Patheos

BuddhistCatholicContemplativeEvangelicalGeneral ChristianHinduJewishLatter-day SaintMuslimNew VisionsProgressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Patheos

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos Patheos on Facebook Patheos on YouTube

Just and Sinner

Were the Prohibitions of Homosexuality Purely to Encourage Procreation?

Last updated on: June 3, 2014 at 1:44 am   by Jordan Cooper

Were the Prohibitions of Homosexuality Purely to Encourage Procreation? 2014-06-03T01:44:16-06:00 Jordan Cooper

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

It’s been a while since I have written on this, but I wanted to continue the series I began on common arguments against Biblical sexuality. I have been responding to this image. 

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

Claim: That was when the earth wasn’t populated. There are now 6.79 billion people. Breeding clearly isn’t an issue anymore!

This claim is made in response to the statement that “God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” It is purported by the pro-homosexual interlocutor that this creational institution applied only to a society in need of increased population, and thus is irrelevant to contemporary culture. This claim is often made in regard to both the creation narrative, and the governing Laws of Israel. Supposedly encouragement or allowance of homosexual relationships would inhibit God’s plan for Israel by limiting procreation. 

There are a couple of points to be made to this claim. To begin, examine the first claim, that the creational institution of marriage is only relevant to an unfilled creation. This statement begins with the assumption that there is something of a temporary nature about the institution of marriage. It is a conditional provision based on the population of the earth. Apparently, when the population of the world got to a certain point, this institution could be altered.

Scripture does not, however, place marriage in such a context. In Paul’s theology, there is an eternal meaning behind the divine institution of marriage which extends itself beyond mere procreation. He writes, 

“Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.” Ephesians 5:26-33

In Paul’s view, there is a connection between the marriage of a husband and wife, and the relationship between Christ and the church. This is not incidental, but marriage was created with such redemptive intent. Christ and the church have a relationship with one another that is pictured in marriage. It is important to note that there is both a great functional and ontological divide between Christ, and his church. This is why marriage, similarly, involves two parties with both ontological and functional differentiation. Just as the church cannot become divine, or be substituted for another institution, so also the wife cannot become a male or be replaced by someone of the male sex. Just as Christ’s role and the church’s role are fundamentally distinct, so are the roles of two spouses in the marriage covenant. 

In this manner, it is clear that marriage, in the Biblical model, is broader than procreation; it is a profound mystery (sacramentum) which portrays the relationship between Christ and is bride. It is not arbitrary or subject to alteration due to the development of culture.

The second part of this argument is that the Israelites established bans on homosexual practice so that procreation would be encouraged. Such a small nation, seeking power in the ancient near east, needed heterosexual marriage and even polygamous marriage for it’s population to grow, along with its religion and political power. There is one major problem with this argument; ancient homosexual practices, such as pederasty in ancient Greece, did not exist apart from heterosexual marriage and procreation, but as a secondary sexual experience. Thus, homosexuality would likely not have any direct affect on procreation. 

There are other, more profound problems with homosexuality than simply the fact that it results in less infants being born; it denies God’s creational institution, and distorts what God instituted as a picture of the gospel, and thus the gospel itself.

Uncategorized

Ethics

Previous Post



June 3, 2014

Luther on the Necessity of Preaching Sanctification

Next Post



June 3, 2014 Osiander and the Finnish Interpretation of Luther


Browse Our Archives

Select a Category American Lutheran Classics Blog Posts Book Review Christian Dogmatics Course Church Resources Curtis Leins Dogmatic Theology Ethics FAQs Historical Theology Just & Sinner Publications Luther Quotations Podcast Sermons The American Lutheran Theological Journal The complete works of Revere Franklin Weidner Theology Proper Uncategorized Videos

Select a Month October 2019 September 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014


Follow Us!

Follow Us on Facebook Follow Us on Twitter



TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who was cast into a pit by his brothers?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Daniel Jacob Joseph Moses

Related posts from Just and Sinner

Evangelical

On the Evils of Abortion and the New...

Just and Sinner

Evangelical

Response to Moral Arguments Against the Bible

Just and Sinner

Evangelical

No, Lutherans are not Myopically Focused on Individual...

Just and Sinner

Evangelical

Richard Dawkins' Comments Comparing Christianity and Islam Show...

Just and Sinner

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Evangelical

The REST of Your Life: A Creative Wrestles...

This week I had a conversation with a good friend from church....

How the author of the world's best hymn...

I've been working with John Newton for a while now. This makes...

Psalm 130 | Lectio Divina

Long before this Lectio Divina, Psalm 130 - the song - started...

What About the Trees? Another Living Parable

After I finished writing the last article about falling leaves as a...

Why Classical Education Is a Conversation, Not a...

Come and Read: Joy in Classical Education When I was a little...

What Happened at Cornell?

Cornell University has received a great deal of negative publicity and intense...

view all Evangelical blogs

Patheos on Facebook Patheos on YouTube

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Copyright 2008-2026, Patheos. All rights reserved.

Subscription Support Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In

Follow Patheos Patheos on Facebook Patheos on YouTube