The Complementary Friend

Genesis 2:18‑25

The Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” 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. 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. 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.”

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.[1]

G

od’s assessment of the situation confronting the man He had just created should disturb every careful student of the Word. God said, it is not good. Coming after the repeated affirmation of goodness following each step of creation, this negative assessment startles me. I had become used to benedictions at each stage of God’s work, and now there is pronounced a malediction. Light was pronounced good [Genesis 1:4]. The earth, the seas and the land were all declared to be good by God [Genesis 1:10]. Vegetation, which lends verdant hues to our world, was pronounced good [Genesis 1:12]. The lights in the heavens—the sun, the moon and the stars—were affirmed as good [Genesis 1:18]. Fish and fowl were confirmed as good when God reviewed His work through the fifth day [Genesis 1:21]. Likewise, the animals, which would populate the land, were seen by God to be good [Genesis 1:25]. In the final analysis the whole of Creation, working as God planned, was pronounced very good [Genesis 1:31]. However, one aspect of God’s Creation brought a negative assessment … and that was man’s lack of one to make him complete.

Out of God’s judgement concerning man’s incompleteness comes the creation of one who is to be Adam’s wife and companion. You will note that the passage continues with these words: 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 [Genesis 2:21, 22]. Woman was made for man. She was made from man. She was given to man—the greatest of God’s gifts at the Creation. We will learn that man named her.

The order in which God created the man and the woman becomes vital if we are to understand the will of God concerning relationships between men and women, especially as those relationships are seen within the two great institutions of marriage and the church. The function, the role the two genders play in marriage and church, will be determined by this order in creation. The divine intent is evident, but the implementation is difficult because we are a rebellious race. Setting aside preconception and refusing to surrender to popular interpretation let us read what God said in order to discover the mind of God in giving Adam a friend who would make his life complete.

Adam’s Deficit — God purposed to make a helper of Adam. The helper that He would make would be complementary to Adam. As discovered through careful study of the chapter, this is the meaning of the Word of God when we read of a helper fit for Adam. There is no such word as helpmeet, as you may have read in older versions of the Bible. Adam suffered a deficit; his deficit is apparent in reading verses nineteen and twenty. 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.

A startling word picture is presented here. It is as though God and Adam stood side-by-side as God caused the animals to parade past. As each one in its turn passed, Adam named that particular animal. From Aardvark to Zebra the animals passed by and Adam, after studying each one, gave names based upon the nature of the animal and their relationship to man. This work of naming the animals as they paraded past was no arbitrary naming, but it was thoughtful statement of the nature of each animal.

The fact that we have dictionaries is evidence that Adam’s labour was definitive for man. The words we employ reflect our understanding of the nature of all creation, and Adam began this work. This need to assign a name on the basis of character is, if you will, the essence of man’s unique nature in the work God assigned to name the animals. Adam studied and categorised each animal. As part of his study he was to see if there was to be found within all God’s creation any creature complementary to him.

Man can enjoy great fellowship with a dog. Man and dog can spend hours together and man can enjoy the companionship of that dog. The dog can be quickly taught to play games, providing again for greater enjoyment still. Nevertheless, the fellowship must be on the level of the dog because a dog can communicate only on a dog’s level. If Adam was to have a companion it would be on the level of that which was decidedly inferior, or else God would be compelled to intervene. There was to be found among all the creatures that God had made no other creature which was specially created by the hand of God and which bore the image of God.

What a blow to those blind individuals who insist upon the evolution of man! That there are similarities between man and some of the animals is evident. No one would question such similarities. All animals breathe air and share in common basic metabolic features. All the animals move, interact with other animals, and react to common stimuli. The point of verses nineteen and twenty, however, is that the dissimilarities were even greater than were the similarities. Although similar in some respects, none of the animals was like Adam [see hcsb]. Henry Morris, commenting on this passage, perceptively states:

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.[2]

This does not begin to touch on the additional problems for evolution arising from creation of woman. Of all the animals, Adam alone was really alone. There was no creature corresponding to him nor was there one that could be said to make him complete. Adam was unique in intelligence and in spirituality. Underscore in your mind this sense of uniqueness. Adam was no evolutionist.

Woman was Made from Man — Adam was prepared for Eve, and Eve was now to be prepared for Adam. What God would do is to create a creature that would be an ideal counterpart for Adam in this world. Adam had been created from the dust of the ground. Moreover, God had Himself breathed into Adam’s nostrils the breath of life. In this respect Adam was unique in the whole of creation. The woman whom God would make for Adam was, however, created differently. She was also unique in her origin, but she would be uniquely dependent upon man for her origin.

There are among those confessing the Faith of Christ the Lord individuals who claim to believe both the Word of God and also evolutionary dogma. They are, according to their own designation, theistic evolutionists. They believe that the Genesis account is broadly consistent with evolutionary tenets. However, the origin of woman is the death knell of theistic evolution, for woman came from man according to the account before us. The New Testament is explicit in affirming the historicity of Eve’s creation. Adam was formed first, then Eve is the testimony Paul has provided for us in 1 Timothy 2:13. Man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man is the clear statement found in 1 Corinthians 11:8, 9. Men are born of women. Everyone has a mother. That is the created order of things. However, the first woman came from man. Thus the presence of Eve cannot be accounted for by appeal to evolutionary dogma. Just as Adam was uniquely created, so also Eve was unique.

Wouldn’t you expect God to make woman in the same way He made the man? Wouldn’t you expect God to form her from the dust of the earth, just as He did Adam? Instead, He built her out of Adam’s body. Adam’s life would become her life. One significant reason this was done is that the man and the woman will become one flesh.

It is significant that the first institution established for mankind was marriage. The extended period of human infancy and helplessness requires careful protection and training of children by their parents. Thus, God ordained that the home, built on mutual love and respect of man and woman—husband and wife—should be the basic human unit of authority and instruction. From the authority of the father in the home, derived by virtue of priority in creation, there would develop all governmental structures, such as we observe today. Likewise, from the responsibility of parents toward their children would derive the educational institutions, which we note today.

Eve was not in the least inferior to Adam. In fact, she ensured his completeness. What a woman she must have been! Adam must have been an extraordinary specimen, and Eve was no less extraordinary. Luther thought that Adam excelled the animals in those points of their greatest strength—strength greater than the bear or the lion, eyesight sharper than the goat or the eagle, hearing more acute than the moose or mule deer. If that were true of Adam, would we not expect similar excellence in the one whom God created to make him whole? Luther thought Eve would have been as strong, fast, clear-sighted, and brilliant as the man,[3] and in addition to that, she must have possessed a beauty and grace that excelled him. What a woman! In her pristine glory Eve would have made Wonder Woman or the Bionic Woman appear to be sick.

Woman was Made for Man — You must understand that in spite of this physical, mental and moral excellence—far surpassing that of any woman today—Eve was made for the man, as a helper fit for him. In knowledge of this relationship of Eve to Adam, women receive a clue to their unique position in marriage.

Of course, to say that woman was made for man must infuriate contemporary feminists. The thought that man and woman are meant to be complementary to one another seems to some women to be rank prejudice enshrining inequality. To insist that woman was made for man is simply unjust in the view of many women today. To my dismay and sorrow, I note that few ministers of the Gospel will defend the biblical position in the face of feminist fury against the thought that woman was created for man.

Elisabeth Elliot perceptively answers the question of what the term equality means.

In what sense is red equal to blue? They are equal only in the sense that both are colors in the spectrum. Apart from that they are different. In what sense is hot equal to cold? They are both temperatures, but beyond this it is almost meaningless to talk about equality.[4]

To speak of men and women as equal demands that we define the sphere within which equality occurs. Both are created in the image of God. This ensures that the woman is suitable for the man (and ensures that man is suitable for woman). This also explains why the animals cannot be suitable companions for man since animals are not created in the image of God. Both the man and the woman are placed under the moral command of God and thus they are each morally responsible before God. Both man and woman disobeyed the command of God and they were alike judged by God. Today, both men and women die as result of our first parents’ sin and both men and women are responsible to answer to God for their own sin. Both are objects of God’s grace revealed in Christ Jesus and both receive the same salvation by faith in the Risen Son of God.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, according to Galatians 3:28, referring to access to the promises of God. All that God has promised is offered to each alike without distinction. Salvation, placement in the Body of Christ, adoption into the Family of God, is distributed freely to all without distinction.

Theologians distinguish between the essential Trinity and the economic Trinity. The essential Trinity is defined as three persons in the Godhead … the same in substance, equal in power and glory. The economic Trinity reveals that although one in substance, equal in power and glory, various members of the Godhead willingly and deliberately submit themselves to another in the work of redemption. The Son submits to the Father and the Holy Spirit submits both to the Father and to the Son. This relationship parallels the relationship of the family in the will of God.

We must not ignore the teaching of the New Testament, which clearly addresses the relationship of husbands and wives, including willing and gracious submission of a wife to her husband. The head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God [1 Corinthians 11:3]. The identical truth is revealed in Ephesians. Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savoir. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands [Ephesians 5:22-24].

One must marvel at how biblical feminists (so-called) dare insist that the marriage relationship established in the Garden has been abolished. Their argument is that woman’s submission is part of the curse and that a wife’s submission is now annulled by Christ’s atonement. However, take careful note that the subordinate relationship of wife to husband is found in Genesis first, not after the Fall, but before it!

The submission required of woman is within marriage, and because of divine parallels, within the church. Nothing in the Word of God implies that every woman is to exist for every man, still less that a woman must be obedient to all men. The consistent teaching of the Word is that the submission required of a woman must be voluntary. No woman is obliged to accept a proposal; but if she does (and if she is a Christian woman) she must know that the pattern for her relationship is found in Genesis 2 where God said He would make a helper fit for Adam. If a woman cannot be a helper to her man, or if she does not wish to be a helper, she should not marry that man. If, however, she marries, she is responsible before God to submit to her man, serving as his helper.

Woman was Given to Man — God brought Eve to Adam. It is as though we witness a divine wedding celebration. It is important to interject that no man dare be a tyrant over his wife if he understands the teaching here in Genesis. Woman is a gift to man and in the marriage relationship, though a wife is to exhibit gracious and willing submission to her husband, husbands are responsible to treat their wives with respect and honour.

Though wives are enjoined to submit to their husbands, note that much more space is expended in Scripture in instructing men how to demonstrate love to their wives. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendour, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband [Ephesians 5:25-33].

This teaching for men is iterated through the Apostle Peter in his first letter. Husbands … live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honour to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered [1 Peter 3:7]. Because woman was a gift to man, husbands are to demonstrate an attitude toward their wives that honours God for the gift He has given.

Solomon teaches that an excellent wife is the crown of her husband [Proverbs 12:4]. Clearly Solomon considered that a wife, distinguished for her gracious character, would serve to enhance her husband in the eyes of all people. Such a woman is precious to that man fortunate enough to have a woman of character.

Another saying concerning the character of a wife is recorded in Proverbs 18:22. He who finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains favour from the Lord. Here it is not expressly a wife of noble character that is in view, but it is a wife herself who is to be received as good. Clearly, God is the giver of every good and perfect gift. Ideally, a wife will exhibit wisdom in her lifestyle, and the Word of God assures the man blessed with a prudent wife that his wife is a divine gift. A prudent wife is from the Lord [Proverbs 19:14].

Later in the same book of Proverbs we read:

An excellent wife who can find?

She is far more precious than jewels.

The heart of her husband trusts in her

and he will have no lack of gain.

She does him good, and not harm,

all the days of her life.

[Proverbs 31:10-12]

Clearly the Bible teaches that a husband is to rejoice in his wife, receiving her as a gift from God. After all, didn't God bring Eve to Adam when she was prepared for him?

Woman was Named by Man — That is a beautiful passage that tells us how the man named the woman. 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.”

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh [Genesis 2:23, 24].

Adam seems to have instantly recognised what happened. It is not simply that this woman is a beautiful creature, but he knows her origin. He seems to grasp immediately what God has done and he rejoices in their shared origin and in their shared responsibility before God. In our fallen state we might be tempted to think that woman was to be man’s servant, but Genesis gives no comfort to such fallen thoughts. Instead, Adam understands that Eve is his companion—the one who will make his life complete—and so breaks into verse in celebration of their essential similarity and union.

He names her hV;ai (]sHsh^h), indicating that he understands her purpose as revealed in her origin. In Hebrew, man is vyai (]sH), and woman is hV;a (]sHsh^h). Even our English language recognises the origin and the union of the two—woman is derived from man. Tracing the word back through the mists of time, we obtained our word woman from Middle English, which in turn was based on the Old English wifman. This was a combination of two nouns, wif (which meant either a woman or a wife) and man (which represented a human being or a man). Thus, even in English the Hebrew thought is maintained. In naming the woman, Adam indicated that he understood Eve’s unique position, her singular role, and her divine origin. All husbands, and all men who aspire to be good husbands, need to remember this feature of the account of the origin of woman.

Both man and woman were created in the image of God. This means that each reflects the Holy Trinity in that each is a tripartite being. Man and woman each possess a body. Each is a living soul. Each receives a spirit. Thus, in the process of becoming one flesh the will of God is that husband and wife should be united in precisely this manner.

A union of bodies is easily accomplished. We speak of such union as a sexual union. A marriage based on nothing but sex is weak and is liable to end in divorce. Though sex is a powerful force in human life, it is lousy glue. Eventually, physical attraction alone will prove insufficient to maintain a marriage.

A better marriage is one that unites soul to soul. This refers to the intellectual and emotional aspects of marriage and refers to the fact that husband and wife share interests. They enjoy the same types of entertainment, similar activities, and the same friends. There is a meeting of the minds, both intellectually and emotionally, when there is a union of soul to soul. Such a marriage is certainly stronger and it is more likely to continue beyond the physical attraction. It has much going for it to ensure strength.

No doubt many Christians are racing ahead at this point and concluding that there must be a third parameter to a strong marriage and that because they enjoy a union of spirit to spirit the union of souls is unimportant. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are soulish creatures. Communication is vital for a strong marriage. It is unlikely that we will long share spiritual pursuits … truly share in pursuit of God … if we fail to speak to one another and fail to care for the emotional/intellectual health of one another. What I am saying is that the union of souls requires work and each party of a Christian marriage is responsible to strive to join soul to soul.

When a couple marries, both husband and wife have a vision of what their spouse is like. It is likely that the vision each has of the other is unrealistic. Shortly after marriage they will discover that their ideal is not reality. What happens when a wife discovers that her husband is not what she thought and when a husband discovers that his wife cannot fulfil his wonderful expectations? When an individual discovers that his or her spouse is not what he or she envisioned they might centre their minds on the difference between their ideal and what they are discovering their spouse to actually be.

Focused on the difference between image and reality they will try, either openly or subversively, to push their spouse into their image of what the other should be. Such action ensures resistance and increasing hostility on the part of the spouse being pushed. In fact, frequently that spouse is pushing back in an effort to conform the other member of the marriage to a vision that fails to conform to reality. The two parties in this instance will be unhappy and may well conclude that they share nothing in common. Be careful if you are drawing such conclusions that you are not confusing image with reality.

Alternatively, a couple that discovers that image and reality are in conflict may, by the grace of God, come to accept each other as they are. This means that both husband and wife will come to accept the other member of the marriage as they truly are. This does not mean that either is ignorant of divine standards of how their spouse should be, but it means that each accepts responsibility for himself or herself before God. In this instance, under God’s reign each partner will seek to conform to the best and the most uplifting of those divine standards.

At last, I am prepared to speak of the union of spirits. For a marriage that will honour God both husband and wife must share worship of Christ the Lord. Frankly, for the strongest possible marriage, both husband and wife must be Christians. This is not merely concession to a nominal title, but it means that each must be committed to the Faith of Christ—not merely professing the Faith, but actually living out the precepts of the Faith. If you are a Christian you must marry another Christian or not marry at all. If you marry a non-Christian—or one who merely plays the part of a Christian—you are wilfully choosing a life of unremitting conflict and sorrow. God’s blessing cannot rest on the marriage that is outside the Faith. As a Christian, you will be unable to share what is most precious to you, and you will make concessions concerning the Faith of Christ.

In the event you marry a non-Christian, your situation will parallel that of Solomon. Solomon married many foreign women who did not share the Faith of the Living God. Though he enjoyed rich blessings because of his father David, Solomon could not share the joy of worship with his wives … and he knew it! In the Bible we read that he married the daughter of Pharaoh of Egypt. This marriage was not within the will of God because this daughter of Pharaoh could not share in worship at the Temple. Listen to these sorrowful words. Solomon brought Pharaoh’s daughter up from the city of David to the house that he had built for her, for he said, “My wife shall not live in the house of David king of Israel, for the places to which the ark of the Lord has come are holy [2 Chronicles 8:11].

Solomon said in effect, “I know that this woman is not a believer in the True and Living God. I know that we cannot share in this wonderful activity of worship. Whenever I bring her near the palace of David or approach the Temple I feel guilty and my conscience bothers me. The only solution is to build her another house and hereafter to live my life separately as possible from her.”

If you marry a non-Christian, that is what will happen to you. It will be as though you are carrying a dead person on your back. Your spouse will be dead to spiritual truth, dead to the joys of heaven, dead to God, and dead to the peace that attends walking with Christ the Lord. Do not imagine that in time your dead spouse will come to faith in Christ. Though such may happen, seldom does it work out that way. God is gracious, but the hardened heart is unlikely to turn to faith simply because you push. In time you will grow embittered and discover that your own worship is stunted. You will have disobeyed the will of God and the price you pay will exceed your darkest imaginations.

If your fiancée or fiancé is not a Christian, she or he is not the person for you. I tell you this on the authority of God’s Word. The Apostle deals with this when he warns, do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness [2 Corinthians 6:14]? In your wilful disobedience, you will have a marriage of body with body and perhaps you will even discover a union of souls; but you will never have a marriage of spirit with spirit and so you will fall short of the will of God for your joy and for His glory. Amen.

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.[5]

Eve was not in the least inferior to Adam. She, in fact, ensured his completeness. What a woman she must have been! Adam must have been an extraordinary specimen, and Eve was no less extraordinary. Luther thought that Adam excelled the animals in those points of their greatest strength—strength greater than the bear or the lion, eyesight sharper than the goat or the eagle, hearing more acute than the moose or mule deer. If that were true of Adam, would we not expect similar excellence in the one whom God created to make him whole? Luther thought Eve would have been as strong, fast, clear-sighted, and brilliant as the man,[6] and in addition to that, she must have possessed a beauty and grace that excelled him. What a woman!

In what sense is red equal to blue? They are equal only in the sense that both are colors in the spectrum. Apart from that they are different. In what sense is hot equal to cold? They are both temperatures, but beyond this it is almost meaningless to talk about equality.[7]

Theologians distinguish between the essential Trinity and the economic Trinity. The essential Trinity is defined as three persons in the Godhead … the same in substance, equal in power and glory. The economic Trinity reveals that although one in substance, equal in power and glory, various members of the Godhead willingly and deliberately submit themselves to another in the work of redemption. The Son submits to the Father and the Holy Spirit submits both to the Father and to the Son. This relationship parallels the relationship of the family in the will of God.

----