I asked chatGPT: Is it reasonable for the Christian Church to defend Genesis 2:24 as sacramental and not only as a social construct? “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”After discussing the Christian position on marriage chatGPT wrote:
“Genesis 2:24 is not merely a social construct with religious overtones. It is a creational sign that participates in the mystery it signifies. To deny this is not simply to revise marriage theology—it is to unravel the coherence of Christian anthropology, ecclesiology, and eschatology at once.”
So, I asked for simplicity’s sake, “Could we say that to rewrite the marriage union as anything else accept one man, one woman, in a lifelong monogamous relationship would be to deny the Gospel message itself?”
chatGPT wrote: “A careful answer is yes. It is reasonable to say that redefining marriage away from one man and one woman in lifelong monogamy does not merely revise an ethical teaching, but materially undermines a Gospel-sign, even if it does not always constitute a formal denial of the Gospel itself. … To alter that form is not a neutral act. It teaches a different story about unity, fidelity, difference, and love. And a different story, however well-intentioned, is not the same Gospel.”
If we proclaim the Gospel, we must honor Genesis 2:24 as Jesus and Paul did [Matthew 19:5-6; Ephesians 5:31-32].
Grok chimed in: “Yes, it is reasonable for segments of the Christian Church … to defend Genesis 2:24 as having a sacramental [sacred] dimension rather than viewing it purely as a social or cultural construct. This interpretation stems from a theological framework that sees marriage as divinely instituted from creation … and elevated by Christ to symbolize deeper spiritual realities, including the Gospel message of redemption and union. … Overall, the position is reasonable because it’s scripturally grounded. … It counters reductionist views by arguing marriage’s sacredness is intrinsic, not socially constructed, and directly serves the Gospel by embodying Christ’s redemptive love. Critics might argue it’s an over-spiritualization or culturally bound, but the Ephesians connection provides a strong biblical warrant against treating it as merely social.”
My regret here is that the protestant church did not always see it this way! Some may have compromised away the real message behind Jesus’ crucifixion offering congregants an easier dogma that allows for social change at the expense of the Gospel.
I do not stand in judgment of anyone for any reason but would ask everyone who seeks that personal relationship with their Creator and Lord that they discuss with Him their lifestyle in relation to Jesus’ death and resurrection and seek to faithfully represent the Gospel that was first proclaimed from His Cross.
The entire chatGPT conversation is here.
