Adam and Eve/Adam and Steve? A challenge to the hermeneutical "complementarity" argument.

The bumper sticker slogan "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" captures well one position in the contemporary debate about homosexuality. This position, often referred to as the "complementarity argument," relies heavily on a particular interpretation of Genesis 1-2 to condemn same-sex sexual relations as a violation of God's design for creation.

This essay challenges the complementarity interpretive approach to Genesis 1-2 on two interrelated grounds: (1) it imposes on Genesis 1-2 questions foreign to the issues the texts are addressing, and (2) it assumes that the modern anthropological model of two sexes differentiated on biological grounds has been constant from ancient times to the present. Robert Gagnon has emerged as a primary spokesperson of the complementarity argument, and his work (1) provides the lens through which the complementarity perspective is presented here.

"God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" is a catchy slogan. A close literary and historical reading of the Genesis texts reveals, however, that it fails to reflect accurately the exegetical concerns and historical worldview of those texts.

Interpretation of Genesis 2: complementarity approach

According to the complementarity argument, the creation account of Genesis 2 authorizes the institution of heterosexual marriage and, by inference, prohibits same-sex sexual relations as contrary to God's design for men and women. As a representative of this position, Gagnon begins by describing the creation of woman (Gen 2:21-22) as that of man's complementary sexual "other":

Only a being made (2) from 'adam can and ought to become someone with
whom 'adam longs to reunite in sexual intercourse and marriage, a
reunion that not only provides companionship but restores 'adam to his
original wholeness. The woman is not just "like himself" but "from
himself" and thereby a complementary fit to himself. She is a
complementary sexual "other." (3)

Created as complementary sexual beings, man and woman become an ontological unity through attachment (cleaving) to each other in the one-flesh sexual union of marriage. Commenting on Genesis 2:24, Gagnon states:

The sexual union of man and woman in marriage, of two complementary
beings, in effect makes possible a single, composite being. So great is
the complementarity of male and female, so seriously is the notion of
"attachment" and "joining" taken, that the marital bond between man and
woman takes precedence even over the bond with the parents that
physically produced them. A descriptive statement about the creation of
woman thus provides etiological justification for prescriptive norms
regarding marriage. (4)

On these interpretive grounds, Gagnon concludes: "Male and female are 'perfect fits' from the perspective of divine design and blessing. Male and male, or female and female, are not." (5)

Literary and historical challenge to the complementarity approach

The assumption that Genesis 2 addresses issues of sexuality as those issues are framed in our contemporary context underlies the complementarity interpretive approach to Genesis 2. When this assumption is tested by situating the Genesis 2 creation account in its larger literary and historical contexts, however, the fallacy of addressing to this text questions it in no way seeks to address becomes clear.

Literary challenge

The creation account of Gen 2:4b-24 marks the beginning of the Yahwist (J) document, one of two major writings interwoven throughout the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. Possibly written during the heady early years of the Davidic monarchy or later as a theological reflection on the constitution of the community after the exile, the Yahwist account serves as a family history of Israel. (6) Consonant with this purpose, themes of kinship and genealogy take central stage in the unfolding of a covenant family lineage that extends all the way from the first humans to the Davidic monarchs. The intimate relational anthropology of the Genesis 2 creation account anticipates the covenantal focus of the entire document. (7) In Genesis 2:21-23, this is evident particularly in the language of "building" and in the reference to "my flesh."

Although often translated "made," the Hebrew word "build" ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) is used in Gen 2:22 to describe Yahweh's action in creating the woman. When used by the Yahwist to describe creative activity involving a woman, this verb has covenantal connotations. Twice in patriarchal narratives, it highlights the fertility crises of matriarchs. Frustrated by her inability to bear a son, Sarah has her servant Hagar act as a surrogate birth mother so that "I (Sarah) will be built ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) from her" (Gen 16:2). Two generations later, barren Rachel frantically offers her maid Bilhah to Jacob for sexual intercourse so that "I (Rachel) will be built ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) through her" (Gen 30:3). At stake in both instances is the matriarch's responsibility to facilitate the genealogical continuity of a patriarch's lineage.

Interestingly, none of the attempts to use surrogate mothers to build the desired lineage works. Yahweh intercedes to keep the lineage going through Isaac, born to Sarah herself, a lineage continued through Judah, born to Jacob's first wife, Leah. From the building of the first woman through the births to the matriarchs, the point is clear: Building the lineage that will culminate in the Davidic monarchy is Yahweh's work alone. This, not the restoration of the 'adam to his original wholeness through the making of a complementary other, is set in motion by Yahweh's creative building of woman in Gen 2:22. Anticipation of covenant, not "complementarity" as that term functions in contemporary debates about sexuality, is highlighted in Yahweh's building of woman.

The covenantal focus is evident also in the Yahwist's use of "flesh" language in patriarchal narratives subsequent to the reference to "bone of my bones/flesh of my flesh" in Gen 2:23. The imagery recurs twice, each time highlighting the complicated web of kinship relationships through which the covenant lineage flows. Two generations removed from Abraham, grandson Jacob is compelled to flee from Canaan to the extended family in Paddan-aram. When he arrives there, his uncle Laban embraces him with the exuberant acclamation "Surely you are my bone and my flesh!" (Gen 29:14) The covenantal implications of this imagery become clear in the unfolding of the story of Jacob's marriages to Laban's daughters Leah and Rachel. The two matriarchs are the mothers of the twelve sons (8) who are the ancestors of the twelve tribes that will comprise the nation Israel. Leah, moreover, provides the heir (Judah) through whom the covenantal lineage extending back to the first humans will culminate in King David and his descendants.

Judah's journey to covenantal blessing is not without bumps. In an episode fraught with covenantal implications, Jacob's adult sons seize their hated little brother Joseph and debate whether to kill him. Judah argues against such action, reminding the brothers "he (Joseph) is our own flesh" (Gen 37:7). Judah's brothers heed his plea, and Joseph is saved from death. Judah will not be implicated in murder and eventually will show himself worthy to take his place in the genealogy of the covenant people. In the Yahwist's account, proper covenantal lines of procreation, not complementarity of the sexes, constitute the subject of the Yahwist's use of bone/flesh imagery.

The etiology (explanation of origins) subsequent to the creation account (Gen 2:24) celebrates the power of sexual attraction between man and woman. This is the first of a number of etiologies inserted by the Yahwist into his narrative. Etiological observations were common in ancient writings and seem to reflect a fascination with the origins of places and institutions.

The assertion that the language of "cleaving" ("attaching") and "becoming one flesh" describes an ontological union and prescribes heterosexual monogamy as the divine design for all creation is flawed exegetically on several accounts. One flaw is elucidated by an intertextual survey of the Yahwist's use of "cleave." "Cleave" reoccurs four times in the Yahwist account, once in reference to Lot's fear that evil will cleave to him (Gen 19:19), once in reference to Shechem cleaving to Dinah after raping her (Gen 34:4), and twice in reference to each tribe's inheritance cleaving to it (Num 36:7, 9). Clearly, the term refers to a close attachment of some sort. (9) While the attachment may have sexual connotations, its range of meanings is much broader. Nowhere in the Hebrew Bible does "cleave" have the connotations ascribed to it by proponents of the complementarity argument.

Similarly, while the language of "becoming one flesh" in Gen 2:24 certainly refers to sexual intercourse, it lacks the ontological and institutional connotations ascribed to it by the complementarity argument. The covenantal function of "flesh" imagery has been discussed above. Without the assumption that "one flesh" indicates some sort of ontological union between complementary partners, the link to the institution of heterosexual marriage is severed, and other interpretations become equally or more plausible. For example, David Daube and David Biale emphasize that the text celebrates and blesses the fleshliness of sexual intercourse and the procreative possibilities inherent in it. Celebration and blessing are the themes of the text. (10) Claus Westermann argues that the text intends to explain the power of love between man and woman and says nothing at all about the institution of marriage. (11) Whether the etiological explanation of origins in Gen 2:24 refers to marriage or not, it is helpful to restate that etiologies simply explain origins of how things came to be. To assert "this is how marriage came to be" is not necessarily to prescribe "and this is the only shape it must take."

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Furthermore, a perusal of the Yahwist's subsequent portrayal of the patriarchs' sexual relationships elucidates the Yahwist's lack of interest in prescribing norms for monogamous marriage. Abraham has sexual intercourse with Sarah's servant Hagar (Gen 16:1-4) and, after Sarah's death, has children through concubines as well as through another wife (Gen 25:1-4). Jacob is married to Leah and Rachel simultaneously and also has sesxual intercourse with their servants Bilhah and Zilpah (Gen 29-30). Neither the patriarchs nor their wives are condemned or even criticized for these nonmonogamous relationships. Far from functioning to facilitate the "restoration of adam to his original wholeness" in an ontologically unique monogamous union, the matriarchs and their servants function primarily as receptacles for the patriarch's genealogical seed. In the Yahwist document, the significance of the creation of man and woman is explored in terms of perpetuation of covenant lineage rather than of proper norms for sexual relationships.

Historical challenge

Situating Genesis 2 in its larger literary context demonstrates how the "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" interpretative approach to the text makes claims that exceed the biblical witness. This is a serious exegetical shortcoming of the complementarity argument. An equally serious shortcoming is its historical assumption that the concept of "complementary sexes" reflects an essential reality that has remained constant over the vast transhistorical and transcultural trajectories spanning the centuries from ancient times to the present. (12) This assumption has been challenged by numerous scholars, including the historian Thomas Laqueur.

Laqueur argues that the fixed and modern connection between gender and sex assumed in the complementarity argument is alien to the ancient world. Citing representative sources from ancient to modern times, he demonstrates that the conceptualization of the human body in any era reflects the worldview of that time rather than an essence unchanged throughout time. (13) The conceptualization often accepted as "natural" in modern times--that of two stable opposite sexes distinguished from each other on biological grounds--actually is an eighteenth-century innovation reflecting the new worldview generated by the various intellectual currents that transformed human understanding during the scientific revolution. (14)

Ancient peoples, in contrast, perceived the world as a unified, hierarchically ordered cosmos structured according to greater and lesser degrees of perfection. Understood as a microcosm of the entire cosmos, the human body was assumed to be a hierarchically ordered unity structured, like the entire cosmos, according to degrees of perfection. Far from representing two opposite and complementary sexes distinguished on biological grounds, male and female bodies were regarded as perfect and less perfect/imperfect versions of one sex. Because he ranked higher in the hierarchy of perfection, it was considered "natural" for the male to take the dominant, active role in sexual relationships. Conversely, because of her lower position in the hierarchy, it was considered "natural" for the female to serve as the subordinate, passive recipient of male activity. Proper role differentiation reflective of one's position in the hierarchy of perfection provided the framework in which all sexual relationships were evaluated. It was on these grounds that same-sex sexual intercourse between men of equal status or between women was condemned. (15)

The notion of complementary sexes was alien to the worldview of ancient times--the very times in which the Yahwist document was written. In addition to seeking answers to questions the text isn't addressing, proponents of the complementarity argument have imposed on the biblical text modern concepts alien to the thought world in which the text was written.

Interpretation of Genesis 1: complementarity approach

Within the complementarity argument, interpretation of Genesis 1 appears to a large extent to be simply subsumed under that of Genesis 2. Assuming again that the text addresses contemporary questions about sexuality, complementarity spokesperson Gagnon focuses primarily on implications of the relationship he perceives between God's mandate to humans to rule the world and the creation of humans as male and female. The logic of his argument proceeds as follows. Governance of creation is a primary concern of the priestly authors of Genesis 1. Fulfilling the mandate to rule creation at God's behest and to worship God (Gen 1:26-31) requires filling the earth with humans, which necessitates ongoing procreation. Thus, "complementarity of male and female is [thereby] secured in the divinely sanctioned work of governing creation." (16)

Sensitive to possible criticism that global overpopulation challenges marriage's procreative purpose, Gagnon hastens to defend his position:

Doubtlessly, the Priestly writer would have responded: Should humans
then mate with animals to avoid procreation? Or has God changed the
complementarity of male and female anatomy? God's intent for human
sexuality is imbedded in the material creation of gendered beings
irrespective of the globe's population. "Male and female he created
them" probably intimates that the fullness of God's "image" comes
together in the union of male and female in marriage (not, one could
infer, from same sex unions). (17)

Challenge to the complementarity approach

The procreation/male and female complementarity/fullness of divine image trajectory discerned by Gagnon in Genesis 1 can be criticized on a number of grounds. Here I focus on the imposition of questions, connotations, and functions alien to the text as well as on implications of declaring the actual worldview of the text authoritative for today's sexual relationships.

The assumption that Genesis 1 answers questions about the nature of human sexuality has been challenged convincingly by Westermann. Critical of systematic theologians who develop theories of human nature based on Gen 1:26-27, Westermann argues that the text addresses the process of God's creative activity rather than the nature of human beings. This process is a primeval event transcending the moment of the event. Humanity is created for community, as is evident in the creation of the human as male and female. (18) Westermann concludes that, far from providing a general understanding of sexuality, the narrative of Genesis 1 is shaped to challenge readers to "face how incomprehensible, inscrutable, indescribable is the subject of his [the author's] story." (19)

Similarly, the assumption of an obligatory relationship between sexuality and procreation has been challenged convincingly by a variety of scholars. Procreation for the sake of lineage continuity was indeed a primary concern of the priestly authors. Daube and Biale have made the case, however, that the Hebrew Bible understands procreation as a blessing to be sought rather than a command to be fulfilled. (20) Contrary to leading proponents of the complementarity argument, procreation is not a duty imbedded in the material creation of male and female. Nonprocreative sexual relationships do not, by their existence, defy a divine command.

Moreover, the language used by the priestly authors to describe the creation of humanity as "male" and "female" reflects much more the ancient worldview described by Laqueur than the modern worldview in which discussion of complementarity takes place. Declaring that ancient worldview the normative template for sexual relations today would have implications that proponents of the complementarity argument may not have envisioned.

Probably writing during the exile that followed the devastating Babylonian defeat of Judah in 587 B.C.E., the priestly authors reached back into ancient traditions to give confidence and courage to a community whose identity was threatened as never before. As priests concerned above all with holiness, it is not surprising that they were drawn to and further developed the ancient priestly holiness traditions located in the book of Leviticus. Those traditions located the essence of holiness in separation--of God from creation, of Israel from the nations, of the various categories around which daily life is ordered.

Within the category of sexual relationships, separation is maintained by proper role differentiation. Men are expected to play the active penetrative role in sexual intercourse and women to be the passive, penetrated recipients of male activity. The language of "male" and "female" express this role differentiation. The root of the Hebrew word male ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) also means "memory." In a world in which genealogical continuity was crucial, the male is conceptualized as the one through whom lineage--memory--is transmitted. He is the active memory-making agent. In contrast, the root of the word "female" ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) also means "hole, orifice bearer." She is conceptualized as the one whose hole is penetrated by the memory maker, the passive recipient of seminal male activity. These role-based categories were assumed by the priestly authors to be built into the structure of creation itself. (21) They are "complementary" in only the sense that they presuppose the dominance of the partner with the more perfect body (male) and the subordination of the less perfect body (female). Applying language reflecting this worldview as a normative template for sexual relationships today would mean returning to role-based domination/subordination as the norm for sexual relationships between men and women.

Finally, the priestly usage of "image of God" imagery to describe the creation of humanity as male and female has a substantially different function than that ascribed to it by those finding in it an intimation of the fullness of the divine image in male/female union in marriage. Noting the royal connotations of the word "image" in biblical and extrabiblical sources, Gerhard von Rad argues that the term "image" is defined best as "plastic image." As human kings built images of themselves to indicate their rule over far-flung provinces of their empires, so God placed man (sic) on earth as God's sovereign emblem. According to von Rad, the creation of humanity in God's image "speaks less of the nature of God's image than of its purpose ... less about the gift itself than about the task." (22) That task, he continues, "is sketched most clearly: domination in the world, especially over the animals." (23) This position is similar to that of Phyllis Bird and Walter Brueggemann, who also emphasize the relationship between the royal designation of humanity and the imperative to rule over the rest of creation. It is precisely the human's status and role among the other creatures that is captured through its identification as "image of God." (24) The procreation/male and female complementarity/fullness of divine image trajectory integral to the complementarity argument is imposed on the text, not integral to it.

Summary and implications

Exegetically and historically, the complementarity interpretation of Genesis 1 rests on extremely shaky grounds. The conceptual grid imposed by the assumption that the text addresses general questions of sexuality as those questions are articulated today leads to exegetical observations that simply do not hold. Moreover, proponents of the complementarity argument, as least as represented by Gagnon, seem not to think through the logic of the interpretation they promote. The logic that inextricably interconnects modern questions about sexuality, procreation, and image of God to the priestly description of creation in Genesis 1 seems to lead inevitably to the conclusion that reflection of the fullness of the divine image is limited to married heterosexual couples who fulfill the obligation of procreation. Interestingly, while Gagnon concludes that same-sex sexual relationships cannot express the image of God, he fails to address implications of his logic for unmarried heterosexuals and for heterosexual couples who are childless either by choice or involuntarily. It would seem that his logic excludes the possibility that the divine image is represented fully in these persons.

Out of fairness to Gagnon, it should be noted that his qualifiers "probably intimates" and "one could infer" hint that he is aware of the interpretive leaps he is making in his analysis of Genesis 1. Given the significance of the creation accounts for the complementarity argument, it is puzzling that in a 493-page book Gagnon limits his analysis of Genesis 1-2 to eight paragraphs. Further explication of how he gets where he gets would be helpful.

Conclusion

The "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" interpretative approach rises or falls on the plausibility of the claim that complementarity of the sexes is built into the structure of creation by God in a way that mandates exclusive heterosexual monogamy as the sole moral expression of sexual relationships. I have challenged that claim on exegetical and historical grounds and demonstrated fallacies of the complementarity argument on both grounds. Situating the individual texts within their exegetical and historical contexts has demonstrated the inadequacy of attempts to read into them answers to questions they are not addressing. The Genesis 1-2 creation accounts simply do not address the question of whether God's creation of the first Adam and Eve necessitates divine and human censure of today's Adam and Steve.

Gwen Sayler

Wartburg Theological Seminary

Dubuque, Iowa

[e-mail]

1. Robert Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Nashville: Abingdon, 2001).

2. Gagnon elides the Hebrew "build" to "made." Interpretive implications are discussed below.

3. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 60-61.

4. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 61. For a contrasting view, see Claus Westermann, Genesis I-II: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984), 232-33. Curiously, Gagnon cites Westermann in support of his (Gagnon's) position, apparently unaware that Westermann's argument actually challenges the position Gagnon is articulating. Cf. Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972), 84-85, and Daniel Boyarin, "Circumcision and the 'Carnal Israel,'" Critical Inquiry 18 (1992): 478.

5. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 62.

6. For an excellent general introduction, see John J. Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004), 67-81.

7. Although not specifically addressing the issue of genealogy at this point in his commentary, Walter Brueggemann makes a similar point in his observations regarding the covenantal nature of the language used in Gen 2:21-24 (Genesis: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching [Atlanta: John Knox, 1982], 40-54).

8. One daughter, Dinah, also is included in the birth narratives of twelve sons born to Jacob through Leah, Rachel, and their surrogate maids (Gen 29:32-30:22; 35:16-18).

9. Some biblical usages of "cleave" refer to relationship with God (Deut 13:4; Josh 23:8) or with other people (Ruth with Naomi and Boaz's servant girls with Ruth in 1:4; 2:21, 23; Solomon with his foreign wives in 1 Kgs 11:2). Other uses refer to qualities, actions, or objects (Jehoram's cleaving to the sin of Jeroboam in 2 Kgs 3:3; the psalmist's bones cleaving to his skin in Ps 102:5; David's warrior's hand cleaving to its sword in 2 Sam 23:10).

10. David Daube, The Duty of Procreation (Edinburgh: University Press, 1977), 1-9; David Biale, Eros and the Jews: From Biblical Israel to Contemporary America (New York: Basic Books, 1992), 35.

11. Westermann, Genesis 1-11: A Commentary, 233.

12. For a helpful discussion of arguments surrounding terminology used to talk about gender and sexuality, see Lynn Meskell, "The Irresistible Body and the Seduction of Archeology," in Changing Bodies, Changing Meanings: Studies on the Human Body in Antiquity, ed. Dominic Montserrat (London and New York: Routledge, 1998), 141-59.

13. Thomas Laqueur, Making Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990), 4-23, 124, 149-54, 193.

14. Laqueur, Making Sex, 6, 149-54, 193. See also Maud Gleason, Making Men: Sophists and Self-Representation in Ancient Rome (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995). For a helpful reference to Gleason's work, see Janet Capel Anderson and Stephen Moore, "Matthew and Masculinity," in New Testament Masculinities, ed. Stephen Moore and Janice Capel Anderson (Society of Biblical Literature, Semeia Series, 2003), 67-91.

15. Laqueur, Making Sex, 8, 25-57.

16. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 57.

17. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 58.

18. Westermann, Genesis I-II: A Commentary, 155-60.

19. Westermann, Genesis I-II: A Commentary, 174. He notes that if the text had intended to address questions of human nature, certainly the Old Testament (sic) would have had much more to say about "this image and likeness" (pp. 155-58).

20. Biale, Eros and the Jews, 35; Daube, The Duty of Procreation, 1-9.

21. This interpretation is in contrast to interpretations that view Gen 1:26-28 an affirmation of created equality between men and women. For an example of that view, see Phyllis Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress), 12-23.

22. Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, 59.

23. Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, 57-59.

24. Brueggemann, Genesis, 32-33; Phyllis Bird, "Sexual Differentiation and Divine Image in the Genesis Creation Texts," in The Image of God: Gender Models in Judaeo-Christian Tradition, ed. Kari Borresen (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 8-9.