What's A Family For? Series

Genesis 2:18-24. [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. [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." [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 commentator Matt Walsh was recently on the Dr. Phill show discussing personhood with those from the transgender community. What was striking in the discussion were the definitions. When asked as an example what was a woman, Matt Walsh could point to chromosomes, body composition and DNA that can all be scientifically observable and verifiable objective criteria. When he asked the transgender panelists, what was a woman, they could not point to any objective criteria but left the definition to however someone wants to define themselves. What we are seeing is the result of God giving people over to a debased/reprobate mind where evident reality is denied. It is God's judgment upon a society that will not see fit to acknowledge Him as God (Rom. 1:28). (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/watch-matt-walsh-schools-transgender-activists-on-dr-phil-show/)

For the first time in human history, the definitions of personhood, family, church, government and so on are all being torn down and left to whoever in society yields the power to both define and enforce the exclusive viewpoint of their belief. If we were to just consider the family itself, 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 it’s considering the situation of polygamy in, to homosexual unions to even discussion of underage joining’s, 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 of those outside of the family: the orphan, widow, and alien (e.g., levirate marriage, Deut 25:5–10). This account here in Genesis defines the role and relationship of the man and woman and their relationship to one another in a family.

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.

Here in Genesis 2:18-24, God specifies What a Family is for. In three descriptions we see the purpose of a family 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.

In defining what a Family is for, first we must understand:

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 (Gen. 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.).