Does Genesis 2 teach that same-sex marriage is against God’s plan for mankind?

Introduction

 Genesis 2–3 in the Bible contains a story that depicts God’s creation of man and woman, how God sets them up for marriage, how they disobey God, and the consequences for human life. Some people have claimed that the text teaches against same-sex marriage. God’s plan for mankind is for men to marry women, and therefore same-sex marriage violates this plan. What I would like to consider here is whether this argument is justified. Does Genesis 2 teach that same-sex marriage is wrong?

The text

Let’s see what the text says. Here are the parts that seem relevant, but please check the entire passage in your own Bible.

“18Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.’ … 21So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; 22and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23Then the man said, ‘This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.’ 24Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.” (Genesis 2, RSV).

Analysis

To understand what the story teaches, let’s go through it sentence by sentence.

1. God observed that it is not good for the man to be alone.

2. God recognized that the man needs a suitable helper.

3. Therefore, God made a woman from the man and presented her to him.

4. The man recognized the woman as “flesh of my flesh”.

5. Therefore, a man separates from his family and becomes “one flesh” with his wife.

Two phrases need clarification:

(i) Being one’s bone and one’s flesh refers to having a familial relationship, i.e., kinship, as we see for example with Jacob and his uncle (Gen 2914), Joseph and his brothers (Gen 3727), and David and the Israelites (2 Sam 51).

(ii) Being “one flesh” is understood by Jesus to refer to being so strongly united that to divorce is to separate what God himself has joined (Mat 196).

Two pieces of logic are key to the story:

A. Because the man shouldn’t be alone, God divides him into a man and a woman.

B. Because the man recognized the woman as “flesh of my flesh”, they get married.

Discussion

An observation we can make is that companionship, mutual help and familial relationship are mentioned in the story, but sexual intercourse and reproduction, though they commonly occur in marriage, are not. Why these omissions? Suppose there never was such a thing as marriage. Then sexual intercourse and consequently reproduction could still happen, but companionship, mutual support and familial relationship could not. These only happen in a close relationship.

We thus see that the point of the story are the two pieces of logic. God creates the man; the man has needs “so” he creates a suitable partner (point A); the man accepts his partner as suitable and “therefore” they get married (point B). The point of the story is to provide an explanation of why marriage happens, namely, to satisfy needs that a succession of one-night stands cannot, and that it happens with God’s design and approval.

Moving closer to the topic at hand, another observation we can make is that the passage contains no command or prohibition as to who can and can’t get married. While people are quick to point out that God makes a woman for the man and specifically describes a man and a woman getting married, they also commonly conclude that this is the only valid form a marriage can take. Since this was the only form of marriage known at the time, it is understandable that this is what is described, but we need to be careful. The story does not explicitly state that marriage is limited to one man and one woman, nor does it prohibit alternatives. The point of the story is to explain existing practice, not to allow or forbid alternatives.

Look at the step-by-step points more closely:

1 and 2. The man is alone and that is unsatisfactory. That is true for people generally, and so far contains no limitation as to who could be a suitable companion.

3 and 4. God makes a woman for the man whom the man accepts. This approves of opposite-sex marriage as God’s design, which is a relief for most of us. Unfortunately, these statements contain no information about a man who is not attracted to women. If God were to present a homosexual man with a woman, he would be unable to recognize her as “flesh of my flesh” but instead recognizes another man as such. So what should he do? The text doesn’t say.

5. Because the man recognizes the woman as a suitable helper, he and the woman get married. Unfortunately again, it does not say what a man who fails to find a woman suitable should do. Should he marry a woman anyway, should he stay single, or should he marry another man? That situation is not discussed, none of these options are presented, and there is no command to indicate what to do.

This then leaves us in a quandary. Since the text neither condones nor condemns same-sex marriage, we cannot directly deduce from it either approval or disapproval.

Conclusion

The text neither explicitly approves of nor explicitly prohibits same-sex marriage.

I believe we can answer the question indirectly, which I will address in a later post.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Does the Law of Moses apply today?

Introduction There seems to be confusion about the relevance of Old Testament rules to modern life. People read them and notice a mixture of rules, some that seem to make sense today (“don’t steal”) and some that don’t (“no mixed-fibre clothing”). It seems wrong to ignore all of them because of those that don’t seem relevant, because then it seems like a licence to disobey quite reasonable moral precepts. But then the question arises, which ones do we keep, which do we ignore, and why? Then people often quote Jesus’ statement, “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets,” while ignoring many more statements in the New Testament that seem to state something contradictory. It seems that there has been a failure to teach basic Christian doctrine on this issue and as a result there is confusion. To address this topic, I think it’s better to work chronologically to see how divine revelation and human understanding by the Biblical writers developed over time. God’s Cov...
Read more

Did Leviticus prohibit homosexuality?

Introduction Leviticus contains a prohibition against some sort of sexual activity between males. Does this justify the claim that it prohibited homosexuality? The text The prohibition appears in two places, the second with a penalty. Quoting the NIV: “Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.” (18 22 ) “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” (20 13 ) For the purposes of this discussion, I am assuming that the NIV translation is more or less accurate. As a literature search will reveal, this is not guaranteed, but it is the best we have. It is instructive to compare this with the prohibition against sex with animals: “Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.” (18 23 ) “If ...
Read more