ADAM AND... STEVE?
Are Genitals The Qualifier For Marriage?
It has been my custom to instruct
gay Christian men, when people use aginst them that ridiculously tired old line that "God made Adam and Eve - not Adam
and Steve", to look them lovingly in the eye and say,
"Yes, God made Eve for Adam .... but He made Steve for me."
Because, in actuality, that is exactly what happened. Please let
me explain how.
First, picture the situation in the Garden. Moses points
out in Genesis 2, that God saw that Adam was lonely and that He said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will
make an help meet for him." Stop and think of that for a second. Adam was lonely?! Here was Adam, 100% perfectly
made, 100% perfect, made in the very image of God, with the very earth and all that is upon it at his command, and with God
Himself as his friend who walked and talked with him. Adam (and later Eve) was the ONLY HUMAN IN HISTORY who ever stood in
the full glory and presence of God Almighty. He could do this, of course, because he was completely without sin. And yet he
Before Eve's creation
and immediately after God announced that it was not good that the man should be alone, a very remarkable thing happened.
Notice that God specifically stated "I will make an help meet for him," yet that was NOT what He did next. In a curious move, Scripture
says that the very next thing God did was that He presented all of the animals to Adam. Then it gives a strange reason why:
"...to see what he would call them."
At first that doesn't seem too strange in and of itself.
But there is a reason why God wanted to see what Adam would call each creature immediately AFTER He said that it was not good
for the man to be alone. He was waiting to see if Adam would name one of them as his companion - to see if
Adam would choose a mate among them!
Bear with me, because I'm about to show you something in Scripture that
they, regretably, never mention in church, and you are going to see why the church has been so wrong about their
understanding of marriage and homosexuality and the Law. Let's review this whole incident in Genesis:
18: And the Lord God said,
"It is not good that the man should be alone;
I will make him an help meet [suitable] for him."
19: And out of the ground the Lord God formed
every beast of the field and every fowl of the air,
and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them:
and whatsoever Adam called every living creature,
that was the name thereof. (Now watch carefully!)
20: And Adam gave names to all the cattle,
and the fowl of the air,
and to every beast of the field:
BUT FOR ADAM THERE WAS NOT FOUND
AN HELP MEET FOR HIM.
Do you see what just happened? God says that Adam's loneliness
is not good, and to answer this problem God parades every creature before Adam - but among them there was not a creature
suitable for him as a mate, to keep him from being lonely. No animal is sufficient for us as a comparable mate.
after this, when no suitable mate is found, God creates Eve and brings her to Adam, and Adam says,
"This is it!!"
Only something made in man's own image, of man's
own flesh, can be suitable for man.
But this begs the question: WHY is only man's image suitable to him as
a mate? That leads to even bigger questions: Why DID God make Man in the first place? Why is mankind so important out
of all creation that God would be willing to DIE for him? And why would perfect Adam in a sinless world be LONELY? I
suppose that, firstly, we have to acknowledge, that since loneliness existed before the Fall - since it existed in a state
of perfection - therefore the condition of loneliness is not sin nor the result of sin. And yet, while God Himself says that
“it is not good” for the man to be alone, loneliness is not something separate from God, else it could not have
been there in the beginning during a time of perfection. If man was made directly by God in God's very image, and the first
thing God says about this perfect replica of Himself is that he is lonely, therefore loneliness was also with God. And
thus being true, the rest of the Scriptures go on to tell us exactly why He made us: to be His mate. He is Man's Husband
and Man is His Bride, and Genesis thru Revelation is the story of this Husband seeking and calling His Bride to Him. That
is a core doctrine of the Judeao-Christian faith, precisely because this doctrine is taught by Scripture. In fact, nothing
more powerful hits this doctrinal nail on the head like Jesus' very own words in Matthew 9:15, where He says of Himself
"Can the children of the Bridechamber mourn
as the Bridegroom is with them?"
And as Paul wrote to believers regarding their relationship
with Christ, contrasting it to that of Adam & Eve, in 2nd Corinthians 11:2:
"For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have
espoused you to one Husband - that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ; but I fear, lest by any means, as the Serpent
beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so [too] your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ!"
[See also Jeremiah 31:32, Isaiah 49:18, Isaiah 61:10, Isaiah 62:1-5,
Jeremiah 2:32, John 3:27-29, Revelation 21 (all), Revelation 22:17, Mark 2:19, Luke 5:34, Matthew 25].
So now let's honestly ask the question. Why DID
God make "Eve", a female, as a mate for Adam and not "Steve", a male? There IS an
answer, as you will see.
Let us at least attempt to think of this logically,
without taint of emotion, like Spock from Star Trek. Deduce and calculate the Word of God without mucking up the Word of God
with emotional bias, as it is written, "rightly dividing the Word of Truth". Now think logically.
Eve, the first mate for Man, could very well
have been made as a "Steve' (that is, a male). If Jesus, the very God who created all things [John 1:1-18],
is undeniably a male and yet He chose to create ANOTHER MALE (Adam) as His mate, wouldn't it make sense for Him to have given
Adam another male as a mate? After all, males are the image of Adam AND God. Here is why the FIRST mate - the first "help
meet" - had to be a female.
Because God foreknew that
Adam would sin.
You weren't expecting that answer, were you. You
see, BECAUSE of Adam's sin and subsequent fall, he brought death into the world. Therefore, children would have to be born
to replace him. Hence, Adam's mate would have to be pre-fashioned BEFORE the fall, by divine pre-knowledge OF the fall, to
have the ability to conceive, carry and give birth to children AFTER the fall. The reason God didn't give Adam another
male wasn't because two males together was wrong (else God making another male for Himself would be wrong), but because
the Man would have ended with Adam's death. God could not allow that to happen because Man is His Bride
whom He loved, and therefore He redeemed Man. God wasn't going to create a new mate, a new being, for Himself.
Adam was it! Notice that god also did this at the flood, chosing to maintain Mankind through Noah rather than recreate.
The issue of the male &
the female, and their creation and their unique purposes, is one of those issues
in which the one who studies it is (fortunately or unfortunately) required to instantly jump from milk (spiritual baby
food) to meat (spiritual adult food), because this is strong meat to be chewed instead of milk to be sipped. That being
so, this also makes it difficult to discuss comprehensively. I confess that I do not know it all, and some of it is so deep
that it is currently beyond my understanding, as it is written, “If any man thinketh that he knoweth anything, he
knoweth not as he ought to know.” In other words, no matter how much you think you know about something,
you still don’t know all there is to know about it. And therefore, in this I stand humbled before God. But we are given
reason and the Holy Spirit to comprehend the Scriptures; God does not leave us in darkness. So - first let
me at least make it absolutely clear that I am NOT saying that the reason God created Woman was because of sin! The woman was a dear and precious gift of the Lord
to the man (and to mankind). Man is not complete without womankind also here with us, and vice versa, as even 1 Corinthians
11:11 says, “neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord”. Even
a homosexual man, who does not PHYSICALLY join with a woman, nevertheless is incomplete without women, and the lesbian woman
who does not physically join with a man is incomplete without men. As Barbra Steisand put it, "People need people." In fact
you may notice that homosexual men actually tend to have unique and deep friendships with women which heterosexual men seem
to have a problem attaining (probably because sexuality and lust get in their way). Being female is
not the cause of sin. Adam and Eve - the father and mother of Mankind - most assuredly sinned TOGETHER. I
want that made clear before we proceed.
I said before, a mate was given by God to Adam to keep him from being ALONE - that is why a mate was created in
the first place. My point, as I will prove, was that Eve’s genitals were irrelevant to her qualifying
as Adam’s mate.
And it is here in my explanation that I must greatly rely upon the reader's understanding that no matter WHY Adam’s mate was crafted in a slightly
different appearance, there is no sexism with God, nor in the Scriptures, nor implied by my forthcoming comments.
It is interesting to note that a Hebrew tradition - while acknowledging that God
mad woman from the man’s rib (thus creating her with his DNA) - also interprets this to mean that God took “a
side” of Adam to make Eve. She isn’t merely made of his body, she is literally his "other half" (which is a term
used even today to refer to a spouse). If that is so, then this would confirm other theological speculations that, all of
that which became "Eve" was originally in Adam – and because the man Adam and the woman Eve each
contained a half of the same person (and each possessing what the other is lacking), they were therefore both drawn to each
other AND at odds with each other for lack of comprehension of that which they did not possess (which the other possessed).
Is this why they say men and women never understand each other? Who knows. But my impression from Scripture is that Eve’s
unique difference (that is, the mental and emotional qualities unique to the female) were not taken out of thin air in
her creation but were taken from ADAM. I cannot outright prove this from Scripture, but I think there is sufficient
context in Scripture to validate the hypothesis.
At this point the question may be raised: "But aren't women
also made in God’s image?” This is where you must hold tight to your faith and remember that there is no sexism
in Christ. Whether women are made in God’s image or not, remember that Woman (and certain biblical women in particular)
have been constantly exalted by the Lord. I mean, think of it, mankind is referred to in the feminine as the Lord's Bride.
And God includes the female with the male when He calls them by the highest titles: “kings and priests unto Christ”.
But WAS the woman made in God’s image, too? To our logic is would seem
so because both males and females are procreated the same way. But the biblical facts seem to supersede and
contradict what appears as logic to us (as if anyone
could be surprised at that fact) – and what is important is that we rejoice and be contented in whatever the
outcome because we are NOW equal before Christ - for "there is neither male nor female in Christ". Amen?
What the biblical facts would seem to suggest is that the woman was not directly created in
God’s image. The man was created from the dust of the earth in God’s image, for
God, and the “help meet” was created from the rib of man, for man to
prevent his loneliness. My understanding of this comes from 1 Corinthians 11:3
“But I would have you know,
that the head of every MAN is Christ;
and the head of the WOMAN is the MAN;
and the head of Christ is God.
Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered,
dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that
is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a
woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
For a MAN indeed ought not to cover his head,
FORASMUCH AS HE IS THE IMAGE AND GLORY OF GOD:
BUT THE WOMAN IS THE GLORY OF THE MAN.
FOR THE MAN IS NOT OF THE WOMAN,
BUT THE WOMAN OF THE MAN.
NEITHER WAS THE MAN CREATED BY FOR THE WOMAN,
BUT THE WOMAN FOR THE MAN.”
Now I realize that these words are politically charged and could have every Amazon
feminist burning Bibles on bonfires; but we who believe on the name of the Living God are not of this world, and we know that
the Father has all things in His hands and that His purposes are holy and righteous. I believe that the "Help Meet" (meaning
"a suitable helper") is greatly honored by the Lord, in that He chose Adam’s “help meet” with privilege
and honor of bearing offspring instead of Adam. So instead of there being a sadness that one is God’s
image and the other "merely" man’s image, instead a full circle of equality is made by this declaration of Scripture,
“For as the woman is OF the man, even so is the man also BY the woman; but all things of God.” So the male
is given honor as God’s image and the "Help Meet" is taken from Man - yet the "Help Meet" receives
the astounding honor of being the sole replicator of Man! The "help Meet" came out of the man, and now all
men – including Messiah Himself – come out of the "Help Meet". I don’t know you’re thoughts
about that, but it sure doesn’t sound too shabby to me!
Now, you may be wondering why I keep saying “help meet” here rather
than "woman/female". Because this brings us back to the original issue. I mentioned that God could have chosen another male
for Adam. And you see, technically, He did! There is a reason that we call both males and females “Man”
and "Mankind”, and why we say "Man" and "wo-Man [womb-man]",
and "Male" and "fe-Male [feminine male]". The male and female bodies are
more alike than people realize. As you may or may not know, in the womb all babies
begin to form as females – not males (it’s the opposite of the creation order). If God so deems a male
be born, the mother’s body introduces testosterone at just the right moment of development. It is much like how an ant
colony produces all males unless God intervenes to cause a female birth, which will be queen - just as the human male
is spiritual head of the house, king, priest, etc (Now you know why King Solomon said to the ignorant person, "Go to
the ant, thou sluggard!") When the baby receives the testosterone, what would have become the clitoris (which is a miniature
of the male’s glans penis) then elongates into a full penis; that which would
have been the labia closes at the edges and seals itself into a scrotal sack (which is why all males have what appears to
be a scar running down the entire length of the scrotum); and that which would have developed into ovaries becomes testicles
instead, which then drop down into the scrotum. Breasts are identical in males and females until puberty brings mammary glands
So as you can see,
physically Adam’s mate was in fact another male – a fe-male (feminized male). As far as physical form,
the only purpose for this variety of male form is to provide capacity for “begetting”, bringing Adam and Eve’s
replacements into the world – made of their flesh and bones – because Adam and Eve’s sin brought the death
penalty upon them. But, as a previously demonstrated, though God blessed them with the life-giving ability to generate their
replacements (offspring), they did not bear children until after The Fall - because there was no need for their replacements
until death entered. Additionally, there is only a finite amount of space on earth, and sinless undying people would quickly
fill the world up. Which logically tells me that, while the sex act was in use before The Fall (making the two
one), the procreative abilities would not have been necessary until after The Fall – which the Lord
knew would happen. For this very same reason the Lord created wild beasts with defensive and offensive capabilities, bone
crushing jaws and deadly claws and heavy fur, poisonous bites and stings – they had no need of these in a
perfect and sinless world, but they had been prepared in advance for the world that was to
come after The Fall.
it should now become clear as to why there would be no sin for homosexuals to marry and why genitals are irrellevant. Same
species. Same flesh and bones. Same DNA. Same genitals. We all have exactly the same thing in two variant forms, one governed
by the hormone Testosterone and the other by the hormone Estrogen. Of course, aside from the physical aspects there are some
distinctive characteristics between males and females, particularly in the emotional/psychological area. But one thing I find
extremely fascinating is that homosexuals in general somehow seem to have a natural balance of the two, or a portion of each,
so that they can both think like a man and yet understand like a woman. And if you think that homosexual men are not
very “manly” or that homosexual women are not very "womanly", I would caution you here to beware of stereotyping.
In actuality, you only notice the effeminate gay men or the masculine lesbian female because they are obviously obvious to
everyone by their mannerisms. But they make up a small percent of the homosexual population. In fact, as I have mentioned
elsewhere, most homosexuals have been able to hide “in the closet” so well precisely because they are NOT effeminate
men and masculine women; and if every homosexual were to identify themselves publically, I’m sure you would simply be
amazed as the shear number of them.
So - Adam
and Eve did not bear children until AFTER the fall. Cain was their first child, and we know by the biblical account that he
was born after The Fall. We also know that Adam and Eve were having sex BEFORE the fall because "making the two one"
was the whole point of why God gave a mate to Adam in the first place. This mate wasn't some pal that hung
around and kept him company. Adam had God and all the animals (and most likely the angels too) for that. This mate was
given to Adam for a unique, physically and emotionally bonding relationship. Anyone who has ever been in love knows perfectly
well the difference between this kind of relationship and all other relationships. The purpose of sex is not now,
nor was it originally meant for procreation, but for UNION to stop loneliness.
It was in the garden that God gave the blessing to mankind
to be fruitful and multiple, but it was not until after the fall that this blessing was put into effect. Is
this becoming clear at all? Children had to be born BECAUSE of sin. Haven't you ever wondered why Adam and Eve covered
their nakedness? It wasn't just because they realized they were naked, but because they suddenly became ASHAMED
of it. It was NOT because sex is bad or shameful in and of itself (as it is written, "the marriage bed is holy"), but because
the physical act of sex was at the heart of the very purpose for Adam's mate's existence; and now that act of sex ,
which was meant to unite them in perfect companionship as one being in a holy and special way, would now have to be used
for the purpose of making their replacements - to bring more people into the world - BECAUSE OF THEIR SIN. Reproduction
is now their SHAME. It is the very mark and sign of Adam's sin against God. Therefore they covered their shame, as we, to
this day, are commanded by Scripture to keep our genitals covered for the same reason. Haven't you ever seen it written
in Scripture that we are to cover ourselves "so that the shame of our nakedness be not seen"? It is the reason that we have
a built-in feeling of shame to go naked before other people (at least, those people do who are not desensitized to decency
through the exercising of lust). It is that shame which tells children, once they reaches a certain age, that it
is time to have mommy stop bathing them.
So God pre-planned Adam's mate to be
a female - because of sin. Being female is not the cause of sin - the fact that Adam's mate had to be constructed
in the form of a female was due to Adam's FUTURE sin, to bear children. If his mate did not have the capability
to reproduce, the human race would have ended. (And I politely but boldly challenge any theologian on earth who scoffs
at this to prove me wrong by Scripture - not emotion or philosophy).
HOWEVER, as you saw in our chapter on "Gays
& Marriage", Adam and Eve's specific marriage CANNOT be the sole basis for determining the definition of marriage for
the rest of humanity, nor of who can participate in a marriage. For example, God only made ONE SPOUSE for Adam, yet God
gave SEVERAL spouses to Abraham, Israel, David, Solomon, etc. etc, and specifically gave a Law in the Scriptures on how
to manage such a marriage. In fact, the very 12 patriarchs of Israel whom God selected as the fathers of the 12 tribes, were
all born from Israel's four wives - wives he was married to at the same time without rebuke from God. This is totally contradictory
to an exclusive Adam/Eve marriage model. To renounce same gender unions simply because Adam and Eve at the
beginning were two different genders is as absurd as renouncing marriages between black and a white persons, or marriages
between left handed and right handed persons, or marriages between Mongolians and Hispanics - just because homosexuals, ethnic
races, individual nationalities, and left & right handed people DIDN'T YET EXIST at the beginning does not exclude
them from marriage NOW. Adam and Eve didn't have multiple spouses like so many other people in the Bible because no one else
Bear in mind that only EVE was specially created
- and specially created FOR ADAM. This is not so with every other female on earth. Every single human being who came AFTER
Adam and Eve is conceived, created, carried, and born in exactly the same way. Both males and females are MAN. We are
ALL "bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh". Furthermore, marriage and childbirthing is NOT commanded of us. We do
NOT HAVE TO get married. We do not HAVE TO have children. To say that the Adam and Eve marriage is THE model
for human marriage would automatically imply that everyone MUST get married, since they did. But as we know, there were
MANY godly persons in Scripture, such as Paul, who did NOT get married.
This is why I believe - or one of the
reasons why I believe - it is not a sin for two males or two females to join as mates. A human is a human is a
human. Whether you are oriented to the male OR the female of our race, the point is that we are the SAME RACE
- MANKIND. And even more to the point, the purpose for marriage is for UNION AND COMPANIONSHIP - not childbearing.
Breeding children can be the RESULT of sex, but it is not the PURPOSE for sex. That's why it's preposterous for certain
members of the Far Right to say that allowing two men or two women to marry is similar to bestiality.
Nonsense. We are talking about two human beings who are created in the image of God or created from the image of
God! None of us have suggested that we start marrying or having carnal knowledge with other SPECIES!
There's something more to this though. Something the anti-gay folks
fail to take into account when they say that being gay is a learned behavior and that homosexuals can change. First,
let's give them credit that they at least understand that, yes, it is absolutely possible for a heterosexual to have sex with
another of the same sex. No question there. Anyone can commit any act or deed, whether it is bad for them or good for
them. It has happened on more than one occasion that a heterosexual man, for example, has found himself in the arms
of another man because he is hurting inside, or because of loss or lack of female love, or because he needs that masculine
affection he didn't get from his father or other male figures as a child and now as an adult that need for affection has translated
into sex, or because he is scared of women, or because something happened to him such as molestation which opened his mind
to that type of activity. Totally true. Undeniable.
However, the anti-gay crowd and the ex-gay crowd fail to see
that THESE types of men are NOT true homosexuals, therefore, YES, they CAN be healed of their hurts and revert to their NATURAL
heterosexual drive. These are the men who, FOR WHATEVER THE REASON, "left the natural use of the woman, burned in
their lust one toward another, men with men working that which is unseemly," Romans 1:27. This is the type of man that
"ALSO lie with mankind AS HE LIETH WITH A WOMAN," Leviticus 20:13.
But how do you explain homosexuals who do not fall into any
of those categories? Even concluding that a man is gay because (let's say) his father was distant from him, how does
one explain that core emotion and identity, that, with a natural and instinctive drive, he is able to
look at an attractive man and be emotionally, sexually, romantically attracted to him and totally UNattracted
in any way at the sight of a beautiful female? How do you explain the feeling that says inside him that everything
about the masculine identity of the male is attractive in an emotional, romantic and physical sense but
NOTHING of femininity and the female is attractive ? How do you explain his being repulsed by the mere thought of sexual
contact with a female in the same way that a straight man is repulsed by the thought of sexual contact with another male?
The devil's influence? I think not. The answer is, because that is who and what he is, just as surely as, say, being
Caucasian, Scottish, right-handed, brown haired, and green eyed, is who and what he is. Why does everyone seem so determined
to separate our sexuality from being a part of the rest of our identity? Certainly heterosexuals conclude that their
heterosexuality is part of their identity and they would insist that they were born straight. I don't know any heterosexuals
who say that heterosexuality is a learned behavior or the cause of environmentals! If it were that simple (which it is not)
then you COULD say that sexuality is a choice.
In addition, no two people are attracted to the same thing,
and it is vital that we understand that attraction is NOT the same as lust. Heterosexual men are NATURALLY attracted to the
female. It has nothing to do with lust. Now, different heterosexual men are attracted to different types of women; but it
is the femaleness which attracts heterosexuals. It is the same for homosexual men in their attraction to
other males. The point is that no two people are alike, therefore no two people are attracted to the same thing, and
it is foolishness to assume otherwise. Suppose a man desired intimacy with another man because of the lack of masculine
influence in his life (or any other "environmental" situation); that wouldn't necessarily erase all attraction to women.
If anything, he would be attracted to women but also have a desire for masculine contact. If environmentals were the cause
that led him into sexual contact with other males, he would have a desire for both genders. So, if all homosexuals is merely
"perverted heterosexuals", why then is there NO desire in them whatsoever for the opposite gender? The answer is because homosexuals
are NOT perverted heterosexuals. They are NATURALLY same-gender oriented.
When it comes to any two consenting non-related adult
human beings, there is NO BIBLICAL LAW which prohibits their union. And as it is written in Romans 4:15 & 5:13,
"Where no law is,
there is no transgression.
Sin is not imputed when there is no law."