Genesis 2:18–25 is the first instance in the creation account where something is not ideal. The previous verses depict a literal Edenic picture, with no flaw. One could not ask for more of an idyllic scene. Verse 18, however, records God stating an observation of incompletion. “It is not good . . .” This saying recalls the “it was good” motif found in the previous chapter. Clearly the author was intending the audience to respond with forehead-leaning interest.
Though God stated that a “helper comparable” would be created, the animals were brought to Adam instead, in the immediately subsequent verses. Then God asked Adam to name them. Why would God do this? Imagine someone saying that since you were hungry that they would bring some soup. After you wait a while, this someone comes and says, “See, I bought you some tires.” Clearly God was building anticipation and creating a scenario where Adam would also recognize this need for himself, as God saw it. We clearly see His goodness, gentleness, and wisdom here.
After Adam named the animals, they are unsatisfactory to meet his needs. Verse 20 highlights that “there was not found a helper comparable to him.” After this recognition, God creates Eve out of a side bone of Adam, the rib. This new being would have the same bones and the same flesh, basically inferring the same nature as Adam.
Contemporary psychology attempts to compartmentalize sexuality into parts—spiritual fulfillment; physical pleasure; intellectual satisfaction; emotional resonance; an agent that is giving, and an agent that is receiving. When sexuality is no longer considered a gift from God and His counsel is no longer heeded, then various permutations of sexual behavior occur, resulting in the imbalance of these parts. Call it sexuality deconstructed, and under the moniker of creativity and innovation, new forms and combinations are experimented with, so that a supposedly higher form of satisfaction might be discovered.
For example, some forms of sexuality incorporate mere pleasure, but no participation, emotion, or relationship (i.e. virtual, voyeuristic, pornographic categories). Nothing of the individual person’s nature is needed at all because it focuses the simplistic aspect of pleasure within the sexual experience. Others incorporate relationships and pleasure, but outside the realm of exclusivity, security, and vulnerability (i.e., extramarital, polygamous, polyamorous, and even pederastic categories). This results in no commitment, no shame, no courage, no security, and no faithfulness—all of which negatively impacts the emotional, intellectual, and even physical components of sexuality. Anxiety, fear, apprehension, and angst linger in the human psyche. Last, there are deviant sexual relationships with non-persons (i.e. bestiality, digital intelligence, necrophilia categories) that emphasize the superiority of the protagonist and trespasses against the sexual experience of the husband and wife as two equal individuals.
We have seen each week that there are important principles comprising the biblical definition of premium sexuality. We have established that sexual intimacy cannot be experienced as a monad. Its intensity can only be experienced in an exclusive bond in marriage without fear of the relationship’s end. It consists of a dual plurality becoming one in body, mind, and heart.
We will see (in next week’s lesson) that premium sexuality as defined by God must incorporate the ingredients of opposites (two opposing genders), but, for now, we simply observe that the opposites must have the sameness of nature (two human beings). Human beings are more than just anatomy, where the mechanics of body parts fit. It is about communication between two human beings, neurological compatibility, physiological communication, hormonal resonance, simultaneous cerebral stimulation, emotional harmony, and a whole bunch of other complex and multifactorial elements that God intended for a premium experience, blessed under the banner of holiness.
As unpleasant as the topic may be to some in various cultures, sexuality will continue to be redefined and reevaluated on a foundation-less basis as the Second Coming draws near. Rather than leaning on preestablished culturally accepted values, we must look to the Bible for clear answers when it comes to sexuality and its related issues. One practice that is unacceptable in one age or culture may become completely normative behavior in another. This is what makes the Bible a clear foundation for humanity regardless of time, as well as its countercultural power to redeem us from human-centric ideas that result in substandard sexual experiences that God never intended for humanity.