the man 'clings to the woman' in an attempt to regain half his flesh, which God took from him once he was placed in Eden."

Are you familiar with the two stories of creation? You will have to be in order to handle this issue of sexuality correctly. However, if you are shyly dismayed by your ignorance of her "androgyny" interpretation, don't be. A simple reading of the two passages she refers to clearly do not argue for her interpretation. At the risk of being sarcastic, it is fits in line with the hermeneutical jingle, "what wonderful things in God's word that we see...things put there by you and by me."

The first account is found in Genesis 1. I am using the NET Bible as my primary translation.

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.”

1:27 God created humankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them."

Androgyny could certainly be a legitimate consideration of sexuality in this text...if it weren't for the rest of the text, that is. To be sure, making man after "Our image" would have to, in some sense, leave room for the possibility of androgyny since God is an asexual being, as well as the angels. God is a spirit, which means He is invisible and without a body, and therefore without sex organs. While we have no text explicitly stating that fact, we do have Jesus discussing the sexuality of angels, something Knust alludes to in her article. Dealing a trick question on marriage from a Pharisee, Jesus answered them by referring to what life will be like after the resurrection, that is, after the new heavens and the new earth.

"Jesus said to them, 'Aren't you deceived for this reason, because you don’t know the scriptures or the power of God? For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven'" (Mark 12:24-25; see also Matthew 22:29-30).

That doesn't sound like androgyny however, does it? It sounds like asexuality, that is, no sexual distinction. Angels have no sexual organs, and neither does God, evidently. "Let us make man in our image" can't refer to androgyny then, since the "our" doing the making are asexual beings. So if Knust, and others in this line of interpretation, appeal to heaven as the source of an androgynous understanding of God's original intention for sexuality, they look in vain at this text to find it, though one can see how this text could at least give rise to the issue to begin with.

But as I stated before, it is a really a simple failure to look at the rest of the context in Genesis 1, which Knust points to, that incorrectly leads one to make her conclusion. Simply continuing the reading of the first creation account reveals God's plan for man and woman, which could not have included androgyny.

1:28 "God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply! Fill the earth and subdue it!'"

It becomes immediately clear to any ordinary reading then, that God's intention and purpose and even mission for the first two human beings involved making babies...procreating...requiring sex...and lots of it since they were responsible for getting it all off to a good start! Adrogynous people can't have sex, obviously. The fact that God told essentially told them to have lots of sex in order to make lots of children, necessarily means they were creatd with sex organs and not, as Knust interpreted, possessing "the genitalia of both sexes."

Now, if we move to the second creation story in Genesis 2, we actually would find a better argument for androgynous human beings as God's original intention, if it weren't for the pesky sex thing again. Here is how Genesis 2 described the male-female scenario.

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.” 2:19 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. 2:20 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. 2:21 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. 2:22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the part he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. 2:23 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.”

It becomes pretty evident then that the Genesis 1 account is a summary of God's creating work, and Genesis 2 simply "zooms in" on how it came to pass that Go actually created Adam and Eve. 2:18 says it was not good for man to be alone. Why? Because then he could not fulfill the mission God had in mind for the first two humans, as unveiled in Genesis 1:28. God's purpose in Genesis 2 then, was simply to tell the story of how that mission was put into place. God created a human male first, with male sex organs, since part of the ultimate design was to procreate.

I think it is safe and reasonable to conclude that if God's original design was for Adam and Eve to have sex and reproduce, then God well-endowed Adam with the equipment necessary to accomplish the part of his mission requiring the use of that equipment. Besides that, I would even argue part of the purpose of God in bringing all the animals to Adam to be named was so that Adam would pick up on the basic observation that male animals had female counterparts...and that those male animals whose sex organs could be visibly observed were joined with the sex organs of female animals. So at some point Adam is looking at his equipment and not finding a suitable counterpart as the text explicitly says.

Can you see then how a basic, normal, contextual reading of Genesis 1 and 2 would plainly reveal God's original sexual design for human beings? And can you see how androgyny just cannot arise from the texts at any point. There is no ill-will toward scholars like Knust, but there is the necessity of handling the Bible with the same integrity with which she wants her readers to handle her writings. She wants us to take her seriously, and not try to read our own issues into her articles, nor try to superimpose some sort of reading of her articles that requires abstract, philosophical ideas that are essentially incongruent with her content. Her conclusion just doesn't seem to stand.

"From these perspectives, God’s original plan was sexual unity in one body, not two. The Genesis creation stories can support the notion that sexual intercourse is designed to reunite male and female into one body, but they can also suggest that God’s blessing was first placed on an undifferentiated body that didn’t have sex at all. Heterosexual sex was therefore an afterthought designed to give back the man what he had lost."

I think that a plain, ordinary reading of the two accounts in light of what they explicitly say, as well as in light of their contexts, reveals exactly the opposite of her second suggestion. God's blessing was placed on a differentiated body that did in fact have sex, since that was part of what he was designed to do in the first place.

I don't want to judgmentally read any wrong motivations into Knust's assertions, if for no other reason that I've never met the woman before. I'd love to meet her and talk to her about this. Knust is influenced like all of us by her culture, milieu, upbringing, and wiring. She necessarily brings everything about her and her background to the table when she handles Genesis 1 and 2, as well as the issue of sexuality. All of this influences how she understands and interprets the Biblical record. But...so do I, right? So what's to mediate between two intelligent people who are inherently flawed from the start? Presumably two things. And here is where the gospel of Jesus comes in to play on two points, in talking with her or with homosexuals.

First, respect for each other must prevail. If Knust and I are both made in the image of God then there is a deep respect we must have for each other. She is a precious creature of God, as are all homosexuals. The entire function of the gospel, as I argued yesterday, was to announced that everything which has marred that original image of God has been dealt with conclusively in the ministry of Jesus, on the cross, and in the empty tomb.

You see, Knust and I both more than likely agree that there is far too much that mars humanity, regardless of our theological presuppositions. And there is our starting point for an intelligent, respectful conversation with each other. Ultimately, however, there can be no doubt that when solutions are presented, mine will necessarily be perceived as fraught with inherent difficulties and perhaps even impossibilities for Knust. Yet my hope would be that the respect that I show her as a precious human being would carry in its DNA the very love of the gospel solution that I am presenting.

Second, the Bible must be allowed to speak on its own. Since Knust and I necessarily bring to the table our own personal and cultural milieus, the only logical mediator seems to be the object we are both trying to understand and interpret. How we look at that object will reveal for us what we think about it.

But even if we both start with the presupposition that it is not a divinely inspired book, it seems logical to at least start by reading it at face value, simply making our first approach with a normal reading of any literature that includes the rule of context. Asking questions like, "what does it actually say?" and "what does the context seem to point to as the purpose of the text?" are two of the buttons to push on a literary-GPS in attempting to navigate this issue of homosexuality with integrity toward the literature we are actually talking about.

So then, our respect for each other, as well as the Bible itself, must be the two hands that attempt to mediate our discussions on the issue of homosexuality. Tomorrow I'll attempt to unpack more of Knust's assertions about the Bible on sexuality, and then apply more gospel to the matter.

The Gospel on Homosexuality: Jonathan and David as a Picture of Gospel-Driven Love

The Gospel on Homosexuality: What Was God's Original Design When He Made Adam & Eve?

Translate

Search This Blog

Background

Charismatic Issues

Gospel Series

Other Series

My Best Reads

Blog Archive

Labels