Jesus Does Not Believe in Homosexual Marriage...Really!

Genesis 2:18-24- "Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. 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 a helper suitable for him. So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. The man said,

 “This is now bone of my bones,

 And flesh of my flesh;

 She shall be called Woman,

 Because she was taken out of Man.”

For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh."

Today we'll actually be discussing the validity of the phrase "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." The phrase, when used, usually gets a roll of the eyes or possibly violent reaction. Most people just write it off completely and act like it has no logical validity. How wrong they are.

One of the things that is important to a few different issues is the order of creation. Topics involving the creator/creature relationship, husband/wife relationship, man/animal relationship, and idolatry, all are founded on the actual order of how things were created. Paul makes specific reference to it in 1 Corinthians 11 in God's authority over man, and man's authority over women. Paul infers it in Romans 1:18-32 in talking about sin and man's fallen nature, a text which we'll get to eventually. In the case of Genesis 2:20-24, Jesus actually is its interpreter in regards to the definition of marraige. We'll get to that in a second, let's look at the passage itself first.

First off, this passage is almost never referred to in conversations about homosexuality by homosexuals. Most discussions go only to passages that directly refer to it, and pass over what is probably the most important passage on it in the Bible, and more so because Jesus interprets it in Matthew 19. The importance of this passage is to the topic is that there is a reason for why homosexuality is defined as a perversion, because God did not create man or woman to operate that way. So, homosexual marriage advocates won't reference it due to the fact that it is the pivotal argument about even the plain old existence of homosexual marriage.

So, let's get started.

“It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.”

What does it mean to be "a suitable helper" for man? We need to look at Man in creation first. When God created Man, He created him as he was supposed to be. The fact that God looks down on creation as "good" means that the order of the cosmos is exactly as God intended it. Man, before the fall, was exactly as he was intended to be, in the perfection of creation. The homosexual agenda will start off any conversation on this subject with the assertion that Eve was a suitable helper because Adam was heterosexual. Well, of course. On the other hand, they will state that if Adam was created homosexual, a man would have been a suitable helper, not a woman. Right here is where we need to put on our thinking caps. While it is good to sometimes look at what may have been from a hypothetical viewpoint, when it comes to things that have already occurred, you cannot ignore the plain facts. The fact of the matter is, God created Adam heterosexual and declared it as "good." The word "good" in Hebrew is the word "tob" and has the idea of "pleasure." When something is pleasing in the eyes of God, it means that the pleasing thing correlates to God's very nature. What that means is that heterosexuality in itself is holy, and is the proper order for nature.

Back to "suitable." Why was Eve "suitable?" Look at the animals. God doesn't create a male first, then a female out of the male. He creates each "after its own kind" and all at the same time. This is the context. When the animals are brought before Adam for a name, what is the inference? It is that there are two kinds of each kind, a male and a female. They are able to reproduce. Look at the birds and fish, for instance. In 1:22, God tells them "to be fruitful and multiply." Obviously, they can't reproduce without male and female, and they're created before man. So, in 2:19 when man sees them, the sexes were distinguished. So, if 2:18 is the beginning of the paragraph, then 2:19 is the context. Why weren't the animals suitable helpers to man? Because he couldn't mate with them. Why was Eve suitable? Because only with her could he "be fruitful and multiply" (Gen 1:28). Even if Adam was created homosexual, he would not have been able to mate, and therefore a male still would have been unsuitable.

Let's stop and think about contradicting arguments. It has been levied against homosexual apologists that they like to pile arguments on top of each other without thinking through the fact that the multiple arguments are all in contradiction to each other. The argument they usually use in reference to Romans 1:24-26 is that the people there were naturally heterosexual, but were taking part in homosexual activity, and therefore were "against nature." But let's think that through in this case. If Adam was created homosexual (hypothetically), and he could only multiply with a female, then wouldn't Adam be sinning if he were to be fruitful and multiply as a homosexual? Its an odd scenario, but I think it proves my point. Let's jump down a bit.

“This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.” For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh."

Why will the two become one flesh? Remember hermeneutics- context. What does the context say? "For this reason." What reason? "This is now bone of my bones... she was taken out of Man." So, the all-important question when it comes to homosexual "marriage"- Can a man and a man become "one flesh" with each other? The answer is an abounding no. The reason that homosexual marriage is a complete farce is because man did not come from the very flesh of man. Only woman holds that claim. Woman is meant for man because she is his compliment; she works with him because she is from him. When a man and a woman are united in sexual intercourse as the result of a marriage, they become one flesh because the rib is reunited with its body. This all sounds good, but is it accurate? Let's look at what Jesus Himself has to say.

Matthew 19:3-9- Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” They *said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?” He *said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Now, look at how Jesus interprets this passage. A slightly different take than mine, but to the same point. He directly uses the creation order as the reason for male-female marriage. In the original passage, the reason that "they shall become one flesh..." is that "She was taken out of man." Jesus instead ties it to the larger context, that God "made them male and female." So, coming full circle, we ask the question: "Why is homosexual 'marriage' unbiblical and a sin?" Because God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Its kinda amusing to look at it that way. Such a trite statement, and yet so theologically accurate. Jesus cites the creation order as the reason marriage is defined as "a union between one man and one woman for life."

So, Christian, what is your stance on homosexual marriage politically? Do you wish to see homosexuals happy? Do you wish to bring homosexuals together in loving relationships? Then you are directly going against what Christ taught about marriage. You are defining it differently than how Christ did, and are standing in direct opposition to the teachings of our Lord and Savior on the sanctity of marriage. Marriage is God-instituted, and therefore only He is qualified to define it.

I want to add, on a personal note, that I'm not coming up with these interpretations. They've been around for a long time, much longer than I have. There are men much smarter and more competent than I am that use these same arguments ably. That said, the homosexual position is nothing new. There is nothing said that hasn't already been said. The position has always been the same- stand against homosexuality or throw away your Bible. The homosexual position has been proven time and time again to be unbiblical, and therefore, those who support it stand against their own Scripture.

Simply put- there is no such thing as homosexual marriage. If it doesn't exist, then you can't support it. So don't.

Keep up the fight,

Mike