This post explains how, down the ages, different Jewish or Christian groups have emphasised or, on the contrary, minimised or ignored certain aspects of the creation accounts that we find in Genesis 1 and 2 [1]. Given this wide range of approaches, we should be cautious about the lessons we’d like to draw from Genesis. Not only that, we ought to question to what extent Adam and Eve, male and female, can be used to affirm that homosexual unions are contrary to God’s will.
As I explain in my book [2], amongst the amazingly varied lessons that have been extracted from Genesis, we can find the following:
- Fertility: For centuries, for Jews it has been a duty to marry and have children. They have interpreted Genesis 1:28 as a divine command.
Image by Stockcake [3].
On the other hand, for the early church it was almost irrelevant. Marriage and producing offspring were unnecessary distractions faced with the Lord’s imminent return. - Agriculture: Only a few (the Amish, for example) have taken very seriously what Genesis 1:29 and 2:15 tell us about cultivating the land.
But it has been an insignificant detail for most Christian and Jewish believers, especially since the industrial revolution. - Vegetarianism: Those in favour of vegetarianism and veganism find good support for their dietary regime in Genesis 1:29. It seems clear that God’s divine intention, in the beginning, was that we humans were only to get food from plants and trees.
But how many of our churches have wanted to impose vegetarianism on their members? When they’re so “biblical” on certain issues! [4] - Rest: God resting after creation (Genesis 2:2‑3) provides the reason for including a day of rest in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:8‑11). And strict adherence to resting on the Sabbath has always been an identity marker for Jews.
Likewise, historically, resting on Sundays was highly valued, essential even, in mainline Protestant churches. It featured prominently in the plot of the film Chariots of Fire, for example.
But it’s a minor issue in many evangelical churches today. It has often been reduced simply to a general principle of regular rest. - That a man leave his parents when he marries: This is an important principle in modern-day Christian manuals on marriage. Although Genesis 2:24 only refers to the man, it’s generally used as a recommendation for both spouses.
However, it was apparently not significant in biblical times. Then, if anything, it was the woman who left her parents, more than the man. - Sex equality: People have found backing for this in Genesis 1:27, where male and female are created, without distinction, in the image of God. Also in the fact that, in the second account, in Genesis 2:21, the woman comes from Adam’s side, not from his head or his foot.
Obviously, this idea of equality fits very well with modern Western society’s values. But Genesis has also been used to argue just the opposite (see the next point). - Hierarchy or the superiority of man over woman: It may seem shocking to us today, but this has been argued from the fact that the man, Adam, is created first (Genesis 2:15‑23), and that he is the one who names the woman, just as he did with the animals (Genesis 2:23 and 3:20) [5].
As I explain in my book [6], there’s no doubt that in every era Genesis has been read pretty selectively, following the sociocultural prejudices or interests of the time. And it’s not at all easy to know what can be considered normative and what should be understood as simply descriptive, that is, an accessory detail or cultural aspect of the narrative.
We’re sometimes told, as Christians, that rather than direct teachings, what we need to look for in the Old Testament are “principles”. That sounds fine in theory. But it often becomes very complex and produces debatable results. Tell me, if not, how you assess this “principle”, based precisely on Genesis 2 [7]:
- God lets us choose: It would seem that God gave Adam complete freedom to decide who he wanted as a companion. He wasn’t satisfied with any of the animals, but with the woman, he was. But that was his decision, not God’s.
So, couldn’t we assume that God allows each of us to decide who we want to have as a partner? And if a man fancies another man, why not?
What do you think of that argument? Not convinced? But why not? 🤔 Simply because it shocks you? 😳 What theological objections, or ones based on hermeneutics (how we interpret and apply the Bible), can you offer? 🤨
To be clear, I personally am not persuaded it works, as a principle. But it does help to show how tremendously complicated it can be to know what lessons of “divine intent” we can legitimately draw from Genesis. And which ones we should reject.
I’ll leave it at that. Until my next post, anyway. 🙋🏼♂️
📌 If you would like to comment on this post (in the language of your choice), you can do so at the end of the Spanish version, here.
Notes
[1] Several of the examples from Genesis that I give in this post (and in my book) come from the analysis made by William Web in his book Slaves, Women & Homosexuals – Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis, 2001, Intervarsity Press (in chapter 5, section “Criterion 6”, subsection “B. Neutral examples”).
[2] See chapter 18 of my book (in Spanish): Nash, Chris, La homosexualidad a debate en círculos evangélicos, Editorial La Calle, Antequera (Málaga), Spain, 2024.
[3] In this post all the images come from Stockcake.
[4] I am aware that after the flood, in Genesis 9:3, Noah and his descendants were allowed to eat the meat of animals, possibly as a reward for saving them in the ark. Even so, anybody using this, or the fact that Jesus and his disciples ate meat, to justify a carnivorous diet needs to explain why they don’t give weight to God’s initial intention regarding our food if, on the contrary, they do use it to defend only heterosexual marriage.
[5] In this post I only mention the reasons to defend a supposed hierarchical superiority of man based on Genesis 2. But it also finds support in Genesis 3, when God says to Eve, after eating of the forbidden fruit and giving some to Adam, “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you” (Genesis 3:16, NIV). The first letter to Timothy also emphasizes all of this, in 1 Timothy 2:11‑15.
[6] See chapter 18 of my book (in Spanish): Nash, Chris, La homosexualidad a debate en círculos evangélicos, Editorial La Calle, Antequera (Málaga), Spain, 2024.
[7] The proposal is made by Gareth Moore in A Question of Truth – Christianity and Homosexuality, Continuum, London, UK, 2003, chapter 5, section “An alternative view”, pages 140-141.