The traditional/biblical presentation of marriage as an exclusive union between one man and one woman is not a prejudiced, superstitious, patriarchal, or arbitrarily derived concept. The below provides an analysis of the amazingly beautiful, architectonic design of marriage by the Creator as found in the creation narrative of Genesis. Rarely is a full exegetical analysis, including literary and structural analyses, of the Hebrew text made available in a blog post due to its technical nature. However, in view of today's Supreme Court verdict, those with questions about this issue to need to understand the unambiguous testimony of the Scriptures on both gender and marriage. Most of the technical material is provided in footnotes. To those unfamiliar with either exegesis or Hebrew language, this will be challenging. However, I encourage you to carefully work through the below post until it is clear for you. Feel free to respond with questions.
The key biblical passage speaking to the
uniqueness of human beings is found in Gen 1:26, 27, which locates their
inherent dignity and worth in their design pattern. The structure of the text[1] suggests that humans possess
unique characteristics mirroring God’s characteristics in such a way and to the
extent, that humans are themselves sacred, though on a finite or limited
scale. In effect, this design makes them
as much like God as a created being could be.[2] Further, the presence of this design pattern,
although marred by the effects of sin (Genesis 3), prevails even in sinful
humans so that to murder a human warrants the most exacting penalty as
identified by the key biblical passage prohibiting murder (Genesis 9:6). This uniqueness is further appealed to as the
basis for why humans ought not to even be desecrated by profane speech (James
3:9).
The image of God is best reflected in the
complementary features of gender distinction as described in Genesis 2:18 and
expanded by Genesis 5:1.[3] Here, the importance of relational and gender
diversity by a human pair bond[4] is highlighted as a feature
attracting the Designer’s special creative interest. In all his uniqueness as a creature
reflecting the image of God and relating with deity, man’s relational and chromosomal
solitude was identified as an incomplete and less than ideal, i.e. “not good” design
and relational state (Gen 2:18, 20). The
Creator’s solution to the problem was to create a single complement reflecting corresponding
qualities that would correlate with and complete the male in the similar yet different
person of the human female. Together,
the male/female design most fully reflects the image of God (Gen 5:1, 2)[5] and provides the constituent
elements necessary to further procreate the image of God in the persons of other
human beings (Gen 5:3). The result is
that at conception, the fundamental blueprint for the image of God, in
embryonic form, is assimilated and reflects even in its most basic state the
glory of the Creator.
The special and exclusive relationship of
the adult human male and female joined together as husband and wife (Gen 2:24,
25) is identified as the most fundamental and basic human relationship. This relationship is said to have been
designed directly by God and serves as the sole basis for a distinct family
unit in perpetuity (Gen 2:24, 25; Gen 4:1, 17) and is even intended to be
interminable except under specific, extreme circumstances (Matt 19:8).
[1] Hebrew and English
Notice the structure of
Genesis 1:27-28 (most visible in Hebrew). These verses represent a four line
quatrain where the “image of God” in line A is repeated in line B, and is then
epexegetically explained with the complementarity of the זָכָ֥ר וּנְקֵבָ֖ה“male
and female” of line B’. The couple is
then blessed by God in line A’ as the two waw-consecutive verbs
initiating verses 27 and 28 constitute a wordplay utilizing the device known as
paronomasia (sound play). Explanation of
the graphic: i. The typical way to describe a chiastic structure as above is A,
B//B’, A’ where the two internal lines correspond, as described here. ii. Notice the athnach at the end of
line B showing the logical middle of the section. iii. Observe the chiastic
structures of lines B and B’ showing the correspondence of בְּצֶ֥לֶם with זָכָ֥ר
וּנְקֵבָ֖, both in blue, and then the correspondence ofבָּרָ֣א אֹת֑וֹ with בָּרָ֥א אֹתָֽם demonstrating the “image” (grammatically
singular) is in the form of “them” (grammatically plural). This shows that the image of God is most
fully represented in the complementarity of the male and female. iv. In verse
28, God then commands the couple to procreate and subdue the Earth, i.e. gives
them the creation mandate.
[2] The uniqueness of the design of “mankind” (אָדָ֛ם) in Gen
1:26, is highlighted by a poetical device called hendiadys implemented in God's
intra-trinitarian conference. In Gen
1:26, God expressed His creative intentions.
We read וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֔ים נַֽעֲשֶׂ֥ה
אָדָ֛ם בְּצַלְמֵ֖נוּ כִּדְמוּתֵ֑נוּ.
"And God said, 'Let us make man (אָדָ֛ם) in our form, according to our image."
The idea seems to be that God intended to make man as much like God as a
created being could be. This was not necessarily a reference to his
physical form, but to his spiritual, emotional, moral, volitional, rational, relational,
governmental, etc. qualities. This imago Dei, or image of
God, is what gives man dignity. This is what makes him unique. Note,
however, that in Genesis 1:26, the term translated “man” (אָדָ֛ם) is
indefinite. This is a general statement
about mankind/humankind. However, in v.
27, the definite article is used as a constituent part of a chiastically
arranged quatrain (see above) explaining what this “image” is. This use of the article (i.e. anaphoric
use) happens when the article of specificity refers back to an anarthrous
substantive “in the preceding context” (Frederic Clarke Putnum, Hebrew Bible
Insert, Quakertown, Pa: Stylus, p. §1.4.3a). Here, the definite הָֽאָדָם֙ in 1:27 is used to refer back to the “image of God” (אָדָ֛ם) mentioned in 1:26. This only happens because the image is further
explained (epexegetically) in the lines following 1:26. Outside this quatrain, the definite article
is employed only in specific reference to “the man,” i.e. to Adam specifically,
whereas each time humanity is referred to, no article is employed.
[3] The description of the imago Dei as “most
fully reflected in the completed male/female human archetypes,” does not
mean that the image of God was not present in the isolated Adam. But Adam as “mankind” was incomplete while he
was yet alone with the result that the image was not as full. I.e. the image was present, but not as fully
present as when Eve was created as his complement. This pair represents humanity archetypically,
as even expressed in their names. Adam’s
name
אָדָ֛ם, shows the origin of
the human race from the Earth (adamah), and Eve’s Hebrew name חַוָּ֑ה
(Chawah), related to the Hebrew
verb hyx (chayah), meaning to be “alive,” shows
her standing in relationship to subsequent humanity. The result is explained thus: “Now the man called his wife's name Eve,
because she was the mother of all the living (Gen 3:20). The above does not minimize the status of a
single individual or widow/widower.
Remember, though, that in God’s original design, there was no death and
therefore a widow or widower was not part of God’s original design. Likewise, there were no single individuals
and it should be noted that except in rare cases, humans do not prefer to be
alone. This is why Paul refers to some
individuals who are content in this condition as being especially gifted. Remember, fully, sexually mature, properly
functioning humans have sexual and other relational yearnings, and do so by
design. Outside of a marriage
relationship, they have no legitimate means of expressing the sexual aspect (at
least) of their design. It should also
be remembered that the above is similar to discussions related to the imago
in physically or cognitively malformed humans, or in immature humans. In the case of the first, they possess the imago,
however, due to the corrupting influence of sin and the resulting degenerative
impact of sin on humans biologically, the image is marred. In the case of immature or pre-born humans,
their image is in immature or in embryonic form. To be clear, deformed or malformed humans
reflect the image of God, but that image is not as full as in normal, fully
developed humans. Further, normal,
healthy humans do not reflect the image as fully as did pre-fall Adam and
Eve. Even more, single individuals
reflect the image of God, but not in the fully relational sense in which the
male/female archetypes did.
[4] The phrase “pair bond” is
intended to highlight the 1-to-1 relational nature of marriage, i.e. “pair,” which
inherently precludes multiple partners, such as in polygamy or polyamory. Additionally, it assumes that the two
individuals involved are sexually mature adults, precluding the participation
of 1 or more non-adults in marriage, where “adult” requires at least sexual and
cognitive maturity.
[5] In Gen 5:2,
the image of God is more fully explained.
Here, “man” or “mankind” (אָדָ֛ם) is summarized as the male and female
genders of His creation (see diagram below).
To be clear, the most full expression of the image is reflected in the prefall
representation of “mankind” as the “male/female” archetype.
Comments: i. Notice the athnach showing the
logical middle of the verse at the end of the 1st line. Also note the chiasm, which confirms the
division. Line three is indicated by: a.) the rebia over אֹתָ֗ם, and b.)
the beginning of the waw-consecutive verbal clause. ii. That next verbal
clause contains the appositional relationship שְׁמָם֙
אָדָ֔ם, where the male-female duet
constitutes “mankind” singular. In other words, “They” plural were called
“adam/man/mankind” singular. The point is that they, “mankind” were created as male and female when
they were created. The zaqqeph qaton shows the next dividing point, and
the partial chiasm of the next line confirms that dividing point. iii. The
partial chiasm of the fourth line uses the plural pronoun “they” as a reference
back to the singular noun translated “adam/man/mankind.” This final structure again demonstrates that “they” plural
constitute “man” or “mankind” singular.
iv. Notice
that all the pronouns are plural but summarized as “mankind/אָדָ֛ם”. This “mankind/אָדָ֛ם” was made “male and female” in the day
that they were created. This is the same
אָדָ֛ם
described in Gen 1:26. In other words,
in Genesis 1:26, when God said “Let us make man [אָדָ֛ם]” in our image, he was referring to the completed
product represented in the male/female counterparts.
