TWO SEXES, ONE FLESH: A Prophecy Awaiting Fulfillment

Feb 17, 2020 by

by Stephen Noll, Contending Anglican:

Twenty-three years ago, I wrote a book titled “Two Sexes, One Flesh: Why the Church Cannot Bless Same-Sex Marriage.” The first chapter was “What Are We Talking About?” in which I argued that in order to think biblically about the question of same-sex marriage, we had to think logically about the terms, including the term “sex.”  Here is what I wrote:

Sexuality is a word less than two centuries old. It can be understood in a neutral sense as “the constitutionally bipolar character of human nature” (N.B. sex from the Latin “to cut”).

I then referred to the 1986 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, which states:

As a rule, male and female complement each other at all levels of organization: as sex cells; as individuals with either testes or ovaries; and as individuals with anatomical, physiological, and behavioral differences associated with the complemental roles they play during the whole reproductive process.

Sadly, the 1986 edition was the last in a grand tradition. However, even the latest online version continues to say:

Sex, the sum of features by which members of species can be divided into two groups—male and female—that complement each other reproductively.

I went on in my chapter to lay out the new “transformed” definition of “intimacy” which describes sex in terms of “plastic sexuality,” “confluent love,” and “the pure relationship.” This definition has become the new gender orthodoxy.

Some scientists, it seems, are fighting back. Two biologists from Penn State and University of Manchester are reviving the old orthodoxy. They write:

Read here


Related Posts


Share This