Created for Companionship and Sexual Union
September 23, 2004
OT101 is turning out to be a great class. I’m getting the ‘other side’ of what I learned at Whitworth. I’m a bit surprised (as are many others) that I learned nothing about the documentary hypothesis at Whitworth (in all of its J, D, E & P glory). Our text, Collins’ Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, is quite good as well. Collins, OT professor at Yale, does come across a bit arrogant at times, with such statements as this: “The appearance of a talking snake should alert even the most unsophisticated reader to the fictional nature of the story.” (Damn he has some great one-liners)
In today’s lecture, Dr. Patrick Miller was talking about Gen 1-11, which consists primarily of story, which consists of historic and fictive elements, as any good story does (e.g. the story of David, Jesus, Robin Hood, the Alamo). We talked through some of the mythic material that the OT writer(s) were drawing upon, how the Jewish people may have incorporated some Babylonian/Egyptian mythology into their own spiritual experience, and how that can be seen in scripture. And then we spent the last bit of time discussing the creation of adam (humanity) from the adamah (earth/ground). Dr. Miller made a statement (and I’m currently in an email dialogue with him to see if I in fact heard him correctly, and if he was actually meaning what I interpreted him to be meaning) which immediately made sense to me, and it is as follows: “Woman, notice, is not created for procreation, but for companionship and sexual union.”
God did not say, “I need to populate this creation of mine - so I obviously need two beings that could have sex and procreate.” In fact, in the 2nd Creation narrative, the command to ‘multiply’ is not even present. But rather, God looks at the single, lone male, and says, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.”
One of the arguments I’ve always heard against homosexuality (and gay marriage) is the fact that “Well, homosexuals can’t procreate, and that goes against God’s ordained-order.” Well, who says that procreation is really the most important thing to God. God, who within Godself, had experienced the love and companionship and intimate union wanted the same thing for God’s creation, humankind. God wanted men and women to experience love, companionship and intimate/sexual union. Thus, it was in fact, not good for (hu)man(ity) to be alone.
The Genesis woman was not created for procreation…but to provide the Genesis man with companionship and sexual union. History’s first (mythical) couple were put together by God for the purpose of love, fellowship and sex. Procreation came second…perhaps, an afterthought. Why then, must we (in all of our vast knowledge) prescribe procreation as a necessity for a marriage to be considered ‘legal’ or even ‘holy’ today? Let me suggest that we may have skewed God’s vision for marriage a bit (not that I am claiming at all to know what God’s vision for marriage is, but…). Thoughts?
[Update] Professor Miller sent me a quick reply basically saying that he was not intending on making that inference with his statement, but he thought it was an interesting observation. I’ll take that. Anyway, this is fun. Look at me go. Actually post some theology on pomomusings and all of a sudden, the comments begin flying! I hope this trend continues, because I definitely plan on posting more stuff from classes and from my head.
Tags: Gender, Genesis, Sex, Sexuality
Posted in 
Adam Walker Cleaveland: 
September 23rd, 2004 at 3:38 pm
So why do the parts go together?
September 23rd, 2004 at 3:42 pm
One more thing… there are two accounts of creation. The one you refer to is Genesis 2 but in Genesis 1 a. man and woman are created at the same time and b. God says, “Be fruitful and multiply…”
I’m not shutting you down, but there are stumbling blocks that one must negotiate with authenticity before changing the traditional understanding of marriage.
September 23rd, 2004 at 3:52 pm
My thought is that procreation is only prescribed against gay people and gay marriage, while heterosexual people who choose not to, or can’t, procreate, are simply viewed as poor and unfortunate; possibly flawed or even retarded.
September 23rd, 2004 at 4:31 pm
Chris, I am aware of the 1st creation account, and the fact that God’s command is in fact present in that narrative account. However, if it was in fact the most important, basic element of marriage, wouldn’t the author have included it in both creation accounts…to make sure that it wasn’t left out if, for any reason, the creation accounts ever got separated from one another?
September 23rd, 2004 at 4:33 pm
Sam am I understanding your phrase correctly…you believe people who choose not to procreate are retarded?
September 23rd, 2004 at 4:39 pm
My question about the two creation stories has been: might both accounts possibly be uniquely separated by geography, time, and author? It seems doubtful that one indiviual scripted both of these accounts in this order, at one sitting, after receiving the inspiration divinely. Not impossible, but both do leave room for condradicting the other. What would the author have gained in doing that?
September 23rd, 2004 at 4:43 pm
Good stuff, Cleave! Gen 2-3 is arguably not about marriage at all (certainly not marriage as we know it in the west, which is only about 300 years old anyway) - but of more fundamental human relationships of partnership, intimacy etc. On top of this, there’s also the political origins of Genesis to consider. Try reading Gale Yee’s Poor Banished Children of Eve for another view on Genesis.
Glad you’re enjoying your classes!
September 23rd, 2004 at 5:18 pm
I tend to focus on our role as co-creators with God. What better way to create then sex? ;-) Seriously, it doesn’t get better than two people coming together to create an additional new person–someone not fully like the man or woman, but a combination.
I agree with Radioreb. I don’t think we need to assume these two accounts came from the same place.
In response to Maggi: No, of course these accounts are not about marriage. But that doesn’t mean that we can’t draw conclusions about God’s view of human sexuality based on them.
September 23rd, 2004 at 6:28 pm
Engaging material Adam. There is bound to be a flaw when one argues against homosexuality from one passage of scripture, especially one that is silent to the issue. When making an argument for or against homosexuality one must take information from a variety of areas; Scripture, Religious Tradition, Modern Science, and our own experience. When we have looked at these four areas we are better prepared to make our decision and supoport it as well.
September 23rd, 2004 at 7:07 pm
Yeah, see I get more nervous when someone argues FOR homosexual marriage FROM the silence in Gen. 2-3. I think the two accounts were written by different people but as a whole they do encompass the reason for the creation of two genders and it ain’t simply so we can be friends. Those who argue for gay marraige because companionship is all that matters have to deal with the issue of gender in Gen. 1. I’m not revealing my own take on that issue but I think both sides need to be honest in addressing what the Bible really says and, if they’re going to ignore it or redefine it, do so with authenticity and integrity.
The Bible says a lot of things about a lot of things and we can easily assign those rules to the times or the context. But the orders of creation itself is a bit deeper than that, in my opinion.
September 23rd, 2004 at 7:27 pm
“The Bible can conclusively be shown to say that beer is better than wine.”
Martin Luther
September 23rd, 2004 at 9:13 pm
Lucy, of course not. I myself am gay. I was making note of something I often see, especially in churches in small towns.
September 24th, 2004 at 12:57 am
I’m with Martin Luther! Thanks for that Tony!
September 24th, 2004 at 1:07 am
Can it be both? The argument seems to present an “either/or” situation. I think its “both/and”. But if I had to pick I would say companionship (over procreation). Doing BOTH is more amazing, more tiring, more frustrating, more fun, more ordinary than I ever imagined. Additionally, procreation with no relationship sounds horrible. Unfortunately, once you procreate two or three times, you don’t have as much energy for the companionship stuff (especially when the procreatees are all under 5 years old!). And beer is definitely better than wine.
September 24th, 2004 at 2:31 am
My understanding is that a better translation of “helpmeet” from the Hebrew is “companion suitable”, with the idea that the woman is one who “stands face to face” with the man. I love this picture. To my way of thinking, the intimacy that grows in a relationship of that nature is what can naturally leads to sexual expression. It doesn’t have to be either/or; this is another example of both/and, with the character of the relationship being primary and sex following from that.
Dana
September 24th, 2004 at 2:59 am
It is refreshing to find open minded people that aren’t afraid to question the foundations to get a better understanding of it.
Are you digging into hebrew to see the real meaning of the texts you’re sharing with us?
September 24th, 2004 at 3:37 am
Thanks Sam. It was genuinely unclear to me, and I wanted to check. Cheers.
September 24th, 2004 at 8:01 am
I don‚Äôt know, Tony–Martin may have served beer at his wedding, but Jesus didn‚Äôt turn water into beer at the wedding at Cana.
September 24th, 2004 at 8:51 am
Amen Tony!
I must frankly admit that I don’t understand homosexuality. As a lifestyle it doesn’t make sense to me. Now I don’t want that to translate into disgust and hatred like it has with some people, nor do I want to downplay or illegitimatize the authenticity of the feelings involved in loving homosexual relationships. And I CERTAINLY don’t consider homosexuals “an abomination”! But I always wonder why homosexuals don’t physically “fit” together like a man and a woman do. Something seems to be not quite right there. Just my personal thoughts.
September 24th, 2004 at 11:03 am
So, Adam. In light of your theological discussion, I wonder if you think it is ok to have as much sex as you wish. Since procreation is not the goal of sex, then, I suppose pleasure is the goal?
Also, I was wondering if you thought that pleasuring ourselves is ruled out of this equation.This is something that I have been contemplating alot recently, and in reading your blog silently over the past few months, I have come to respect your open theological stances.
Regards,
O.
September 24th, 2004 at 11:30 am
Need more info - is the professor’s theory that the biological components (gonads, egg, sperm, etc.) were essentially a “retrofit”, added to man and woman after the be frutiful and mutliply statement?
And is it not possible that the pleasure we derive from sex is merely an evolutionary fringe benefit, and that we just lucked out here?
September 24th, 2004 at 11:34 am
Orlando, the goal doesn’t seem to be procreation or pleasure (or even sex for that matter). The bigger picture seems to be companionship. It seems like God was thinking “I need them to multiply but i want them to enjoy each other too.” With a companion there seems to be a desire for both pleasure and procreation. God is good enough to make all three essential in order to have a larger and fuller life. (but now I think of birth control and couples who don’t want or need children…)
I think it looks like, for two people, the goal would be companionship, with the goal of that being sexual union, with the goal of that being children, with the goal of that being more companionship.
by the way, this is all from a 22 year old virgin, so what do I know about sexual union…
September 24th, 2004 at 12:01 pm
Glad to see the cogs are turning again, Adam.
Now, Adam, since you seem to be a bit of an Old Testament kinda person, I’d be interested to hear your book recommendations for a New Testament kinda person who, having a first degree in theology/biblical studies, aspires eventually to do the whole postgrad thing right through to PhD, and figures he ought to have a basic grasp of Old Testament as a foundation. What are the essential texts for an aspiring New Testament scholar who’s more or less neglected serious critical study of the Old Testament?
September 24th, 2004 at 12:12 pm
i don’t see how the subject of homosexuality even is able to come up from the genesis accounts. there’s a man, and a woman. not a man, and a man. and if Jesus himself makes reference to the genesis accounts in regards to marriage, shouldn’t that hold some weight? just a thought
September 24th, 2004 at 12:47 pm
Adam, I’m also surprised that you didn’t learn about the documentary hypothesis at Whitworth. You must not have taken OT with Dr. Edwards. Don’t forget to come play ultimate today!
September 24th, 2004 at 1:13 pm
Bro, I echo Kevin’s post…I too was taught the JEPD at Whitworth.
Where were you?
September 24th, 2004 at 1:39 pm
I’m a bit puzzled by Aaron O.’s and Chris Enstead’s remarks about parts fitting together. Seems to me that parts fit just fine in oral sex and anal sex. That might not be your gig, but it’s not an issue of parts not fitting.
September 24th, 2004 at 2:10 pm
Steve, glad to see you around, and nice blog! Germer/Josh - nope, I had OT from Mohrlang…not a word re:JDEP. And yes…guys - the argument about parts fitting together…yah, I don’t think so.
September 24th, 2004 at 2:14 pm
Bro. That’s odd. I had Mohrlang, too.
September 24th, 2004 at 2:17 pm
The main arguement agaisnt same-sex relationships that makes sense to me is that God made man and woman in his own image. The essence of Woman bears a part of God’s image, and the essence of Man bears a slightly different part of his image. When they are together, you have a more complete picture reflecting the glory of God
That’s not to say that homosexual people cant desire to reflect the glory of God as well…but 2 women together shows only part of that picture, and the same with 2 men. It’s all very complicated and not the kind of thing that can be addressed totally here.
September 24th, 2004 at 2:38 pm
Thanks Adam. I was inspired to blog in significant part how impressed I am at your blogging efforts.
Jenifer, just what exactly is this elusive “essence” of man and woman?? I’m very sceptical that such a thing exists.
September 24th, 2004 at 3:48 pm
Steve,
Great question. I simply mean that men embody, even in their physical bodies, a kind of initiating that represents part of how God initiates toward us. By all means, women possess the ability to initiate too, of course. Women, on the other hand, have a special ability to create connection, community and relationships - things that require the ability to recive another person and welcome them into your life. Even womens physical bodies symbolize this. Men, have this ability too, of course, but women seem to have a special adeptness toward it, just like men seem to have a special adeptness toward initiating, structure, constructing, even though women do those things too
Men and women were made to fit together more than just physically, in the same way the compliment each other physically, they compliment each other emotionally.
None is this really matters much when you are talking about individual people who are wondering if homosexuality is right or wrong for them….and I’m not writing as if it should. That is a much bigger, more complex idea than anything that could be said here.
September 24th, 2004 at 3:52 pm
What about people who choose to remain celibate? If you think men and women fit together like peas in a pod, are celibates somehow defunct?
September 24th, 2004 at 3:56 pm
If we are really positing 2 creation accounts written by separate authors (or at least at separate times) we really have no way of knowing which account to prioritize. The first account with the multiplication command may be primary and companionship the afterthought, which seems more likely since it came first. And, if we are really willing to embrace some kind of evolutionary development, then we are forced to examine evidence from nature which would clearly indicate procreation comes before companionship. As we move up this hypothetical evolutionary ladder, they begin to merge, but there can be little doubt that procreation is the priority for the majority of creatures.
In short, I think it is a huge stretch to go from the absence of a clear command to procreate in the 2nd account to an affirmation of homosexual sex & marriage. There needs to be a lot more critical thinking.
September 24th, 2004 at 4:53 pm
Lucy,
I think celebacy, when freely choosen, can be a holy thing, just like marriage.
September 24th, 2004 at 5:12 pm
I agree.
September 24th, 2004 at 5:23 pm
Jenifer, you hit the nail on the head when you said “symbolize.” The male body and the female body do indeed symbolize the qualities that you mentioned for many (but not all!) people. For that reason, those same people have associated those qualities with the fictional notions of “maleness” or “masculinity,” and “femaleness” or “femininity.” The fact that all of this is rooted in symbolism and cultural conventions, not reality, is readily evidenced by the fact that we do not consider assertive women to be men, or caring men to be women.
But the problem is that not everyone symbolizes the male body and the female body in the way you specified, and further, not everyone thinks that those bodies should be symbolized in that way.
September 24th, 2004 at 6:24 pm
Germer and Josh, I have to echo Adam’s response in regards to JEDP at Whitworth. I sat right next to Cleave in that class and not a word in terms of documentary hypothesis was mentioned. I didn’t hear about it until I got to Fuller.
Jeremiah
September 24th, 2004 at 6:56 pm
Jeremiah, thanks for backing me up bro. I was a little afraid that perhaps I either skipped that lecture or was sleeping. But…I mean, really now. We’re talking the year of The Bible Breakdown. If JEDP was mentioned, it would have made The Bible Breakdown…
September 24th, 2004 at 7:09 pm
[Update] Professor Miller sent me a quick reply basically saying that he was not intending on making that inference with his statement, but he thought it was an interesting observation. I’ll take that. Anyway, this is fun. Look at me go. Actually post some theology on pomomusings and all of a sudden, the comments begin flying! I hope this trend continues, because I definitely plan on posting more stuff from classes and from my head, although, no worries, I won’t be asking you to grade my papers…
September 24th, 2004 at 11:24 pm
Nathan, I agree with your conclusion, but question the need to prioritize texts. Why not just listen to what God is saying in them. We have a tendency to want to break things down and systematize them. I don’t know if that’s what we’re intended to do with Scripture. Sorry, just something I’ve been learning/thinking about.
September 25th, 2004 at 3:25 pm
Bill -
I don’t think we really do need to prioritize texts; I was pointing out that it seemed like Adam was doing precisely that in making his argument and questioning the validity of that basis. I was also questioning the method of prioritization, which seemed pretty arbitrary to me.
September 25th, 2004 at 8:30 pm
Celibacy is different than chastity. Celibacy can only be expected in a few who choose to make the vow, chastity within singleness AND within marriage is expected from ALL Christians.
September 26th, 2004 at 6:18 am
. . . just browsing conversations . . . listening in . . . . amazing how all of us are committed to truth telling, and how hard it is for error to thrive in a high-communication environment like blogging and the hypertext world online.
Who said we dont believe in truth?
anyway, i just think its interesting that a few words uttered in a seminary classroom are being discussed all over the world - regardless of the subject . .
September 26th, 2004 at 1:18 pm
Adam,
How important is sexual celibacy to your emerging theology and seminary experience? Eager to hear your thoughts…
Congratulations on such a highly trafficked post.
Regards from Brooklyn,
O.