Homosexuality & the Bible: Genesis 2-3 & “Ezer Kenegdo”

“The creation stories of Genesis 1-3 do not speak directly to the issue of homosexual practice. However, they do supply us with a general understanding of human sexuality, set within the broader context of God’s grand purposes at creation.” This quote is taken from Robert A. J. Gagnon’s book The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics. This dense, nearly 500-page book advocates vigorously that the Bible condemns homosexuality, and yet, I want to point out that even this book acknowledges Genesis does not address homosexuality.

Okay. To the actual text.

In the second creation story, God created Adam before He created Eve (Skim if you want. It’s just a refresher).

The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.” The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make him a helper suitable for him.” Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air, and all the beasts of the field.

But for Adam no suitable helper was found.

(Genesis 2:15-20, NIV)

The term “suitable helper” comes from “ezer kenegdo.” Various attempts at translating it include “helper,” “companion,” and “help meet,” but these translations are wimpy, boring, and flat (according to Captivating authors John & Stasi Eldredge).

The reason these translations are so inadequate is because “ezer” is only used twenty other places in the entire Old Testament, and in every other instance the person being described is God himself when you need him to come through for you desperately (Including Deut. 33:26, 29; Ps. 121:1-2, 30:20, 115:9-11). In these contexts, “ezer” is a lifesaver. If your “ezer” is not there, you are dead. “Companion” and “helper” simply do not convey the gravity and depth of this term.

“Kenegdo” means alongside, or opposite to. A counterpart. The Eldredges give Arwen from The Lord of the Rings as an example; she is strong, beautiful, brave, and irreplaceable in saving Frodo’s life (and ultimately, Middle Earth). The story needs her or death will occur. She is Frodo’s “ezer kenegdo” in that moment.

I point this out because “ezer kenegdo” has absolutely nothing to do with gender. Absolutely nothing. It is most often used to describe God, who is without gender. “Ezer kenegdo” is a person who is a corresponding strength, who makes you safe and complete.

Adam’s “ezer kenegdo” could not be found with an animal, because the bond is not something we can have with a pet. I’m not saying we don’t feel like animals understand us or that they don’t complete us in some way. I grew up with cats, dogs, and horses, and trust me, I miss those animals like I would miss my left arm. But this “ezer kenegdo” connection is more unique; it is deeper than a bond with animals. So, after Adam cannot find an “ezer kenegdo,” God acts.

So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he 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,’ for she was taken out of man.” For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

(Genesis 2:21-25, NIV)

John Piper, a well-respected pastor with a large on- and off-line ministry, paraphrased the above Genesis passage in the following way:

“In other words, God created man male and female so that there might be a one-flesh sexual union and covenantal cleaving with a view to multiplying the human race, and displaying God’s covenant with his people, and eventually Christ's covenant with his church.”

The problem I have with Piper’s understanding of the passage is tri-fold: (1) the purpose in creating another human, Eve, was to provide companionship, or an “ezer kenegdo,” since it is not good for man [in the all-encompassing, entirety of humanity kind of way] to be alone; (2) the passage says nothing about reproduction; and (3) the passage says nothing about any covenant, old or new.

I always thought “they will become one flesh” was a reference to sex, as Piper asserts, but it actually comes from the Hebrew word “basar.” Basar has two meanings, flesh and good news.

This past weekend my pastor talked about Genesis 2. I attend a church that believes in heterosexual marriage alone (just throwing that out there). Pastor Steve was discussing what Genesis 2 is about, and he said the following (after reading Genesis 2:25 aloud):

"The word ‘flesh,’ ‘basar’ in the Hebrew, means literally ‘to gladden with good news, to bear news, or to announce salvation as good news, or to preach.’ The man and the woman were brought together to bear good news to the rest of the world—that God is good. In their oneness—now this gets much bigger than marriage—in their oneness in their unity of heart and mind, their proclaiming good news, the man leaves his father and mother and goes to join someone else, and in the joining, spreads good news. 

When have you ever heard that story before in the scriptures? A man leaving his father to join with humanity, proclaiming good news? Who did that, people? Jesus. We see the pattern in Genesis 2. This is the picture of humanity. This is the picture of the church. This is the picture of marriage… any time there is discord, there is shame, there is someone that makes you distrust the goodness of God, you can know who is behind that. It is the deceiver, the accuser, the adversary… the adversary wants to break what is full and empty what is full."(Steve Wiens, Assoc. Senior Pastor, Church of the Open Door)

Being united in marriage in order to “become one flesh” can also mean in order to “bear good news.” This is a beautiful image of what marriage is, of what that relationship is and looks like and reflects about who God is. It is not a text about reproduction, and it definitely does not have a causal relationship, as Piper asserts. 

The emphasis is on the unity and companionship, not the genders of the partners. Piper says the point is that God created male and female in order for there to be a one-flesh union, but that is not what the text says. The text structures the statement differently, with the emphasis on being united. See it again.

Piper: “God created man male and female so that [or with the end result intending to be that] there might be a one-flesh sexual union and covenantal cleaving with a view to multiplying the human race…”

The Bible: Because God created ‘woman’ as ‘bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh,’ the man for whom she was made will “leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh [or they will bear good news].”

Yes, it can be read that all women complete all men, but that is a gross generalization. Why do we insist on making such a leap when the text does not require it? 

Two souls in one body. Other half. Better half. Soul mate. These are some of the common euphemisms for falling in love, for that person whom you just have to share your life with. It is like God put you two on earth for each other, or, some sort of cute, romantic, heartfelt stuff like that. But the point is none of that has to be related to gender if we do not bring our “homosexuality is wrong” glasses to the table before we read the passage.

So, here we have it. “Ezer kenegdo” has no innate relationship to gender. The only connection between gender and “ezer kenegdo” in Genesis is the fact the first man and the first woman were each other’s “ezer kenegdo.” As discussed in my first post, giving one example of something does not implicitly ban or exclude all others. [Another example: just because someone has always had a Wells Fargo bank account doesn’t mean WF is somehow morally superior to another bank. WF could just be what was available where they grew up, and it’s never been quite inconvenient enough to warrant changing to a different bank.] 

Just because most of these unique “ezer kenegdo” relationships are between a man and a woman does not mean they all have to be.

“Ezer kenegdo” highlights beautifully the relational nature of humans. We were created to be in a relationship. God created us in his image, and He is a relational being (“Let us make man in our image,” Genesis 1:26. The trinity). When God creates the world he says everything is good or very good. In fact, the first thing he characterizes as “not good” is the loneliness of Adam—the fact that God’s human has no soul-completing partner that is like him, of his own kind.

Later in the Bible, Paul discusses a call to celibacy, but here, that is not a thing. We aren’t there yet. At this point in the Bible, the only bad thing in all of creation is a human’s loneliness.

The traditional “Biblical” solution to homosexual urges is to simply remain celibate. This is problematic for two very large reasons. First, as discussed above, humans are relational beings created in God’s image as a relational being. Few people are called to celibacy, but those who are called have a distinct calling. Insisting that people with homosexual attractions remain celibate is denying them an “ezer kenegdo” when God has designed them to have one. This is “not good,” in God’s own words.

Falling in love, as a gay person, is one of the worst things that could happen to you, because you will be heart broken, you will have to run away, and you will always be alone. Or so the heterosexual-only argument would say. This is not God’s desire for his creation according to Genesis 2.

I am trying to be very specific in addressing one issue at a time while still balancing context and realizing the Bible should be taken as a whole. However, when, as is the case in this passage, homosexuality is not addressed and even heterosexual-marriage advocates acknowledge that fact, I do not think it is wise to mold a passage to mean something it does not need to mean—especially when the consequences are so devastating and would force people who are not called to celibacy into a life of loneliness, or even worse, isolation and a fake life of heterosexual actions.

When I get to the New Testament verses I will address the second problem with “just remaining celibate” as a way to address homosexual urges. John Piper admits that the homosexual urges might never go away; however, he simultaneously asserts that the urges are not sinful while the homosexual acts (which a person chooses to commit) are the sin. As a sneak peek to my thoughts on that argument, I’ll leave you with these verses:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matthew 5:27-28, quoting Jesus)

Today’s sources:

The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics, by Robert A. J. Gagnon (Abingdon Press, Nashville. 2001).

Captivating: Unveiling the Mystery of a Woman’s Soul by John & Stasi Eldredge (

The Gay Debate: The Bible and Homosexuality, by Matt Vines (Accessed via Youtube on June 3, 2013) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezQjNJUSraY.

The Spirit that Fills and Restores by Steve Wiens (sermon date June 9, 2013. Church of the Open Door, Maple Grove, MN.) Available on iTunes or at thedoor.org.

Let Marriage Be Held in Honor: Thinking Biblically About So-Called Same-Sex Marriage by John Piper (sermon date June 16, 2012. Accessed June 5, 2013. Some quotes from text on website, so quotes as stated in video sermon on website: http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/let-marriage-be-held-in-honor-thinking-biblically-about-so-called-same-sex-marriage.

Fish Out of Water, documentary by Ky Dickens, 2009 (Accessed via Netflix).

Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views by Dan O. Via & Robert A. J. Gagnon (Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 2003).

UP NEXT: Homosexuality & the Bible: Genesis 19: 1-29—Sodom & Gomorrah

Many lay people believe God destroyed Sodom & Gomorrah because the city tolerated homosexuality. No serious scholars believe that. This post will discuss the warfare practice of homosexual rape, which was a method of conquering and shaming, as well as the real story of Sodom and Gomorrah, including inhospitality and attempted gang rape.

Homosexuality & the Bible: Genesis 1:1-31 & Procreation

The first argument for heterosexual marriage as the only Biblical kind is, simply put, “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” In the first creation story, God simultaneously created a man and a woman as complementary beings that could create new life.

Together, Adam and Eve are physically capable of being fruitful and multiplying, as God commanded all beings in the beginning. The argument is that this command to procreate extends to all subsequent humans. It focuses on procreation. I do not disagree with the necessity of a man and a woman in the beginning. The world needed people who would procreate and fill the earth! [Side note: check out this hilarious video (hyperlinked here)]

However, some commands were necessary in the beginning that would not be necessary (and/or we don't follow) now. For example, God commanded Adam and Eve to eat only plants. He commanded them to be vegetarians. If Adam and Eve had been craving a good hamburger and then had killed a cow (when God only created two cows, a male and a female), then, oops, no more cows on earth. That’d be bad for the whole “I’m creating a cool, self-sustaining world full of crazy creatures” thing (Seriously, have you seen a giraffe, a manatee or a sloth? This world is full of strange critters). Health concerns about what is better for us (meat v. non-meat) aside, we can eat beef now without wiping out an entire species.

While the need for propagation of the human species was a compelling reason for heterosexual unions at the beginning of our existence, it is not an issue any more. This is not to say reproduction is not important, but as a human population, we are in greater danger of exterminating our self through the destruction of the planet through over population than we are to just dying out through a failure to reproduce. We are too demanding on our planet. We are using too many resources. We are over-populating this finite earth God has given us. We are a long way from the total population being two people on the entire globe.

The argument surrounding the unique ability to procreate states that heterosexual unions are exclusively blessed and encouraged, and therefore homosexual unions are implicitly condemned. It is built upon the notion that sexual acts are only morally permissible if they are intended to (and actually do) lead to pregnancy. This means birth control is immoral (for an entirely separate reason than the rare argument that it ends a life or is a form of abortion). The procreative argument means no one, including married couples, should be having sex unless they are “trying to get pregnant.” Condoms should not exist. Birth control shouldn’t either. This is an extreme position that most people disagree with, as they should.

Sex is not simply for procreation. God created us to enjoy it. We could have reproduced like plants, just getting pregnant to keep the species going whenever we’re outside. But we don’t. Humans have a God-given desire to have intimate relationships—intimate emotionally, spiritually, and physically. Here’s just a little snippet from the Bible:

Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth— for your love is more delightful than wine. Pleasing is the fragrance of your perfumes; your name is like perfume poured out. No wonder the young women love you! Take me away with you—let us hurry! Let the king bring me into his chambers. (Song of Songs 1:2-4)

This is the beginning of an entire book about a young maiden and her lover. The book is about their desire for each other, their pleasure together, and the love they share. It is not about children.

Furthermore, the argument that marriage is primarily intended to produce children is undercut by the implementation of an overbroad policy. As far as fertility of a couple is concerned, there is no difference between a post-menopausal woman and her husband and a lesbian or gay couple. There is no difference in ability to procreate between any infertile couple and a homosexual couple. Why then, do we allow infertile couples to marry?

There is no statement on a marriage application such as the following: “Neither member of this proposed union has reason to believe he or she is personally infertile, and the couple intends to procreate and raise their children.” There is no requirement that married couples have children. States recognize marriages before (and without) children.

While one could (and many do) argue that the presence of children creates a compelling state interest for regulating marriage, that is not the issue addressed here. That is not what the Bible is putting forward. Here, the “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” argument is based upon a need to procreate—a need that would exterminate the human race if not fulfilled. This is no longer a problem.

Furthermore, the procreative argument is based upon the notion that naming one type of approved act condemns those not listed. This simply cannot be true. The Bible does not address cars, cell phones, the internet, and an endless list of inventions and changes in society that came after it. We must take Biblical principles and apply them to new situations.

The procreative command was necessary for the survival of humanity at the time it was given, but it was silent on consensual, committed homosexual relationships.

Today’s sources:

Fish Out of Water, documentary by Ky Dickens, 2009 (Accessed via Netflix).

Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views by Dan O. Via & Robert A. J. Gagnon (Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 2003).

UP NEXT: Homosexuality & the Bible: Genesis 2-3 & “Ezer Kenegdo”

In the second creation story, God created Adam before He created Eve. Adam’s need for a companion, a helper, and a corresponding strength (found in the term “ezer kenegdo”) resulted in God creating Eve. Together, their relationship reflected the oneness of God, both the masculine and feminine aspects His relational being. This next post will address the relational “wiring” of humans, the rare call to celibacy, and the traditional Biblical “solution” to homosexuality: forced celibacy.

Homosexuality & the Bible: Intro

In 2012, Minnesota voters defeated a proposed amendment to the Minnesota Constitution defining marriage as between a heterosexual couple. I voted against the amendment, but I did so quietly. It was a change for me, a significant one, from the beliefs I held in my teens, but I was not vocal online or in any visible way. This past spring, the Minnesota legislature was considering a bill legalizing same-sex marriage, and I finally “came out” on Facebook as a heterosexual ally to people who are homosexual. The bill passed and will be effective August 1, 2013, though the paperwork for individual marriage licenses may be completed before then. It was a big moment for Minnesota and for me personally.

When I started to get the researcher’s itch to write about the controversial issue of the Bible and homosexuality, I wasn’t sure how to approach it. Scholar, law student, Christian, human being, amateur, soon-to-be bride… there were so many options. I checked out books from a local seminary, my law school, and the county library. I read scholarly articles online. I contemplated an extended academic article.

I’ve circled back to a series of blog posts for two simple reasons. First, I am not a Biblical scholar. Yes, I have a lifetime of Sunday school attendance, I took a religion class in college, I have a personal faith, and I have an academic background in research. But everything I will be saying is based upon my research and my own assertions about the logical connections between them. 

Second, I want to talk to you like an equal, like we would talk in a coffee shop. My thoughts about homosexuality have entirely changed since I was in high school, and a blog is the best way to share why. There are too many people who disagree with me to sit down at Caribou and talk it out with all of them. These are people I love and respect, and I believe they (you?) will proceed with an open mind.

I am a Christian, and that doesn’t mean I’m perfect. In fact, it means I’m imperfect. But it means I try to admit when I’m wrong, I ask for forgiveness, and I am willing to change. It means I believe the Bible reflects God’s will and is true—all of it. But it also means I want to view the words in the context of who they were for, why they were said, and how they were translated.

This is the first of a series of posts about why the Bible does not condemn homosexuality in the violently clear way I was taught as a child, why I slowly came to accept I was wrong and ask for forgiveness of those I have hurt by my condemning statements, and why I am freed by this realization.

My goal is to get through this over the summer. Welcome to my journey.