Sex as a good gift from God

In our previous post, we thought about the implications if sex were intrisically sinful.

In contrast, the Bible tells us sex existed before sin. The first two chapters of Genesis have the stories of how God made the world. Sin only comes in chapter 3. So chapters 1 & 2 are about pure humanity – humanity before sin.

Genesis 1:27-28a:

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth…”

To be in God’s image is to be like God, while not being God. One of the first aspects of being like God is having babies - which would, for us humans, involve sex.

Having children images God because God gives life, and loves life. God is Father - and fathers have children. God is not sexual in himself; but our sexuality is an irreducible element in our imaging of God's life-giving nature.

So, our sexual nature is tied to being in God’s image – which means it’s tied to our basic humanity.

Then in Genesis chapter 2 we have the story of Adam and Eve. Genesis 2:23-25 records Adam's response when he first met Eve:

23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman’, for she was taken out of man.” 24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. 25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

Notice how physical and visual this is. The man and woman are ‘bone of bone’ and ‘flesh of flesh’ – it’s very carnal, very physical. And they were naked before each other – it’s very visual. So, the physical pleasure of sexuality is good. And the visual stimulation of sexuality is good. God made it that way.

In fact, it's so good that God gave us instructions on how to best enjoy it. We'll explore God's good pattern for sexuality in our next post.

Comments

The different distractions of secularity and spirituality

There has been a lot of discussion about the recent 'vibe shift' away from radical atheism back towards an openness to the supernatural. I don't think this new spirituality is necessarily an openness to the unique claims of Christ. It will more probably replace one set of commonly-accepted misunderstandings about Jesus with another. Under radical atheism, people dismissed the Biblical claims about Jesus' resurrection because they 'knew' that it was impossible. Jesus hadn't really died. He just passed out (after being beaten and whipped and crucified) and then woke up in the tomb (and rolled away the stone himself and overcame several guards). Or the disciples hallucinated that they saw him (even though Jewish beliefs of the time didn't expect one person to rise possessing eternal life himself; they expected a general resurrection at the end of time - see John 11:24 ). Or something else. The so-called 'explanations' of Jesus' non-resurrectio...

A better understanding of nonbelief

The Nones Project is an ongoing study into the belief systems of people who call themselves non-religious. A few weeks ago one of the project leaders, Ryan Burge of Washington University, posted some really interesting preliminary results on his Substack. 1. We've probably heard of people who are spiritual but not religious (SBNRs). SBNRs were "the largest group of nones" in the sample. They believe in the supernatural realm but not necessarily in "a God." They are "deeply skeptical of religion but highly interested in spirituality," therefore individualistic and anti-institutional. 2. But this study differentiated SBNRs from people they called Nones In Name Only, NiNos. They different to SBNRs by being religious about their spiritual. They believe not just in the supernatural but in "God." And they tend to engage in traditional communal religious practices while SBNRs practice individualised eclectic bespoke spiritual practices. The s...

Wax and Wright on the definition of "mission"

Trevin Wax has written a clear, simple, and charitable introduction to a debate about the nature and boundaries of the kinds of Christian activities that validly should be called "mission." In brief: Should we use a broad definition, where "mission" encompasses all the various purposes which God calls Christians and the church in general to perform, e.g. being ethical at work; general acts of care and charity; standing against systematic oppression and working towards justice instead? If so, "evangelism" is only one part of the church's mission - a central, necessary, and irreplaceable part, but only one part nonetheless. The latter kinds of activities don't save anyone for eternity, but they do genuine good in this world which please God. And that kind of good makes a real difference in many parts of the world which have not benefited from the kind of Christian moral transformation which the West benefited from - the kind of moral transformation...

Multicultural Ministry Matters

Search This Blog