June 26, 2025, marks 10 years since the society-altering United States Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges was decided. Four states—Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee—had defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman, clearly reflecting the traditional and (nearly) universal notion of the institution. The lead plaintiff, James Obergefell, joined other petitioners as same-sex couples to file lawsuits at the federal district court level in their respective home states. They claimed that their 14th Amendment rights were violated by denying them the right to marry as same-sex couples or by refusing to grant full recognition to their marriages that had been lawfully performed in another state.
After district court and circuit court rulings, the Supreme Court held “the Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State.” The Supreme Court decision and its many consequences for marriage in American society is wrong on many accounts. Still, my interest is in showing how this development completely violates the biblical view of marriage.
A dual mandate
The opening pages of Scripture affirm the divine deliberation to create a being more like the Triune God than any other creature: “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness. They will rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the livestock, the whole earth, and the creatures that crawl on the earth’” (Gen. 1:26). This statement of divine intention is followed by its actualization: “So God created man in his own image; he created him in the image of God; he created them male and female” (1:27). To his newly created male and female image bearers, God gave a mandate: “God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. Rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and every creature that crawls on the earth’” (1:28).
Importantly, the divine purpose and creative act consists of two aspects: (1) procreation (“be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth”); and (2) vocation (“subdue [the earth] and exercise dominion”). Both require man and woman to obediently fulfill this cultural mandate. With these responsibilities, we see the opening functions of marriage, family, and sexuality from a biblical perspective: a man, a woman, sexual intercourse, and children as the fruit.
The role of man and woman in the created order
A second text (Gen. 2:7, 18-25) spotlights the creation of the first man and woman. With this extended narrative comes a focus on marriage and sexuality, with the family aspect implied. The formation of the first human from the dust of the ground underscores our dependence upon the Creator. Creation from dust does not mean that human beings were created mortal—born to die—but it sets the stage for eventual human death as the penalty for sin (Gen. 3:19; Rom. 3:23; 5:12-21), that is, seeking to live independently of the Creator.
The first divinely created man was designed not only to be dependent on God but also, according to God’s own assessment, to need a woman in order to fulfill the dual mandate of procreation and vocation: “It is not good [contrast with “It is good” repeated throughout Genesis 1] for the man to be alone.” Not good does not indicate a sinful situation but an incompleteness in God’s stated purpose for humankind: “Male and female he created them.” At this point, the male existed, but the female “helper corresponding to him” did not yet exist. So God met the man’s functional and telological need to fulfill the cultural mandate: from the man, the Lord God fashioned a woman to be a helper perfectly matching him—of the same human nature but differentiated according to sex—as reflected in her being called אִשָּׁ֔ה (’issah, “woman”) because she was taken out of אִ֖ישׁ (’ish, “man”).
For what purpose was the first woman created as a “helper” for the first man? As we noted in Genesis 1:26-28, the cultural mandate given to all male and female image bearers includes the aspect of procreation: “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” is the labor to which men and women are called and for which the first woman was formed as “helper.” Accordingly, the first man was the first husband, the first woman was the first wife, and their mutual responsibility was to physically expand the human race. Following this pattern throughout time, and in obedience to the divine mandate, the vast majority of men and women marry, and the vast majority of married couples (if they are able) produce children.
God’s enduring design
As we look at these points on marriage and family, we must consider:
First, the original scenario of marriage is the model for humanity to follow. The monogamous, lifelong, divinely designed relationship between one man and one woman is the assumption of all Scripture, made explicit by Jesus himself (Matt. 19:4–6): “Have you not read that he [God] who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
This is God’s divine design: male and female, husband and wife. Sexual intercourse joins the couple together and is meant for the confines of marriage between one man and one woman. Marriage is a lifelong relationship, with the sexual union producing children (if physically possible). The original scenario in the creation account testifies to this.
Second, this scenario becomes the pattern that begins to be rehearsed immediately in the biblical narratives of humanity’s expansion (Gen. 4:1-2, 17-18).
Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD.” And again, she bore his brother Abel. . . . Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. . . . To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad fathered Mehujael, and Mehujael fathered Methushael, and Methushael fathered Lamech.
The pattern continues through the genealogies (Gen. 5:3, 6, 9): “When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. . . . When Seth had lived 105 years, he fathered Enosh. . . . When Enosh had lived 90 years, he fathered Kenan.”
We get the idea: the pattern is “so and so” (at age X) fathered “so and so.” According to Scripture, this has been the pattern for the expansion of humankind from the beginning of time.
As unvarying as it may be, this pattern honors God because it is carried out in obedience to his mandate. On the one hand, that conformity to the divine will may be undertaken consciously as Christians intentionally obey God’s command and have children. On the other hand, it may be done unconsciously by secularized couples who follow the pattern because it is expected of them to have children, and they do so without any regard whatsoever for the underlying divine intention. In both cases, God’s glory is manifested in the families that emerge as his cultural mandate is fulfilled.
Obergefell 10 Years Later
By design, God creates male and female image bearers to expand humankind through a man and a woman getting married, engaging in sexual intercourse, having children, and staying together as a family. Obviously, we know of exceptions to this design. Some are righteous variations; for example, according to God’s gift of celibacy, some men and some women forego marriage and honor the Lord as single people (1 Cor. 7:7). Some are painful exceptions; for example, infertile couples who long for children but lamentably live without them. Some are sinful variations; for example, men and women who reject marriage while engaging in sexual activity for the sake of pleasure and with disregard for procreation (even, in the case of a “mistake,” murderously opting for an abortion).
The Obergefell decision rears its ugly head at this juncture. The Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage and its approval of same-sex marriage is a heinous rejection of the biblical view of marriage, family, and sexuality. It defiles the male-female, husband-wife structure. It violates biblical sexual mores of intercourse between a man and woman (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; exemplified in the story of Lot, Gen. 19:4-7; Rom. 1:26-28; 1 Cor. 6:9). Embracing the male-female differentiation, marriage between a husband and a wife, and their sexual union serves God’s divine purpose and design for the human family.
