God created male and female, two heterosexual beings He did not create homosexual beings, He did not create man for man or women for women, nor something in between. He created man and created woman for man. There is a verse in the Old Testament that largely gets ignored today. Deuteronomy "A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the Lord your God.
A friend of mine said that it is just one verse back in the Old Testament And look at the word used there: abomination. The dictionary definition is something that causes hatred or disgust And God doesn't change His mind on an abomination. Some people interpret this that women should wear skirts and dresses since pants were invented for men.
I have heard all of the arguments and have my own beliefs on that,,,, and I'd rather see a woman in a dress or skirt any day than pants anyway, but I am not getting into that here. Their persistent confusion is proof that the differences between the male and female of each text still exist, whether or not we force the extended human sequence back into the first creation week.
The primary outlook needed for anyone who wishes to take part in dialogue is listening. It is so full of wisdom. Genesis 1, on the other hand, does reflect the resurrection. Robert L. Nature , —70, It is intended for the educational community involved in Catholic.
But of course, the Bible does not actually tell us that the two creation texts in Genesis can be systematically reconciled. Rather, we find the earliest reference to this concept in the aforementioned Book of Jubilees, along with many other fanciful ideas. We must now pause and reconsider the presumed simplicity of our modern perspective. We will also stumble over the long and troubled history of interpretation that has come before us. We must first learn from Christ the lesson of male and female which he intends to teach, without superimposing our preconceived bias upon his exposition of the texts he quotes.
Until and unless we do that, we are no 23 Bouteneff, pg. We will have missed the point entirely. But the fact is that the two passages do not duplicate one another. By themselves, they do not teach the same thing, nor does one merely add detail to the other in a simplistic sort of way.
Obviously, this is a matter for deep study. His excerpts are intended only as a point of reference. The first quote, from Genesis 1, presents a simple statement of fact. The second quote, from Genesis 2, presents a commandment that derives from that simple statement of fact.
but from the beginning of creation, 'He made them male and female.' New American Standard Bible "But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE. New International Version He created them male and female and blessed them. And he named them "Mankind" when they were created. New Living Translation.
Together, the two quotes convey a spiritual, and yet counterintuitive, principle. What Christ has done is call attention to the fact that God, by creating two different genders, actually intends for those two to be one.
But these two genders are by definition two. The irony of this is immediately plain, and its resultant difficulty has been well documented. Christ seizes upon this oddity of creation, and uses it teach the Pharisees about divorce. By selectively conjoining the two creation passages, Christ affects one with the other and perfectly illustrates first the spiritual ideal, followed by the physical reality. That is to say that he first condemns divorce in the general case, and then explicitly permits it in the special case.
There is no prioritized order of creation between them, nor is the female taken from the male. They are created together. There is no explicit allusion to marriage, because theirs is a spiritual unity which has not yet been defined elsewhere in Scripture.
They are not restricted to Eden, but rule the earth in its entirety. The method of creation of Eve from Adam initially portrays an element of division or separation. The text gives us the answer: he did not. The word is used about 40 times in the Hebrew Bible but is not an anatomical term in any other passage. It can refer to planks or beams in these passages, but more often it refers to one side or the other, typically when there are two sides rings along two sides of the ark; rooms on two sides of the temple; the north or south side; etc. Notwithstanding, the method of human creation by division cannot be overlooked.
It cannot be reinterpreted as something other than what it plainly is. Without this element of division, the spiritual imagery is incomplete. And it can be illustrated in at least five different ways. Eve became a distinct entity, with a distinct free will and opportunity for sin, despite sharing the same DNA so to speak. Second, the creation of Eve from Adam does represent a method of division, because it proposes unity albeit with the future risk of divorce.
That is what should be. But Jesus goes beyond that to assert that the commandment is only fulfilled in marriage. This by definition also teaches us the inverse.
The commandment is not fulfilled when the unity of the two is broken. The female and male consent to a union, and subsequently retract that consent. So they remain two different entities which God created to begin with. There should be nothing surprising about this observation. God accurately portrays every step of His spiritual process.
This teaches us that all men and women are born separate from Christ as a result of sin. If they subsequently consent to a union with Christ, their separation is removed. If they do not honor the terms of their union, they are spiritually divorced from Christ. Although the initial separation and the final divorce are two different states, nevertheless the end result is the same.
Third, the creation of Eve from Adam does represent a method of division, because the given solution to that division, which is physical marriage, is temporary and will eventually be abandoned.
This is found in the final exposition of Jesus on the matter. His closing remarks in Matthew 19 are often overlooked, as if they did not affect our understanding. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it. He puts Genesis 2 in its place, and elevates Genesis 1, where there is no mention of marriage.
So then the Scriptures clearly state elsewhere that physical marriage, in the resurrection, will be eliminated as inadequate and unnecessary. Again, we find there that both the male and the female are equally created in the image of God and both are given dominion over all the creation. It is only in Genesis 2 that we find an element of division. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. Notice the command once more from Genesis 2. It is because this man represents Christ, and he alone takes the initiative with his church. This is an important spiritual feature which mirrors the marriage traditions of ancient culture.
Again, the spiritual imagery requires this perspective. Only the church can be unfaithful to him, and so only he is eligible to initiate spiritual divorce. But how exactly can this division be overcome? What was not so? The difference between these two perspectives is vital, and we are forced to accept the later. He thus only intends to teach us that divorce should not exist as per the beginning.