Genesis chapter 2. We saw the
preparation of the garden in verses 8 to 14, the probation
of the first man in verses 15 to 17, and tonight we'll look
at the provision of a wife in verses 18 to 25. But I do want
to begin reading in Genesis chapter 2 at verse 1. Thus the heavens
and the earth and all the host of them were finished. And on
the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He
rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.
Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because
in it He rested from all His work which God had created and
made. This is the history of the heavens and the earth when
they were created. In the day that the Lord God made the earth
and the heavens, before any plant of the field was in the earth
and before any herb of the field had grown, for the Lord God had
not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to
till the ground, but a mist went up from the earth and watered
the whole face of the ground. 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 being. Excuse me. The Lord God
planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man
whom He had formed. And out of the ground the Lord
God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and
good for food. The tree of life was also in
the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil. Now a river went out of Eden to water the garden,
and from there it parted and became four river heads. The
name of the first is Pishon. It is the one which skirts the
whole land of Avalok, where there is gold. And the gold of that
land is good. The Delium and the Onyx Stone
are there. The name of the second river
is Gihon. It is the one which goes around
the whole land of Kush. The name of the third river is
Hittikal. It is the one which goes toward the east of Assyria.
The fourth river is the Euphrates. Then the Lord God took the man
and put him in the Garden of Eden to tend and keep it. And
the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the
garden you may freely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge
of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you
eat of it you shall surely die. And the Lord God said, it is
not good that man should be alone. I will make him a helper comparable
to him. Out of the ground, the Lord God
formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air and
brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever
Adam called each living creature, that was its name. So Adam gave
names to all cattle, to the birds of the air and to every beast
of the field. But for Adam, there was not found a helper comparable
to him. And the Lord God caused a deep
sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept. And he took one of his
ribs and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which
the Lord God had taken from man he made into a woman, and he
brought her to 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, a man shall leave
his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they
shall become one flesh. And they were both naked, the
man and his wife, and were not ashamed. Amen." Well, as I said,
we saw the preparation of the garden. God prepared this place,
put Adam in the garden, gave him specific orders in terms
of tilling it. or tending to it and guarding
it or keeping it. Priestly activities is what Adam
was concerned with. And then we saw the probation
of man, or the covenant of works, last time in chapter 2 at verses
15 to 17, and tonight the provision of a wife. So I want to look
at that in verses 18 to 25, the provision of a wife, and then
secondly some implications concerning marriage. Always helpful to refresh
ourselves on that institution by God. But note with reference
to the provision of a wife, it breaks down, or the section breaks
down into two specific sections. First, the problem, the man is
alone in verses 18 to 20, and then the solution, the man is
given a wife. Now note the divine commentary
in verse 18. The Lord God said, it is not
good that man should be alone. I will make him a helper comparable
to him. So the first time in the creation
week where God sees something and he doesn't rehearse, he doesn't
report that it was good. Rather, this specifically is
not good. And Wenham makes the observation.
Against the sevenfold refrain, and God saw that it was good
in chapter 1, the divine observation that something was not right
with man's situation is startling. It alerts the reader to the importance
of companionship for man. And that is one of the purposes
of marriage and the primary function that is seen in this particular
chapter, companionship. It is not good that man should
be alone. So the Lord God purposes to make
a helper comparable to Him. one answering to him, one not
answering in the sense that she has to do everything he says,
but comparable, answering unto his particular condition, one
that is according to him. It's not an animal, it is one
that is like unto Adam. The Divine Creator knows precisely
what is fitting for His creatures. Now remember, there's not two
creation accounts. Genesis 1 is the general treatment
of what's happening in terms of the six days of creation and
the seventh day of the Sabbath rest. Chapter 2 goes into the
details and to explore the specifics with reference to the creation
of man. So Genesis 1 tells us God made
man, male and female, in His own image. Genesis 2 explores
that in more detail so that we understand what we're dealing
with in terms of man who has been made in God's image or in
God's likeness. Now note, with reference to this
divine commentary in verse 18, we see man's activity in verses
19 to 20. Now, notice in verse 19, out
of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field. Some
translations smooth this out by saying, out of the ground
the Lord God had formed. So it doesn't seem to introduce
a second creation account with reference to animals. Now, it
may be the case, because there are two groups of animals mentioned
here in verse 19, and then three groups with reference to Adam's
naming of them in verse 20. The one group absent in verse
19 is cattle. They're present in verse 20.
And the idea might be is that the cattle were already present.
God doesn't newly make this species or kinds, but rather he makes
some specimens to bring to Adam from the birds of the sky and
the beasts of the field. There's a distinction between
the beast of the field and the cattle. The cattle are the domesticated
animals, the cows, and those sorts of things that would just
sort of be lulling about in the garden. whereas these others
would be the wild animals that could only be fetched through
hunting. So it may be the case that God formed these specimens
specifically to bring to Adam in this garden situation so that
he could in fact name them. So the animals are brought to
Adam by God. We're not told how, and that's
one of the things we ought to appreciate in the Genesis narrative.
We're not given all of the details and all of the nitty-gritty.
It's not a science textbook. It's not a textbook to present
to us an answer for every question that we might have. We don't
know how God brought all these animals to Him, but if we accept
the reality that in the beginning God created the heavens and the
earth, then everything past Genesis 1-1 makes absolutely, perfectly
good sense. If the God who made this world
and all things in it out of nothing by the word of His power in the
space of six days, if He's able to do that, He's certainly able
to round up animals and bring them to Adam so that Adam can
name those animals. And notice specifically, that
is what Adam does. It says in verse 19, out of the
ground, the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every
bird of the air and brought them to Adam to see what He would
call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature,
that was its name. So Adam gave names to all cattle,
to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. Now, this shows a distinction
or a differentiation between Adam and these lower creatures. Remember, Genesis 1 did not say
concerning the Baltimore Oriole, or the Beluga whale, or the lion,
that they were made in the likeness and in the image of God. It says
that solely and alone about Adam. Adam is distinguished or differentiated
here from the animals in this act of naming them. This is a
sign or an emblem or a symbol of authority over these particular
animals. As well, it fleshes out at least
one aspect of this dominion that God had given to Adam over the
creatures. He is to exercise, like God,
dominion over these particular realms or kingdoms, and that's
precisely what Adam is doing here in giving them names. Matthew
Poole says, this was done for the manifestation both of man's
dominion over the creatures and of the largeness of his understanding,
it being an act of authority to give names. I like this. Matthew Poole says it was done
for the manifestation, yes, to exercise dominion, but as well
it was a manifestation of the largeness of his understanding. Every step of the way in this
Genesis narrative, it debunks the idea of evolution. The idea
of evolution is, you know, these Neanderthal knuckle-dragging,
sort of hunched-over persons that grunt and then grunt a bit
longer and then eventually it forms into sentences. That's
absolutely not the case. Adam comes from the hand of God,
in God's image, able to communicate, able to rationalize, able to
think, able to demonstrate, as Poole says, the largeness of
his understanding in being able to successfully name the various
animals that were brought before him. But as well, we ought to
appreciate what's happening in verses 19 and 20. God's already
reported in terms of this commentary in verse 18 that it was not good
for Adam to be alone. And then these animals are brought
before Adam so that Adam can name them. And notice at the
end of verse 20, but for Adam there was not found a helper
comparable to him. So now Adam is keenly aware of
his solitariness. Adam is keenly aware of what
God's already reported in verse 18. It is not good for man to
be alone. And Adam now has observed this
for himself, such that when God does bring Eve to him, it's another
expression of God's kindness and His goodness and His mercy
to Adam in this particular instance. As well, it would underscore
for Adam the great need that he did have in terms of companionship
with one that was indeed comparable to him. So the narrative is woven
perfectly together. God comments on the particular
need of Adam. God brings the animals to highlight
that need to Adam. So then when God brings this
woman to Adam, the legitimate response here of verse 23 makes
perfect sense. Adam is a happy camper when he
meets his wife. This is a blessed and a wonderful
day for our first father Adam. So we see the problem, the man
is alone. Now notice secondly the solution,
the man is given a wife in verses 21 to 25. Verse 21, again it's
one of those passages where we can't parse out all of the particulars
and explain with absolute certainty everything involved in this particular
situation. But it says that God caused a
deep sleep to fall on Adam and he slept and he took one of his
ribs and closed up the flesh in its place. Now there are other
instances where God deals with man and they go into a deep sleep. Genesis chapter 15 with Abraham.
when God makes a covenant with Abraham. And I think that the
idea is to underscore the passivity of the persons in those particular
situations. In other words, Adam is not the
one engaged in building his wife. God builds her. And that's the
particular verb that's utilized here. God built the woman. out
of this rib that he had taken from Adam. And so this idea of
passivity, Adam was asleep and God prepares the woman and brings
her to him. One man says that the man's sleep
in the face of the divine activity appears to be intended to portray
a sense of passivity and acceptance of the divine provision. Calvin
said, with reference to this deep sleep, it was sent upon
Adam not to hide him from the origin of his wife, but to exempt
him from pain and trouble until he should receive a compensation
so excellent for the loss of his rib. So it cost him a rib,
but he made up for it in a manifold way. And that wonderful, beautiful
statement from Matthew Henry, it's an interesting thing when
you read Bible commentaries and you start sort of with later
modern authors and just about everybody to a man quotes this
statement from Matthew Henry. except Matthew Henry, he actually
penned it for himself. Matthew Henry wasn't quoting
Matthew Henry, but in terms of God removing a rib from the side
of Adam, Matthew Henry said, the woman is not made out of
his head to top him. nor out of his feet to be trampled
upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his
arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved." It
just doesn't get any better than that. I mean, husbands, you ought
to refresh yourself with reference to that particular statement
time and time again. Wives as well. I think it captures
beautifully that creation order or account. Meredith Klein said,
the woman was made for the man. Paul tells us that specifically
in 1 Corinthians 11 at verse 9. The woman was made for the
man. Klein goes on to say, yet not
as his slave girl, but his queen. I quite like that as well. Not
as his slave girl, but as his queen. And then notice, the woman
is brought to Adam by God. The Lord brings the woman to
Adam. Matthew Poole says here, some
of these older Puritan authors really capture the narrative
well. He says, the great God being pleased to act the part
of the father to give his daughter and workmanship to him. thereby
both teaching parents of their duty of providing marriages for
their children, and children their duty of expecting their
parents' consent in marriage." Now that's not a stretch, because
I think the comment of verse 24, it's most likely Moses' comment. I don't think Adam is still talking
in verse 24 and sort of commenting, on what he's commented in verse
23. It's God, obviously, but it's
probably through Moses the servant. Verse 24 explains the rationale
or explains some significances about the act of marriage. And
it's not simply for Adam and Eve, but it's for all subsequent
marriages from then on. So it's not wrong to find in
this particular section instruction concerning marriage. We see instruction
concerning Sabbath in terms of the way God Sabbaths. There is
lesson there for each and every one of us. And then in terms
of marriage, we ought to glean and learn what God has for His
creatures in terms of marriage. So God brings the woman to Adam,
and then notice Adam's response in verse 23. This is now bone
of my bones and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called woman because
she was taken out of man. Again, it was a happy day. Adam
communed with his God, Adam served his God, Adam loved his God. At this state of innocence prior
to his fall and rejection of God and his rebellion against
God, God and Adam were in communion with one another. But that does
not dissolve the need for human earthly companionship on the
part of Adam. So Adam receives this gift from
the hand of God as one that will complement him, as one that will
be a helper that is suitable to him and comparable unto him. So God brings this gift to Adam,
Adam rejoices in the reception of the gift, and then notice
the comment concerning marriage in verse 24. Therefore, a man
shall leave his father and mother. Now, the leave there probably
ought to be rendered forsake. Now, not forsake in terms of
natural affection or love or honor to the father and the mother,
but forsake in terms of his first priority and his first commitment. Because it was often the case
in these sorts of societies or agrarian societies and among
the Israelites that a man would take a wife and still live on
the property of his father. So it's not just geographically
he leaves his father and his mother. He can fulfill this command
by being next door neighbors to his father and mother. He
forsakes them in terms of his ultimate commitment in terms
of his earthly companionship. Gordon Wenham again says, on
marriage, a man's priorities change, or at least they should. On marriage, a man's priorities
change. Beforehand, his first obligations
are to his parents. Afterwards, they are to his wife.
Now, I thought this was perceptive, and I think it bears careful
understanding. He says, in modern Western societies,
where filial duties, that's son to father, father to son, or
sons, filial duties is with reference to his love for his father. He
says, in modern Western societies where filial duties are often
ignored, this may seem a minor point to make, but in traditional
societies like Israel, where honoring parents is the highest
human obligation next to honoring God, this remark about forsaking
them is very striking. In other words, the implications
involved in this statement would have shocked those in that sort
of a society. And then Matthew Poole again
says, in regard of habitation in society, but not as to natural
duty and affection. So the idea of leaving or forsaking
father and mother doesn't mean never having anything to do with
them. have evangelical regard for the fifth commandment. You'll
always have some sort of a relationship with your parents. But a man's
highest earthly relationship is not to his friends, it's not
to his video games, it's not to his sports, it is to his wife. That is his highest priority. And that's why more often than
not, we really need to consider, not more often than not, always
we ought to consider the person that I'm going to marry, can
I deliver the goods when it comes to this highest priority? We
oftentimes, or we see these kinds of things where people rush into
marriage. We need to count the costs. We need to make sure that
this person is the one I'm going to fulfill my obligation to God
with reference to this man or woman. So then the man is joined
to his wife. Notice the language there. He
cleaves to her, or he clings to her, or literally he sticks
to her. The language is that of glue
or an adhesive. R.T. Frantz says, the God who
first designed humanity in two sexes also laid it down that
those two sexes should come together in an indissoluble union of one
flesh. a union which takes precedence
over even the closest relationship of a man with his parents. The
union is depicted in the vivid metaphor of Genesis as one of
gluing or welding. It would be hard to imagine a
more powerful metaphor of permanent attachment. Again, I think this
is very helpful to remind ourselves and, you know, we can grow lazy
or we can grow lax or we can grow apathetic in terms of our
human relationships. It's good to review and it's
good to ask ourselves, do I see marriage in the way that God
intended for me to see marriage? Am I engaged in my responsibilities
in a manner that is consistent with the written and revealed
will of God or word of God? Do I consider my wife a good
thing from Yahweh? Do I consider my husband a good
thing from Yahweh? Do I value that person? Do I
prize that person? And am I seeking by the grace
of God to forsake all other earthly relationships? Certainly, if
we're to forsake relationship with father and mother to put
our wife first, we ought to be able to forsake all those other
lower relationships as well. There's a priority structure
in God's kingdom. He comes first, and then our
spouses, and then children and everything else. Not that children
are, you know, down on the scale there. But, you know, ultimately,
guess who the first family was? It was Adam and Eve. You know,
children come and children go. They move out after, you know,
hopefully, you know, 18, 20, 25 years, you know, maybe by
40, you're saying, OK, go already. You're throwing their stuff out
or whatever. But the children are going to
leave. That does not dissolve the family. The family is husband
and wife. Children are an addition to the
family, but children will go out, hopefully, and start their
own families, and multiply, and exponentially increase, and all
that sort of thing. But the husband and the wife
are the family, and the husband and wife must nurture that relationship,
and must seek to foster the intimacy, and to express the one-fleshness
that is envisioned by that. As well, we know from Ephesians
chapter 5 that this husband and wife relationship is typical. It is a type of something even
greater in terms of redemption. And the type is, or the anti-type,
is Christ and His church. And so for all of us, we ought
to prize and value the fact that God has given us partners so
that we can be married to, and we ought to labor by the grace
of God to engage in a good marriage with that particular spouse.
And then that final comment in verse 25, they were both naked,
the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. The absence of sin
meant the absence of shame, even though they were naked. There
was no sin, there was no sort of perversion or degradation
at this particular point, they are naked and they are without
shame. Now that certainly sets the stage
for what's going to follow in terms of their sin and rebellion
against God, them fashioning together some cover to try and
evade God, and then God saying, who told you that you were naked,
and then God providing tunics of skin to cover them after their
sin. So, we see the exposition, now
I want to draw out some implications concerning marriage. In the first
place, we ought to appreciate that the Bible highlights the
goodness of marriage. I think this is an important
emphasis in our own generation, because in many respects, marriage
is considered as a bad thing. The definition of marriage is
up for grabs anymore. The idea of marriage is oftentimes
looked at as antiquated. It's always an encouraging thing
as a pastor to be able to marry young people because I know good
and well that many, many young people are not getting married.
They are living together and they are fornicating. They are
enjoying all of the benefits of being married without entering
into the covenant and accepting the responsibilities for that
marriage. So we need to appreciate the
goodness of marriage set against the backdrop of Adam's aloneness. It was not good for Adam to be
alone, and so God ordained that he would make Eve and bring her
to him. And we ought to also appreciate
that God, or rather marriage, predates earthly decision. It wasn't that Adam and Eve said,
hey, this ought to be a good thing. We'll orchestrate marriage. No. Marriage even predates the
civil magistrate. God gave marriage. He ordained
it, and it is good. John Calvin said, the more Satan
has endeavored to dishonor marriage, the more should we vindicate
it from all reproach and abuse, that it may receive its due reverence. I think he's absolutely right.
And Calvin speaks to two great abuses with reference to marriage. One is licentiousness, but the
other is celibacy. Now Calvin isn't against celibacy
if God has made you celibate. What Calvin is arguing against
is an imposed celibacy. a la Roman Catholicism. It was
held as a higher thing to be celibate. In fact, the priests
were not allowed to be married. They had to be celibate, which
indicates or says or expresses that the optimum condition for
a man is to be celibate. So Calvin is oftentimes fighting
against what he calls the pestilential law of celibacy. Now, that's
not just a Roman Catholic practice. It has also reared its ugly head
in Protestantism. Maybe some of you have heard
the name of Bill Gothard. He taught that celibacy was a
higher state for men than is marriage. The Bible doesn't teach
us that. Again, if you're celibate, praise
God. It's a good thing if that's how
God has made you. But it's not to be imposed as
a law upon persons who have not been given that particular gift. In other words, the Bible typically
envisions marriage as the normative state. And so the goodness of
marriage argues that we should strive to take seriously Paul's
words in Ephesians 5. This is a great mystery, but
I speak concerning Christ and the church, and we as God's people
ought to evidence that marriage is good. You know, not referring
to our spouses as the old ball and chain, not referring to our
marriages as if it's somehow a prison sentence, not referring
to our marriages as if it's somehow a curse. God has blessed us. If we happen to be married, then
we ought to live as blessed men and women and seek to demonstrate
the way that Christ and his church interact with one another. The
wife submits to her own husband as the church submits to Christ. The husband loves the wife just
as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her. Perhaps
the best thing we can do to promote marriage is to live married well. to show that joy and happiness
and thankfulness. I always found it was a good
thing when my kids wanted to get married young. Now, maybe
I think he's out of here right now, but you remember Micah said,
what's the youngest I can get married? I think he was eight,
and I said 11. And he started to beam, and I said, no, no,
I'm just kidding, not 11. But I think that's a good thing
in the sense that, you know, he wasn't seeing marriage. I
hope none of the kids would say, you know, marriage just looked
like drudgery. It looked like dad was going
to the salt mines and, you know, working, you know, with the sweat
of his brow every single moment he was with mom. If that's what
our marriages look like, we ought not to be surprised when our
children rise up and say, I want to be single for the rest of
my life. Again, if God gives the gift of celibacy, that's
absolutely, perfectly, positively fine. May God indeed bless your
service for Jesus Christ. But if it's not a gift given
by God to pursue a life of celibacy, but if they have been turned
against the very institution of marriage by being raised in
a home where marriage looks like a prison sentence, then shame
on us. Brethren, God is good, and marriage
is an evidence, a manifestation, and a demonstration of that goodness. Secondly, we ought to appreciate
the definition of marriage. As I said, it's open or it's
up for grabs. It's not so when we turn to the
pages of Holy Scripture. Notice, one man, one woman. That is God's purpose. That is God's intention. That was what it was supposed
to be like from the beginning. When Christ is asked about the
legitimacy of divorce, He goes to the creation account. That
creation account is a paradigm or a pattern or an overarching
plan that Jesus assumes was God's intent for creation. Our confession,
I think, is very helpful with reference to marriage. It says
marriage is to be between one man and one woman. Some have
said, we need to beef up the confession of faith with all
of these assaults upon the doctrine of marriage. We need to make
it better. I don't know how you can make it any better. Marriage
is to be between one man and one woman. That's it. Not one
man and one man, not one woman and one woman, not one man and
one animal, but one man and one woman. Our confession goes on
to say, neither is it lawful for any man to have more than
one wife, nor for any woman to have more than one husband at
the same time. So no polygamy and no polyandry. You cannot multiply spouses. As well, there is a prohibition,
not specifically stated in the Confession, but that overarching
statement, marriage is to be between one man and one woman,
does prohibit homosexual marriage. The Bible is clear. This isn't
a bigoted, prejudicial, Christian position that is influenced by
the religious right. This is what the Word of God
says. It condemns homosexuality. And obviously, by implication,
it condemns homosexual marriage. The scriptures are clear in Leviticus
18, Leviticus 20, Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, and 1 Timothy 1, that homosexuality
is sin. It's wrong. It's not the unpardonable
sin. There is forgiveness with God
that He may be feared. We ought not to be the sorts
of people that condemn a sin so much that it looks like there's
no hope or no forgiveness. No, brethren, there's forgiveness
for homosexuals. 1 Corinthians 6, and such were
some of you. That's the implication. that
in Corinth there were sodomites, there were homosexuals, there
were those participants in that particular sin in the church
or the people that lived in Corinth that were that and now they had
been saved and were no longer that. So we ought to make sure
that when we condemn homosexuality, we don't cut sinners off from
the gospel. Brethren, there is hope in Jesus
Christ for the foulest, as well the prohibition of bestiality
in marriage. Now, it's unfortunate that the
Bible, A, has to even address this particular sin, and that,
B, I even need to remind us of this particular sin, but such
is the days in which we live. People are wanting to marry their
animals, and this is absolutely, positively prohibited by God. I think Dale Bruner well states
the matter when he says, if God had supremely intended solitary
life, God would have created humans one by one. If God had
intended polygamous life, God would have created one man and
several women. If God had intended homosexual
life, God would have made two men or two women. But that God
intended monogamous heterosexual life is shown by God's creation
of one man and one woman. Then by immediately commanding
the two to reproduce, God showed that he honored their sexual
union and that this union is good and his will." Beautiful. I think that just encapsulates
everything, excuse me, going on in the narrative here in Genesis
chapter 2. The sublimity and the simplicity
of it, it's inescapable. You ask the question, what's
God's design from the beginning? It doesn't get easier, does it?
He made man. It wasn't good for man to be
alone, so he makes woman and brings her to the man. The two
are joined together, and the two become one flesh. That's
the pattern. That's the paradigm. That's the
plan for everyone subsequent to them. Thirdly, the purposes
of marriage. And again, I'm going to rely
on the confession here. First, the mutual help of husband
and wife. The mutual help of husband and
wife. When it speaks of Eve being his
helper, it doesn't mean he doesn't help her. It doesn't mean that
she just fans him in the garden so that the sweat of his brow
will be dried up. It's the mutual help of the husband
and the wife. Companionship. That's what's
held out here. I think that's one of the primary
focuses with reference to marriage, it's companionship. If persons
are unable to procreate, if persons are unable to engage in conjugal
relationship or sexual intimacy, they are still married. Companionship
is a defining characteristic, and if you or your spouse or
both of you together are paralyzed and you cannot engage in those
other activities, that does not invalidate the marriage. The
marriage is binding and the marriage is good, and companionship is
still enjoyed by both parties. These things are there. Secondly,
our confession says, the increase of mankind. Again, I have often
thought this would be a great way to propose to your bride-to-be.
Will you please be my wife for the mutual help of one another,
for the increase of mankind, and the best of all, for the
prevention of uncleanness? I'd surely like you to be my
wife for these three purposes. But the increase of mankind,
or procreation, Genesis 1, they were to be fruitful and multiply.
In that passage in Malachi the prophet, in chapter 2, when God's
condemning Israel for their faithless conduct in putting away their
Israelite wives for pagans, they are short-circuiting God's purpose
in terms of seeking a godly offspring. And then the third is the prevention
of uncleanness or sexual intimacy. That is a legitimate thing in
the marriage context. You know, I think at times persons
get married and because of upbringing or background or whatever, there
might be some hang-ups or there might be some ideas that, you
know, it's kind of a necessary evil. That's potpourri. To speak
of sexual intimacy as a necessary evil in order to get children
is simply not biblical. God made Adam and Eve, and when
God brought Eve to Adam, He knew precisely what they were going
to do. God ordained that they would do so. It was good. God didn't draw the curtains
to give them their privacy. God didn't go away for a little
while and give them their... God is God, and he made this
so that married couples can, yes, procreate, but as well enjoy
one another without any threat or fear or shame that is often
connected because of past sin or whatever. They were both naked,
the man and his wife, and they were not ashamed. We see this
in Proverbs 5, rejoice with the wife of your youth. And there
it's not in the context of her baking cakes. If you read the
context, you will see what Solomon means when he says, rejoice with
the wife of your youth. Of course, 1 Corinthians 7, verses
1 to 9, and then Hebrews 13, marriage is honorable, among
all in the bed undefiled, but fornicators and adulterers God
will judge." So you see, those three purposes, companionship,
procreation, sexual intimacy, those three things are given
to us in the Bible as the purposes for marriage. And then finally,
we ought to maintain what the Bible always maintains, a distinction
between men and women. Again, this is being blurred
today. I mean, men wanting to be women
and women wanting to be men. How about we all just be what
God made us to be and be happy? There is a distinction between
men and women, the obvious ones, of course, but in terms of the
functional ones, there is redemptive equality between men and women.
In other words, when a man and a woman believe the gospel, they
are both equally saved. Paul tells us that in Galatians
3, 28. There's no Jew. There's no Gentile. There's no
Scythian. There's no barbarian. There's
no free. There's neither male nor female. He is not obliterating
role distinctions. He's not advocating, go ahead
and have your sex change, or go ahead and don't call yourself
M or F. That's not what Paul is saying.
He's saying that in terms of redemption, We're on equal footing. Peter says the same thing in
1 Peter 3 with reference to the wife of the man. She is a co-heir
of the grace of life. In other words, the man isn't
more redeemed than his wife. They're both co-heirs of the
grace of life. But after creation or subsequent
to creation, there is an order that God has instilled in creation. And redemption does not nullify
that. Redemption does not render it
void. Rather, redemption holds it up,
and precisely the Apostle Paul in his epistles, along with Peter
in 1 Peter chapter 3. But in terms of the home, the
husband is the head of the wife. Paul teaches us that in Ephesians
5.23. He teaches us that in Colossians
3, verse 18. Now, headship over the wife does
not mean abuse. It does not mean tyranny. It
does not mean despotism. It does not mean that you're
her Hitler, but rather you are the one to lovingly lead her. The husband is the head of the
wife. As well, man, qualified man,
is to lead in the church. Now, I bring up this particular
head because I think this is being blurred as well, where
we have more women pastors and we have preachers in skirts.
God never intended preachers to wear skirts. I guess the Scottish
would probably disagree with me, but that's not a skirt, it's
a kilt. But you get the point. Men are
supposed to lead, qualified men, in the context of the church.
Now, when Paul argues for this redemptive ethic in terms of
male leadership in the church, guess where he goes in his argument. He goes right here to Genesis
chapter 2. In 1 Corinthians 11, when he
does not, or when he speaks to women praying or prophesying
in the gathered church, and he speaks of men, and he speaks
of their interaction together, he speaks to male headship in
terms of Genesis chapter 2. In 1 Timothy chapter 2, when
Paul forbids a woman to teach or exercise authority over a
man. He's not arguing from culture.
He's not arguing based on the fact that the women just weren't
as good at teachers, but he argues from creation. Adam was created
first, and then the woman. And there in 1 Timothy 2, he
speaks of her being deceived and transgressing. But God has
instilled redemptive equality in terms of our sort of inheritance
of the grace of life. But there still remains that
creational order with reference to the home and with reference
to the church. God has purposed that men lead
and they love, and that wives submit and they honor their husbands. That's God's Word. I think we
meet with resistance to that, not simply in the world, but
we also meet with resistance to that in the context of the
local church. And brethren, these things ought
not to be. The idea that headship in the
Bible means somehow abuse or tyranny or despotism is ungodly
and it's worldly. Because we know from Paul's argument
in Ephesians 5, the headship that a husband is to exercise
is Christ-like headship, self-sacrificing headship, loving leadership,
not despotism, not smacking, or not abusing, or not emotionally
warping or manipulating. Brethren, we need to take our
cue from the Word of God and we need to stand fast, because
these are the sorts of things that are everywhere under attack
with reference to the truth of God's Word. The redefinition
of marriage, the redefinition of male and female, the idea
that not long from now you're not even going to be able to
put an M or an F on your baby's birth certificate after they've
been born, that eventually we're going to give them the decision.
I mean, I don't know how much crazier things are going to have
to get before the people of God in the church say, no more. We're
not going to try and facilitate or manipulate or compromise to
the world. We're going to stand firm on
what God's Word has to say. And that means condemning the
sorts of things that God's Word condemns, even if we're called
bigots and prejudice and whatever it is that they're calling us
today. We have to stand fast. Well, in conclusion, I want to
remind you, with reference to the doctrine of celibacy, I'm
not attacking it. If God has called you to be single,
then praise God for that. The Lord Jesus in Matthew 19,
He has to deal, not has to, but He deals with the lawfulness
of divorce, He deals with celibacy, and He deals with children in
Matthew 19. And there the Lord does not condemn
the life of celibacy, and neither do I. Neither does John Calvin. But what I condemn and what John
Calvin condemns is this pestilential law of celibacy, holding it out
as the optimum condition for creatures. It's not. If you're
married, praise God. If you're single, praise God.
You're not one up because you're married. There's a lot of crummy
married people and a lot of crummy single people and a lot of good
married and a lot of good single. As well, the Lord does not endorse
the view that it is a higher state of existence. The Lord
does recognize the legitimacy of those who forgo marriage in
order to give themselves wholly to the Lord. That's Paul's point
in 1 Corinthians 7. Again, there's nothing wrong
with that. If your 20-year-old or your 22-year-old says, you
know what, mom or dad, I believe the Lord has gifted me with reference
to celibacy. I have no desire for marriage.
I want to go serve. I want to go do all I can for
Jesus. Praise God. That's a good thing. But recognize that celibacy is
a gift. And this is one of the pernicious
errors of the Roman Catholic institution. They tell men it's
not lawful for you to get married. And what happens at that point? These guys burn with lust and
they end up venting it out on objects that they're not supposed
to. Better to give them wives and
let them obey God in that regard than to force them to have a
gift. 1 Corinthians 7.7 is clear. Paul was gifted as a celibate. Paul recognized that it was a
gift from God. He recognized as well that not
everybody has this gift. If you don't have the gift, don't
try to manufacture it. Find yourself a wife. That's the answer. I mean, and
the confession is right there, too. The prevention of uncleanness. Do you know what you ought to
do instead of spending your time on porn? Get a job, work hard,
save some money, and find a spouse. That is the legitimate expression
for your sexuality, is to find somebody that will say, I do,
and take care of them for the rest of their lives. It's a beautiful
thing, the way God made it. We want to short-circuit and
say, well, no, it's better to be single. It's better to be
single if you're gifted to be single. If you're not, you are
going to kill that poor man. As well, we ought to realize
the responsibility involved in marriage. You see, what we find
here in Genesis chapter 2 is a beautiful and a wonderful thing.
What we will find in Genesis chapter 3 is just the opposite. And Adam doesn't exercise his
responsibility well in his post-lapsarian state. Adam blames God and blames
Eve. That's not the way to exercise
a responsibility in a relationship. It's the woman you gave me, and
it's her. That's not being a responsible
human being when it comes to your other, your significant
other. J.C. Ryle made the observation, this
is from the commentary on Matthew, I sort of pulled from notes in
Matthew 19. He said, it is clear from the
whole tenor of the passage that the relation of marriage ought
to be highly reverenced and honored among Christians. It is a relation
which was instituted in paradise in the time of man's innocency,
and is a chosen figure of the mystical union between Christ
and His church. It is a relation which is sure
to have the greatest influence on those whom it brings together,
for happiness or for misery, for good or for evil. Such a relation ought never to
be taken in hand unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, but soberly,
discreetly, and with due consideration. It is only too true that inconsiderate
marriages are one of the most fertile causes of unhappiness,
and too often it may be feared of sin. Now, you know, whenever
I go through these marriage counselings or premarital with the young
people, they never, you know, it's just their glazed eye, glossy
eye. And you've got to make sure that
this is the person you're willing to commit to for the rest of
your life. And everything's great when you're
at that phase. It's almost like you'd want to
say, OK, go live separately on islands all by yourself for five
years and, you know, make sure and then come and get married.
I mean, everybody's rah, rah, raring to go. As parents and
as grandparents, brethren, we need to encourage our children
to think with their heads and not their hearts, not with their
organs. We need to encourage them to
think through the implications of marriage. Our confession of
faith is very clear. Therefore, such as profess the
true religion should not marry with infidels or idolaters. Neither should such as are godly
be unequally yoked by marrying with such as are wicked in their
life or maintain damnable heresy. This is a very huge thing. I think what Ryle says is right. Such a relation ought never to
be taken in hand unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, but soberly,
discreetly, and with due consideration. Now, realizing that your 18,
19, 20, 21-year-old probably doesn't have that intellectual
ability Be a good parent and a grandparent. Don't, you know,
make every hoop that big for them to jump through. But boy,
tell them, read them Rael, read them Genesis 2, read them Genesis
3, read them Ephesians 5, read them Colossians 3. When your
kids say, you know, you're still doing family worship, the kid's
still at your home, he's still under your authority at 18 even,
19, he's thinking about marriage, Hit him with the truth. Hit her
with the truth of what God's word says. And I think that it's
important for every young man to say, can I and do I want to
love this woman and lead her until death does us part? And
the same for a young woman. Is this the man I am willing
to submit to until death does us part? We need to be more objective
rather than subject. Yeah, I just love her. I love
him. Great. Love is great. By all means.
But you need to think through the implications of what I do
means. And then finally, in terms of
marriage and its permanence, God ordered that it is in fact
permanent. It is His intention. One man,
one woman, till death does them part. Now, subsequent revelation
tells us that God has allowed divorce for porneia and for desertion. I would include abuse with reference
to desertion. A man who is punching his wife,
breaking her ribs, blacking her eyes, is a man who has deserted
his wife. So those two instances, desertion
and porneia, desertion is taught us in 1 Corinthians 7, porneia,
Matthew 5, Matthew 19. Those are two lawful instances
wherein the innocent party may, in fact, sue out for divorce
and remarriage as permitted. I believe that. I have preached
that. If you're interested, the most recent sermon would have
been in Matthew 19. I think we dealt with it a bit
in Sunday school. confession study last time. I
don't think in a lot of detail, but you'll get more argument
in terms of those particular texts in that sermon on Matthew
19. All right, well, let's close in a word of prayer. Father,
thank you for what Genesis 2 teaches us, and thank you that it surely
does highlight the goodness and the kindness of God. It wasn't
good for man to be alone, so you You took care of the situation,
and we thank you for that. We thank you for marriage. We
thank you for the single life. We thank you for whatever condition
we find ourselves in, if you have given us the grace and the
contentment to be in that situation. We ask that you would help us
to evidence and demonstrate good marriages by our conduct one
to another, Give us grace, Lord God, to honor you when it comes
to this particular institution, and we do pray for our young
people and our children. It's exciting, it's encouraging,
it's a delight to see them wanting to marry, but we pray, God, they
would do so with sobriety, with discretion, that they would think
through the implications of the Word of God. We ask that you
would go with us now, bless us in the remainder of this week,
watch over us, help us to do our work as unto the glory of
God. And we pray through Christ our Lord. Amen.
