What constitutes a family? Who has a legitimate role in defining this? With marriage considered a legal affair, the Canadian courts have created one of the broadest definitions in the world. Whether its considering the situation of polygamy in Bountiful BC, to homosexual unions and the recent controversy in out of province divorce, there continues to be much debate on the makeup of a family.
The ancient law of Israel, was designed to protect those who were commonly subject to abuse by society: the orphan, widow, and alien (e.g., levirate marriage, Deut 25:5–10). Genesis’s account defined the role and relationship of the man and woman.
When we determine our roles as men and women, what should inform our opinion? What defines our primary reference: Our own parents, experience, public role models or something else? Where we take our bearings from will be the guide and benchmark of how we act and what we promote.
God specifies the purpose of a family in the Genesis account through: 1)The Problem (Genesis 2:18-20), 2) The Provision (Genesis 2:21-23), and 3) The Portrait (Genesis 2:24) of What a Family is For.
1)The Problem (Genesis 2:18-20)
Genesis 2:18-20 [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." [19]Now out of the ground the LORD God had 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. [20]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. (ESV)
Everything thus far in Genesis that has been scrutinized by God has been given a positive assessment. Every situation has come through as either good or very good. The expression not good indicates that these events are not a further continuation of chapter 1 and the creative week, but are part of that creative week (in day six). When God finished His creation (1:31), He noted that everything was very good. Thus, until Eve was created the creative activity of God was not complete. This is the first time in the history of creation that God said, It is not good (KJV Bible commentary. 1997 (18). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.).
What is not good, is man’s lack of a corresponding companion. “Not good” here is strong language. It indicates not only the absence of something good but a substantial deficiency (U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part One (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1989), pp. 126, 127.).
(From the pattern of forming and filling of creation): The skies without the luminaries and birds are incomplete. The seas without the fish are incomplete. Without mankind and land animals the earth is incomplete. As a matter of fact, every phenomenon in Gen. 1–2, God excepted, is in need of something else to complete it and to enable it to function (Hamilton, V. P. (1990). The Book of Genesis. Chapters 1-17. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (175). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.).
The Lord God states this, not because it is a thought that has come to him rather belatedly, and he now wants to remedy the oversight. No, He speaks these words for man’s guidance. Man is to know that he is dependent on the companionship of other men, more particularly, that of a wife. Marriage will be the normal thing for the males of Adam’s race. The wives God has provided are exactly such helpers as the husbands need (Franzmann, W. H. (1980). Bible History Commentary: Old Testament (34). Milwaukee, WI: Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod.).
• This should not be taken to mean that God intends for every person to marry. (1 Corinthians 7 spells out) times when it would be better for a man or a woman to remain single. God’s observation (of this situation) was that it was not good for Adam...to remain alone. ... God’s program demanded that Adam have a mate. From the beginning God looked forward to the propagation of the race, the generation of the chosen people, and the coming of the Promised Seed (Smith, J. E. (1993). The Pentateuch (2nd ed.) (Ge 2:18–20). Joplin, Mo.: College Press Pub. Co.).
Please turn to Ecclesiastes 4
The Hebrew construction of Genesis 2:18 accentuates the negative phrase “not good” by placing it at the head of the sentence. God has made the man and provided a beautiful environment with honorable work. God then announces that more is to be done to achieve the ideal for the man. God’s concern is that man is “alone.” God has created human life to have fellowship with him but also to be a social entity, building relationships with other human beings.
Ecclesiastes 4:1-12 [4:1]Again I saw all the oppressions that are done under the sun. And behold, the tears of the oppressed, and they had no one to comfort them! On the side of their oppressors there was power, and there was no one to comfort them. [2]And I thought the dead who are already dead more fortunate than the living who are still alive. [3]But better than both is he who has not yet been and has not seen the evil deeds that are done under the sun. [4]Then I saw that all toil and all skill in work come from a man’s envy of his neighbor. This also is vanity and a striving after wind. [5]The fool folds his hands and eats his own flesh. [6]Better is a handful of quietness than two hands full of toil and a striving after wind. [7]Again, I saw vanity under the sun: [8]one person who has no other, either son or brother, yet there is no end to all his toil, and his eyes are never satisfied with riches, so that he never asks, "For whom am I toiling and depriving myself of pleasure?" This also is vanity and an unhappy business. [9]Two are better than one, because they have a good reward for their toil. [10]For if they fall, one will lift up his fellow. But woe to him who is alone when he falls and has not another to lift him up! [11]Again, if two lie together, they keep warm, but how can one keep warm alone? [12]And though a man might prevail against one who is alone, two will withstand him--a threefold cord is not quickly broken. (ESV)
Isolation is not the divine norm for human beings; community is the creation of God. The community began with a helper. There is a dignity to this helper that stands above the previous description of creation. Previously, the creation of the man and the animals, were described in the third person. With the creation of woman, there is a unique correspondence indicated. The narrative moves beyond that initial assessment by specifying a functional difference that exists between the man and woman. She is called Adam’s “helper” (ʿēzer), which defines the role that the woman will play. In what way would Eve become a “helper” to the man?
The term means “help” in the sense of aid and support (Deut 33:7; Josh 1:14; Isa 30:5; Dan 11:34.) “Helper” is not a demeaning term; it is often used in Scripture to describe God Almighty (e.g., Pss. 33:20; 70:5; 115:9),.(Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1983-). The Bible knowledge commentary : An exposition of the scriptures (Ge 2:18–25). Wheaton, IL:).
Since God identified Himself as a “Helper” (Heb. ˒ezer) to Israel (18:4; Deut. 33:7) the word does not imply inferiority. It describes function rather than worth.
• To misunderstand is to ask questions like what is more valuable, a hammer or screwdriver. They differ in function, not in value.
• It is no coincidence that statistically, families do better with a father and mother. Examining the situation from any vantage point, from economic stability, child literacy to a indicator of future success, God made the family to function with a father and mother. Even a cursory examination of the prison population will show a litany of inmates that most often did not have a father in the picture.
• There are situations through death or forced separation where there cannot be a father and mother and it is the role of the Church to be the family for such a desperate situation.
Following narration of the woman’s creation, explores the similarity and dissimilarity in verse 19 between the woman and man and the animals. It shows the uniqueness of the woman and also the singular relationship shared by man and woman. First, the descriptive language of the animals’ creation echoes the man’s creation (v. 7). God “formed” both the man and the creatures out of the same substance (“out of/from the ground”), and both are said to be “living beings/creatures” (vv. 7, 19). Her source is traced to the man himself and not to the “ground.” She is the first of creation to come from a living being. God creates the man first and derives the woman from the man to insure that she is his equal in substance and to maintain the unity of the human family. Thus they enjoy a unity despite their sexual difference, and this interdependence is explicit in the expression “one flesh” (v. 24).
Every beast of the field/Animals and every bird of the heavens are paraded before the man by the divine Zookeeper for the man to name them, thereby exercising his authority over them. This in itself was a tremendous achievement in that there are some 17,000 air-breathing species of animals in existence today. Yet, two things were accomplished as the animals passed by Adam. First, names were given to each of the animals (this implies discerning the character or nature of an object, Isa 9:6); and second, Adam saw with his own eyes that each of the animals of God’s creation was subhuman, inferior to him. He, and he alone, had been created in the image of God. He was unique; he was the only one of his kind. God was preparing Adam psychologically for his helper (KJV Bible commentary. 1997 (18). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.).
In many ways Adam and the animals were similar. All breathed air and participated in certain basic life processes. All could move, act, relate, and react to certain stimuli. But the point of the passage is that there were even greater dissimilarities. Although similar in some respects, none of the animals was like Adam. By this the man could observe that there was none among the creatures who matched him in kind. Here, the man names the animals without the assistance of the woman; he expresses dominion over the lower orders, but he cannot complete the task of subduing and thus achieving the blessing by himself.
Quote: Henry Morris says, “It is abundantly clear and certain that he had not recently evolved from them! If the latter were true, and his body were still essentially an ape’s body (or the body of whatever ‘hominoid’ form may have been his immediate progenitor), it seems strange that he could have found nothing in common with either parents or siblings. On this point, as on many others, the notion of human evolution confronts and contradicts the plain teaching of Scripture.”( Morris, The Genesis Record, 98.)
The narration brings out this implication: “For Adam there was not found a helper fit/suitable for him” (v. 20): literally “alongside him” or “corresponding to him.” "Fit/Suitable” emphasizes the commonality of the man and the woman. Designed as the perfect counterpart for the man, the woman was neither inferior nor superior, but she was alike and equal to the man in her personhood while different and unique in her function (Thomas Nelson, I. (1997). Woman’s study Bible . Nashville: Thomas Nelson.).
The point is that the man was looking for a human match, but he “found” none. The woman therefore is distinguished from the animals. She is not of the order of the animals over whom the man is to dominate; she will share in the responsibility of dominating the created order (1:26–28). God was preparing the man to value his mate. Just as the man was uniquely made, receiving from God the divine inbreathing of life, the woman’s creation in the narrative was unique. Both the man and the woman are mysteriously made by the hands of God.
Illustration: In the tenth volume of his great work on history, Arnold Toynbee has an interesting comment on the nature of the fellowship that exists between a man and a dog. He says that it is possible for a man and a dog to have great fellowship. They can spend many enjoyable hours. They can play games. They can show and share affection. But, says Toynbee, the fellowship must be on the dog’s level because the dog can only communicate on that level. Adam undoubtedly saw this in the parade of animals and realized that if he was to have a companion, the companion would have to be specially created by God and in the image of God, as he was (As recorded in Boice, J. M. (1998). Genesis : An expositional commentary (130–131). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.).
2) The Provision (Genesis 2:21-23)
Genesis 2:21-23 [21]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. [22]And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. [23]Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." (ESV)
The narration now indicates by the method of making the woman that she is a special creation in the eyes of God (v. 21). She is taken from the man by a “surgical” act of God. The “deep sleep” (tardēmâ) that Adam experiences and the procedure that follows is initiated and carried out exclusively by God. (Hughes, R. K. (2004). Genesis : Beginning and blessing. Preaching the Word (59–60). Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books.).
The building block for constructing the woman is a portion of the man’s essential skeletal frame. The term ṣēlāʿ, here rendered “ribs,” appears frequently in the construction setting of the tabernacle (Exod 25–38 ). The woman was taken from the man’s side to show that she was of the same substance as the man and to underscore the unity of the human family, having one source. This is made clear by the man’s description of her: “Bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (v. 23). The verb “took” (lāqaḥ), which is given prominence in the narrative (vv. 22–23), may anticipate the marital union of the two since it is the common idiom for marriage (E.g., Gen 4:19; 6:2; 12:19; 19:14.).
The anthropomorphic language of God Builder (v. 22) shows His special involvement in the creation of the human family. The verb “made/fashioned/built” by its very definition implies beauty, stability, and durability (Hamilton, V. P. (1990). The Book of Genesis. Chapters 1-17. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (179). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.).
Quote: Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologiae (1a, 92, 3c) had an interesting observation: “For since the woman should not have ‘authority over the man’ (1 Tim 2:12) it would not have been fitting for her to have been formed from his head, nor since she is not to be despised by the man, as if she were but his servile subject, would it have been fitting for her to be formed from his feet.”
or as the Puritan Matthew Henry quaintly coined it: “not made out of his head to top him, not out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved.” So here it is: Eve was taken out of Adam so that he might embrace with great love a part of himself (as quoted in Hughes, R. K. (2004). Genesis : Beginning and blessing. Preaching the Word (60). Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books.).
Please turn to Ephesians 5
The symbolic significance of the “rib” is that the man and woman are fit for one another as companions sexually and socially. The body metaphor is employed by Paul in his writings to indicate respective roles in community, especially speaking of Christ and the church (cf. 1 Cor 12:21–25; Eph 1:22–23; 4:15–16; Col 2:19). Genesis 1–3 is the authoritative fountain for the apostle Paul’s soteriology and his instruction on home and ecclesiastical order (Rom 5:12–21; 1 Cor 6:16; 11:8–9; 15:21–27, 45–49; Eph 5:31; 1 Tim 2:12–15.).
Ephesians 5:22-33 [22]Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. [23]For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. [24]Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. [25]Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, [26]that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, [27]so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. [28]In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. [29]For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, [30]because we are members of his body. [31]"Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." [32]This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. [33]However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. (ESV)
• In Eph 5:22–31 Paul draws on the “head-body” imagery in a domestic metaphor where the husband as “head” of the wife parallels Christ as “head” of the church (cp. 1 Cor 11:3).
• To apply the roles specified here universally to other social contexts, such as government, education, or commerce, would be unwarranted, for chaps. 2–3 do not address such institutions. Creation and Eden (chaps. 1–3) give a balanced picture of the man and woman in cooperation and companionship. Although they share all in common, Genesis also acknowledges that there are differences. Their sameness does not mean exactness.
• The Lord presents or “brought his special “project” to the man, suggesting by this that she is a gift from the man’s Maker.
Adam’s response centers on the sameness in poetic verse in verse 23 that he and the woman share as opposed to the creatures. The parallel elements “bone [out] of my bones and flesh [out] of my flesh” have the preposition min, indicating source. Although “bone and flesh” are used figuratively in the Old Testament for kinship (E.g., Gen 29:14; Judg 9:2; 2 Sam 5:1; 19:12–13 [13–14].), this is the one place where it has a literal meaning, like our contemporary idiom for family, “flesh and blood.” Possibly the expression refers to covenant loyalty, in which case Adam is expressing a covenant commitment (W. Brueggemann, “Of the Same Flesh and Bone (GN 2, 23a),” CBQ 32 (1970): 532–42).“Thus it would serve as the biblical counterpart to the modern marriage ceremony, ‘in weakness [i.e., flesh] and in strength [i.e., bone]’ ” (Hamilton. Genesis 1–17, 180).
Illustration: Children often get into stages in which they are immensely intrigued by riddles, and one of the riddles that intrigues them—and which therefore passes down from generation to generation—is: What is most like half of the moon? If you had a normal childhood, you probably heard that when you were three. Nevertheless, if a child asks that riddle, the thing to do is guess everything you can possibly think of without guessing the answer. What is most like half of the moon? “Half of an orange?” No. “Half of a basketball?” No. “Half of an Edam cheese?” No. You have to mention everything round and orange colored that you can think of. At last you say, “I give up; what is most like half of the moon?” The answer comes back, “The other half of the moon.”
So we ask, “What is most like a man?” The answer is: a woman. “And what is most like a woman?” The answer is: a man. Men and women are different, and long live the difference (as the French say). But they are also more alike than anything else in creation (Boice, J. M. (1998). Genesis : An expositional commentary (131). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.).
3) The Portrait (Genesis 2:24).
Genesis 2:24[24]Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (ESV)
The creation of the first couple leads naturally to their relationship expressed through marriage since it is the couple’s charge to procreate and subdue the earth (1:28). This verse is not the continued speech of the man but the commentary of the narrator, which is attributed to God by Jesus (Matt 19:4–5). “Therefore” (ʿal kēn) does not indicate an explanation of the foregoing but rather describes the consequence of God’s charge for the human family to propagate and rule.
As a model for marriage this passage involves three factors: a leaving (leave), a uniting (hold fast). Marriage is depicted as a covenant relationship shared by man and woman. Monogamy is clearly intended. “Leave” (ʿāzab) and “hold fast/cling/cleave” (dābaq) are terms commonly used in the context of covenant, indicating covenant breach (e.g., Deut 28:20; Hos 4:10) or fidelity (E.g., Deut 10:20; 11:22; 13:18; 30:20; Josh 23:8, 12).
The significance of the language “leave” is that marriage involves a new pledge to a spouse in which former familial commitments are superseded. The responsibility to honor one’s parents (Ex. 20:12) does not cease with leaving and the union of husband with wife (Matt. 19:5; Mark 10:7,8; 1 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 5:31), represents the inauguration of a new and primary responsibility (MacArthur, J. J. (1997). The MacArthur Study Bible (electronic ed.) (Ge 2:24). Nashville: Word Pub).
Marriage requires a new priority by the marital partners where obligations to one’s spouse supplant a person’s parental loyalties. The focus is upon the attraction, companionship, and suitability the man has experienced in the woman; and as a consequence of this he separates in some degree physically, socially, and spiritually from his parental home to begin another home with his companion (Reyburn, W. D., & Fry, E. M. (1997). A handbook on Genesis. UBS handbook series (75). New York: United Bible Societies.).
Also marriage involves the two united in commitment; two parties are bound by stipulations, forming a new entity or relationship: "hold fast/cling/cleave” (dābaq). The two people, although freed from their parents, are not isolated or independent; they become dependent and responsible toward one another. Marriage and family are the divine ideal for carrying out the mandate. Thus, Marriage may be defined as a God-ordained, blessed, permanent, one-flesh, covenant relationship between a man and a woman. The permanence of the relationship is implied in the word "hold fast/cling/cleave” (2:24; cf. Mal. 2:14, 16; Matt. 19:6–9; Mark 10:6–9; 1 Cor. 7:39) (Hughes, R. B., & Laney, J. C. (2001). Tyndale concise Bible commentary. The Tyndale reference library (11). Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers.).
Please turn to Matthew 19
“One flesh” echoes the language of v. 23, which speaks of the woman’s source in the man; here it depicts the consequence of their bonding, which results in one new person. The term speaks of a unity with diversity (Heb. ˓ehad) rather than absolute unity (as Heb. yahı̂d) (Radmacher, E. D., Allen, R. B., & House, H. W. (1999). Nelson’s new illustrated Bible commentary (Ge 2:24). Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers.).
Jesus’ appeal to the garden was the basis of his teaching on marriage and divorce. The garden established a paradigm for marital behavior.
Matthew 19:3-9 [3]And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?" [4]He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, [5]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’? [6]So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." [7]They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?" [8]He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. [9]And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery." (ESV) (cf. Mark 10:2–12)
• Polygamy, concubinage, polyandry, easy divorce, adultery, promiscuity, and other distortions of the marriage covenant have permeated many cultures; but, as the Lord Jesus said: “From the beginning it was not so” (Morris, H. M. (1976). The Genesis record : A scientific and devotional commentary on the book of beginnings (102). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.).
As Man is created a trinity of body, soul, and spirit, then a husband and wife are to be united on each of those levels—body, soul, and spirit—if the marriage is to be all that God intends for them. A union of body with body is a sexual union. This is important, for if a physical union does not or cannot take place, then the marriage is not a true marriage and it can rightly be annulled. On the other hand, if the relationship is based on nothing but sex, if it is a marriage of body with body alone and not of soul with soul and spirit with spirit, then the marriage is weak and is headed for the divorce courts. When the glamour wears off, as it always does if there is nothing more to sustain it, the relationship is finished, and there is either total indifference, a divorce, or adultery. This is the result of a marriage that is based purely on physical attraction. A better marriage is one that is also a union of soul with soul. This refers to the intellectual and emotional side of a person’s nature, involving the characteristics we normally associate with the functioning of the mind. A marriage that involves a union of souls is one in which the couple shares an interest in the same things—the same books, the same shows, the same friends—and establishes a meeting of minds (as it were) both intellectually and emotionally. What happens when a woman ... and a man ... get married and begin to find out that the other person is not much like their vision? One of two things! Either they center their minds on the difference between the ideal and what they are increasingly finding the other person to be like and then try, either openly or subversively, to push their spouse into that image, or else by the grace of God they increasingly come to accept the other person as he or she is, including his or her own standards of how they should be, and then under God seek to conform to the best and most uplifting of those standards. (Boice, J. M. (1998). Genesis : An expositional commentary (134). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.).
(Format note: Some base commentary from Mathews, K. A. (2001). Vol. 1A: Genesis 1-11:26 (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (212–224). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.)
