Some twist the Bible to reinterpret the sin homosexuality

REVISIONIST WANT TO REINTERPRET THE BIBLE BUT FAIL

Justification of homosexuality from the Bible must take into account the record of Creation in Genesis 1–2. Such revisionist interpreters as Boswell have not overlooked this matter. They so interpret these passages that homosexuality escapes condemnation.

The assumption that the record of Creation and the Old Testament emphasis on marriage show tacit rejection of one-gender sexual relationships is “insupportable in a modern context,” asserts Boswell. “It does not seem to have occurred to early Christians.” Indeed, “intense love relations between persons of the same gender figure prominently in the Old Testament.” 

Boswell cites Saul and David, David and Jonathan,  Ruth and Naomi.

Boswell does not argue that these relationships were sexual. He suggests as much, however, by observing that literature of the Middle Ages sometimes represented these relationships as erotic. He believes that Genesis employs symbols and myths “to explain all its fundamental truths.” He observes that the account of origins omits an account of gay love, as it omits a discussion of friendship, because “neither could produce offspring.”

Boswell thereby implies that gay love is just as legitimate as nonsexual friendship and heterosexual union, and that it goes unmentioned simply because the biblical view of sexuality focuses totally on reproduction.

However, such interpretations fail to address the obvious pattern language in the account. God has created human beings in His image and likeness. Clearly, humankind only as male and female reflects the eternal diversity of the divine Being (Gen. 1:26–27). 

In addition, God made woman from man as a “helper suitable for him” (2:18, 20). We are able to recognize her special nature and role from her formation. Female animals have no special or corresponding mention, and their only special role is to procreate according to their own kind. The text gives no place to the sexual differences among animals, nor does it affirm that females come from males. Both male and female animals come from the earth.

On the other hand, God could have made a thousand males for Adam, yet He would not have fully achieved His own image and its internal diversity. Without that full-orbed picture, His own being would have gone unknown and unknowable. 

Only a woman, not another man, could complete the divine design for humankind. Female and male differ from each other in complementary fashion, and only their union brings about a completion. In contrast, homosexuals do not find partners; they find mirrors.

They relate to each other as to one-dimensional sexual clones of themselves. The ontological differences between male and female, reflecting God’s ontology, do not exist in a homosexual relationship.

There is no union in “one flesh.” Homosexual practice is an attack against what it means to be human. Reproduction is crucial, for thereby humans enter into the creative divine work of generating further human life, which in turn has the capacity to express love for God and for people. It fulfills God’s plan for the human race (Genesis 1).

Boswell completely misses the focus of Genesis. The creation of humans emphasized not reproduction but the image of God instilled in the human being. Obviously, the existence of human beings involves more than reproduction, as shown in the attention given to creation of the human female in contrast with the attention given to creation of the female animals. God would have given no special attention to the creation of the female person if solely biological processes of reproduction were in view. Rather, the text gives much attention to the creation of human person-hood as “male and female,” and it calls for a special work of God. God breathes into man, and woman is taken from man, not from the earth.

This argument is carried forward by experience. Across the cultures of human history marriage has almost universally meant more than reproduction. Sexuality goes deeper and extends beyond the time of reproduction. While reproduction may represent the physical aspect of marriage, intimacy and sexuality also figure into the more important social and spiritual dimensions. Both the physical and nonphysical are necessary to define who we are as humans. In addition, human beings have responsibility to the human community as well as to themselves and their families.

Homosexuality denies all of this. It specifically rebels against God’s plan for an image-bearer and for heterosexual marriage of complementary human beings for the good of human beings. Indeed, it rejects the nature of God as revealed by humans and the special image of the divine nature that is revealed bodily in Christ (Col. 1:15; 2:9). It arises out of pride and arrogance, as both Scripture19 and Jews and Christians outside Scripture have recognized.

The creation of humans as male and female (Genesis 1) and the heterosexual union that constitutes marriage (Genesis 2) lie at the basis of the rest of Scripture and its comments about sexuality and marriage. A proper understanding of, and submission to, the record of Creation will guide the inquirer to the truth about homosexuality and heterosexuality. Genesis 1–3 clearly is foundational to other Bible texts.


De Young, J. B. (2000). Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law (pp. 30–32). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.