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
