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,
Scripture Reading: Genesis 2:1-25
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
Introduction
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: Man Is Alone
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.
The Solution: Man Is Given a Wife
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,
Implications Concerning Marriage
now I want to draw out some implications concerning marriage.
First: The Goodness of 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.
Second: The Definition of Marriage
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.
Third: The Purposes of Marriage
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
Fourth: The Distinction of Male and Female
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,
Application and Conclusion
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.
Closing 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.