Or, Man Met His Match in Marriage and It Was Very Good
Scripture: Genesis 2:18-25
Date: May 17, 2015
Speaker: Sean Higgins
Few things are as obvious, as basic, and as fundamental as the differences between a man and a woman. There are also fewer things that cause as many fights and hurt feelings. We each deem ourselves experts in the sexes, if for no other reason than that we’re one of them, either a male or a female. Yet for all our expertise and self-asserted societal sophistication, ours is a world run amuck of confusion, envy, guilt, pain, and heartache.
There are more extreme forms of disorder in our culture caused by rebellion against our Creator such as—but not limited to—cross-dressing, sex-change surgeries, and homosexuality. There are also more culturally dignified forms of gender and marriage confusion, from wives leading at home, husbands isolating themselves from or domineering over their wives, to feminism, adultery, and divorce. Other conservative abuses of gender distinctions include expecting men and women to do the same things, to have equal authority everywhere, and to be trained/educated in the same ways for the same reasons.
But from the beginning, God made men and women in His image. Their relationships and roles, especially in marriage, are a way to show something about God. Differences are not cause for competition any more than the differences between three Persons of the Trinity. Uniqueness is not a hindrance to unity any more than it is in the Godhead.
There are, of course, dissimilarities between how the marriage relationship between a man and a woman reflect God’s Trinitarian relationships. God is three Persons, not two. God is masculine; He is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, always referred to as “He.” God is not sexual. And yet, the emphasis in Genesis 1:27 concerning God’s image is that “male and female He created them.” The “good” of relationship with someone similar, but not exactly the same, is emphasized here in Genesis 2:18-25.
If we worshipped a Unitarian god (strict monotheism, one god and one person), we’d have to figure out or fight over who was in control and who would serve. If we worshipped many gods (polytheism), we would always be competing for attention and the top spot.
God made man for relationship where individuals have uniqueness and unity, who share communion with each other and complement each other. Though we have differences in our roles, we have equality in value before God, each one of us made in His image.
Our beliefs about men, women, marriage, relationship, family, all begin being framed in Genesis 1 and 2. The doctrine in this paragraph confronts selfish singleness, adultery and divorce, polygamy, fornication, homosexuality and attempted same sex marriage, feminism, and egalitarianism. Apart from God’s revelation we will keep toasting bread in the bathtub. Not only is it a bad ideal, it’s dangerous to our health.
After the week of creation recorded in Genesis 1:1-2:3, 2:4-4:26 begins with the “generations” (or the account) of the heavens and the earth. It shouldn’t surprise us that extra detail is given about the creation of man and woman here in chapter 2, since Genesis is the story of God’s relationship with men. Even the divisions of the book depend on the generations of relations.
In 2:4-17, Moses described the Garden of Eden, a working paradise for man. In the next chapter (3:1-24) Moses will tell us about the plunge of humanity into sin and death.
There all many firsts in this paragraph: the first “not good,” first parade (of animals), first dominion-taking task, first sleep, first surgery, first woman, first poem, first marriage/family.
Genesis 2:18-25 elaborates on Genesis 1:27. The point of the paragraph is that two are better than one (per Ecclesiastes 4:9-10). The first sentence states the truth plainly. Everything else in the paragraph relates to God’s creating a companion and helper for man and His ordaining the institution of marriage between them. By the end everything will be very good.
For the first time in the story something is not good. God created man from dust on the sixth day (2:7), then He put man in a garden paradise (2:8, 15). But man was alone. There were plants and animals, and, of course, God Himself was there. But there was nothing and no one else like man. God speaks His observation and plan to solve the problem in verse 18.
Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” (verse 18)
Because man was made in the image of a relational God, man was not made for solitary isolation but for intimate solidarity. That requires more than one.
While 1:27 summarizes God making “male and female,” this paragraph (2:18-25) describes the sequence. The sequence begs some significant questions, such as Why didn’t God make a male frame and a female frame and then simultaneously breathe life into both? Why did He create the man first? Why did He have man name the animals before creating the woman?
The first thing God teaches man is that it isn’t good to be alone. The common form of expressing a problem in the Hebrew language would be to say “it is lacking good.” To say it is not good is emphatic. The not good doesn’t necessarily mean that something was evil but that something was unfinished. There is something incomplete about a loner. It isn’t that he couldn’t get tasks done. Adam names numerous animals in the next couple verses. But life is more than doing, it is doing with someone.
Notice that Adam is not the one making the observation, let alone filing a complaint. At this point he doesn’t even seem to comprehend his incompleteness. God initiates for man’s joy and intentionally awakens Adam’s sense of need. Then the LORD God said, perhaps even so Adam could hear.
God declares He will make Adam a helper, one who was fit for him. A “helper” is not an inferior or subordinate, as this Hebrew word (ezer) is used most often of God in the Old Testament. This helper would be a contributor, supplying something that was lacking. But a helper is also more than a servant. Adam could have trained a dog to bring him things (and he didn’t have laundry to do at the time). This helper would be a companion, a friend, someone to share with, someone to enjoy and relate to. The helper God had in mind for Adam would be alongside of Adam in his responsibility to work and keep the garden, she would not be someone for him to boss around.
God intended this helper to be fit for the man, “suitable” for him (NASB, NIV), “comparable” to him (NKJV); a “helpmate” (DRBY). The King James translates the phrase, “I will make him an help meet for him.” “Helpmeet” is not one word, though many have taken it that way. Instead, she would be a help [who was] meet (or suitable or fit) for him, as other modern translations make clear. The helper would be someone like Adam, but not exactly the same. It would be someone corresponding to him, someone that would complement him; she completed the picture. She would be the lyrics to his melody.
God fixes two things to make it “good”:
In Eve, God gave Adam a companion and a complement. Two are better than one. Eve was a match made on earth for Adam by God.
God does not immediately present this helper to Adam, increasing the suspense in the story. He teaches Adam about his solitary condition while at the same time helping Adam begin to fulfill his responsibility as overseer of creation.
So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. (verses 19-20)
God’s first dominion-taking task for Adam had him naming animals. In context, however, the whole set up is to make Adam aware of his aloneness and to prepare him to appreciate the woman, as well as to acknowledge God who gave her to him.
The past tense God formed may be more accurately translated, “God had formed” (as in the NIV). This batch of animals was not a fresh group, distinct from those created on day five or earlier on day six. This is simply a way to say that those animals God created were now being brought to Adam to name. Reminding us that God had the power to create the animals also reminds us that God certainly had the power to bring the animals before Adam.
Every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens do not include all the living creatures. Noticeably absent from the list are the creeping things (1:24) and all swarming creatures in the sea (1:21). There were no marching ant farms and no whales jumping out of the water (a la Free Willy). There also seems to be a difference between the “beasts of the earth” (1:24) and “beasts of the field.” Still, this would have been a large number of animals. Verse 20 includes livestock, domesticated animals. As God would bring animals two by two to the ark for Noah, so God brought animals before Adam for him to name. This was the first parade. Only a few hours old, Adam must have been impressed seeing so many splendid creatures.
The act of naming was a demonstration not only of man’s ability, but also demonstrated a measure of man’s authority. Worms don’t have classes where they give names to men. It is the first scientific classification; Adam observed and described the animals by name. Naming and labeling are God-given and God-imaging tasks (as He did in Genesis 1:5, 8, 10).
We see sophisticated human language on Adam’s first day, complex enough to handle hundreds, if not thousands, of separate names. Henry Morris states, “It is not unreasonable to suggest that Adam could note and name about ten kinds each minute, so that in, say five hours, about three thousand kinds could be identified.” God didn’t jump in and question Adam’s choices, nor did He veto any names Adam gave. I’m sure this took a while, but the emphasis in context is still on Adam’s deficiency, not on his competency, as the end of verse 20 makes clear. But for Adam there was not found helper fit for him.
As a side note, if Adam had evolved, how did he decide he didn’t have anything in common with an ancestor? At what stage did Adam develop such pride as to think he was better than the most mature primate before him?
Yet no fit helper was found. This was not an experimental exercise to find a helper, as if God wanted to show him around the lot and see if anything peaked his interest. It was an educational exercise to teach Adam. A non-selfish sense of loneliness came over Adam. This was not a scientific issue, it was a personal one. A dog is not, and cannot be, man’s best friend. If Adam had know the tune, he would have sung, “I still haven’t found what I’m looking for.”
God was more aware of Adam’s incompleteness than Adam, He knew what Adam needed more than Adam, and He was able to remedy the problem more capably than Adam. Adam not only didn’t comprehend his problem or complain about it, God didn’t seek Adam’s counsel about how to fix it. As Bush comments, “[T]he bounty of God was so absolute, that he would not so much as consult with man’s will to make him happy” (67). God knows what is good for us and how to make it good better than we do.
So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. (verses 21-22)
Here is the first anesthetic and first surgery in history, performed by the great Physician. Since there was as yet no sin, death had not come either. Presumably there was also no pain, though Adam’s body must have been capable of experiencing pain. God knew what he was doing and kept Adam from being a bloody mess with a gaping hole in his side.
He caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam. It wasn’t a hypnotic trance; the word was used in reference to sleep (for example, when Jonah was sleeping during the storm at sea).
Once Adam was asleep, God took one of his ribs. Most translations stick with “rib,” though the Hebrew word means “side” (for example, a side of the ark of the covenant in Exodus 25:12; the side of a building in Exodus 26:20). Out of 35 some occurrences in the OT, this verse is the only time the word is translated “rib.” Based on Adam’s declaration in verse 23, “bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh,” I’m not sure that it helps to say “rib” other than maybe that it is more romantic. Maybe?
Why from his side? If nothing else, the dignity of the woman is guaranteed; she is not inferior. She is made from him. She is part of him, literally.
As another side note, there is simply no way for an evolutionist to explain Eve’s formation other than outright denial of the story.
The LORD God brought her to the man The picture is a solemn bestowal, the first presentation and giving away of the bride. This is a fantastic way to get a wife, though it is not necessarily a repeatable process.
Next week we’ll consider Adam’s excited, poetic outburst over his new help.
Man met his match in marriage and by the end of this paragraph on the end of day six it was very good. I know that this is marriage as God intended in paradise. We do not see or experience marriages like this in a sin-filled world. Sin spoils our understanding of what it means to be male or female, to be a husband or a wife. Sin messes up all of those relationships. But we can go back and see what God originally defined and intended for sake of reflecting Him. The gospel offers forgiveness for our failures, and it also empowers us to be changed into the image He had in mind for us. God made marriage for our good and as a way for His goodness to be seen among us and through us.