And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.
18 25. The Creation of Animals and of Woman
18. It is not good, &c.] Man is created a social animal. His full powers cannot be developed by physical and mental work alone; nor his moral being by self-discipline in solitude. His faculties and his character require to be expanded and beautified by the duties of domestic and social life, as a member of a family, as a friend, as a fellow-worker, as a citizen. To be alone is not “good”; it does not promote his fullest life, or his best service.
an help meet for him ] “meet”: or answering to. The word “meet” means “suitable,” or “adapted to.” The Lord God will make for man a “help” corresponding to his moral and intellectual nature, supplying what he needs, the counterpart of his being.
“Help meet,” which has become a recognized English word, fails to give the full sense of this passage from which it is derived. Man will find help from that which is in harmony with his own nature, and, therefore, able adequately to sympathise with him in thought and interests. It is not identity, but harmony, of character which is suggested. The word “help” in the Hebrew is ‘zer, the same as is found in Ebenezer (1Sa 7:12): LXX : Lat. adjutorium.
“Meet for him” is lit. “as over against him.” LXX , Vulg. simile sibi.
Observe that the versions have “let us make,” LXX , Lat. faciamus, in imitation of Gen 1:26, but inaccurately.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
– XIII. The Naming of the Animals
Here mans intellectual faculties proceed from the passive and receptive to the active and communicative stage. This advance is made in the review and designation of the various species of animals that frequent the land and skies.
A new and final need of man is stated in Gen 2:18. The Creator himself, in whose image he was made, had revealed himself to him in language. This, among many other effects, awakened the social affection. This affection was the index of social capacity. The first step towards communication between kindred spirits was accomplished when Adam heard and understood spoken language. Beyond all this God knew what was in the man whom he had formed. And he expresses this in the words, It is not good for the man to be alone. He is formed to be social, to hold converse, not only with his superior, but also with his equal. As yet he is but a unit, an individual. He needs a mate, with whom he may take sweet counsel. And the benevolent Creator resolves to supply this want. I will make him a helpmeet for him – one who may not only reciprocate his feelings, but take an intelligent and appropriate part in his active pursuits.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Gen 2:18-25
I will make him an help meet for him
The creation of woman
I.
WOMAN WAS BROUGHT TO MAN IN ORDER THAT SHE MIGHT RELIEVE HIS SOLITUDE BY INTELLIGENT COMPANIONSHIP.
II. WOMAN WAS BROUGHT TO MAN THAT SHE MIGHT BE HIS HELPMEET IN THE STRUGGLES OF LIFE.
1. To develop his intellectual thinkings.
2. To culture his moral sympathies.
3. To aid him in the daily needs of life.
4. To join him in his worship of God.
III. WOMAN WAS BROUGHT TO MAN THAT SHE MIGHT RECEIVE HIS LOVE, PROTECTION, AND CARE. LESSONS:
1. The Divine compassion for a lonely man.
2. That marriage is to furnish man with true companionship of soul.
3. That marriage is to aid man in all the exigencies of life. (J. S.Exell, M. A.)
The creation of woman
1. The occasion.
2. The resolution.
3. The preparation.
4. The presentation. (J. S. Exell, M. A.)
Loneliness is not good
1. For intellectual development.
2. For moral culture.
3. For true enjoyment. (J. S. Exell, M. A.)
Loneliness not good
1. For mans comfort.
2. For mans employment.
3. For posterity. (J. S. Exell, M. A.)
The woman a help
1. For assistance in family government.
2. For the comfort of society.
3. For the continuance of the race. (J. S. Exell, M. A.)
Complete solitude
I. ADAMS LONELINESS WAS COMPLETE.
II. This complete loneliness was A MARK OF IMPERFECTNESS OF LIFE.
III. This complete loneliness, marking an imperfect life, was THOROUGHLY UNIQUE. (Urijah R. Thomas.)
Genesis of woman
I. EXPLANATION OF THE PASSAGE.
1. A Divine parable.
2. Panorama of emergent woman. It is the golden hour for Divine instruction; for it is in dreams, in visions of the night, when deep sleep falleth upon men, that God openeth their ear, and sealeth up their instruction (Job 33:15-16). Wrapped in his deep sleep, Edens dreamer beholds the vision of his second self. He sees his Maker taking from out of him one of his own ribs, forming it into a woman, and presenting her in all her glorious beauty to himself, to be to him henceforth that blessed mate for whom he has unconsciously sighed. And so his God has in very truth given to His beloved in his sleep (Psa 127:2). Nor is it altogether a dream. Awaking from his sleep, he beholds still standing by him the fair blissful vision. Instinctively recognizing the community of nature, he joyously exclaims; This, now, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this shall be called woman, Isha because from man, Ish, was she taken.
II. MORAL MEANING.
1. Womans formal inferiority to man. Woman, in the matter of outward, formal, scenic authority, is to yield to man. For every kind of organization, whatever it may be, political, military, financial, ecclesiastical, domestic, must have some kind of nominal head, or index finger–e.g., king, president, general, chairman, bishop, pastor, husband. Look at grand old fatherland. According to her theory of Government, England must have a monarch. And who sits on Englands throne today? A woman–a pure, noble, true-hearted woman. But, because Victoria wears a crown as her nations emblazoned figurehead, does it necessarily follow that she is intellectually superior to the Disraeli who holds her helm of state; or morally superior to the Spurgeon who preaches that there is another Sovereign, even one Jesus? Quite so is it with woman in her relation to man. According to Holy Scripture, she is subordinate to him. But this subordination implies in no sense whatever any essential inferiority. Woman is mans peer in all essential capacities–in capacities of sensibility, intellect, moral worth, humanhood. Woman is mans inferior simply in the matter of scenic, symbolic, formal authority.
2. Womans essential equality. Man and woman, considered in their essence, are a unity. But, observe, unity implies complexity; that is to say, unity implies likeness and unlikeness, sameness and difference, community and diversity.
(1) Community of man and woman. Woman is mans essential peer, his Alter Ego, his second self. There is nothing, then, in the essential nature of woman which should exclude her from the rights, privileges, activities, or duties, which inherently belong to the genus Homo. Whatever is legitimately open to man, not indeed as a man, but as a human being, is equally open to woman: for both are equally human. Woman as well as man can feel, think, reason, imagine, observe, classify, generalize, deduce. Woman as well as man can sell goods, plan buildings, make statues, resolve nebulae, discover elements, diagnosticate diseases, construct philosophies, write epics. There is nothing in the nature of woman as woman which should forbid her having a specific employment or vocation as distinctively as the brother brought up by her side. True, there are some things which woman cannot do as well as man: not because she is inferior in any of the essential attributes of humanity, but simply because she is inferior in the accidental element of physical strength.
(2) Diversity of man and woman. Woman is something more than a supplement or appendix to man; woman is mans complement. Man and woman are the two poles of the sphere of humanity, opposite and complemental, complemental because opposite. And the one pole implies the other. Legislate as much as you please, you cannot abolish the fact of the sexes. Constituently, elementally the same, man and woman are organized on different bases. Like the stars, they differ in their glory (1Co 15:41). Each has certain excellences which are peculiar to each, and distinctive of each. Mans excellences are virtues; womans excellences are graces; and I suspect that, in the judgment of Him who seeth in secret, the graces are diviner than the virtues.
3. Marriage a Divine institution.
4. The earthly marriage a type of the heavenly. (G. D. Boardman.)
Gods provision for mans needs
I. GOD KNOWS AND CONSIDERS ALL OUR WANTS, AND OUT OR HIS OWN GOODNESS MAKES PROVISION TO SUPPLY THEM. And this–
1. He must do, or else we should often perish.
2. And it is fit He should do so to magnify His free mercies. Let Gods dealing with us move us to deal in like manner with our brethren, considering the poor and needy (Psa 41:1) after the example of the disciples of Antioch (Act 11:29).
II. GODS PROVIDENCE AND ABUNDANT GOODNESS FAILS US NOT TILL IT HATH SUPPLIED US WITH ALL THAT WE NEED THAT IS FIT FOR US. Let it quiet all our hearts in the consideration of our present condition, when our inordinate lusts provoke us sometimes to causeless complaints and murmurings upon supposed but mistaken grounds. Whereas–
1. Either we have that which we conceive we want, as Hagar wept for want of water when she saw not the well which was fast by her Gen 21:19). Or–
2. That which we want would do us hurt and no good if we had it, as the Israelites found by experience when they murmured for want of flesh Num 11:33).
III. A SOLITARY LIFE IS AN UNCOMFORTABLE AND AN UNPROFITABLE LIFE. From whence, then, came the affecting and admiring of a monastical life which crosseth–
1. The very law of nature by which men are inclined to society; and–
2. Gods ordinance who hath appointed us–
(1) To cause our light to shine before men that they might glorify Him Mat 5:16). And to serve one another through love (Gal 5:13). So that a solitary life–
(a) Deprives God of His honour;
(b) Men, and the Church especially, both of that increase of an holy seed, which they might have of the fruit of their bodies, of the comfort of their fellowship, the service of love which they owe, and of the examples of their godly lives;
(c) Themselves in present, of many sweet comforts and needful helps, and hereafter of the increase of their reward enlarged according to the proportion of their present improving of their talents in advancing Gods honour, and seeking and procuring the good of His children.
IV. GOD TAKES NOT NOTICE OF OUR WANTS AS AN IDLE SPECTATORS BUT, AS A FAITHFUL HELPER, PUTS FORTH HIS HAND TO HELP US IN WHAT WE NEED. Let us do likewise–observe, take pity, and relieve.
1. Otherwise our brethren have no benefit by us if we express our compassion in words only, and not in deeds (Jam 2:16), but provelike clouds and wind without rain (Pro 25:14).
2. We make our own thoughts or words evidences against ourselves when we know what our brother needs and help him not, and provoke God to neglect us as we neglect Him. See what He threateneth in such a case Pro 24:11-12).
V. GOD MAKES NOTHING BUT FOR SOME NECESSARY USE AND UNTO SOME PROFITABLE END.
VI. A WIFE IS NOT GOOD TILL IT BE NOT GOOD TO BE WITHOUT A WIFE. VII. A MAN MAY, AND IT IS GODS WILL THAT HE SHOULD, BE THE BETTER FOR HIS WIFE.
1. Woe be to those foolish wives that pluck down the house which they should build (Pro 14:1), proving moths in their husbands estates by their idleness and wastefulness; and thorns in their sides, vexing those whom they should comfort, with their continual dropping; perverting those whom they should advise.
2. Let every man labour to be the better for his wife, and to that end–
(1) Let him labour to be good in the sight of God.
(2) Let him look well to his choice, that he may take a godly wife, and a wife fit both for his condition and disposition.
(3) Let him dwell with his wife as a man of knowledge, governing her with all meekness, instructing her, and bearing with her infirmities (1Pe 3:7).
VIII. IT IS ONLY GOD HIMSELF THAT MUST SUPPLY US WITH THAT WHICH WE STAND IN NEED OF.
IX. NOTHING MOVES GOD TO TAKE COMPASSION ON US, TO SUPPLY US IN WHAT WE NEED, BUT HIS OWN BOUNTY AND GOODNESS.
X. A WIFE IS BUT AN HELPER TO HER HUSBAND. Not his guide, for she was created for the man, not the man for her (1Co 11:9), and that too, inferior unto him, both in dignity, and usually in abilities. So that she is truly and worthily called the weaker vessel (1Pe 3:7).
XI. A WIFE CANNOT BE A GOOD WIFE UNLESS SHE BE A MEET AND A FIT WIFE. Answerable, if it may be–
1. In blood and parentage (see 1Sa 23:1-29.).
2. In estate.
3. Education.
4. Especially in the temper of her disposition.
5. But above all the rest, in religion; seeing there can be no fellowship of righteousness with unrighteousness, nor of light with darkness (2Co 6:14). Least of all between married persons. (J. White, M. A.)
Gods provision to remedy mans loneliness
God has always been thinking what would be for the mans good. How, then, does God propose to meet loneliness? By making another man? Why, when He made a man to keep Cain company, Cain killed him! It would seem to be one of the deepest laws of human nature that man must kill man, and that the only chance of keeping society together is by the marvellous influence of woman. For man to be alone means suicide; for two men to be together means homicide; woman alone can keep society moving and healthful. The woman and the little child are the saviours of social order at this day all over the world. For woman to be alone is as bad as for man to be alone. Safety is in contrast, and in mutual complement. Reverence for womanhood will save any civilization from decay. Beautiful and very tender is this notion of throwing man into a deep sleep to take a rib from him as the starting point of a blessed companionship. So much is always being done for us when we are in states of unconsciousness! We do not get our best blessings by our own fussiness and clever contrivance: they come we know not how. They are sweet surprises; they are born of the spirit, and are as untraceable as the veerings of the wind. This is the course of true love, and of marriages that are made in heaven. You cannot by searching, and advertising, and scheming find out a companion for the lonely soul. She will come upon you unconsciously. You will know her by a mark in the forehead which none but yourself can read. (J. Parker, D. D.)
The creation of woman
I. The Creators care of man, and His fatherly concern for his comfort.
1. Gods pity for his solitude.
2. His resolve to provide society for him.
II. The creatures subjection to man, and his dominion over them. God brought the animals to Adam that he might name them, and so give a proof of–
1. His knowledge.
2. His power.
III. The creatures insufficiency to be a happiness for man. Observe–
1. The dignity and excellency of human nature.
2. The vanity of the things of this world. (M. Henry, D. D.)
Eve
Let us speak of–
I. The woman.
1. Her creation.
2. The purpose God had in view in creating her.
II. The wonderful institution by which man and woman are made one. It is wonderful that this institution should be found so early in human history.
III. The glorious union of which this institution is a type. Adam is a type of Christ; and since Christ was the spouse of the Church, then Eve was a type of the Church. And our conclusion therefore is that the marriage of Adam and Eve, and the marriage institute altogether, is typical of the union between Christ and the Church. (T. W. Richards, M. A.)
Lessons
1. How it is not said by God that it was not good for Adam to be alone, but for man to be alone; thereby in wisdom enlarging the good of marriage to man in general, that is, to some of all sorts, and not tying it to Adam alone, or to any sort only. Again, in saying it is not good, you see what the Lord regardeth in His actions and works, to wit, goodness and profit to the users, how good it may be, how comfortable: which is a good lesson for all such as regard in their deeds, their wills, their pleasures. Sis volo, sic iubeo, So will I, so command I; not respecting at all the good of any other. Shall sinful flesh disdain to do what the Lord of lords doth? He, though He have all power and authority, yet will not do only according to that, but He looketh how good it may be that He doth; and shall sinful flesh, dust and earth, upon a little authority be so proud, that their will must rule all actions?
2. Mark it with all your heart, how God doth consider before ever man see the want himself, what may be good for man, and entereth into purpose to make for him, and prepare for him what yet he wanted and had need of, saying, Let us make man a helper like himself. Oh, how may we cleave and cling to the providence of this God in all comfort of our minds, that thus thinketh of what may be good for us before ever we think of it ourselves, and not only thinketh of it, but provideth it and prepareth it for us, saying in all matters as in this, Yet my servant such an one wanteth such a help, it is not good for him to be without it; come, therefore, let us prepare it for him, etc.
3. That woman is honoured with the title of a helper, not only showeth the goodness of the institution, as was noted before, but teacheth also how dear and beloved she should be to her husband, for whose good she was ordained and given. Who will not cherish, foster, and love what is given him for a help, not by man, but by God Himself? Her help chiefly consisteth in three things, in bearing him children, the comforts of his life, and stays of his age, which he cannot have without her. In keeping his body holy to the Lord from filthy pollution which the Lord abhorreth. The apostle so teaching when he speaketh thus, For the avoiding of fornication, let every man have his own wife. And, thirdly, in governing his house, children, and family, and many ways tending his own person both in sickness and health. These all and everyone are great helps, and therefore the woman justly to be regarded for them.
4. But whereupon was woman made? Surely not of an outward but of an inward part of man, that she might be dear to him even as his inwards. Not of the head of man, lest she should be proud and look for superiority. Not of the foot of man, lest she should be contemned and used as for his inferior; but of his side, that she might be used as his fellow, cleaving to his side as an inseparable companion of all his haps whilst they two live. And as the rib receiveth strength from the breast of man, so doth the woman from her husband: his counsel is her strength, his breast should she account of to be ruled and governed by in all her ways, and seek to please him and ease him from all griefs as she any way can, knowing ever that she is most weak without her husbands breast, from which cometh all her strength and good comfort at all times. No creature had his mate made of his own flesh but man, and therefore no creature under heaven should be like man in the love of his mate, but man above them all.
5. It is, if you mark it, not only said that God made woman, but that He brought her to man: and thereby we are taught, that marriage is not every meeting of man and woman together upon their own heads, but when God bringeth them together, either to other: and God bringeth not together, except in His fear they meet with consent of parents and such as are interested in them. (Bp. Babington.)
Gods ordinance of marriage
Let us pay particular attention to this language. Probably we have imagined the statement to mean that God would provide for man one who should be a helper to him, and whose nature and character would be suitable to his. Well, the words do mean this; but they mean also something more. Correctly rendered they would run thus: I will make him a help as over against him; or, so as to meet him: that is to say, I will create for him one who shall tally and correspond with him as his counterpart. And the expression seems to point to that oneness in diversity, to that moral, intellectual, and spiritual adaptation of one to the other,–which exists between the woman and the man. Why were the man and the woman not created apart, as the animals were, and afterwards brought together? Because Adam was to be the inclusive head of the human race: all were to be derived from him; he was to be the fountain from which every stream should flow. Therefore it was necessary that woman should not have an independent, but a derived existence–an existence derived from the federal head of the human race. As St. Paul says, Man is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
I. Now in commenting upon the passage, let us take this as the thought which rises first before the mind–THAT IT WERE WELL IF THE RELATION BETWEEN THE TWO SEXES, AND EVERYTHING BEARING UPON THE MARRIAGE TIE, WERE LOOKED UPON AS BEING SOMEWHAT SERIOUS MATTERS. Of course no sensible man would speak in an unnaturally solemn tone about them. He would throw bright and cheerful colours upon the subject of courtship and marriage. He knows that this entrance into life ought to be characterized by joyousness. But yet, underlying the joyousness, there should be, we venture to think, for Christian people, a sense of seriousness and responsibility. Young women, for instance, should understand and value the influence which they exert in the world; whereas, too often, in their intercourse with the other sex, they condone worthlessness of character for the sake of showy and attractive qualities. And as to men, if they would see the relation of the sexes in the light which this narrative of Genesis throws upon it, the), would be more characterized than perhaps they are by chivalrous respect for womankind. They would honour a woman because she is a woman.
II. Our second thought CONNECTS ITSELF WITH THE SUBJECT OF WHAT IS COMMONLY CALLED WOMENS RIGHTS. Now let us see our way clear in this matter. We do not suppose that the great end of woman is to get married: many say so and think so; but so do not we. Still less do we wish to be understood as implying that a woman is justified in regarding herself, or that others are justified in regarding her, as having in any considerable degree failed of the object of her existence, if circumstances should lead her to remain in a single condition. Yet whilst holding the view of the essential and independent dignity of womanhood, we lament over that mismanagement of human affairs, which necessitates in so many human beings a life of celibacy; and we trace up to the fact of the immense and most disproportionate preponderance of women in our modern civilization, the existence of many of the evils which are sapping the foundations of our social prosperity. Well, you may say, there is the fact: you cannot alter it. No: I know that we cannot alter it; but we can try to make the best of it. Recognizing that there are, and that as matters now stand there ever must be amongst us large numbers of unmarried women, we would do all we could to make it possible for them, or at least for many of them (for some do not require it), to attain to a position of independence by means of their own honest exertions. This, at the very least, is our duty. But do we fulfil it? Of course we do not. I need not say that in the case of the educated classes, and in the case of those who come immediately below them, the way to independent subsistence for women is barred and blocked up by innumerable obstacles, that the sleepless dragon of popular prejudice guards most of the avenues of access to the golden fruit of honourable success, and that those few women who, as the pioneers of the advance of their sex, contrive by persistent energy to break through the circle of iron that encompasses them, are only too likely to acquire an unattractive and unfeminine hardness, from the very strength of the effort which enables them to force their way. There is something here which is wrong, and wants amending. Our social arrangements necessitate celibacy for hundreds of thousands who, probably, would not embrace that condition by choice. And then we frown upon their efforts if they struggle to maintain–might they be permitted to do so–an independent foothold upon our common earth. One last thing more let me say, and this of the same general character with what I have already ventured to advance. I have no manner of sympathy with the cackle and clatter we sometimes hear about the relative excellencies of the two sexes–about the superiority of one or the inferiority of the other. To me the idea that a woman wants only a clear stage and no favour, wants training, and education, and suitable circumstances, in order to develop as big a brain and as vigorous a muscle as man, and so to be able to cope with him in the struggle of life–to me such a thought is unutterably repulsive. The great charm of a woman is that she is diverse from man: not a man in a lower stage of development. She is the complement of the man: her nature, her disposition, her powers, supply what is lacking in his. The two together make a completed orb: apart they are only segments of the circle. But in order to stand in this relation to each other, it is obvious that they must not be alike, but diverse. I believe with our great modern poet, that woman is not undeveloped man, but diverse. Nay, and I believe that the sexual differences of character, and disposition, and faculty, and nature generally which exist upon earth, will be found–of course in a certain modified form–to exist in the kingdom of heaven. (G. Calthrop, M. A.)
Eve
God does nothing without a purpose: and therefore the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made He a woman. We can readily understand that, had Eve been builded of the earth as Adam was, there would have been a relationship between them which was never intended. They might have been regarded as bearing towards each other in some degree the tie of a brother and sister, springing from the earth as the parent of both. But the love that was to exist between them was not designed to be the love of relationship, not the love of consanguinity, not the love of a brother and sister. Adam was to love Eve as being essentially a part of himself, as a friend that sticketh closer than a brother, as one that originated in himself, and actually derived her existence from his own body. And the great purpose which the Almighty had in view in this formation of woman was the institution of marriage. So that you are not to regard the formation of Eve simply as a creation of the woman, just as the formation of Adam was the creation of the man; but you must consider it as the production of Adams wife, and as having involved in it the Divine purpose of the institution of marriage. And then you see at once why the peculiar process of creation was employed in taking the rib of Adam. And all this shows us and teaches us that marriage is a Divine institution of no ordinary import, and that its vows and obligations are to be regarded as in a high degree sacred. It should never be entered upon inconsiderately, nor should its festivity ever go on to such extent as to blot out its sacred character. If we fail to recognize its Divine appointment, and give it not the reverence which it claims by virtue of its Divinity, how shall we look for the Divine blessing? It should be all love–love from the beginning to the close of the compact; like the ring, which belongs to our ceremony, having no end, emblematic of eternal love. And this is a mystical love: it is not the love which nature plants and nourishes wherever she has established kinsmanship, or where she has joined soul to soul in the bonds of friendship. It is a mystic love, which takes its stand upon Divine institution, and can be traced only to the recorded circumstance of creation–The rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made He a woman. And it strikes us as a wonderful thing, that this institution should be found so early and so prominently placed among the brief records of creation. We should, perhaps, have rather expected that it would have had its position among the Levitical appointments. It behoves us, then, to inquire whether there was any special purpose of the Almighty, whether there was any hidden mystery involved in the institution. There appears to be something so remarkable in the creation of the woman, and there is something so expressive in Adams remark: This is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh; and the appointment is altogether so wonderful, that there must be some meaning in the history beyond that which appears upon the surface, and beyond that which our remarks have hitherto included. Now, we know that in many particulars Adam was a type of Christ our Redeemer. Husbands, says the apostle, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church, and gave Himself for it. And, after speaking and exhorting concerning marriage, he quotes the very words employed by Adam at its first institution, and adds, This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the Church. If, then, Adam was the type of Christ, and Christ is the spouse of the Church, it follows as a logical deduction that Eve was a type of the Church. And our conclusion therefore is this, that the marriage of Adam and Eve, and the marriage institute altogether, is typical and emblematical of the union between Christ and His Church. And thus, in the very first page almost of the Bible (and there is hardly a page or a letter that has not reference to the same wonderful subject), we find redemption hinted at, and a Redeemer pointed out, and a Church suggested. Here is the gospel, here is the glad tidings of mediation in the very alpha of Divine revelation, and it is never lost sight of, even to the omega. And here, then, we arrive at the deep mystery of the marriage institute: here we learn why its appointment is such a prominent feature in the concise history of creation. If, then, we have reasoned correctly, and Eve be thus a type of the Church, then it would prove a matter of profitable investigation to observe how the position and the directions of Adam and Eve apply in their fulfilment to Christ and the Church. But we can only hint at these things, and leave this wonderful subject for private meditation. There can be no question but that the opening of Adams side for the formation of Eve had had reference to that opening of the side of the second Adam for the formation of His Church, which took place upon the cross at Calvary; for the Church, the ransomed of Sion, owes all its existence and all its salvation to the water and the blood which issued upon the spear stroke of the soldier, and without which, we are told, there could have been no remission. And this opening of the side also was effected during a deep sleep; for, when the soldiers came to Him, they found that He was dead already: it was a deep sleep, the deep sleep of death. Let us, then, be true to ourselves and to our profession; so that, after having taken upon us the vows of marriage to Christ, we may never be spoken of as a wicked and adulterous generation. (T. W. Richards, M. A.)
The family: its scriptural ideal and its modern assailants
I. THE FOUNDATION OF THE FAMILY IN NATURE.
II. THE IDEAL OF THE FAMILY. The family is one of natures combinations, being composed of several constituent parts; and it shows the same properties as are usually found in the other combinations of nature. In such combinations we find two things: first, a natural affinity or attraction of the parts to each other; and second, harmony and repose when the combination is effected, as if some invisible cement has been made use of to bind the whole into one. Harsh, frictional combinations are foreign to nature. The oxygen and hydrogen that combine to form water have a natural affinity to each other, and the product is so beautifully harmonious that no one could have fancied beforehand that water was not a simple substance. The most striking instance of harmonious combination in nature is that of light, where the seven colours of the rainbow give birth to a product in which the faintest trace of discord can never be found. Nature, in arranging her forces, makes a similar provision in that combination which we call the family. The intention of nature, or rather of the Creator, seems obvious here, although that intention is often frustrated by the perversity of man. In the first place, a natural affinity draws the man and woman together. There is not only the natural affinity of the sexes, but there is the individual attraction between one man and one woman, the desire to be closely related to each other, which is the true and natural foundation of marriage. It would be a very low view of the marriage relation that would make it flow from instinct alone. Man is surely much more than an animal. Has he not a spiritual nature that allies him to the higher orders of being, as really as his animal nature allies him to the lower? And when one human being is drawn to another with a view to the closest relation it is possible to form, surely this is not merely an attraction of the animal; the higher nature has a share in it too. We speak, at present, of what seems to be the purpose of the institution. We say that the law of affinity that governs all natures combinations leads us to expect that the foundation of marriage should lie in an affinity or attraction, not of one part of mans nature merely, and not of the lower part of it merely, but of the whole. And when we turn to the Bible we find this view amply confirmed, for it is said, Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh. There must be some attraction of the higher nature to draw a man from his father and mother, to whom his best affections would naturally induce him to cling. In other words, true marriage has its foundation in the attractive power of love. And as love is its foundation, so also it is the cement designed to bind the two beings into unity, and give rise to that harmony which we have seen to characterize all natures combinations. Differences of temperament, varieties of taste, diversities of will, diverse forms of natural weakness and natural temptation tend naturally to friction and discord. What provision is there in nature to counteract this tendency and secure harmony? Love is the moral cement of nature. By its magi power, different temperaments become the complements of each other, opposing tastes find a method of reconciliation, and even contradictory wills, by learning to take and give, to bear and forbear, become like one. Perhaps it will be asked, Are you serious in affirming that marriage should always be founded on mutual love? Is not such an idea utterly Utopian? It may be: but Utopianism is not always the opposite of truth or of duty. If we were to lay it down as a proper rule of life that men should always speak the truth, it would seem utterly impracticable and Utopian; and yet it is a right and proper rule. When we speak of love we do not mean necessarily the state of ecstatic fervour which is commonly delineated in novels and which is sometimes found in actual life. That real affinity of hearts to each other which is the true foundation of marriage, may be, and often is, much more calm and undemonstrative. There is another important element that enters into the idea of a complete family, and in connection with which, too, provision is made in nature for harmonious combination with the other elements–namely, children. It is not difficult to see, either in theory or in practice, that children may very readily become a most discordant element. To bring about the needful and desirable harmony, the parents are furnished with two things, strength and affection. They have strength of body if not also of mind to enforce what they deem right; but the employment of sheer strength would only stir up the spirit of rebellion, and while producing a temporary submission, make the discord deeper in the end. Hence love, parental love, is supplied, to make the application of strength more smooth and more effective. The two must work together, otherwise evil ensues. Thus we see how, in the case of families, the great law of nature is exemplified which aims at making all combinations harmonious and efficient. If in the case of any family the combination is discordant, it is because the working out of the plan is abused in the hands of frail human beings. For it is a painful fact in this worlds history that nothing so often frustrates the plans of providence as the intervention of man. When Divine arrangements fall to be carried into effect by the blind forces of nature, they are carried out with precision and certainty; but when they are dependent on the intervention of man, bungling and defeat are too often the result.
III. THE PURPOSE OF THE FAMILY.
1. As regards the fellowship of husband and wife. It is to be remarked that the reason which is given in the second chapter of Genesis why God made woman is, that He might furnish the man with a suitable companion; it is not till afterwards that she is named Eve, in token of her motherhood, because she was the mother of all living. Scripture views the relation of the married man and woman, therefore, as having an important end to serve in the Divine purpose, even apart from the continuation of the race. Man and woman come into this remarkable relation of unity in order to promote each others welfare. True, there is often discord instead of unity. But unity is certainly attained in quite a sufficient number of cases to vindicate the wisdom of the arrangement. One thing is very certain: if this unity be not realized, the relation of husband and wife, instead of being beneficial, must be irksome and even disastrous to both. To be forced to live, eat, sleep, and worship together, while their hearts are at open discord, is simply awful. On the other hand, where there is substantial unity, the necessary interlacing of all the events of their life makes the unity the greater, and invests the relation with a more tender interest and a profounder sanctity. To bear the same name: to spend their days and nights in the same house and chamber; to share the same worldly goods; to be parents of the same children; to be partners of one anothers joys and sorrows, cares and anxieties, perplexities and deliverances; to look to one another for counsel and cheer; to mingle their prayers and thanksgivings as none else can; to look back along the line of their lives, and think of all they have shared; to look forward, and think of the inevitable parting that is coming, and then of the reunion which faith expects; who shall deny that such experiences are fitted not only to deepen the unity which lies at the foundation of the relation, but to elevate the tone of life, purify the character, and sweeten the current of existence, as no other earthly influences can? Where the two are one flesh, there must be no contact with other flesh. And here, too, nature provides an abundant reward for those who are faithful to her order. Nothing keeps the fountain of conjugal love so pure and fresh as absolute faithfulness to the marriage bond. Even in pagan nations, there have been beautiful instances of a happy unity and the highest esteem between man and wife. Joseph Cook, in his Boston lectures, finds much in this connection to vindicate marriage on natural grounds. He instances the case of the wife of Phocion, the great reformer, who, when her husband was refused burial in Attic soil, went by night to burn the body, brought back his bones to Athens, buried them beneath her hearth, and blessed the place that thus afforded protection to the remains of a good and great man, until the Athenians, returning to their right minds, should restore them to the sepulchre of his fathers. More striking is the story told by Cyrus of Panthea, the wife of Abradatus. She loved her husband with a supreme affection. When taken captive by Cyrus, he asked her where her home was. On the bosom of my husband, was in substance her reply; and when offered a dazzling position at the Court of Cyrus, she besought them to send her swiftly home. If ever there was a woman that regarded her husband more than her own soul, she was that woman. Encouraging him to fight for Cyrus to show his gratitude, she sent him with her blessing to the battle in which he fell. Again she had offers of this worlds glory; again her purpose was declared to be with her husband. I cannot justify Panthea in everything, says Mr. Cook. She had been brought up to the stern opinions which justified suicide. She told her maid to cover her in the same mantle with her husband. Then she smote herself; put her head upon his breast, and fell asleep. Great nature is in that! You wish me to teach what science proclaims respecting family life. I must ask you to go back to the deepest springs of human experience. These women, Phocions wife and the wife of Abradatus are sisters to us all, helpers to every age. They are crystalline water bursting up from the innermost rifts of human nature and society, and one in its purity with that rain which falls on all the hills, and is the real source, after all, of every one of these crystalline springs. Even under Paganism there were thus influences strong enough to realize in at least some instances the true unity of husband and wife, and show to the world what kind of relation it was designed to be. Christianity has brought new influences into the field. A new pattern has been furnished of conjugal unity, and a new force for developing conjugal love (Eph 5:25; Eph 5:30).
2. The relation of parents and children. Now let us observe that the provision of nature for the bringing up of children is to place them under the charge of their two parents, both possessed of affection towards them, though in somewhat different proportions, and this provision for their upbringing is most essential. An essential desideratum for a child is moral training. Is this too hard and too heavy a task for parents? So it is affirmed by those who disparage the family institute, and who would gather children into barracks or other large establishments, where they would be brought up by the wisest and most experienced of the race, under the best conditions of efficient training. To commit such work to parents of average character, is objected to on two grounds; first, because where it is attempted, the work will be done ill, in consequence of the folly and ignorance of the parents; and second, because in a vast multitude of cases, it will not be attempted at all. That the qualifications needed for the right upbringing of children are within the reach of the ordinary run of parents, is sufficiently clear from the fact, that many a parent, in the humblest ranks of life, has discharged the duty with admirable success. When Dr. Livingstone composed a simple epitaph to be placed on the tombstone of his father and mother, the one thing which he desired to commemorate was the gratitude of their children to God for poor and pious parents. He refused to change the expression into poor but pious, because he believed in the beneficial influences of poverty, in the nobility of character which it had fostered in them, and in the good he had got from it himself. Had he been brought up in luxury and splendour he would not have learned the habits that enabled him to open Africa at a cost of painful endurance and unflinching perseverance seldom equalled in the annals of mankind. It is not great intellect nor ample means that enables a parent to give a good upbringing to his children, but conscientious devotion to duty, the spirit of love, and a good example. These are qualities within the reach of every class. Much stress is to be laid on the last point–the good example. In estimating the moral value of the family as a whole, we must not lose sight of the influence which the children often have on the parents. What I learned from my children might often be the subject of as interesting a narrative as What I learned from my parents. What father has not found occasion to search deeper into truth from the strange questions which children so often put respecting things which older minds are apt to take for granted? The present writer, in his early ministry, had once occasion to hear the spiritual history of an afflicted woman, who was lying in bed, awaiting the last messenger. For many years, she said, I did not see that I was a sinner, I did not think that I had seriously broken any of the commandments of God.
But I had the misfortune to have an only son who ran away from me, and never wrote to me, or seemed to care to hear of me or from me. Then it flashed upon me that I had been just as unmindful of my heavenly Father, as my son had been of me. Though I had not been guilty of open sins, I had utterly neglected my duty to my heavenly Father. The words came into my mind, The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his masters crib; but Israel doth not know, My people doth not consider. I got a new light on the whole of my life; I saw myself to be a great sinner; and I got no rest until I came to the cross, and was there sprinkled with the blood that cleanseth from all sin. The presence of children in a house softens the heart, makes it more human and sympathetic. It brings men down from the stiff and serious attitude of business. It evokes the gentler and the more playful elements of our nature. It keeps the heart young and its affections fresh. But more powerful than anything yet noticed, is the effect on a right-minded man of the thought of his children in reference to his own temptations and dangers. There are evil pleasures whose attraction might prove too strong for some men, if the thought of their children did not come to check them. What would they think if these children were to do the same?
3. We note then, next, the relation of brothers and sisters. In a well-regulated family this is a very important factor. The ideal of the Christian home suggests the thought of Miltons Comus, where pure-minded brothers, admiring a dear sisters purity, are concerned lest, alone in the world, she should fall in the way of any of those bloated monsters that would drag even an angel into their filthy sty. But apart from this painful subject, what a blessed provision we have for the spread of mutual benefit in the contrasted qualities of brothers and sisters attached to each other, and deeply interested in each others welfare! A great charm in the relation of brothers and sisters comes from the difference in their ages. The power to help on the part of the older is designed to develop the sense of responsibility, and when duly exercised, gives them some share in the parental government, and facilitates the work of the parents themselves. Moreover, there is a development of that tender spirit which intercourse with the weak stirs in the hearts of the strong.
4. In many families, besides brothers and sisters, there are also servants.
5. The friends and acquaintances of a family extend the horizon of interest, affection, and sympathy. (W. G. Blaikie, D. D.)
Marriage
I. THE MARRIAGE TIE. This is really what it comes to. It is needless to discuss the question whether marriage ought to be dissoluble not only on the ground of adultery, but on that of cruelty, or of habitual drunkenness, or of insanity. The opponents of marriage as it now is, would be satisfied with no such enactments. The contract of marriage must be brought down to the level of a contract between partners in business, and the one must be rendered voidable precisely in the same way as the other. Is this, let us ask, apart altogether from Scripture, a fair or reasonable method of treating the contract of marriage?
1. Does it not overlook the very delicate and solemn nature of the relation established in marriage between man and wife? That contract is indeed without a parallel. It places the parties in a relation of intimacy and delicacy unapproached in any other.
2. This view of marriage subverts the provision of nature for the welfare of the young. What is to become of the children when a marriage is broken up on the ground that the father and mother are tired of each other?
3. An arrangement which would terminate the union of husband and wife whenever they happened to tire of it, would greatly discourage the exercise of forbearance toward each other when differences unfortunately did arise.
4. Such a policy would, moreover, leave little opportunity for repentance and reconciliation. Once the tie was severed, severed it must remain. But it may be contended, that what is called the arrangement of nature is a faulty arrangement, and in practice gives rise to evils so great that in order to remedy them you must have recourse to easy divorces. Are we to exalt into a plan of nature, an arrangement which is so painfully fruitful of contention and misery? Yes, it is still the plan of nature; but it is the plan of nature perverted, frustrated, made abortive by some evil habit or vile indulgence which hinders the intention of nature from being fulfilled, as really and as wholly as a nail driven into the works of a watch hinders it from indicating the proper time. First among these perverting influences we must place the habit of drunkenness. Hitherto we have been dealing with the objection on grounds common to the Secularist and the Christian. But we cannot leave the subject without examining it also on the ground of Scripture. Let us remember that, according to Scripture, marriage and the family constitution were instituted while the human race was yet unfallen, and while the relation between God and man existed in all its fulness of blessing. The Fall did not abrogate the institution, but it made a great change in the conditions under which it existed. Discord ensued between man and God, discord in mans own soul between passion and conscience, discord in his social relations, discord between man and wife. Admitting, then, that in a vast number of cases marriage is the parent of discord and misery, which of two policies is the more worthy of support with a view to remedy this grievous evil? Are we to change the marriage bond as it has hitherto been, make the relation of married persons slack and easy, tie the knot so loosely that a very slight pull will undo it, and place what has hitherto been the most sacred of human obligations at the mercy of the whim of either party? Or shall we try to get this relation penetrated by the love of Christ, to bring the spirit of forbearance and forgiveness to bear on actual divergences, to exalt mens sense of the dignity and sacredness of the conjugal relation,–symbol as it is of the union of Christ and His Church; shall we try to quicken the consciences of parents in regard to the welfare of their children, to induce them to extend their view beyond the horizon of the present life, and to think of the momentous consequences for evermore of faithfulness on the one hand and neglect on the other?
II. THE NURTURE OF CHILDREN. Another common objection to the family has reference to the best arrangement for bringing up children to be orderly, respectable, and useful citizens. We say it is family life. But in how many instances is the upbringing they get in their homes worse than useless–an education of blows and curses, of drunkenness and debauchery, ofsin and misery. In such cases, no doubt, you must supersede the family. But this is an extreme remedy, applicable only to the very worst case. And before this course is resorted to, every effort should be made to stimulate the sense of parental responsibility. To many it appears not only a simpler but a more efficient remedy for the evils of parental neglect, to take neglected children wholesale from their parents and bring them up elsewhere. But to make a promiscuous practice of this would be to do infinite harm. When Dr. Guthrie instituted his Ragged Schools, he provided no sleeping accommodation for his children; at night they returned to their parents; because of all things he was most anxious to preserve the interest of the parents in their children, and the interest of the children in their parents. We are not warranted to separate the children wholly from their parents except under two conditions: first, When it is certain that the children would he ruined if they should continue to live with them; and, second, when the parents are willing to give them up, let us say for emigration. (W. G. Blaikie, D. D.)
Meaning of wife
And now let us see whether the word wife has not a lesson. It literally means a weaver. The wife is the person who weaves. Before our great cotton and cloth factories arose, one of the principal employments in every house was the fabrication of clothing: every family made its own. The wool was spun into thread by the girls, who were therefore called spinsters; the thread was woven into cloth by their mother, who, accordingly was called the weaver, or the wife; and another remnant of this old truth we discover in the word heirloom, applied to any old piece of furniture which has come down to us from our ancestors, and which, though it may be a chair or bed, shows that a loom was once an important article in every house. Thus the word wife means weaver: and, as Trench well remarks, in the word itself is wrapped up a hint of earnest, indoor, stay-at-home occupations, as being fitted for her who bears this name. (Dictionary of Illustrations.)
Woman, a helpmeet
Joshua Reynolds met Flaxman the day after his marriage, and said: You are a happy man, but you are ruined for an artist. He told his bride of it in great despondency. I wanted to be a great artist. And, John, said Annie, with the fire in her eye, a great artist you shall be! He always said that was what made an artist of him. There was a young man in Switzerland, engaged in observing and classifying the Hymenoptera of his native land, when he was suddenly smitten with blindness. The calamity was so hopeless that marriage was absolutely forbidden by the father of his beloved. She waited, like a dutiful child, until she was twenty-one years of age; then, without concealment, and, in great sorrow, but honouring her father in disobeying him, she married the scientist, and immediately persuaded him to resume his studies. She carried on his experiments under his direction. She soon became more skilful than he had ever been in watching the operation of the curious creatures. And he became more exact in his generalization, in consequence of being shut up to his own reflections. The result was a work which astonished the world, and remains a classic and the first authority on the subject–the immortal treasure of Huber on bees! What will not the faithful love of a wife accomplish! God in heaven looks down upon nothing on earth so like the paradise above as trustful and helpful married love.
Society in the family
Family society, says Henry, if that be agreeable, is a redress sufficient for the grievance of solitude. He that has a good God, a good heart, and a good wife to converse with, and yet complains that he wants conversation, would not have been easy and content in paradise, for Adam himself had no more.
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 18. It is not good that the man should be alone] lebaddo; only himself. I will make him a help meet for him; ezer kenegdo, a help, a counterpart of himself, one formed from him, and a perfect resemblance of his person. If the word be rendered scrupulously literally, it signifies one like, or as himself, standing opposite to or before him. And this implies that the woman was to be a perfect resemblance of the man, possessing neither inferiority nor superiority, but being in all things like and equal to himself. As man was made a social creature, it was not proper that he should be alone; for to be alone, i.e. without a matrimonial companion, was not good. Hence we find that celibacy in general is a thing that is not good, whether it be on the side of the man or of the woman. Men may, in opposition to the declaration of God, call this a state of excellence and a state of perfection; but let them remember that the word of God says the reverse.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The Lord God said, or, had said, to wit, upon the sixth day, on which the woman was made, Gen 1:27-28.
Not good; not convenient either for my purpose of the increase of mankind, or for mans personal comfort, or for the propagation of his kind.
Meet for him; a most emphatical phrase, signifying thus much, one correspondent to him, suitable both to his nature and necessity, one
altogether like to him in shape and constitution, disposition and affection; a second self; or one to be at hand and near to him, to stand continually before him, familiarly to converse with him, to be always ready to succour, serve, and comfort him; or one whose eye, respect, and care, as well as desire, Gen 3:16, should be to him, whose business it shall be to please and help him.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
18. it is not good for the man to bealoneIn the midst of plenty and delights, he was conscious offeelings he could not gratify. To make him sensible of his wants,
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And the Lord God said,…. Not at the same time he gave the above direction and instruction to man, how to behave according to his will, but before that, even at the time of the formation of Adam and which he said either to him, or with himself: it was a purpose or determination in his own mind, and may be rendered, as it is by many, he “had said” b, on the sixth day, on which man was created,
[it is] not good that man should be alone; not pleasant and comfortable to himself, nor agreeable to his nature, being a social creature; nor useful to his species, not being able to propagate it; nor so much for the glory of his Creator:
I will made him an help meet for him; one to help him in all the affairs of life, not only for the propagation of his species, but to provide things useful and comfortable for him; to dress his food, and take care of the affairs of the family; one “like himself” c, in nature, temper, and disposition, in form and shape; or one “as before him” d, that would be pleasing to his sight, and with whom he might delightfully converse, and be in all respects agreeable to him, and entirely answerable to his case and circumstances, his wants and wishes.
b “dixerat”, Vatablus, Drusius, Junius & Tremellius, Piscator. c “simile sibi”, V. L. Sam. Syr. d “Tanquam coram eo”, Montanus.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Creation of the Woman. – As the creation of the man is introduced in Gen 1:26-27, with a divine decree, so here that of the woman is preceded by the divine declaration, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him , a help of his like: “i.e., a helping being, in which, as soon as he sees it, he may recognise himself” ( Delitzsch). Of such a help the man stood in need, in order that he might fulfil his calling, not only to perpetuate and multiply his race, but to cultivate and govern the earth. To indicate this, the general word is chosen, in which there is an allusion to the relation of the sexes. To call out this want, God brought the larger quadrupeds and birds to the man, “ to see what he would call them ( lit., each one); and whatsoever the man might call every living being should be its name.” The time when this took place must have been the sixth day, on which, according to Gen 1:27, the man and woman were created: and there is no difficulty in this, since it would not have required much time to bring the animals to Adam to see what he would call them, as the animals of paradise are all we have to think of; and the deep sleep into which God caused the man to fall, till he had formed the woman from his rib, need not have continued long. In Gen 1:27 the creation of the woman is linked with that of the man; but here the order of sequence is given, because the creation of the woman formed a chronological incident in the history of the human race, which commences with the creation of Adam. The circumstance that in Gen 2:19 the formation of the beasts and birds is connected with the creation of Adam by the imperf. c. consec., constitutes to objection to the plan of creation given in Gen 1. The arrangement may be explained on the supposition, that the writer, who was about to describe the relation of man to the beasts, went back to their creation, in the simple method of the early Semitic historians, and placed this first instead of making it subordinate; so that our modern style of expressing the same thought would be simply this: “God brought to Adam the beasts which He had formed.”
(Note: A striking example of this style of narrative we find in 1Ki 7:13. First of all, the building and completion of the temple are noticed several times in 1 Kings 6, and the last time in connection with the year and month (1Ki 6:9, 1Ki 6:14, 1Ki 6:37-38); after that, the fact is stated, that the royal palace was thirteen years in building; and then the writer proceeds thus: “And king Solomon sent and fetched Hiram from Tyre…and he came to king Solomon, and did all his work; and made the two pillars,” etc. Now, if we were to understand the historical preterite with consec., here, as giving the order of sequence, Solomon would be made to send for the Tyrian artist, thirteen years after the temple was finished, to come and prepare the pillars for the porch, and all the vessels needed for the temple. But the writer merely expresses in Semitic style the simple thought, that “Hiram, whom Solomon fetched from Tyre, made the vessels,” etc. Another instance we find in Jdg 2:6.)
Moreover, the allusion is not to the creation of all the beasts, but simply to that of the beasts living in the field (game and tame cattle), and of the fowls of the air-to beasts, therefore, which had been formed like man from the earth, and thus stood in a closer relation to him than water animals or reptiles. For God brought the animals to Adam, to show him the creatures which were formed to serve him, that He might see what he would call them. Calling or naming presupposes acquaintance. Adam is to become acquainted with the creatures, to learn their relation to him, and by giving them names to prove himself their lord. God does not order him to name them; but by bringing the beasts He gives him an opportunity of developing that intellectual capacity which constitutes his superiority to the animal world. “The man sees the animals, and thinks of what they are and how they look; and these thoughts, in themselves already inward words, take the form involuntarily of audible names, which he utters to the beasts, and by which he places the impersonal creatures in the first spiritual relation to himself, the personal being” ( Delitzsch). Language, as W. v. Humboldt says, is “the organ of the inner being, or rather the inner being itself as it gradually attains to inward knowledge and expression.” It is merely thought cast into articulate sounds or words. The thoughts of Adam with regard to the animals, to which he gave expression in the names that he gave them, we are not to regard as the mere results of reflection, or of abstraction from merely outward peculiarities which affected the senses; but as a deep and direct mental insight into the nature of the animals, which penetrated far deeper than such knowledge as is the simple result of reflecting and abstracting thought. The naming of the animals, therefore, led to this result, that there was not found a help meet for man. Before the creation of the woman we must regard the man (Adam) as being “neither male, in the sense of complete sexual distinction, nor androgynous as though both sexes were combined in the one individual created at the first, but as created in anticipation of the future, with a preponderant tendency, a male in simple potentiality, out of which state he passed, the moment the woman stood by his side, when the mere potentia became an actual antithesis” ( Ziegler).
Then God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man (Gen 2:21). , a deep sleep, in which all consciousness of the outer world and of one’s own existence vanishes. Sleep is an essential element in the nature of man as ordained by God, and is quite as necessary for man as the interchange of day and night for all nature besides. But this deep sleep was different from natural sleep, and God caused it to fall upon the man by day, that He might create the woman out of him. “Everything out of which something new is to spring, sinks first of all into such a sleep” ( Ziegler). means the side, and, as a portion of the human body, the rib. The correctness of this meaning, which is given by all the ancient versions, is evident from the words, “ God took one of his ,” which show that the man had several of them. “ And closed up flesh in the place thereof;” i.e., closed the gap which had been made, with flesh which He put in the place of the rib. The woman was created, not of dust of the earth, but from a rib of Adam, because she was formed for an inseparable unity and fellowship of life with the man, and the mode of her creation was to lay the actual foundation for the moral ordinance of marriage. As the moral idea of the unity of the human race required that man should not be created as a genus or plurality,
(Note: Natural science can only demonstrate the unity of the human race, not the descent of all men from one pair, though many naturalists question and deny even the former, but without any warrant from anthropological facts. For every thorough investigation leads to the conclusion arrived at by the latest inquirer in this department, Th. Waitz, that not only are there no facts in natural history which preclude the unity of the various races of men, and fewer difficulties in the way of this assumption than in that of the opposite theory of specific diversities; but even in mental respects there are no specific differences within the limits of the race. Delitzsch has given an admirable summary of the proofs of unity. “That the races of men,” he says, “are not species of one genus, but varieties of one species, is confirmed by the agreement in the physiological and pathological phenomena in them all, by the similarity in the anatomical structure, in the fundamental powers and traits of the mind, in the limits to the duration of life, in the normal temperature of the body and the average rate of pulsation, in the duration of pregnancy, and in the unrestricted fruitfulness of marriages between the various races.”)
so the moral relation of the two persons establishing the unity of the race required that man should be created first, and then the woman from the body of the man. By this the priority and superiority of the man, and the dependence of the woman upon the man, are established as an ordinance of divine creation. This ordinance of God forms the root of that tender love with which the man loves the woman as himself, and by which marriage becomes a type of the fellowship of love and life, which exists between the Lord and His Church (Eph 5:32). If the fact that the woman was formed from a rib, and not from any other part of the man, is significant; all that we can find in this is, that the woman was made to stand as a helpmate by the side of the man, not that there was any allusion to conjugal love as founded in the heart; for the text does not speak of the rib as one which was next the heart. The word is worthy of note: from the rib of the man God builds the female, through whom the human race is to be built up by the male (Gen 16:2; Gen 30:3).
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| Adam’s Dominion. | B. C. 4004. |
18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
Here we have, I. An instance of the Creator’s care of man and his fatherly concern for his comfort, v. 18. Though God had let him know that he was a subject, by giving him a command, (Gen 2:16; Gen 2:17), yet here he lets him know also, for his encouragement in his obedience, that he was a friend, and a favourite, and one whose satisfaction he was tender of. Observe,
1. How God graciously pitied his solitude: It is not good that man, this man, should be alone. Though there was an upper world of angels and a lower world of brutes, and he between them, yet there being none of the same nature and rank of beings with himself, none that he could converse familiarly with, he might be truly said to be alone. Now he that made him knew both him and what was good for him, better than he did himself, and he said, “It is not good that he should continue thus alone.” (1.) It is not for his comfort; for man is a sociable creature. It is a pleasure to him to exchange knowledge and affection with those of his own kind, to inform and to be informed, to love and to be beloved. What God here says of the first man Solomon says of all men (Ecc 4:9; Ecc 4:10, c.), that two are better than one, and woe to him that is alone. If there were but one man in the world, what a melancholy man must he needs be! Perfect solitude would turn a paradise into a desert, and a palace into a dungeon. Those therefore are foolish who are selfish and would be place alone in the earth. (2.) It is not for the increase and continuance of his kind. God could have made a world of men at first, to replenish the earth, as he replenished heaven with a world of angels: but the place would have been too strait for the designed number of men to live together at once therefore God saw fit to make up that number by a succession of generations, which, as God had formed man, must be from two, and those male and female; one will be ever one.
2. How God graciously resolved to provide society for him. The result of this reasoning concerning him was this kind resolution, I will make a help-meet for him; a help like him (so some read it), one of the same nature and the same rank of beings; a help near him (so others), one to cohabit with him, and to be always at hand; a help before him (so others), one that he should look upon with pleasure and delight. Note hence, (1.) In our best state in this world we have need of one another’s help; for we are members one of another, and the eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of thee, 1 Cor. xii. 21. We must therefore be glad to receive help from others, and give help to others, as there is occasion. (2.) It is God only who perfectly knows our wants, and is perfectly able to supply them all, Phil. iv. 19. In him alone our help is, and from him are all our helpers. (3.) A suitable wife is a help-meet, and is from the Lord. The relation is then likely to be comfortable when meetness directs and determines the choice, and mutual helpfulness is the constant care and endeavour, 1Co 7:33; 1Co 7:34. (4.) Family-society, if it is agreeable, is a redress sufficient for the grievance of solitude. He that has a good God, a good heart, and a good wife, to converse with, and yet complains he wants conversation, would not have been easy and content in paradise; for Adam himself had no more: yet, even before Eve was created, we do not find that he complained of being alone, knowing that he was not alone, for the Father was with him. Those that are most satisfied in God and his favour are in the best way, and in the best frame, to receive the good things of this life, and shall be sure of them, as far as Infinite Wisdom sees good.
II. An instance of the creatures’ subjection to man, and his dominion over them (Gen 2:19; Gen 2:20): Every beast of the field and every fowl of the air God brought to Adam, either by the ministry of angels, or by a special instinct, directing them to come to man as their master, teaching the ox betimes to know his owner. Thus God gave man livery and seisin of the fair estate he had granted him, and put him in possession of his dominion over the creatures. God brought them to him, that he might name them, and so might give, 1. A proof of his knowledge, as a creature endued with the faculties both of reason and speech, and so taught more than the beasts of the earth and made wiser than the fowls of heaven, Job xxxv. 11. And, 2. A proof of his power. It is an act of authority to impose names (Dan. i. 7), and of subjection to receive them. The inferior creatures did now, as it were, do homage to their prince at his inauguration, and swear fealty and allegiance to him. If Adam had continued faithful to his God, we may suppose the creatures themselves would so well have known and remembered the names Adam now gave them as to have come at his call, at any time, and answered to their names. God gave names to the day and night, to the firmament, to the earth, and to the sea; and he calleth the stars by their names, to show that he is the supreme Lord of these. But he gave Adam leave to name the beasts and fowls, as their subordinate lord; for, having made him in his own image, he thus put some of his honour upon him.
III. An instance of the creatures’ insufficiency to be a happiness for man: But (among them all) for Adam there was not found a help meet for him. Some make these to be the words of Adam himself; observing all the creatures come to him by couples to be named, he thus intimates his desire to his Maker:–“Lord, these have all helps meet for them; but what shall I do? Here is never a one for me.” It is rather God’s judgment upon the review. He brought them all together, to see if there were ever a suitable match for Adam in any of the numerous families of the inferior creatures; but there was none. Observe here, 1. The dignity and excellency of the human nature. On earth there was not its like, nor its peer to be found among all visible creatures; they were all looked over, but it could not be matched among them all. 2. The vanity of this world and the things of it; put them all together, and they will not make a help-meet for man. They will not suit the nature of his soul, nor supply its needs, nor satisfy its just desires, nor run parallel with its never-failing duration. God creates a new thing to be a help-meet for man–not so much the woman as the seed of the woman.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Verses 18-25:
Man’s creation was unique from the animal kingdom. Fishes’ were created in Schools, birds and beasts in pairs, but man was created as an individual.
God’s statement, “It is not good that the man should be alone,” implies that He created the woman on the same day He created man. At the close of Day Six, God viewed His entire creation and pronounced it “very good.” This would not have been the case had there been no helper suitable for man.
‘A help meet” is “a helper over against him, or corresponding to him.” This is often rendered “help-meet,” as one word. It is not: it is two distinct, separate words. In all the animal kingdom there was no helper found that was suitable to meet the needs of man, for companionship, fulfillment, or for the propagation of the species. God formed a special creation to meet this need. This special helper was from Adam’s side, to be his companion. She was of similar nature to man, and corresponded to supplement him, to be his companion in his lonely existence, ideally adapted to be his helper in every respect.
Verse 19 does not refer to the time-frame of the naming of the animals, but to the fact of their naming. “And” translates the Hebrew “vau,” which does. not always denote time-succession, but frequently indicates thought sequence, as Gen 2:8; 1Ki 2:13, et. al. “Formed” could be accurately translated “had formed.” The reading could be rendered, “And God brought unto Adam the beasts he had formed.” The time-frame is unknown. ‘
The language indicates that the creatures God brought before Adam for naming were the land-creatures and the, fowls of the air. The Scriptures do not record the naming of the aquatic creatures.
Adam assigned names to the land and air creatures, according to their various species. These names were suitable to the nature of the various creatures. This reflects the extent of Adam’s wisdom and knowledge. The assignment of names is a token of Adam’s dominion over these creatures.
God imposed a supernatural slumber upon Adam, and performed the first surgery. This was not a sleep induced by the weariness of toil. God took one of Adam’s ribs (tsela, something bent, from tsala to incline; thus a rib), and from it formed his counterpart, woman. When Adam awoke, God brought (boa, to cause to come in) the woman to him. The verb implies more than the mere act of escorting the woman into Adam’s presence. It denotes bestowing her to the man as God’s gift under covenant relation. God performed the first marriage, establishing the marriage contract, as the “covenant of the Lord,” Pro 2:17. Thus did God establish the first human institution, the home, and blessed it with His approval.
Adam accepted God’s provision of the helper to complement him, recognizing her as “bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh.” The language expresses derivation from and likeness to man, 1Co 11:8-12. The first denotes her subjection to man as her “head” or authority, 1Co 1:3, indicated as Adam assigned to her a name; and the second denotes the name itself. Adam called his God-given helper by the name or title, “Woman,” ishi or ishah, manness, from ish or “man.” Woman’s derivation from and subjection to man is evident in words in other languages denoting the name: Greek, andris, from aner (man); Latin, virago, from vir; English, woman (Anglo-Saxon “womb-man”); German, manninn, from mann, Sanskrit, nari, from nara. The inter-relation and inter-dependency of man-woman is evident in 1Co 11:8-12.
The marriage bond as God instituted it involves the leaving of parents, and the cleaving of husband to wife. The leaving is in the sense of habitation and affection, not forsaking as in the sense of duty. One reason for this is in the very nature of the marriage relationship. In marriage the husband fulfills the needs of his wife, and the wife fulfills the needs of her husband, in a way that parents cannot. Jesus reaffirmed this principle, and made it obligatory for every age and time, Mat 19:5-6.
In the marriage relationship, man and woman become “one flesh.” This is symbolic, not literal. Man’s literal body does not become the woman’s literal body, and the woman’s body does not become the man’s body. They become “one” in the sense of unity of persons, harmony, and agreement in all matterS2 relating to their life together. Much more is involved than physical relationship. Marriage as God designed it is unity in every realm of man’s life: spiritual, psychological (involving mind, will, and emotions), and physical. “Oneness” does not mean unison; it means harmony, and involves mutual submission, on the part of both husband and wife, see Eph 5:21; 1Co 7:3-5.
In their state of innocence, both the man and the woman were “naked” and were not ashamed of their nakedness. “Naked” (arum) is translated “subtitle” in Gen 3:1, where the term is applied to the serpent. In itself the word has neither a good nor a bad connotation. Its usage governs its meaning. When used in a good sense, it denotes open, straightforward, with nothing to hide. In a bad sense, it means crafty, cunning. In applying the term to the man and the woman, the word applies to the purity and innocence of their lives, as this purity shined through to be their outward covering. When they sinned, they lost this purity.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
18. It is not good that the man should be alone (136) Moses now explains the design of God in creating the woman; namely, that there should be human beings on the earth who might cultivate mutual society between themselves. Yet a doubt may arise whether this design ought to be extended to progeny, for the words simply mean that since it was not expedient for man to be alone, a wife must be created, who might be his helper. I, however, take the meaning to be this, that God begins, indeed, at the first step of human society, yet designs to include others, each in its proper place. The commencement, therefore, involves a general principle, that man was formed to be a social animal. (137) Now, the human race could not exist without the woman; and, therefore, in the conjunction of human beings, that sacred bond is especially conspicuous, by which the husband and the wife are combined in one body, and one soul; as nature itself taught Plato, and others of the sounder class of philosophers, to speak. But although God pronounced, concerning Adam, that it would not be profitable for him to be alone, yet I do not restrict the declaration to his person alone, but rather regard it as a common law of man’s vocation, so that every one ought to receive it as said to himself, that solitude is not good, excepting only him whom God exempts as by a special privilege. Many think that celibacy conduces to their advantage, (138) and therefore, abstain from marriage, lest they should be miserable. Not only have heathen writers defined that to be a happy life which is passed without a wife, but the first book of Jerome, against Jovinian, is stuffed with petulant reproaches, by which he attempts to render hallowed wedlock both hateful and infamous. To these wicked suggestions of Satan let the faithful learn to oppose this declaration of God, by which he ordains the conjugal life for man, not to his destruction, but to his salvation.
I will make him an help It may be inquired, why this is not said in the plural number, Let us make, as before in the creation of man. Some suppose that a distinction between the two sexes is in this manner marked, and that it is thus shown how much the man excels the woman. But I am better satisfied with an interpretation which, though not altogether contrary, is yet different; namely, since in the person of the man the human race had been created, the common dignity of our whole nature was without distinction, honored with one eulogy, when it was said, Let us make man; nor was it necessary to be repeated in creating the woman, who was nothing else than an accession to the man. Certainly, it cannot be denied, that the woman also, though in the second degree, was created in the image of God; whence it follows, that what was said in the creation of the man belongs to the female sex. Now, since God assigns the woman as a help to the man, he not only prescribes to wives the rule of their vocation to instruct them in their duty, but he also pronounces that marriage will really prove to men the best support of life. We may therefore conclude, that the order of nature implies that the woman should be the helper of the man. The vulgar proverb, indeed, is, that she is a necessary evil; but the voice of God is rather to be heard, which declares that woman is given as a companion and an associate to the man, to assist him to live well. I confess, indeed, that in this corrupt state of mankind, the blessing of God, which is here described, is neither perceived nor flourishes; but the cause of the evil must be considered, namely, that the order of nature, which God had appointed, has been inverted by us. For if the integrity of man had remained to this day such as it was from the beginning, that divine institution would be clearly discerned, and the sweetest harmony would reign in marriage; because the husband would look up with reverence to God; the woman in this would be a faithful assistant to him; and both, with one consent, would cultivate a holy, as well as friendly and peaceful intercourse. Now, it has happened by our fault, and by the corruption of nature, that this happiness of marriage has, in a great measure, perished, or, at least, is mixed and infected with many inconveniences. Hence arise strifes, troubles, sorrows, dissensions, and a boundless sea of evils; and hence it follows, that men are often disturbed by their wives, and suffer through them many discouragements. Still, marriage was not capable of being so far vitiated by the depravity of men, that the blessing which God has once sanctioned by his word should be utterly abolished and extinguished. Therefore, amidst many inconveniences of marriage, which are the fruits of degenerate nature, some residue of divine good remains; as in the fire apparently smothered, some sparks still glitter. On this main point hangs another, that women, being instructed in their duty of helping their husbands, should study to keep this divinely appointed order. It is also the part of men to consider what they owe in return to the other half of their kind, for the obligation of both sexes is mutual, and on this condition is the woman assigned as a help to the man, that he may fill the place of her head and leader. One thing more is to be noted, that, when the woman is here called the help of the man, no allusion is made to that necessity to which we are reduced since the fall of Adam; for the woman was ordained to be the man’s helper, even although he had stood in his integrity. But now, since the depravity of appetite also requires a remedy, we have from God a double benefit: but the latter is accidental.
Meet for him (139) In the Hebrew it is כנגדו ( kenegedo,) “as if opposite to,” or “over against him.” כ ( Caph) in that language is a note of similitude. But although some of the Rabbies think it is here put as an affirmative, yet I take it in its general sense, as though it were said that she is a kind of counterpart, ( ἀντίστοικον, or ἀντίστροφον; (140)) for the woman is said to be opposite to or over against the man, because she responds to him. But the particle of similitude seems to me to be added because it is a form of speech taken from common usage. (141) The Greek translators have faithfully rendered the sense, Κατ᾿’ αὐτόν; (142) and Jerome, “Which may be like him,” (143) for Moses intended to note some equality. And hence is refitted the error of some, who think that the woman was formed only for the sake of propagation, and who restrict the word “good,” which had been lately mentioned, to the production of offspring. They do not think that a wife was personally necessary for Adam, because he was hitherto free from lust; as if she had been given to him only for the companion of his chamber, and not rather that she might be the inseparable associate of his life. Wherefore the particle כ ( caph) is of importance, as intimating that marriage extends to all parts and usages of life. The explanation given by others, as if it were said, Let her be ready to obedience, is cold; for Moses intended to express more, as is manifest from what follows.
(136) “ Non est bonum ut sit Adam solus.” This is a variation from Calvin’s text, which has man instead of Adam; as the English version has. The word אדם stands for both. As a proper name, it means Adam; as an appellation, it belongs to the human species; as an adjective, it means red; and, with a slight alteration, it signifies the ground. — Ed
(137) “ Principium ergo generale est, conditum esse hominem ut sit sociale animal.”
(138) “ Putant multi suisrationibus conducere coelibatum.” — “ Plusieurs estiment que le celibat — leur est plus profitable.” — French Tr.
(139) “ Coram ipso,” before him. — “ Pour luy assister,” to help him. — French Tr.
(140) Quod “ex adverso ei” respondet. Lud. de Dieu. His counterpart.
(141) “ Quia sit translatitia loquutio.”
(142) A help according to him. See Septuagint.
(143) “ Adjutorium simile sibi,” a help like himself. — Vulgate. Meet for him. “In whose company he shall take delight; so the Hebrew phrase, as before him, imports, being as much answerable to him, every way fitted for him, not only in likeness of body, but of mind, disposition, and affection, which laid the foundation of perpetual familiarity and friendship.” — Patrick.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
CRITICAL NOTES.
Gen. 2:18. Help meet] Prob. according to his front (Dav.) or corresponding to him (Ges., Frst, Dav.).
Gen. 2:19. To see what He would call them] Or: that he [Adam] might see what he should call them. Either rendering is valid.
Gen. 2:21. Deep sleep] Sept. extasis = trance.
Gen. 2:23. This] An exclamation of joyful satisfaction. Prob. no Eng. trans. can give out the striking threefold repetition of the feminine pronoun zoth: THIS (fem.)NOWis bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: THIS (fem.) shall be called Woman; because out of Man was she takenthis (fem.) Woman] Heb., ishah, fem. of ish. Man] Heb., ish: perh. a prim. word (Ges. Dav.); but more probably = strong (Frst, Dav.):to be distinguished from, dhm (Adam, man) as Lat. vir from homo, and Gr. anr from anthropos. This distinction, with the idioms growing out of it, will be found worth constant attention.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Gen. 2:18-25
THE CREATION OF WOMAN
I. Woman was brought to man in order that she might relieve his solitude by intelligent companionship.And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone. When we thus state that man was lonely we do not mean to imply that the world in which he lived was a desolate waste, but simply that it was destitute of proper companionship for him. The beasts of the field were created, and were divinely presented to Adam that he might recognize them, that he might name them, that they might awaken his intellectual energies, and that their departure might awaken within him the thought of loneliness. But the brutes are not companions for man, they cannot enter into the high enjoyments of his intellectual life, nor can they join him in his devotional moods. He is separated from them by a wide abyss; he is their lord, they are unknowingly his servants. Then if man could not find a companion in the earth beneath, could he not in the heaven above? Was not God his companion and friend. God was his frequent visitant, but nothing more. The finite mind of Adam could not have found the rest it needed in the infinite problem and presence of God. As in the case of the brutes, Adam was too much their superior to find in them companionship. So the Divine Being was too much superior to Adam for the terrestrial companionship he needed. In order to true and happy companionship there must be a fair equality of intellectual power, of moral sympathy, and a real community of daily life, existing between the parties. Hence there was a deep necessity, in order to relieve the loneliness of Adam, that another human being should be created to keep him constant company. Man to-day can have no idea of the loneliness of Adam, as he first stepped out into life. He was the first man. He stood in a great silence. There were none to whom he could express the deep feeling of his heart. Things are altered now. The world is crowded. Instead of solitude, there are crowds. Instead of silence, there is uproar. Instead of loneliness, there are far too many companionships inviting the truant attention of man. And this condition of the world is more adapted to the number and strength of mans mental capacities and moral energies. It is more likely to develop both. It is more conducive to his happiness. It may be likewise more conducive to temptation. Companionship may be a curse, as it often is a blessing.
II. Woman was brought to man that she might be his helpmeet in the struggles of life. I will make him a help-meet for him. Adam needed a help-meet:
1. To develop his intellectual thinkings. When Adam was created he would have but few ideas, which would be very crude, more characterized by wonder than by settled conviction. His mind would need development. Eve would encourage this development; instigated by curiosity, and by a desire to know the meaning of the things around, they would together pursue the study of the material universe. Thus their minds would expand, and with this expansion they would attain mental sympathy, through being unitedly employed in the same research. They would have common themes of thought and conversation. Wives should aid and encourage the mental development of their husbands, together they should inquire into the mysteries of the universe, and they would find glad employment in so doing, healthful exercise as well as definite result.
2. To culture his moral sympathies. Adam was strong in manhood, and it is not often that strength combines pathos. Hence there was need that one of loving heart, and tender disposition should subdue by unspoken influence the lord of creation, and by awakening within his soul feelings of gentleness, should strengthen the sceptre which God had put into his hand. The influence of woman should make men sympathetic, should give them a heart to feel the worlds pain and enable them to manifest to those who need it, a patient love.
3. To aid him in the daily needs of life. Even in Eden man had certain physical wants, and though we never read of Eve as engaged in the very necessary pursuits of ordinary female life, yet no doubt they were not forgotten by her. In harmony with the early times she no doubt provided for the daily wants of her husband. Wives show their true womanhood by so doing. A wife who will neglect the temporal wants of her family and home, is unworthy the name.
4. To join him in his worship of God. We can imagine that the souls of Adam and Eve would be full of devotion and praise. They had been immediately created by God. They were the sole proprietors of the soil. They were to be the progenitors of humanity. Their lives were full of spiritual joy. Their souls were pure. God came to them in glorious vision. Together they would worship him. Let husbands and wives throughout the world join together in their prayers and praises. Thus woman is mans help-meet, to rejoice in his joy, to share his sorrow, to minister to his comfort, and to aid his religious life and worship.
III. Woman was brought to man that she might receive his love, protection, and care. Eve was taken from the side of Adam, that she might be equal with him; from near his heart that she might be loved by him; from under his arm that she might be protected by him. Woman was not intended to be mans slave. In many heathen nations this is the case, but wherever the Bible is taken, it teaches the moral elevation of woman. How intimate is the marriage relationship. The two become one flesh. They forsake all other relationship, comparatively, for the new one assumed. A man never shows more respect for himself than when he manifests love and respect for his wife. It is a great sin to violate this holy relationship, either by brutality or neglect. LESSONS:
1. The Divine compassion for a lonely man.
2. That marriage is to furnish man with true companionship of soul.
3. That marriage is to aid man in all the exigencies of life.
SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON THE VERSES
Gen. 2:18. This complete loneliness, marking an imperfect life, was thoroughly unique. Whatever exileship or bereavement may effect, whatever selfishness, or misanthropy, or great grief for the dead may make you feel for the time, you can never have reproduced in you Adams loneliness. The world around teems with human life that wants your blessing; and there are in the biographies of men, in your memories of the departed, in the presence still on earth of the good and the noble, helpers to the heart and mind such as Adam could not know in his solitude. Even the last man will have interwoven with his very being memories of human companions, and have upon him uneffaceable impressions of them such as were impossible to the first man [Homilist].
The creation of woman:
1. The occasion.
2. The resolution.
3. The preparation.
4. The presentation.
Loneliness is not good:
1. For intellectual development.
2. For moral culture.
3. For true enjoyment.
4. A rebuke to monks.
Loneliness not good:
1. For mans comfort.
2. For mans employment.
3. For posterity.
The woman a help:
1. For assistance in family government.
2. For the comfort of society.
3. For the continuance of the race.
God knows all the wants of man and graciously makes arrangements to supply them:
1. The sabbath for rest.
2. The garden for pleasure and work.
3. The wife for companionship.
A wife is not good, till it be not good to be without a wife.
A man may, and it is Gods will that he should, be the better for his wife:
1. She builds up the House (Pro. 14:1).
2. She profits him in his estate (Pro. 31:12).
3. She easeth him of his cares in looking to the ways of her family (Pro. 31:27).
4. She adviseth him by her counsels (Gen. 21:10).
5. She comforts him in his sorrows.
6. She helps to foresee and prevent danger (1Sa. 25:18; 1Sa. 25:33).
7. She furthers him in piety, by seasonable encouragements, reverent admonitions, and by joining with him in holy prayers.
Only the wife brought by God is likely to be good.
A wife the helper of her husband:
1. Not his guide.
2. Not his ruler.
3. Not his slave.
4. But his counsellor.
A wife cannot be a good wife unless she be a meet and fit wife:
1. In parentage.
2. In estate.
3. In education.
4. In disposition.
5. In religion.
Jehovah Elohim, mans Creator, knows what in every kind is good for man.
The judgment of the great God is, that it is in no way good for man, in respect of natural, civil, or spiritual relations, to abide alone.
Man was not made for a solitary, but for a sociable life, and to commune with God.
God in goodness makes that good for man which he stands in need of.
The woman is Gods workmanship as well as the man.
The woman created last:
1. The ground of her inferiority.
2. The reason of her subjection.
3. Her plea for protection.
The woman a help to man:
1. God given.
2. Ready.
3. Willing.
4. Welcome.
Gen. 2:19. If man had been formed out of the ground, the ground could not give him a companion.
God brought the beasts to Adam before he created Eve, in order that the unserviceableness of other things should enhance the worth of the truly good.
God can order the creature to do what he wishes:
1. The ravens to feed Elijah.
2. The she bears to destroy the scoffing children.
3. The lion to meet the prophet.
4. The sparrows. God is pleased to honour man so far, to employ them in many things which of right belong unto Himself:
1. To encourage men to His service.
2. To unite men in love.
3. To increase their reward and talents.
Jehovah is maker, and will have Adam be the namer of all the creatures in the earth:
1. A token of sovereignty.
2. A token of ownership.
3. A token of power.
To see what he would call them. If he had been permitted to name himself, it should have been, probably, the Son of God, as he is called by St. Luke (Chapter Luk. 3:38) in regard of his creation. But God, to humble him, calls him first, Adam, and after the fall, Enosh, that is, frail, sorry man. [Trapp.]
Gen. 2:20. As the beasts were no companion for man, we observe that no creature ought to be applied to any other use than God at first designed for it:
1. God hath made all his works in Wisdom
2. That Gods sovereignty may be acknowledged.
3. That confusion may be avoided.
Brutes no companions for man:
1. They have not common speech.
2. They have not common employments.
3. Their lives are not guided by common rules.
4. They do not live for common ends.
Gen. 2:21. A deep sleep to fall upon Adam. Whether it was a sleep or a trance cannot be gathered from the text. It was such a sleep, questionless, that took from Adam the power of observation till the work was ended. Some conceive that he was cast into this sleep:
1. To take from him the sense of pain, which the taking out of his rib would involve.
2. That the work might be wholly of God.
3. That the Divine Providence might be the more apparent in providing a helpmeet for him when he was asleep.
4. To hide the operation from man.
The rib was probably taken for its situation in the body:
1. Not from the head or foot, to manifest that the place of the wife was to be neither above nor far below her husband.
2. That it was taken from a place near the heart, to indicate the true affection with which man must regard his wife.
3. Because this part of the body is covered with the arms, it denotes the protection the wife should receive. Perhaps the rib was taken because it could be the best spared from the body of man without deforming it. The bone was also taken, not so much to indicate the moral stiffness of woman as her firmness in help and need.
God does not shew men how He works, He only manifests the product of his toil.
God takes care of us, and provides for our good even while we are asleep.
God takes nothing from us but He takes care to recompense it to us again.
He that marrieth in the Lord, marrieth also with the Lord; and he cannot be absent from his own marriage. A good wife was one of the first real and royal gifts bestowed upon Adam; and God consults not with him to make him happy. As he was ignorant while himself was made, so shall he not know while a second self is made out of him; both that the comfort might be greater than was expected, as also that he might not upbraid his wife with any great dependence or obligation; he neither willing the work, nor suffering any pain to have it done. The rib cannot challenge no more of her than the earth can of him [Trapp].
The woman was only made of one bone lest she should be stiff and stubborn [B. King].
Gen. 2:22. Mans first sight of woman:
1. One of admiration.
2. One of gratitude.
3. One of love.
God hath allowed but one wife to one man.
Every child of God must desire to receive his wife from Gods hand:
1. That God, who looks at the heart, is only able rightly to direct their choice.
2. It implies an obligation to make a right use of marriage.
3. It sweetens all the crosses of life.
Gen. 2:23. True marriage:
1. Of Gods making.
2. Of womans consenting.
3. Of mans reception.
Man and wife are one flesh and bone.
The womans flesh was from man, not her soul.
Marriage is an emblem of spiritual union between Christ and his church.
Marriage is of Gods institution.
The happiest marriage is between souls stamped with Gods image.
Gen. 2:24. God hath not only instituted marriage, but given law also to rule it.
The union between parents and children is less than between man and wife, and therefore must give place.
Gods law warrants the childrens desertion of their fathers to contract marriage in a lawful way. No honour due is to be denied to parents.
Cleaving in mutual love to each other is the great conjugal law:
1. Such cleaving must be sincere.
2. Such cleaving must be reciprocal.
3. Such cleaving must be without end.
ILLUSTRATIONS
BY THE
REV. WM. ADAMSON
Helpmeet! Gen. 2:18. For Adam was not found an helpmeet. This was an anomalous position. All the beings with whom hitherto he had come in contact were either above him or below him. No one was his equalhe was alone. Around him were innumerable servants; but the wide circle of his empire did not contain one with whom he could reciprocate affectionwith whom he could in all points sympathise. To supply this blank a new creation had to take placea fairer form was to enrich the earth than any which it yet contained.
For theres that sweetness in a female mind,
Which in a man, we cannot hope to find.Pomfret.
Home Duties! Gen. 2:18. The duties of domestic lifeexercised as they must be in retirement, and calling forth all the sensibilities of the femaleare perhaps as necessary to the full development of her charms as the shades and shadows are to the rose; confirming its beauty, and increasing its fragrance:
For nothing lovelier can be found
In woman, than to study household good,
And good works in her husband to promote.Milton.
Feminine Solace! Gen. 2:18. Washington Irving likens such a woman to the vine. As the vine, which has long twined its graceful foliage about the oak, and been lifted by it in sunshine, will, when the hardy plant is rifted by the thunderbolt, cling round it with its caressing tendrils, and bind up its shattered boughs; so it is beautifully ordered by Providence that woman should be mans stay and solace when smitten with sudden calamitybinding up the broken heart.
Tis womans to bind up the broken heart,
And soften the bending spirits smart;
And to light in this world of sin and pain,
The lamp of love, and of joy again.Anon.
Wife-help! Gen. 2:19. Guelph, the Duke of Bavaria, was besieged in his castle, and compelled to capitulate to the Emperor Conrad. His lady demanded for herself and the other ladies safe conduct to a place of safety, with whatever they could carry. This was granted; and to the astonishment of all, the ladies appeared, carrying their husbands on their backs. Thus wives aided their husbands: and never in the gayest moods in tournament or court did those fair dames look more lovely.
Tis beauty that doth oft make women proud;
Tis virtue that doth make them most admired.Shakespeare.
Woman! Gen. 2:19. Hargrave says that women are the poetry of the world in the same sense as the stars are the poetry of heaven. Clear, light-giving harmonies, women are the terrestrial planets that rule the destinies of mankind.
Ye are stars of the night, ye are gems of the morn,
Ye are dewdrops, whose lustrue illumines the thorn.Moore.
Adams Sleep! Gen. 2:21. When we look at Adam cast into a deep sleep, we take courage in the prospect of that change which all of us must undergo; for is not the first mans trance or slumber an emblem of death? And may not God enable the believer to yield up his spirit at last, as easily as Adam did his rib? It was Jehovah who cast him into a deep sleep, and it is Jehovah Jesus who leads the saint down into the valley of the shadow of death for a little while. Of Stephen we read that he fell asleep. The execrations of his enemies were yet ringing in his ears, when God caused a deep and tranquil repose to fall upon him.
Softly within that resting-place
We lay their wearied limbs, and bid the clay
Press lightly on them till the night be past,
And the far east give note of coming DAY.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
(18) It is not good . . . In these words we have the Divine appointment of marriage, and also the declaration that the female is subsequent in order of production to the male, and formed from him. In Gen. 1:27; Gen. 5:2, the creation of male and female is represented as having been simultaneous. She is described as a help meet for him: Heb., a help as his front, his reflected image, or, as the Syriac translates it, a helper similar to him. The happiness of marriage is based, not upon the woman being just the same thing as the man, but upon her being one in whom he sees his image and counterpart.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
18. Not good that the man should be alone He was designed to be a social being, capable of holding intercourse with other beings like himself, as well as with God and angels .
Help meet Hebrews, I will make for him a helper as over against him, , corresponding to him that is, a suitable companion; one who can assist him in his labours, share his counsels, and reciprocate his feelings .
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone. I will make him a helper who is suitable for him (literally ‘as in front of him’)”. And out of the ground the Lord God formed (or had formed) every beast of the field, and every bird of the air, 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 cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field, but for the man was not found a helper who was suitable for him.’
The context now brings out that all God’s intentions towards the man are good. First we note God’s concern that the man should not be alone, and not only so, but that he should be fully provided for with someone suitable for him and worthy of him i.e. on a level with him. Then we are informed that God, Who had formed the living creatures out of the ground, now brought them to the man so the man could name them. Notice that the domestic animals, the cattle, are not said to have been brought. They are already there. This confirms that we are to see ‘formed’ as pluperfect, and only mentioned as secondary in connection with the bringing (as otherwise the ‘forming’ of the domestic animals would have been mentioned as well).
But we notice here immediately what is not said. It is not said that the animals are brought to find out if they are suitable. Indeed it is impossible to conceive that the writer suggests that God keeps trying to achieve a suitable companion and failing. He has far to high a view of God. The idea is rather that the animals are ‘brought’ to be named and that, in the course of that, their unsuitability is incidentally emphasised. (Note the indirect form of ‘there was not found a suitable helper’).
By naming the living creatures the man is shown to have rule over them. At the same time he is entering into some kind of relationship with them so that they would provide him with some kind of companionship. But, of course, none was suitable to be his life companion, as everyone had known would be the case from the start. It was not expected that a suitable helpmeet would be found, for this is just the writer’s way of emphasising the fact that the animals with which the man came in contact were not in fact suitable as complete companions. We note that the creeping things are not included. They would not be subject to man’s dominion.
We are not necessarily to see in this that the man stood there while God literally brought the animals to him. This could have occurred through the course of many days in the pursuit of his activities, with God causing him to come in contact with the animals one by one. The writer’s style is simple and homely which would appeal to his readers. The verbs in this verse are all in the ‘imperfect’ signifying incomplete action and suggesting this occurred over time.
Note that while the verbs in this verse are ‘imperfect’ following a waw consecutive, which some scholars have tried to suggest can only be rendered in the pluperfect when connected with a pluperfect, there are other examples where this construction is clearly used in a pluperfect sense. The waw consecutive can refer backwards as well as forwards when this is clear from the context. Thus in the light of the context of Genesis 1 we must see ‘formed’ as referring backwards to when they were made before man. The verse does not say here when the animals were formed, only that they were at some stage formed preparatory to bringing them to man. The emphasis here is on the bringing, the making is just background to stress that they were also made by God. Hebrew verbs are not necessarily chronological. (Note again that no mention is made of the ‘forming’ of the domestic animals, it is the bringing and naming that is primary).
“Was not found.” – ‘matsa’. Note that there is no subject. It is therefore indefinite – ‘there was not found’. It is not God who was looking for the suitable companion.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Lack of Companionship for Man
v. 18. And the Lord God said, It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. v. 19. And out of the ground the Lord formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them; and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
v. 20. And Adam gave names to all cattle and to the fowl of the air and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
Gen 2:18
In anticipation of the ensuing narrative of the temptation and the fall, the historian, having depicted man’s settlement in Eden, advances to complete his dramatis personae by the introduction upon the scene of the animals and woman. In the preliminary creation record (Gen 1:7-27) it is simply stated that God created man, male and female; there is a complete absence of details as to the Divine modus operandi in the execution of these, his last and greatest works. It is one object, among others, of the second portion of the history to supply those details. With regard to man (Adam), an account of his formation, at once minute and exhaustive, has been given in the preceding verses (Gen 2:7-17); now, with like attention to antecedent and concomitant circumstances and events, the sacred penman adds a description of the time, reason, manner, and result of the formation of woman. And the Lord God said, It is not good for man to be alone. While the animals were produced either in swarms (as the fishes) or in pairs (as the birds and beasts), man was created as an individual; his partner, by a subsequent operation of creative power, being produced from himself. With the wild phantasies and gross speculations of some theosophists, as to whether, prior to the creation of Eve, Adam was androgynic (Bohme), or simply vir in potentia, out of which state he passed the moment the woman stood by his side (Ziegler), a devout exegesis is not required to intermeddle. Neither is it needful to wonder how God should pronounce that to be not good which he had previously (Gen 1:31) affirmed was good. The Divine judgment of which the preceding chapter speaks was expressed at the completion of man’s creation; this, while that creation was in progress. For the new-made man to have been left without a partner would, in the estimation of Jehovah Elohim, have been for him a condition of being which, if not necessarily bad in itself, yet, considering his intellectual and social nature, “would eventually have passed over from the negative not good, or a manifest want, into the positive not good, or a hurtful impropriety”‘ (Lange). “It was not good for man to be alone; not, as certain foolish Rabbis conceited, lest he should imagine himself to be the lord of the world, or as though no man could live without a woman, which is contrary to Scripture; but in respect of
(1) mutual society and comfort,
(2) the propagation of the race,
(3) the increase and generation of the Church of God, and
(4) the promised seed of the woman (Willet).
Accordingly, Jehovah Elohim, for whom (seeing that his nature is to dispense happiness to his creatures) no more than for Adam would it have been good that man, being what he was, should remain alone, said, I will provide a help meet for him; literally, an helper, as over against him, i.e. corresponding to him, ; Gen 2:20, , LXX. The expression indicates that the forthcoming helper was to be of similar nature to the man himself, corresponding by way of supplement to the incompleteness of his lonely being, and in every way adapted to be his co-partner and companion. All that Adam’s nature demanded for its completion, physically, intellectually, socially, was to be included in this altera ego who was soon to stand by his side. Thus in man’s need, and woman’s power to satisfy that need, is laid the foundation for the Divine institution of marriage, which was afterwards prescribed not for the first pair alone, but for all their posterity.
Gen 2:19
And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air. To allege that the Creator’s purpose to provide a helpmeet for Adam seeks realization through the production of the animals (Kalisch, Alford) proceeds upon a misapprehension of the proper nexus which binds the thoughts of the historian, and a want of attention to the peculiar structure of Hebrew composition, besides exhibiting Jehovah Elohim in the character of an empiric who only tentatively discovers the sort of partner that is suitable for man. It is not the time, but simply the fact, of the creation of the animals that the historian records. The Vav. consec. does not necessarily involve time-succession, but is frequently employed to indicate thought-sequence (cf. Gen 2:8; 1Ki 2:13, &c.). The verb (pret.) may also quite legitimately be rendered “had formed (Bush). “Our modern style of expressing the Semitic writer’s thought would be this’And God brought to Adam the beasts which he had formed (Delitzsch). It is thus unnecessary to defend the record from a charge of inconsistency with the previous section, by supposing this to be the account of a second creation of animals in the district of Eden. Another so-called contradiction, that the present narrative takes no account of the creation of aquatic animals, is disposed of by observing that the writer only notices that those animals which were brought to Adam had been previously formed by God from the ground, and were thus in the line of the onward evolutions of the heavens and the earth which led up to mare As to why the fishes were not brought into the garden, if other reason is required besides that of physical impossibility, the ingenuity of Keil suggests that these were not so nearly related to Adam as the fowls and the beasts, which, besides, were the animals specially ordained for his service. And brought them (literally, brought; not necessarily all the animals in Eden, but specimens of them) unto Adam. We agree with Willet in believing that “neither did Adam gather together the cattle as a shepherd doth his sheep, nor did the angels muster them, nor the animals come themselves, and, passing by, while he sat on some elevation, bow their heads at his resplendent appearance; nor were Adam’s eyes so illuminate that he beheld them all in their placesall which,” says he, “are but men’s conceits; but that through the secret influence of God upon their natures they were assembled round the inmate of paradise, as afterwards they were collected in the ark. The reasons for this particular action on the part of God were manifold; one of them being stated in the words which followto see what he would call them; literally, to them. Already man had received from God his first lesson in the exercise of speech, in the naming of the trees and the imposition of the prohibition. This was his secondthe opportunity afforded him of using for himself that gift of language and reason with which he had been endowed. In this it is implied that man was created with the faculty of speech, the distinct gift of articulate and rational utterance, and the capacity of attaching words to ideas, though it also seems to infer that the evolution of a language was for him, as it is for the individual yet, a matter of gradual development. Another reason was to manifest his sovereignty or lordship over the inferior creation. And whatsoever Adam (literally, the man) called every living creature (i.e. that was brought to him), that was the name thereof. That is to say, it not only met the Divine approbation as exactly suitable to the nature of the creature, and thus was a striking attestation of the intelligence and wisdom of the first man, but it likewise adhered to the creature as a name which had been assigned by its master.
Gen 2:20
And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field. The portrait here delineated of the first man is something widely different from that of an infantile savage slowly groping his way towards the possession of articulate speech and intelligible language by imitation of the sounds of animals. Speech and language both spring full-formed, though not completely matured, from the primus homo of the Bible. As to the names that Adam gave the animals, with Calvin we need not doubt that they were founded on the best of reasons, though what they were it is impossible to discover, as it is not absolutely certain that Adam spoke in Hebrew. But for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. This was the chief reason for assembling the creatures. It was meant to reveal his loneliness. The longing for a partner was already deeply seated in his nature, and the survey of the animals, coming to him probably in pairs, could not fail to intensify that secret hunger of his soul, and perhaps evoke it into conscious operation.
Gen 2:21
And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept. This was clearly not a sleep of weariness or fatigue, in consequence of arduous labors undergone, but a supernatural slumber, which, however, may have been superinduced upon the natural condition of repose. Lightfoot, following the LXX. who translate tardemah (deep sleep) by ecstasy, , imagines that the whole scene of Eve’s creation was presented to Adam’s imagination in a Divinely-inspired dream, which has at least the countenance of Job 4:13 Such a supposition, however, is not required to account for Adam’s recognition of his bride. There is more of aptness in the observation of Lange, that in the deep sleep of Adam we have an echo of the area-tire evenings that preceded the Divine activity. “Everything out of which some new thing is to come sinks down before the event into such a deep sleep, is the farseeing and comprehensive remark of Ziegler. And he took one of his ribs (tsela = something bent, from tesala, to incline; hence a rib), and closed up the flesh (literally, flesh) instead thereof. Whether Adam was created with a superfluous rib, or his body was mutilated by the abstraction of a rib, is a question for the curious. In the first, Calvin finds nothing “which is not in accordance with Divine providence,” while he favors the latter conjecture, and thinks that Adam got a rich compensation”quum se integrum vidit in uxore, qui prius tantum dimidius erat.” Luther inclines to think that Adam’s language in verse 23 implies that not the bare rib, but the rib with the accompanying flesh, was extracted.
Gen 2:22
And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he (literally, builded into; aedificavit, Vulgate; , LXX.) a woman. The peculiar phraseology employed to describe the formation of Adam’s partner has been understood as referring to the physical configuration of woman’s body, which is broadest towards the middle (Lyra); to the incompleteness of Adam’s being, which was like an unfinished building until Eve was formed (Calvin); to the part of the female in building up the family (Delitzsch, Macdonald), to the building up of the Church, of which she was designed to be a type (Bonar);yet it may be doubted if there is not as much truth in the remark that “by the many words used in the generation of mankind, as creating (Gen 1:27), making (Gen 1:26), forming and inspiring (Gen 2:7), and now building, Moses would set forth this wondrous workmanship for which the Psalmist so laudeth God,” Psa 139:14 (Ainsworth). And brought her unto the man. I.e. led, conducted, and presented her to Adam. “The word implies the solemn bestowment of her in the bonds of the marriage covenant, which is hence called the covenant of God (Pro 2:17); implying that he is the Author of this sacred institution” (Bush). On awaking from his slumber Adam at once recognized the Divine intention, and joyfully welcomed his bride.
Gen 2:23
And Adam said. Either as being possessed, while in a sinless state, of a power of intuitive perception which has been lost through the fall, or as speaking under Divine inspiration (vide Mat 19:4-6). This now. Literally, this tread, step, or stroke, meaning either this time, looking back to the previous review of the animal creation, as if he wished to say, At last one has come who is suitable to be my partner (Calvin); or, less probably, looking forward to the ordinary mode of woman’s production, this time she is supernaturally formed (Bush). “The thrice repeated this is characteristic. It vividly points to the woman on whom, in joyful astonishment, the man’s eye now rests with the full power of first love” (Delitzsch). Instinctively he recognizes her relation to himself. Bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh. The language is expressive at once of woman’s derivation from man ( , 1Co 11:8, 1Co 11:12) and likeness to man. The first of these implies her subordination or subjection to man, or man’s headship over woman (1Co 11:3), which Adam immediately proceeds to assert by assigning to her a name; the second is embodied in the name which she receives. She (literally, to this) shall be called Woman (isha, i.e. maness, from ish, man. Cf. Greek, (Symmachus), from ; Latin, virago, virae (old Latin), from vir; English, woman (womb-man, Anglo-Saxon), from man; German, manninn, from mann; Sanscrit, hart, from nara; Ethiopic, beesith, from beesi), because she (this) was taken from Man. Ish, the name given by Adam to himself in contradistinction to his spouse, is interpreted as significant of man’s authority (Gesenius), or of his social nature (Meier); but its exact etymology is involved in obscurity. Its relation to Adham is the same as that of vir to homo and to .
Gen 2:24
Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife. There is nothing in the use of such terms as father and mother, or in the fact that the sentiment is prophetic, to prevent the words from being regarded as a continuation of Adam’s speech, although, on the other hand, the statement of Christ (Mat 19:5) does not preclude the possibility of Moses being their author; but whether uttered by the first husband (Delitzsch, Macdonald) or by the historian (Calvin, Murphy), they must be viewed as an inspired declaration of the law of marriage. Its basis (fundamental reason and predisposing cause) they affirm to be
(1) the original relationship of man and woman, on the platform of creation; and
(2) the marriage union effected between the first pair.
Its nature they explain to be
(1) a forsaking (on the part of the woman as well as the man) of father and mothernot filially, in respect of duty, but locally, in respect of habitation, and comparatively, in respect of affection; and
(2) a cleaving unto his wife, in a conjugium corporis atque animce. Its result is stated in the words which follow: and they shall be one flesh (literally, into one flesh; , Mat 19:5, LXX.). The language points to a unity of persons, and not simply to a conjunction of bodies, or a community of interests, or even a reciprocity of affections. Malachi (Gen 2:15) and Christ (Mat 19:5) explain this verse as teaching the indissoluble character of marriage and condemning the practice of polygamy.
Gen 2:25
And they were both naked. Not partially (Pye Smith), but completely destitute of clothing. Diodorus Siculus and Plato both mention nakedness as a feature of the golden age and a characteristic of the first men (vide Rosenmller, Scholia in love), The man and his wife. The first pair of human beings are henceforth recognized in their relationship to one another as husband and wife. And they were not ashamed. Not because they were wholly uncultivated and their moral insight undeveloped (Knobel, Kalisch); but because their souls were arrayed in purity, and “their bodies were made holy through the spirit which animated them” (Keil). “They were naked, but yet they were not so. Their bodies were the clothing of their internal glory; and their internal glory was the clothing of their nakedness” (Delitzsch). It is not surprising that the primeval history of mankind should have left its impress upon the current of tradition. The Assyrian tablets that relate to man are so fragmentary and mutilated that they can scarcely be rendered intelligible. So far as they have been deciphered, the first appears on its obverse side “to give the speech of the Deity to the newly-created pair (man and woman), instructing them in their duties,” in which can be detected a reference’ to something which is eaten by the stomach, to the duty of daily invocation of the Deity, to the danger of leaving God’s fear, in which alone they can be holy, and to the propriety of trusting only a friend; and on its reverse what resembles a discourse to the first woman on her duties, in which occur the words, “With the lord of thy beauty thou shalt be faithful: to do evil thou shalt not approach him”. The Persian legend describes Meschia and Meschiane, the first parents of our race, as living in purity and innocence, and in the enjoyment of happiness which Ormuzd promised to render perpetual if they persevered in virtue. But Ahriman, an evil demon (Dev), suddenly appeared in the form of a serpent, and gave them of the fruit of a wonderful tree. The literature of the Hin-does distinguishes four ages of the world, in the first of which Justice, in the form of a bull, kept herself firm on her four feet; when Virtue reigned, no good which the mortals possessed was mixed with baseness, and man, free from disease, saw all his wishes accomplished, and attained an age of 400 years. The Chinese also have their age of happy men, living in abundance of food, and surrounded by the peaceful beasts. In the Zendavesta, Yima, the first Iranic king, lives in a secluded spot, where he and his people enjoy uninterrupted happiness, in a region free from sin, folly, violence, poverty, deformity. The Teutonic Eddas have a glimpse of the same truth in their magnificent drinking halls, glittering with burnished gold, where the primeval race enjoyed a life of perpetual festivity. Traces of a similar belief are found among the Thibetans, Mongolians, Cingalese, and others. The Western traditions are familiar to scholars in the pages of Hesiod, who speaks of the golden age when men were like the gods, free from labors, troubles, cares, and all evils in general; when the earth yielded her fruits spontaneously, and when men were beloved by the gods, with whom they held uninterrupted communion (Hesiod, ‘Opera et Dies,’ 90). And of Ovid, who adds to this picture the element of moral goodness as a characteristic of the aurea aetas (‘Metam.,’ 1.89). Macrobius (‘Somn. Scipionis,’ 2.10) also depicts this period as one in which reigned simplicitas mali nescia et adhuc astutiae inexperta. “These coincidences affect the originality of the Hebrew writings as little as the frequent resemblance of Mosaic and heathen laws. They teach us that all such narratives have a common source; that they are reminiscences of primeval traditions modified by the different nations in accordance with their individual culture” (Kalisch)
HOMILETICS
Gen 2:22
The first marriage.
I. THE LONELY MAN.
1. Nobly born. Sprung from the soil, yet descended from above. Fashioned of the dust, yet inspired by a celestial breath. Allied to the beasts, yet the offspring of God.
2. Comfortably placed. His native country a sunny region of delights (Eden, Gen 2:8); his home a beautiful and fertile garden (Gen 3:5); his supplies of the amplest possible description (Gen 1:30; Gen 2:16); his occupation light and pleasant (Gen 2:15); his restrictions slight and trivial (Gen 2:17); his privileges large (Gen 2:16).
3. Richly endowed. With immortality (Gen 2:17), intelligence (Gen 2:19), social capacities and instincts (Gen 2:18), the faculty of speech (Gen 2:20).
4. Highly exalted. As God’s offspring, he was invested with world-dominion (Gen 1:28; Psa 8:6), symbolized in his naming of the creatures (Gen 2:20). Yet
5. Essentially alone. Not as entirely bereft of companionship, having on the one hand the society of Jehovah Elohim, and on the other the presence of the animals; but in neither the Creator nor the creatures could he find his other selfhis counterpart and complement, his consort and companion. On the one hand Jehovah Elohim was too high, while on the other the creatures were too low, for such partnership as Adam’s nature craved. And so Adam dwelt in solitude apart from both. “But for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.”
II. THE PROVIDED PARTNER.
1. Divinely fashioned (Gen 2:22).
(1) Woman was the last of God’s creative works; presumably, therefore, she was the best. “Eve’s being made after Adam puts an honor upon that sex as the glory of the man (1Co 11:7). If man is the head, she is the crowna crown to her husband, the crown of the visible creation” (M. Henry).
(2) Woman was not made till everything was in the highest state of readiness for her reception. Before her creation, not only must there be a home for her reception, provision for her maintenance, and servants to attend upon her bidding; there must likewise be a husband that feels the need of her sweet society, that longs for her coming, and that can appreciate her worth. Hence he who seeks a partner should first find a house in which to lodge her, the means to support her, but specially the love wherewith to cherish her.
(3) Woman was formed out of finer and more precious material than man, being constructed of a rib taken from his side. “The man was dust refined, but the woman was dust double refined, one remove further from the earth” (M. Henry). This was not because of any supposed excellence residing in the matter of a human body. It was designed to indicate woman’s unity with man as part of himself, and woman’s claim upon man for affection and protection. She was made of a rib taken from his side”not made out of his head, to rule over him; nor out of his feet, to be trampled on 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” (Henry).
(4) Woman was constructed with the greatest possible care. The entire operation was carried through, not only under God’s immediate superintendence, but exclusively by God’s own hand. Adam neither saw, knew, nor took part in the work. God cast him into a deep sleep, “that no room might be left to imagine that he had herein directed the Spirit of the Lord, or been his counselor” (Henry). Then by God’s own hand Adam’s side was opened, a rib extracted, the flesh closed in its stead, and finally, the rib thus removed from Adam’s side
“Under his forming hands a creature grew,
Man like, but different sex; so lovely fair,
That what seemed fair in all the world, seemed now
Mean, or in her summed up, in her contained,
And in her looks; .
Grace was in all her steps, heaven in her eye,
In every gesture dignity and love”
(Milton, ‘Par. Lost,’ Bin 8:469).
2. Divinely presented (Gen 2:22). “The Lord brought her unto the man.” “Wherein we have exemplified the three great causes of marriage.
(1) The father’s consent, in God’s giving.
(2) The woman’s consent, in Eve’s coming. This was no forced marriage; the woman comes freely.
(3) The man’s consent, in Adam’s receiving. ‘And Adam said, This is at last bone of my bone (Hughes). And without these human marriages are sinfully contracted. Love for the bride is one of the signs which God vouchsafes of his approval of a marriage; the bride’s affection for the bridegroom is another; while a third is the approbation and the blessing of the parents of both.
III. THE WEDDED PAIR.
1. Married by God. “God is the best maker of marriages” (Shakespeare). Nay, unless God unites there is no real marriage, but only an unhallowed connection, legitimized by man’s laws, it may be, but not sanctioned by God’s. As this wedding was of God’s arranging, so likewise was it of his celebrating. What celestial benedictions were outbreathed upon the young and innocent pair, as they stood there before their Maker, radiant in beauty, tremulous with joy, full of adoration, we are left to imagine. Happy they whose nuptials are first sanctioned and then celebrated by the living God!
2. United in love. This first marriage was certainly something more than a social or a civil contract; something other than a union of convenience or a diplomatic alliance; something vastly different from a legalized coenobium. It was the realization of what our Laureate pictures as the ideal marriage:
“Each fulfils
Defect in each, and always thought in thought,
Purpose in purpose, will in will, they grow,
The single, pure, and perfect animal;
The two-cell d heart beating, with one full stroke,
Life”
(‘Princess,’ 7.).
3. Clothed in innocence. Never had bridal pair so beautiful and radiant apparel. The unclothed bodies of our first parents we can imagine were enswathed in ethereal and transfiguring light; in their case the outshining of their holy souls, which, as yet, were the undimmed and unmarred image of their Maker, capable of receiving and reflecting his glory. Alas, never bridal pair has stood in robes so fair! The beauty of holiness, the luster of innocence, the radiance of purity have departed from the souls of men. Never till we stand in the celestial Eden, where they neither marry nor are given in marriage, will garments of such incomparable splendor be ours. Meantime, let us thank God there is a spotless raiment in which our guilty souls may be arrayed, and in which it were well that every bridal pair were decked. Happy they who, when they enter into married life, can say, “I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with jewels.”
4. Housed in paradise. United by the hand of God, they began their married life in Eden.
“And there these twain upon the skirts of time
Sat side by side, full summ’d in all their powers,
Dispensing harvest, sowing the to-be.
Self-reverent each, and reverencing each;
Distinct in individualities,
But like each other, ev’n as those who love”
(Tennyson’s ‘Princess,’ 7.).
And so may any wedded pair be housed in Eden who, putting on the Lord Jesus Christ, fill their home, however humble, with the light of love.
HOMILIES BY R.A. REDFORD
Gen 2:18-25
The true life of man.
The commencement of human society. First we see man surrounded by cattle, fowl, and beast of the field, which were brought to him by God as to their lord and ruler, that he might name them as from himself. “What he called every living creature was the name thereof.” Nothing could better represent the organization of the earthly life upon the basis of man’s supremacy. But there is no helpmeet for man (“as before him,” the reflection of himself) in all the lower creation.
I. HUMAN SOCIETY MUST SPRING OUT OF SOMETHING HIGHER THAN ANIMAL LIFE AND MAN‘S MERE EARTHLY POSITION. The deep sleep, the Divine manipulation of maws fleshly frame, the formation of the new creature, not out of the ground, but out of man, the exclamation of Adam, This is another self, my bone and my flesh, therefore she shall be called woman, because so closely akin to manall this, whatever physical interpretation we give to it, represents the fact that companionship, family life, mail’s intercourse with his fellow, all the relations which spring from the fleshly unity of the race, are of the most sacred character. As they are from God, and specially of God’s appointment, so they should be for God.
II. There, in home life, torn off, as it were, from the larger sphere, that it may be THE NEW BEGINNING OF THE NEW WORLD TO US, should be the special recognition of God, the family altar, the house of man a house of God.
III. The Divine beginning of human life is the foundation on which we build up society. THE RELATIONS OF THE SEXES WILL BE PUREST AND NOBLEST the more the heart of man unfolds itself in the element of the heavenly love.R.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Gen 2:18. It is not good, &c. Though man was possessed of all the bliss of Paradise, one thing was still wanting to his felicity. He was alone; nor amidst the various orders of creatures could find any like unto himself. Angels were rational spirits, but incorporeal; beasts corporeal, but irrational. God saw and pitied him. With the affection of a kind Father, unsolicited he consulted his necessities, and resolves to supply him with a help-meet of his own species. In the Hebrew it is, ezer kenegdo, a help or aid, as his co-relative or correspondent to him.
Learn here, 1. Solitude is not suited for man. In his state of innocence society was needful. 2. Celibacy was never an ordinance of God: he who made man, knew what was best for him. 3. In the choice of a wife, a help-meet is to be sought: a companion, a friend, whose presence at home may be to us more than all the world beside. The reason why so many are miserable in the marriage state, is, that they have married the face or the portion instead of the woman.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
1Ti 2:13 ; Eph 5:31-32 . As the apostle speaks of this as a figure, and we know that Adam was a figure of Him that was to come; doth it not suggest to us, that as the woman was formed out of the side of the man, when fallen into a deep sleep; so the church of the Lord Jesus was redeemed and issued from his pierced side, when, in the debased state of the sleep of death; he, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, was taken, and by wicked hands, crucified and slain.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Ver. 18. And the Lord God said. ] Had said; to wit, on the sixth day when he made man, and there was not a meet help found for him. Then God said, “It is not good,” &c., and so created the woman by deliberate counsel, as before he had done the man. Only there it was in the plural, “Let us make,” here, “I will make”; to show the unity of the essence of the Trinity of persons.
It is not good for man to be alone.
I will make him a help meet for him.
a – Athenis in nuptiis dici solitun. Zenod. Proverb.
b – Naz. in Pat. Epitaph.
c Non tractat negligentius libros meos quam liberos. – Daniel’s Chron. fol. 262.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Gen 2:18-25
18Then the LORD God said, It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him. 19Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. 20The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. 21So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.
23The man said,
This is now bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.
24For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.
Gen 2:18 It is not good for the man to be alone This is the only place in these opening chapters of the OT where not good is used. God has made us to need someone, even beyond fellowship with Him! Man could not fulfill his role to rule over creation without the companionship of woman, nor could he fulfill the command to multiply and fill the earth.
NASB a helper suitable for him
NKJV a helper comparable to him
NRSV a helper as his partner
TEV a suitable companion to help him
NJB a helper
This means one who complements or completes (BDB 740 I, KB 811 I). The NET Bible has indispensable companion (p. 8). This term is often used to describe God’s help (cf. Exo 18:4; Deu 33:4; Deu 33:7; Deu 33:29; Psa 33:20; Psa 115:9-11; Psa 121:2; Psa 124:8; Psa 146:5). Notice the mutuality between male and female as in Gen 1:26-27 and the PLURAL IMPERATIVES of Gen 1:28. Submission does not come until after the Fall (cf. Gen 3:16). This specific account of the creation of woman is unique in ancient Near Eastern literature.
An interesting word study is found in Hard Sayings of the Bible, pp. 92-94, where Walter Kaiser asserts the translation a power (or strength) corresponding to man (or equal to man).
Gen 2:19 God formed every beast Some have taken this to assert that God created the animals after Adam in what they call the second creation account (cf. Gen 2:4-25). The VERB (BDB 427, KB 428, Qal IMPERFECT) could be translated had formed (cf. NIV). The time element in Hebrew VERBS is contextual.
Dr. Rich Johnson, Professor of Religion at East Texas Baptist University, commented to me in a review of this commentary:
The meaning of the IMPERFECT with a waw conversive, which this verb is, is the simple past tense. It is the way Hebrew structures a sequence of events. A series of this kind of verb tells events in the order in which they occur. You refer here to the presuppositions of interpreters affecting the translation. Here, it is the presupposition of the NIV translators that have led them to mistranslate this verse and also Gen 2:8, ‘Now the LORD God had planted a garden…’. The NIV translators have assumed that this chapter must match chapter one and have overruled the normal rules of reading Hebrew narrative to accomodate that assumption. The urgent question is where they got that assumption. This verb is translated as a simple past by the KJV, ASV, ERV, RSV, NRSV, NASB, ESV, NEB, REB, the NET translation, Youngs’ Literal translation, the Jewish Publication Society translation, the TANAKH, the New American Bible, and the New Jerusalem Bible. The NIV is the odd one.
to see what he would call them The VERB call (BDB 894, KB 1128) is used three times in Gen 2:19-20. Names were very important to the Hebrews. This shows mankind’s authority and dominion over the animals.
Does this refer to (1) all the different animals in the whole world, (2) original beginning types of animals or (3) the animals of Mesopotamia?
Gen 2:21 This verse reinforces the unique relationship between man and woman, Adam and Eve (cf. Gen 2:23). It may be a Hebrew idiom for closeness and intimacy. The Hebrew word for rib is translated elsewhere as side (BDB 854, KB 1030 I).
It is interesting that in his book, Introduction to the Old Testament, pp. 555-556, R. K. Harrison asserts that the Hebrew term for rib here means an aspect of the personality which would form an analogy with Adam made in the image and likeness of God to also include aspects of personality.
It is also interesting that a rib is part of the creation of woman in the Sumerian creation account: from enki came nin-ti (cf. D. J. Wiseman’s Illustrations from Biblical Archaeology). In this context the Sumerian word for rib (i.e. ti) also means to make alive. Eve will be the mother of all living (cf. Gen 3:20).
It must be remembered that Moses is writing (editing or compiling) these chapters at a much later date. These are Hebrew word plays, but Hebrew was not the original language used.
Gen 2:22 brought her to the man The rabbis say that God acted as best man.
Gen 2:23 Woman. . .Man This verse is poetry. Literally this is Ishah (BDB 35). . .ish (BDB 35), an obvious sound play (especially her name Ishah). Adam also names (or at least describes Eve’s similarity to himself) Eve. The etymology is uncertain. Usually adam refers to humanity and ish to a specific individual.
Gen 2:24 leave his father and his mother This VERB (BDB 736, KB 806) is a Qal IMPERFECT, possibly used in a JUSSIVE sense. The importance of the family causes the comment to be read back into this early account. Moses is reflecting on his own day and the importance of the family unit in an extended family living situation. Marriage takes precedence over in-laws!
NASB, NKJVbe joined
NRSVclings
TEVis united with
NJBbecomes attached to
REBattach
This is a Hebrew idiom of loyalty, even intimacy (BDB 179, KB 209, Qal PERFECT, cf. Rth 1:14; Mat 19:5-6; Eph 5:31).
one flesh This shows the complete union and priority relationship of married couples. The SINGULAR form of one speaks of the joining of the two persons.
Gen 2:25 both naked and were not ashamed This should go with chapter 3. The implication of the phrase is that Adam had nothing to hide from himself, his spouse, his God (BDB 101, KB 161, Hithpolel IMPERFECT). Therefore it is an idiom of innocence. Things will soon change!
The fact that the man and woman were naked (BDB 736, ADJECTIVE) implies a very controlled environment. This may lend itself to the view that the Garden of Eden was a protected and later, special creation, different from the rest of the planet (i.e. progressive creationism).
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
This is a study guide commentary, which means that you are responsible for your own interpretation of the Bible. Each of us must walk in the light we have. You, the Bible, and the Holy Spirit are priority in interpretation. You must not relinquish this to a commentator.
These discussion questions are provided to help you think through the major issues of this section of the book. They are meant to be thought-provoking, not definitive.
1. Is there a distinction made in Genesis 1 between God creating and the things which He has made producing? If so, what does this imply?
2. How is man like the animals? How is man like God?
3. Are women made in the image of God or only of the image of Adam?
4. What does it imply that man is to subdue and rule the created order?
5. How does the phrase Be fruitful and multiply relate to the population explosion?
6. Is it God’s will that man be vegetarian?
7. Is it improper for man to worship on Sunday instead of Saturday in light of Gen 2:2-3?
8. Why are chapters 1 and 2 so similar, yet different?
9. Why is Adam translated both as a proper name and a generic one?
10. Why is the geographical site of Eden given in such detail?
11. Name the three forms of biblical death.
12. What does Gen 2:18 say about us as sexual beings?
13. Does helper imply mutuality?
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
meet = as his counterpart.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Man and Woman, Temptation
Gen 2:18-25; Gen 3:1-8
Human love is Gods best gift to man. Without it even Eden would not be Paradise. That Adam was able to name the animals, affixing a title suggested by some peculiarity or characteristic, indicated his royal supremacy, and, in so far as we live in God, that supremacy is restored. See Dan 6:22; Mar 1:13. But what is power without love, or a throne without a consort? Eve was, therefore, given to crown his bliss; taken from his side, as afterward the Church from the opened side of Christ. See Joh 19:34, and Eph 5:25. Still God brings Eve to Adam; and such a marriage is truly blessed.
The order of temptation is always the same. The Tempter without, and within the strong desire for sensual gratification, with the secret hope that somehow the consequences may be avoided. The eye inflames passion; passion masters the resistance of the will; the body obeys its impulse; the act of gratification is followed immediately by remorse and guilt. Then we need the second Adam!
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Chapter 3
THE FIRST MARRIAGE
“And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.”
Gen 2:18-25
On the sixth day of creation the Lord God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness (Gen 1:26), and he did. In chapter two, verse seven we read, And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Then, in Gen 2:16-17, we read that the Lord God commanded the man. He did not command men, but the man. He did not command the man and the woman. The woman was not around. He commanded the man, Adam. The commandment was given to one man because one man was representative of all men.
There was a reason for this. God had ordained the salvation of his elect by another Man, the last Adam, who is our Lord Jesus Christ. As we all fell by the act of one representative man, Adam, God ordained that all his elect be saved by the work of another representative Man, the Lord Jesus Christ (Rom 5:12-19).
Why was Eve created?
The Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone (Gen 2:18). Why was it not good for man to live alone? He had no one to love. Being created in the image of God, Adam was full of love and affection. That love and affection must have an object. He had no one to talk to. There was no one like himself with whom he could converse, no one with whom he could discuss the beauties of the garden, no one with whom he could share his thoughts. He had no one to touch and embrace. Companionship, togetherness is essential to those who love. We need to touch and be touched. We need to embrace and be embraced. He had no one to help. There was no one who needed Adams help, and no one to help Adam with his needs, as a man living in the world. The Lord God graciously took care to provide help for fallen, needy man, even before he fell and became needy. There was no one for him, with whom the man could share his blessings. Love must give and delights to give; but Adam had no one to whom he could give what God had given him, no one to whom he could give himself. He had no one to comfort, –no one for him to comfort and no one to comfort him, –no one for him to admire and no one to admire him. He was alone. Adam had no one with whom to produce others like himself. All the animals of the garden had their mates and their little ones; but Adam was alone. He had neither wife, nor sons, nor daughters (Gen 2:19-20). Eve was created by God specifically to be a help meet for Adam.
How was Eve created?
We are first told what the Lord God did for Adam (Gen 2:21-22). The Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam. This was more than a normal rest, or sleep. God himself put Adam into a coma. No one else could do this to Adam. While Adam slept, God took one of Adams ribs out of his side and closed up the flesh, so that there was no scar. From that rib which he took from Adam, God made a woman. Then he brought her to the man.
God did not create the woman as he did the man, but made the woman from the man. Woman was not the beginning of a new order and a new race. She was the continuation of the race. Adam was the sole head and representative. That is Gods order. She is called Ishshah, woman, because she was taken from Ish, man. The Lord did not take the woman from the mans head to reign over him, nor did he take her from mans foot to be trampled upon by him, but from his side as one who is his equal. God took woman from the rib of man, from under his arm, to be protected by him, from near his heart, to be loved by him. Then the Lord God brought the woman to the man. She was the gift of God to man. This is Gods order. It cannot be changed (1Co 11:8-9).
Gen 2:23-24 tell us what Adam did. Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh. He was saying, –This woman is part of me. She is to be loved and cherished by me, as I would love and cherish myself. We are one person. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. Adam understood from the beginning what very few men understand today. The man who has a wife is the one responsible for the household. He is the head of the house, prophet, priest, and king. He is the provider for the household. He is the ruler of the house and the protector of the house. And the woman who has such a man can rest in his care and love (1Pe 3:7).
And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed (Gen 2:25). They were, as God had created them, holy and upright. They needed no clothes to protect them. They needed no clothes to conceal any part of their bodies which God had made. And they were not ashamed, because they had nothing to be ashamed of. There was no sin in their nature, no guilt in their consciences, and no wickedness in their actions. But they did not remain in this blessed condition. As soon as they sinned, they were under the curse. And as soon as they sinned they were ashamed (Gen 3:1-7). We are all inheritors of their shame, because we have all inherited their guilt (Rom 5:12).
What does the Holy Spirit here teach us?
Without question, there is much to be learned about true womanhood in these verses. Blessed is that woman who receives and bows the Word of the Lord and teach your daughters to do so (Tit 2:3-5). Blessed is her family. She alone is a truly virtuous woman (Pro 31:10-31). But there is something far more glorious here. The marriage performed by God in the garden of Eden, the marriage of Adam and Eve, is a picture of the marriage performed by God in grace, the marriage of Christ and his church.
There is a second representative man – Christ our Savior (1Co 15:21-22; 1Co 15:45-49). He is not just the second Adam. Christ is the last Adam, the last representative man. The first Adam sinned. The last Adam obeyed God perfectly for his people. The first Adam brought death to all his race. The last Adam brought life, eternal life to all who were represented by him. As we have born the image of the first man Adam, so all Gods elect must and shall bear the image of the last man, the Lord from heaven, our great Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.
This last Adam shall not be alone in his kingdom. God has declared that he shall have a people to love and by whom he shall be loved, –a people made after his likeness (Rom 8:29-30), –a people with whom he can be in fellowship, –a people with whom he can walk, –a people to serve him, whom he can serve, –a people to admire him, whom he can admire, a people with whom he can share everything, –a people to reign with him forever.
The Lord God made a body of flesh for his dear Son (Gal 4:4-5; Heb 2:17; Heb 10:5). Woman was made of man; but here is a man who was made of woman by the hand of God, that he might redeem and save fallen men.
God caused a deep sleep to come upon his Son. His sleep was death, death for sin. None but God could do this. At the cross, God put his Son to death for us, that we might live by his death. Yet, as Adam, knowing full well what he was doing (Gen 3:6; 1Ti 2:14), died for Eve, so Christ freely, voluntarily laid down his life for his bride. From the side of our crucified Redeemer there flowed out blood to justify and water to sanctify his chosen bride (Joh 19:34; Eph 5:22-27).
In the fulness of time the Lord God will bring the chosen bride to Christ, by the effectual, irresistible grace and power of his Spirit (Psa 65:4; Psa 110:3). He will make her submissive to him, cause her to adore him, and unite her to him. Christ left all for her and cleaves unto her; and she leaves all for him and cleaves unto him (Eph 5:30-32).
They are not ashamed (1Jn 2:28-29). He that believeth shall not be ashamed! Adam and Eve had no outward clothing and they were not ashamed. The righteousness of Christ is a garment to cover us, the garment of Gods salvation, which makes believers unashamed before God. Our Saviors death has put away our sin and our guilt. His Spirit has given us his nature. By faith in him, we have confidence before God and are not ashamed, for in Christ we are holy and unblamable. Yes, we still have this outward body of flesh that must be covered because of its corruption. But soon we shall lay it aside and rise in his likeness. In that last great day, we shall stand before the bar of God in the perfection of Christ, robed in white garments, clean and white, and shall not be ashamed.
Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible
good: Gen 1:31, Gen 3:12, Rth 3:1, Pro 18:22, Ecc 4:9-12, 1Co 7:36
I will: Gen 3:12, 1Co 11:7-12, 1Ti 2:11-13, 1Pe 3:7
meet for him: Heb. as before him
Reciprocal: Gen 2:20 – but Gen 4:19 – two wives Psa 115:12 – the house of Israel Ecc 4:8 – one Mal 2:14 – thy companion Mat 19:10 – General Joh 2:1 – a marriage 1Co 11:9 – the man 1Ti 2:13 – General
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
A Help Suited to Man Everything had been good until man was created. Then God observed, “It is not good that man should be alone” (2:18). God planned to make a helper (aid) “corresponding to him” or “suited to him.” No animal was right for this role. Man saw that after God had formed every animal and bird to him to see what he would call them (2:19-20).
Woman was made from a rib out of man’s side (2:21-22). Someone noted this was under his arm and close to his heart where he should always keep this special creation. Man and woman are of the same nature or being. God intended one man to be joined to one woman in marriage for life (2:23-25; Mat 19:3-9 ).
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books
Gen 2:18. God said Had said on the sixth day, when the woman was made. It is not good that man should be alone Though there was an upper world of angels and lower world of brutes, yet, there being none of the same rank of beings with himself, he might be truly said to be alone. It is not good: it was neither for mans comfort, who was formed for society, and not for solitude nor for the accomplishment of Gods purpose in the increase of mankind. A help meet for him , chenegdo, a most significant phrase; one as before him, or correspondent to him, his counterpart, suitable to his nature and his need, one like himself in shape, constitution, and disposition, a second self: one to be at hand, or near to him, to converse familiarly with him, to be always ready to succour and comfort him, and whose care and business it should be to please and help him.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
The creation of woman 2:18-25
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Adam’s creation was not complete because he lacked a "helper" who corresponded to him. This deficiency led God to pronounce Adam’s condition "not good." [Note: For helpful comments about anthropomorphisms, as well as divine soliloquies, see Roderick MacKenzie,"The Divine Soliloquies in Genesis," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 22:1 (1955):277-86.] This follows the pattern of the triune God’s own existence in which He is surrounded by His heavenly court. Man should normally live in community even as God does. God not only evaluated Adam’s condition, He also rectified it.
"In Judaism, from the very moment of origins of the Jewish people, marriage was considered to be the ideal state." [Note: Blu Greenberg, "Marriage in the Jewish Tradition," Journal of Ecumenical Studies 22:1 (Winter 1985):3.]
God’s provision of a wife for Adam is a concrete example of God’s knowing what is good for man. [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," p. 46.] Companionship replaced isolation. For companionship to be satisfying, however, there must be oneness in the marriage (cf. Gen 1:26-27). Self-centered living destroys oneness and companionship.
The term "helper" does not mean a servant. Jesus Christ used the same word (the Greek equivalent) to describe the Holy Spirit who would help believers following the Lord’s ascension (Joh 14:16; Joh 14:26; Joh 15:26; Joh 16:7). It means one who supports us in our task of doing the will of God (cf. Deu 33:7; Psa 33:20; Psa 115:9-11; Psa 146:5; Hos 13:9). It is not a demeaning term since Scripture often uses it to describe God Himself (e.g., Psa 33:20; Psa 70:5; Psa 115:9).
"The word help suggests that the man has governmental priority, but both sexes are mutually dependent on each other. The man is created first, with the woman to help the man, not vice versa (see also 1Ti 2:13); however, this does not mean ontological superiority or inferiority. The word helper, used for God sixteen of the nineteen times it appears in the Old Testament, signifies the woman’s essential contribution, not inadequacy." [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 88.]
"Suitable to him" or "corresponding to him" means "equal and adequate." What was true of Adam (cf. Gen 2:7) was also true of Eve. They both had the same nature.
"Since Adam and Eve were a spiritual unity, living in integrity without sin, there was no need for instruction here on headship." [Note: Ross, "Genesis," p. 31.]
The ancient Near Eastern texts contain no account of the creation of woman. Moses, however, devoted six verses to her formation compared to only one for Adam (Gen 2:7).