Sexual Confusion as the Result of the Fall

On my way to work this morning, I was able to have a very stimulating conversation with my wife. Our conversation began when I told her that I had listened to a radio program yesterday and there was a segment where the various Christian ideas of creation were brought up. During the program I was pointed to a very good textual reason why Christians cannot be theistic evolutionists (i.e. God used the Darwinian theory of evolution to create the world). When I asked my wife if she knew what text or phrase that would be, she unhesitatingly stated, “the fact that each kind of animal only produces its own kind….”

I was very impressed with my wife. Not because that she knew it or even the fact that she so quickly answered me (although both of those things are impressive), but it was more do to the fact that she has apparently known this for some time whereas I was just seeing the dots connected between the theory of evolution and the creation account in Genesis in this way.

We went from discussing this concept of creation and the fact that Old Earth Creationists and (theistic) evolutionists are unable to satisfactorily address the issue of death prior to the fall of man. My wife then transitioned the conversation to another issue relating to the Genesis account that I would like to ponder for a bit.

In a previous article I have written about the possibility of the fact that adamantly stating that certain sinful proclivities have no root in the genes or the physiological makeup of an individual may be a bit misguided. My point has been to say that whatever the reason for why some people have very strong homosexual tendencies (it is usually in dealing with the issue of homosexuality that this “natural” argument comes up) is not the real issue that Christians ultimately must be concerned about.

One of the reasons why I say that this is not the main issue because God’s Word is clear in defining sexual immorality and homosexuality as being utterly sinful (there’s absolutely no wiggle room there). The second reason deals not with the biblical text but with the reason (as I understand it) for the claim that homosexuality is natural or, “I was born this way.” The reason, as I see it, that this objection or rationale is used is so that the individual can say that since it is natural, it must be okay in God’s eyes or even if it is wrong, I’m not responsible because “I was born this way.”

Ultimately the use of whatever logic or arguments that sexual deviants (by behavior) want to use fall in the same category as do those arguments in favor of evolution. The Darwinian understanding of natural macro-evolution is a man-made structure that goes to great lengths to deny the existence of God, not primarily because of His role in creation but because of His role as Lawgiver and Judge.

So how does this all merge together? Well, Stephanie made a great comment about how when God said to Eve, "Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you." (Genesis 3:16b) I think that it is interesting that God set up the created order with Adam being in authority and Eve was created to be his helper (cf. Genesis 2:18-25), or stated another way, it is for man to bear the responsibility of leading and for women to bear the responsibility for obeying. On a side note, we see that there is no disgrace or second class status associated with the one who is in subjection, for we see that Christ is in subjection to the Father in the same way. “Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” (1 Corinthians 11:3; cf. Ephesians 5:21-30)

Getting back to Genesis 3, the point of “your desire will be for your husband” is not that she will desire her husband sexually (because the sexual process and drive were created and in place before the fall (Genesis 1:22, 28) but it refers to a changing or perverting of how she understands and deals with (for lack of a better term) her position as being the helper and one who’s role is to submit to her husband’s authority. This word is used in three places and perhaps the most helpful text is Genesis 4:7 referring to Cain’s temptation to sin.

“[The Hebrew word for desire] refers to sin’s desire to control and dominate Cain. (Even in Song of Songs it carries the basic idea of “control,” for it describes the young man’s desire to “have his way sexually” with the young woman.) In Gen 3:16 the Lord announces a struggle, a conflict between the man and the woman. She will desire to control him, but he will dominate her instead. This interpretation also fits the tone of the passage, which is a judgment oracle.”¹

Here is where my pondering about the correlation (if there is one) between the principle of Genesis 3:16b and the issue of homosexuality. My thought is that Eve’s temptation and proclivity would be to usurp her husband’s authority which is his because of God’s design in the sexes. Therefore, she has a proclivity or a very real temptation for something that is natural to man in an unfallen state. Could it be that the sin of homosexuality has its root in this same part of the fall – that men or women seek to rebel against the created order and roles for each?

There is no denying that homosexuality is the result of man’s rebellion against God in the fall (just like heterosexual fornication, adultery, and other perversions of sex between man and woman inside of the marriage covenant), but my only point here is that there might be a correlation between the sexual confusion that Eve (and all women after her) experienced toward the leadership of her husband and that of some men and women who have a heightened confusion over the actual sexual relationship between men and women.

This is all to say that the temptation to sin in the area of homosexuality may be as “natural” as the temptation to lust, to be envious, or to be greedy. I admit that my hypothesis that the problem of homosexual tendencies may be rooted, in some form, in the same part of the curse that causes women to want to control their husbands is just that, a hypothesis. I look forward to discussion on this to examine the Bible to see if there is any merit to this, or if it needs to be discarded.

Again, let me reiterate my stance that no matter what modern science or psychology says about this issue, our mandate is clear from God. Whether the academic and scientific communities in our time conclude that there is a “gay gene” or not has no effect on how we are to deal with this issue. Sin is sin whether we say that the cause is genetic or if we say that the cause is that we are all sons and daughters of Adam, and we share the responsibility and the fate that Adam incurred when he sinned. Furthermore, Romans 1 seems to make it clear that the lifestyle of sinning in homosexuality is the result of the continuing and blatant rebelling against God.

“²⁴ Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
²⁵ For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. ²⁶ For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, ²⁷ and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. ²⁸ And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,” (Romans 1:24-28)

The bible is clear. Let us share the gospel and pray that the Holy Spirit will illumine our understanding of His Word through careful study and fervent prayer. Soli Deo Gloria.

---

¹ http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Gen&chapter=3&verse=16