Marriage Blueprints (2:18-25)

Introduction

Within the eight verses of Genesis 2:18-25, Moses offers a concise and extremely accessible narrative about the creation of Eve and her connectedness to Adam. It is simple. Not hard to understand. And yet, within these same eight verses, God lays a groundwork and the ideal and in so doing addresses many current cultural challenges. Let me offer an overly simplified summary of Genesis 2:18-25. (1) Adam was alone. (2) God made Eve. (3) Adam was not alone.

Yet, the theological implications inherent in the terms God directed Moses to write, lay the ground work for such topics as homosexuality, monogamy, transgender issues, divorce, definition of marriage, singleness, gender equality, complementary roles within a marriage relationship, and likely a host of others I had not thought of.

Before jumping into Genesis 2:18-25, let’s quickly consider the overall flow of the broader context and Genesis at large.

Simplified Outline of Genesis

A. Human history from Adam to Abraham: The human race (chap. 1–11).

1. Creation (1–2) 2. Fall (3-5) 2. Flood (6-9). 3. Babel (10–11).

B. Human history from Abraham to Joseph: The chosen race (12–50).

1. Abraham (12–24) 2. Isaac (25–26) 2. Jacob (27–36) 3. Joseph (37–50)

Creation and Corruption in Three Acts

A. Act 1: Adam to the Fall

1. Ideal Creation/Choice: Adam and Eve (1:1-2:25) 2. Corruption: Adam and Eve (3:1-8) 3. Judgment: Death and Ejection (3:9-24) 4. Promise: Messiah through Eve (3:15)

B. Act 2: Cain to the Flood

1. Choice: Cain, Lamech . . . (4:1-5:32) 2. Corruption: Up to Noah’s Day (6:1-8) 3. Judgment: World Destroyed (6:9-8:22) 4. Promise: Never Flood World (8:21-22)

C. Act 3: Noah to Babel

1. Choice: Noah, Canaan . . . (9:1-10:32) 2. Corruption: Up to Babel (11:1-6) 3. Judgment: World Dispersed (11:7-9) 4. Promise: World Blessed Through Abraham (12:1-2)

Simple outline of Genesis 2:18-25. (1) The Problem (2:18): “It is not good that man should be alone.” (2) The Reason (2:18-20): “Not found a helper fit for him.” (3) The Temporary Solution (2:21-22): “So the LORD God made a woman and brought her to the man.” (4) The Permanent Solution (2:24-25): “A man shall leave…and hold fast to his wife…become one flesh.”

Purpose statement. God created Eve as a suitable companion for Adam so he would not be alone and so they could accomplish God’s purpose for mankind.

The Problem

What is the problem? Adam is alone. God knows he cannot appropriately fill the role of Adam’s suitable partner or corresponding companion. God knows the animals cannot appropriately or sufficiently fulfill that role. Adam remains unaware of his defect/need until God brings the animals before him. As Adam names the animals he becomes aware of the fact that each of them have a suitable partner and the narrator concludes, “But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him” (Gen 2:20).

The Reason

Why is this a problem? Adam needs a suitable partner or a “helper fit for him.”[1]

Defining ezer (helper). This term is not complicated. The term simply means “helper.” However, the challenge comes in the cultural baggage of our understanding of “helper.” We tend to consider a helper as lower and inferior.

God is our helper. Let me first correct that thinking by pointing your attention to a few passages in which biblical authors use the term. The psalmist writes, “I am poor and needy; hasten to me, O God! You are my help and my deliverer” (Ps 70:5). Another psalmist writes, “I lift up my eyes to the hills. From where does my help come? My help comes from the Lord, who made heaven and earth” (Ps 121:1–2).

Of the sixteen times biblical authors use ezer, 11 of them refer to God.[2] One lexicon defines the term as “a person who contributes to the fulfillment of a need or furtherance of an effort or purpose.”[3] Another author simply titles helper as “indispensable companion.” [4]Hardly a negative or lowly term. In fact, in this context, man is incapable of fulfilling God’s purpose for his life by himself; therefore, God creates a woman to help accomplish that which the man could not do alone. Before taking this further than the context would intend, the reverse is as well true. Man provides for woman something she would lack on her own. Woman, additionally, could not accomplish God’s will for mankind by herself.[5]

Defining neged, “fit.” Many lexicographers translate neged as “opposite” or “in front of” or “in the presence of.”[6] With “opposite,” they appear to mean something like “she sat down opposite him.” In other words, she was in front of him or in front of his face to some degree. George Landes and Robert Thomas similarly define neged, “that which is opposite, corresponds to; in front of, before; opposite to.”[7] These two authors include the idea of “that which corresponds.” In other words, as Brian Peterson writes, “God seems to be declaring that the man needs a helper that, when standing “in front of him”, is his opposite.”[8]

Inherent meaning of neged connotes equality. The Jewish people, by means of their Mishnah, indicate that neged minimally connotes equality if not superiority. In one section of the Mishnah, the author acknowledges several means by which a person enjoys the world (honoring father and mother, righteous deeds, acts of peace). In his translation, Neusner finishes this section with “But the study of Torah is (neged) as important as all of them together” (Mishnah. Peah 1:1). [9]

Therefore ‘ezer neged’ means: Adam did not have a corresponding companion or a suitable partner. Adam was not accompanied by an equal, reciprocating, partner that could correspond to him physically, socially, and spiritually.[10]

Why does Adam need a suitable helper? To accomplish God’s mandates and satisfy man’s relational needs.

Incapable of fulfilling God’s mandate. God had given Adam a mandate that could not be accomplished without a complementary mate – “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it” (1:28). Adam could never do these tasks alone.[11] He needed Eve in order to “be fruitful and multiply,” and he needed the product of their reproductive fruitfulness in order to “fill the earth and subdue it.” God knew he nor the animals could be the suitable companion for Adam in order for Adam to accomplish the purposes God had for all mankind.

Incapable of satisfying God’s designed relational needs. Additionally, God created man with relational needs. Man needs companionship. God knew he could never provide the relational companionship that man needed. Man needed an equal although complementary companion. God would never be Adam’s equal. God is independent and self-sustaining and complete. God would never need Adam in the same way that Adam would need God.[12] Their relationship would never be relationally reciprocal. God would often be a helper to mankind, but he would never be the suitable companion Adam needed. Additionally, the animals could never be the suitable companion that man would need. They too would, at times, offer a form of companionship. They would, often, offer assistance and help. But they would never be a sufficient suitable companion.

Although the loneliness of the man is a central idea in this section of chapter 2, the incompatibility of the animals for the man bespeaks the duality of the sexes (i.e. male and female) and the man’s total aloneness in this regard. What is more, the aloneness of the man makes it impossible for him to be “fruitful and multiply;” an obvious concern of God.[13]

So then, Adam needed a suitable helper so that he could fulfill the mandate given to him by God and satisfy the relational needs created in him by God.

God is not all I need. You may have heard, “God is all I need.” While sounding really spiritual and mature, it’s not true. God has given us mandates (“be fruitful and multiply,” and “go into all the world”) and, we cannot accomplish them on our own. Also, God created us as relational beings and this good and healthy inner need for others can only be appropriately satisfied with other people.

It looks like an overstatement to say to Adam in the garden, “God is all you need.” Let’s make the case stronger by adding a few other texts, like 1 Corinthians 12:18–21:

God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single member, where would the body be? As it is there are many parts, yet one body. The eye cannot say to the hand “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.”

So, there is God Almighty in his word saying flat out, “You dare not say to another member of the body of Christ, ‘I don’t need you.’” That is a sin to talk like that. In other words, God forbids us from saying, “I have God. I don’t need members of the body of Christ.”[14]

The Solution

The Temporary Solution: (Eve) The LORD God made a woman. Adam is alone. He lacks a suitable companion by which to accomplish God’s mandate and satisfy his innate relational desires. Therefore, God addresses this immediate issue for Adam by creating, out of Adam, a suitable, compatible companion – Eve.

Upon seeing the woman, Adam erupts with exaltation, “At last! This one is bone from my bones and flesh from my flesh” (Gen 2:23).

The Permanent Solution: (Marriage) Leave…hold fast…become one. Now that the immediate solution to Adam’s problem has been offered and joyously received, the narrator of the story adds an additional important point – an important timeless principle. He writes, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Gen 2:24). Based upon God’s design and good creation of man and woman as suitable and compatible companions, Moses offers the timeless principles and foundation for marriage for all time.

First, the man left his family. This leaving was not necessarily a physical leaving, due the fact that often both the husband and new wife would physically dwell in the man’s home. In fact, most likely, the wife would physically leave her family. This leaving refers more to the man leaving a certain arena of priorities and newly embracing a new set of priorities and responsibilities. “For the sake of the wife the man leaves the strong bond of his parents and unites with her.”[15] And the reverse is as well true.

Hold Fast. The man significantly lowered the bond and the priorities typically extended to his parents, and instead would “hold fast to his wife.” He would cling to her, cleave to her, be glued to her.[16] This clinging would involve both a physical aspect (a sexual union) that would effectively fulfill God’s mandate for man to “be fruitful and multiply,” but also, they would cling to one another relationally in order to fulfill God’s intent for their companionship.

A pastoral note: For those who are married, be careful not to seek to satisfy your core relational needs with someone other than your spouse. Of course, our relationships extend beyond our spouses and beautifully so. God intended for humanity (and in the church specifically according to 1 Corinthians 12:18-21) to be made up of all kinds of people relating to one another, enjoying one another, and benefitting from one another. However, God’s immediate solution to Adam’s loneliness was not a community but a single complementary partner. First and foremost, God intended our companionship to be satisfied in our spouses, then, and only then, do our additional relationships bring color, joy, and value to our already firmly established relational existence. Here is my concern and potential charge – I have too often seen people who struggle in their relationships with their spouse invest a lot of time in other relationships. I completely understand. When your marriage is hurting, you desire a place for relationship and companionship, and you do not feel like your marriage is the place for that to be found. Let me just encourage you, first invest all the effort that might be expended in other relationships and expend it in your marriage.

Although not definitely stated, all this leaving and cleaving seems to strongly imply some type of formal declaration. Inherent in this leaving and cleaving lies covenant keeping. A man and woman covenant with one another (or commit to one another) that they no longer are clinging to something or someone else but instead clinging to one another.

Become one flesh. This newfound covenant/commitment finds concrete expression in “becoming one flesh.” Becoming one flesh likely means much more than sexual union, but it most certainly includes sexual union.[17] In so stating, the narrator of this sidenote establishes that sexual union resides in the marriage relationship once a man and a woman have covenanted with one another their intention of leaving all others and cleaving singularly to one another.[18] This sexual union is intended to be physically gratifying and enjoyable, resulting in joined pleasure and a more stable marriage. Gregory Powell states well, “the one flesh union as a creation ordinance means the one flesh union “transcends culture and time. They constitute God’s ideal for sexuality and marriage.”[19]

Transition into chapter 3. Chapter two ends with the simple statement, “And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.” This statement acts as a narrative bridge from the ideal garden scenario to the point of the fall – in which after they would be aware of each other’s nakedness and experience acute shame.

Theological implications next week. For sake of time and to not cram too much into one moment, next week we will be discussing some of the theological implications which flow from Genesis 2:18-25. (1) God designed the first marriage as a man and woman. Does this passage forbid homosexuality? What about people who have experienced same-sex attraction throughout their lives – is that natural to them and should be accepted – if not embraced? (2) What about singleness? Does this passage imply that single people are not whole or complete? How should a single person process this passage? (3) Did God providentially address the transgender issues of our day by creating male and female? Is gender binary? (4) Even though the passage seems to clearly establish Adam and Eve as equal, is there inherent levels of authority within this equality? Before the Fall, did God intend for Adam to lead Eve?

But let me conclude with a few practical statements drawn from our discussion this morning.

1. Aloneness is bad and we need to purposefully pursue relationships with others. God created us as relational beings and does not intend for us to be alone.

2. While not the only way to experience wonderful relationships, the penultimate context for intimate relationship exists within the marriage relationship. The “one flesh” nature of marriage provides an element distinct (should be distinct) to this relationship.

3. God designed, prior to the fall, for sex to be enjoyable and part of the marriage relationship. People, culture, etc have twisted sex and made it other than beautiful, but it is inherently beautiful within its God designed context.

Resources for Bible Study

Peterson, Brian Neil. “Does Genesis 2 Support Same-Sex Marriage?: An Evangelical Response.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 60, no. 4 (2017): 681–96.

Powell, Gregory H. “Coming Together: The Ethical Implications of the One Flesh Union.” Dissertation, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2015.

Rosenzweig, Michael L. “A Helper Equal to Him.” Judaism35, no. 3 (1986): 277–80.

Ross, Allen P. Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998.

Questions for Bible Study

1. What is the purpose of marriage according to Genesis 1:27-28 and 2:18-25? Are there different (or multiple) purposes for marriage according to these two different texts?

2. Does God’s design established in Genesis 2 prohibit homosexual marriage? If so, how? (By the way, saying, “God made them Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” is not helpful and overly simplifies the discussion.)

3. Where else throughout Scripture are these verses referenced? Do those additional scripture passages shed light on the context in Genesis?

4. Paul refers to homosexual relationships as “contrary to nature” in Romans 1:26. However, most homosexuals would argue their inclination is natural for them. Could it be true that their same sex attraction is natural to them? If so, to what does “contrary to nature” refer? How might this discussion of Paul’s connect to God’s creation in Genesis 2?

5. If it is not good for man to be alone (with the implication that it is not good for woman to be alone), how might we process singleness? Are unmarried people not whole?

6. Does the fact that God “created them male and female” imply a binary and by implication confront the transgender movement of our day? Is this an appropriate implication or conclusion to draw from this text? (Maybe for further study – how might this impact our care or conversation with someone born with both male and female reproductive organs?)

7. Adam needed a “helper fit for him.” Often, in our context, a helper often implies subordinate or less important. What passages in Scripture discuss a “helper” and do those contexts better help us understand the role of Eve as helper? Hint: who is often referred to as our helper?

Footnotes

[1]English Translations: (ESV, RSV) a helper fit for him, (KJV 1900, Geneva) an help meet for him, (NASB95, NIV) a helper suitable for him, (GNB, CJB) a suitable companion to help him, (NET) a companion for him who corresponds to him, (NLT) a helper who is just right for him, (D-R) a help like unto himself, (HCSB) I will make a helper as his complement [2]Two are used in Genesis 2:18, 20. Three times, the word refers to help of man in some fashion (Isa 30:5; Dan 11:34; Eze 12:14). The remaining occurrences refer to God (Ex 18:4; Dt 33:7; Ps 20:2, 70:5, 89:19, 121:1-2, 124:8, 146:5). There are additional forms of the term as well – such as ebenezer – for example 1 Samuel 7:12, “Then Samuel took a stone and set it up between Mizpah and Shen and called its name Ebenezer; for he said, “Till now the Lord has helped us.” Michael L Rosenzweig, “A Helper Equal to Him,” Judaism 35, no. 3 (1986): 280.“He [L.J. Swidler] points out that God Himself is referred to as an ezer in Psalms…and in the Torah itself….To be an ezer is to have a Godlike quality. Luckily for us men, since we are equal to women, it follows that we have the same divine trait.” [3] Lexham Analytical Lexicon of the Hebrew Bible (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2017). [4]Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition Notes (Biblical Studies Press, 2006), Ge 2:18. “Usage of the Hebrew term does not suggest a subordinate role, a connotation which English “helper” can have. In the Bible God is frequently described as the “helper,” the one who does for us what we cannot do for ourselves, the one who meets our needs. In this context the word seems to express the idea of an “indispensable companion.” The woman would supply what the man was lacking in the design of creation and logically it would follow that the man would supply what she was lacking.” [5] Ross, Creation and Blessing, 126. “The word essentially describes one who provides what is lacking in the man, who can do what the man alone cannot do… human beings cannot fulfill their destiny except in mutual assistance… What he lacked (“not good”) she supplied; and it would be safe to say that what she lacked, he supplied, for life in common requires mutual help.” [6] F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, electronic ed. (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 2000); James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Hebrew (Old Testament), electronic ed. (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997); William Lee Holladay and Ludwig Kohler, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: E.J. Brill and Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 2000); LXHEBANLEX. [7] George M. Landes, Building Your Biblical Hebrew Vocabulary: Learning Words by Frequency and Cognate, vol. 41, Resources for Biblical Study (Atlanta, GA: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2001), 56. [8] Brian Neil Peterson, “Does Genesis 2 Support Same-Sex Marriage?: An Evangelical Response,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 60, no. 4 (2017): 688. [9] Jacob Neusner, The Mishnah: A New Translation (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1988), 15. [10] Ross, Creation and Blessing, 126. Ross writes of Eve, “The man and the woman thus corresponded physically, socially, and spiritually.” [11]Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition Notes (Biblical Studies Press, 2006), Ge 2:18. “Within the context of creation, in which God instructs humankind to be fruitful and multiply, the man alone cannot comply. Being alone prevents the man from fulfilling the design of creation and therefore is not good.” [12]Philo, Philo, trans. F. H. Colson, G. H. Whitaker, and J. W. Earp, vol. 1, The Loeb Classical Library (London; England; Cambridge, MA: William Heinemann Ltd; Harvard University Press, 1929–1962), 225. Philo wrote, “It may mean thatneither before creation was there anything with God, nor, when the universe had come into being, does anything take its place with Him; for there is absolutely nothing which He needs.” [13] Peterson, “Does Genesis 2 Support Same-Sex Marriage?,” 687. [14]See Appendix D. [15] Ross, Creation and Blessing, 127. [16] Friedrich Wilhelm Gesenius and Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2003), 185. “to cleave, to adhere, specially firmly, as if with glue, to be glued,” [17]Note Paul’s use of this text in Genesis. He discusses a man having sex with a prostitute and then writes, “Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh” (1 Cor 6:16). In using this Genesis text, Paul seems to introduce some challenging implications (“one flesh” is connected to marriage in Genesis, however, hardly is Paul saying that someone is married to everyone they have sex with). Regardless, “one flesh” clearly involves sexual union. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 1:71. “’They become one flesh.’ This does not denote merely the sexual union that follows marriage, or the children conceived in marriage, or even the spiritual and emotional relationship that it involves, though all are involved in becoming one flesh. Rather it affirms that just as blood relations are one’s flesh and bone (cf. Comment on v 23), so marriage creates a similar kinship relation between man and wife.” [18] Ross, Creation and Blessing, 127. The divine plan for marriage, then, is one man and one woman becoming one flesh and living together in their integrity. In two passages, Jesus refers to this passage. His brief discussion in the two Gospel passages indicate both permanence and monogamy. ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Matt 19:5–6). and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. (Mark 10:8). Mathews, Genesis 1-11, 1a:223.“Our human sexuality expresses both our individuality as gender and our oneness with another person through physical union. Sexual union implies community and requires responsible love within that union. The sexual union of the couple is, however, only symbolic of the new kinship that the couple has entered. The sexual act by itself does not exhaust marriage; marriage entails far more.” [19] Gregory H. Powell, “Coming Together: The Ethical Implications of the One Flesh Union” (Dissertation, Wake Forest, NC, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2015), 5. Powell quotes James Eckman: Janies P. Eckman, Biblical Ethics: Choosing Right in a World Gone Wrong (Biblical Essentials Series; Wheaton: Crossway, 2004), 48. Powell, 6. “One can and should argue that the one flesh union was designed to be created, sustained, and flourish only within the covenant of marriage. However, Gen 2:24 and Jesus’ quotes of the creation ordinance do not limit the creation of the one flesh union to the institution of marriage. To argue that sexual intercourse only strengthens the one flesh union or that it is merely a symbol of this union is to ignore or minimize Paul’s teaching in 1 Cor 6:16.”