The Creation narrative recorded in Genesis chapters 1 and 2 is a fixture in the debate over homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Traditionally, many Christians believe that these chapters prove beyond any doubt that homosexuality was never God’s intention for mankind, and that the first model of marriage, Adam and Eve, is the only model that meets with his approval. However, tradition has a way of getting people to accept a premise without due consideration and deliberation. Does this narrative, in fact, provide unquestioned opposition to homosexuality, or have mainstream Christians overlooked evidence in this very passage that actually provides substantial support for what they oppose: same-sex marriage?
[18] Then Jehovah God said: It is not good for man to be alone; I will make him an help meet for him… [21] And Jehovah God caused a deep sleep to fall on the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed the meat in that place. [22] From the rib that he had taken from the man, Jehovah God formed a woman, and brought her to the man. (Genesis 2:18, 21-22)
You will notice in my quote from this popular narrative that I skipped verses 19-21. Tragically, this is how the vast majority of mainstream Christians perceive this story, as if those middle verses don’t exist at all. But, it is what occurs in those verses that casts a dark shadow over the interpretation held by so many. By skipping these verses, people understand that the story progresses as follows: “God makes the man. The man is alone. God makes the woman as a companion to the man so that he will not be alone.” This flow is very convenient, since it allows us to conclude that God prescribed Eve for Adam, thus prescribing the woman for the man. But, when we add verses 19-21 back to the narrative, another story begins to form.
[18] Then Jehovah God said: It is not good for man to be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. [19] Jehovah God formed out of the ground all the animals of the field and all the birds of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and everything that man called a living being, that was his name. [20] The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. [21] And Jehovah God caused a deep sleep to fall on the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed the meat in that place. [22] From the rib that he had taken from the man, Jehovah God formed a woman, and brought her to the man. [23] The man said: This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; She will be called Woman, because she was taken from Man. (Genesis 2:18-23)
What people seem not to remember is that after God determined that it was not good for “the man” (“the” is a definite article pointing to a single individual: Adam), He did not immediately create Eve. First, he brought all the animals that he had created to Adam. Now we have to ask yourself why a God who cares that all things are “good” (remember how he pronounced what he made good after each successive stage of creation) would take this time-consuming step of having Adam name all the animals before creating Eve to meet Adam”No “good” state of being alone. Why not create Eve immediately, to remedy Adam’s loneliness as soon as possible, as most Christians wrongly assume he did?
The answer is found in the second half of verse 20. Although God brought the animals before Adam to see what he would call them (v. 19), resolving Adam’s loneliness was on His mind and purpose all along. After Adam named all the animals, he still had not “found a suitable helper for himself.” This means that even this naming process was part of God’s purpose to remedy Adam’s loneliness. Unfortunately, nothing in all of creation turned out to be suitable.
But here’s an interesting question: What was an all-knowing (all-knowing) God doing? searching for a suitable companion for Adam? why did you have to find one, seeing that He already knew that nothing in creation up to that point was adequate? The answer is simple. God wasn’t looking… Adam was! It was he, not God, who named the animals; and it was he, not God, who determined that none of them was right for him.
Now, if God already knew that no animal was suitable for Adam, why would he go through this time-consuming process, allowing Adam to search for something he wouldn’t find? There is only one reason: God needed Adam (and, by extension, us) to understand that when it comes to finding a suitable mate, it is not He who chooses, but us. Sure, He knows who would be best for us long before we do; but it is useless for Him to assign us a partner, when we do not make that decision for ourselves. We are the ones who have to enter into a covenant with our partner for the rest of our lives, so it makes perfect sense that God leaves the determination of suitability to us.
It was only after Adam discovered that nothing in creation was proper that God created Eve. But notice something important at the end of verse 22. As God did with all the animals he had created, so he did with Eve. Instead of assigning her to Adam, saying, “This is your suitable mate,” He brought (presented) her to him, allowing him to Adam to give the go-ahead. And so it happened. In the next verse (23), it was Adamnot God, who gave his approval, saying, in effect, “Now East is someone I can become one with!”
Notice a full stop in the text. On multiple occasions, the text demonstrated that it was God’s intention to provide Adam with a suitable partner for himself. to the (for Adam). This is born in verses 18 and 20. The partner was not to be suitable for humanity, but for a man: Adam. Traditionalists would like to demand that what was right for Adam should be right for everybody mens; but this absolutely violates what Scripture teaches. Not only do we find in this particular passage that Adam determined suitability for himself; but a necessary consequence of traditionalist logic would be to conclude that just as it was not good for Adam to be alone, neither is it good for him. no man to be alone Because what is good for the goose (Adam) is good for the goose (all men), singleness is not appropriate for anyone, since it was not good for Adam! This line of reasoning accuses many heroes of our faith as people who violated God’s supposed intentions, including the prophets Elijah and Elijah, but also the apostles John and Paul, and dare I say, even our Lord, Jesus! None of these men married; however, according to traditionalist logic, they were supposed to be based solely on the fact that Adam did it.
Traditionalists would obviously try to avoid the consequences of their (bad) logic by claiming that the Adam model only applies as a spiritual law to those who He decided marry, and only in connection with who they get married. But this is simply not true. His logic forces us to conclude that what happened in relation to Adam’s sexuality is a requirement in relation to that of all mankind. If it wasn’t good for to the being alone, it must not be good for any of us to be.
Now, even though your logic has already failed at this point, let’s assume that it didn’t. Issues yet they exist with the traditionalist line of reasoning. Adam’s model was a man with a woman, as conservatives incessantly say today. However, in Scripture, polygamy (or more specifically, polygamy, one man with many wives) was not only permitted and facilitated, but God even established certain polygamous unions (2 Samuel 12:7-8), violating this presumptive principle. So either God violates his own word, or this law of the Adam-Eve marital paradigm (one man, one woman) exists only in the minds of people who refuse to study Scripture objectively, allowing them to speak for themselves.
So what do we learn from the creation narrative, a passage of scripture that supposedly holds a smoking gun against same-sex marriage? We found that:
- Adam determined suitability, not God.
- What he determined to be suitable was only suitable for to the.
Marriage (and sex) was meant to satisfy the human need for intimate companionship. Now, for this purpose of marriage to be fulfilled, those involved in it have to necessarily be suitable for individuals; otherwise, it is a formal marriage, with no real pious purpose. This absolutely requires same-sex marriage for gays, otherwise those with a natural inclination only toward same-sex are caught in an irresolvable “no good” situation: they need companionship, but can’t have it in a appropriate manner (adequate as determined by biblical testimony, i.e., adequate for the individual).
The best solution that traditionalists can find is lifelong celibacy; however, according to 1 Corinthians 7:9, that is not an option either. In fact, verse 7 of that same chapter explicitly says that celibacy is a gift, which means that not everyone has it. For homosexual people who do not have the gift of celibacy, the biblical remedy pronounced in Gen. 2, plus 1Co. 7:9 is sex through marriage. But this requires a appropriate escort: Eve for Adam in the case of heterosexuals, but Steve for Adam, and Jane for Eve in the case of homosexuals. There is no other solution.
