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.