Back to the Introduction Adam’s Bride (Chapter 1) “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). (Man at the apex of the whole created order.) Next to destinies the human preoccupation across the generations has been with origins. From the hieroglyphics of ancient Egypt and the creation mythologies of ancient Babylon right down to the modern quest for space exploration, the common thread has been the question of origins. How did it all begin? Where did it all come from? Where did we ourselves come from? These are more than academic questions, for since the future is wrapped up in the past our understanding of how it all began will probably influence our behaviour more than anything else. In fact, the issue of origins impacts every question about the very purpose of our existence, and to what happens to us at death. As the word indicates, the book of Genesis is the book of beginnings. It alone supplies a definitive answer to these important questions. Genesis reveals, and the scriptures never deviate from the premise, that God is the originator of every living thing. The human race derives from God and in Him we live and move and have our being. In his famous address to the Stoic philosophers at Athens, Paul affirmed this assertion, declaring, “Of one blood made He all nations of men to dwell on all the face of the earth” (Acts 17: 26). And the fact that this is the first subject the opening words of scripture addresses emphasises its importance. Practically all the great themes developed throughout scripture are found in kernel form Genesis. That is why the book is often referred to as the seed plot of the whole Bible. We are not surprised, therefore, that of the sixty-six books in the sacred canon Genesis has been singled out for critical attack more than any other. In spite of repeated and sustained onslaughts having been made against it Genesis has stood the test, and remains to this day like an impregnable rock. Although the most painstaking scrutiny has been applied to it over the years, the unique grandeur of the Genesis record abides undiminished. Jesus recognized the book of Genesis as the Word of God, and none who bow to His authority can have any hesitation in receiving it as such. We are not impressed when unbelieving men reject as spurious the very writings our divine Master established as being of supreme authority. Of course, the critics will want us to believe that Jesus was simply accepting the traditions of His day, but we believe, and are sure, that all wisdom and knowledge is treasured up in Him. (See Col. 2: 3.) Origins and Destinies In its original the opening phrase of Genesis ‘In the beginning God’ is just one word, ‘Bereshith.’ It means source or origin and therein lies the importance of the Genesis record. The book introduces us at once and without fanfare into the presence of the infinite. It reveals God in the solitary grandeur of His being, the uncreated and self-existent source of all things. Nothing is said to prove His existence, nor is any argument advanced for it. On the contrary, in the first verse of Genesis the everlasting God is simply and sublimely revealed, and then in the rest of the chapter He is made known by His works. Elsewhere we read, “The heavens declare His glory, and the firmament shows His handiwork” (Psa.19: 1). The profound simplicity of the first verse of Genesis means that a child can receive it, and yet such is its transcendence it declares the origin of all things. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen.1: 1). ‘The heavens and the earth’ is a term that embraces within itself all things in the created order. When the American astronaut, Neil Armstrong, set foot on the moon he read this awe-inspiring verse and his reading was then transmitted around the world. Leaving aside all questions about how God did it, or how long He was in doing it, this first verse of Genesis informs us of the origin of the material universe. The book then goes on to describe how national life began on earth and how diversity of language developed. It explains the human propensity towards evil and shows how society is to control that evil through the establishment of magisterial authority. And when still only in the second chapter, we are able to witness the first marriage. We are told “God … made a woman, and brought her to the man” (Gen. 2: 22). The Six Workdays The first chapter of Genesis takes us through what are sometimes called the six workdays of God. Those six days along with the concluding Sabbath of rest are commonly referred to as creation week. As we might expect, a great variety of theories have been put forward about that week. While accepting special creation, some see the six days as representing six indeterminate periods of time. But the expression the evening and the morning would seem to indicate a day, as we usually understand it. The creation of man on the sixth day was the final and crowning act of the whole creation programme. God said, “Let us make man in our image …” The term of course is generic, denoting mankind as a whole. Someone with a degree of insight into human nature remarked, “Had God created man first, the arrogance of the human heart is such he would have claimed the rest of the work as his own.” But man was created last. At the close of each day’s work, the Creator looked on what had been done and declared it to be good. But at the end of the sixth day He pronounced the work very good. Man was the jewel in the Creator’s crown. The Creation of Man Endless speculations have been advanced to account for man’s existence but only in the book of Genesis do we have an adequate and true account of his origin. Genesis tells us “God created man … male and female, created He them” (Genesis 1: 26,27). This is followed by a factual statement of how Adam, and then Eve, came into being and from that first man and that first woman the whole human race has since descended. That man is the most complex component in the created order does not need to be argued. He clearly possesses unique qualities of self-awareness, of feeling and of will. He has astonishing skills in every field of investigation. His capacity to reason his way through the most involved and delicate problems of his day is quite amazing. Besides his physical make-up he also has a profound moral and spiritual dimension. That he is more than just the sum of his physical parts is beyond dispute. He is not a robot but an intelligent being with the power to make moral choices and to distinguish between good and evil. David, the greatest of Israel’s kings, declared as he reflected on these things, “I am fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psa.139: 14). The Image and Likeness of God Of the vast and immeasurable creation, only man was made in the image and likeness of God. The precise meaning of this term is not spelt out, even though it is stated no fewer than three times. The reference can hardly refer to a physical image, because God is a Spirit, and a Spirit does not have flesh and bones. (See John 4: 24 & Luke 24: 39.) But the fact that a similar emphasis is not found anywhere else in the creation record suggests something quite unique about the work of that sixth day. While image is mentioned three times in the passage, likeness is found only once. Some see this as a moral likeness, something additional to what is said about image. They argue that this likeness, although lost in the fall, is regained through new birth when believers are created in righteousness and true holiness. (See Eph. 4: 24.) The Spirit of God then develops this likeness in them and it will finally be perfected at the return of the Lord. The apostle John said, “We know that when He shall appear, we shall be like Him … ” (1 John 3: 2). It may be best, however, to think of these two terms, image and likeness, as referring to the same thing. While the expression (the image and likeness of God ) may be difficult to pin down, it identifies man as the only self-conscious component in the whole creation. His personality and self-awareness sets him apart from every other created thing. This is the principle reason why human beings should be treated with dignity and why we should always uphold the sacredness of human life. Although he lost a great deal in the fall, man was still spoken of afterwards as being in the image of God. There can be no doubt that God was speaking of man in his present fallen state when He said to Noah, “Whoso sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made He man” (Gen. 9: 6). Much later, when urging restraint in the use of the tongue, the apostle James was mindful of this as well. He said, “With the tongue we bless God, even the Father; and with the tongue we curse men, who are made after the similitude of God” (James 3: 9). Man’s Capacity for Communion While we are to hate sin in others as well as in ourselves we must never undervalue the man in whom the sin is found. Human beings, whatever their social standing or ethnic background, have all been made in God’s image with the potential and the capacity to know God. It is true that sin has intervened, but when regeneration occurs man’s whole being again senses its affinity with God. Man is basically a religious being; God made him that way. Indeed, it is this capacity for communion with his Creator that underscores his distinctiveness. That he is a worshipper distinguishes him from all other forms of life on earth. Proof of this can be seen today in the countless religious systems that vie for the hearts and minds of men and women. While we grant that vestiges of truth may be found in many of these systems, we cannot assume that they are merely different routes leading to the same goal. Syncretism suggests that our faith should be based on what is valid in all religions but that challenges the uniqueness of the revelation God has given us in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. Before leaving this matter we must also consider that the image and likeness of God in man has something to tell us about God Himself. If man, even in his fallen state, can show a profound and genuine concern for the welfare of his fellow humans in so many areas of life, it would be unreasonable in the extreme to conclude that God, in whose image man is made, will be indifferent to the needs of His creatures! The Lord of Creation Created to be God’s representative on the earth, man was exalted to the apex at the beginning. He was crowned with glory and honour, and all things were made subject to him. The lordship of the whole created order was vested in him and He was charged to exercise dominion over the works of God’s hands. God blessed the man and the woman and said, “Be fruitful, and multiply … and have dominion over … every living thing that moves upon the earth” (Gen.1: 28). The word translated dominion in this verse means lordship, as in Anno Domini the year of our Lord. The fact that he was set apart from every other aspect of creation, and was placed above it, not only put man in a position of great authority it also laid upon him immense responsibility. His stewardship extended to the seas that girdle the earth and to the air above it. He was told to “subdue [the earth], and to have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air … ” (Gen.1: 28). We might add that this stewardship still rests on man’s shoulders. But he is not the absolute sovereign of all that he surveys for his authority over the earth is a delegated right. The earth is the Lord’s and man is to tend it as a steward who shall one day give account. Unlike the lower orders of creation man is a responsible being, he is not a law unto himself, and he is not free simply to do as he please. (See Rom.14: 12.) The scriptures indicate as well that God had a purpose in the creation of man that reaches beyond the present order of things. David said, “Man was made a little lower, literally ‘for a little season’ lower, than the angels” (See Psa.8: 5). This suggests a dimension to man’s creation that is yet to be realised. Many centuries later, when the members of a New Testament church were resorting to litigation over their differences, Paul reminded them of this added dimension. He said, “Do you not know that the saints shall judge the world … that we shall judge angels?” (1Cor.6: 2,3). Clearly, there is an extra-terrestrial dimension to man’s existence. Evolution It is just at this point that the Genesis record stands opposed to the many evolutionary theories that have been put forward in recent times. However sophisticated their presentation may be the fact remains, and we must stress, that they are still only speculations. The theory of natural selection propounded by Charles Darwin is a hypothesis that has never been proved, and some would say is not capable of proof. We recognise that within the created order there are evolutionary processes going on all the time. The breeding of domestic animals, and the cross-cultivation of plants will sometimes produce variations which, when brought together, can form new breeds and new varieties. This is known as experimental evolution or microevolution, but in common parlance it is no more than adaptations within species. But the Darwinian theory of natural selection is different. The evolutionary hypothesis itself pre-dated Darwin by many years, but in The Origin of Species by Natural Selection (published in November 1859), he attempted to explain how it all came about. Darwin postulated the idea that humankind evolved gradually over millions of years from lower forms of organic life. Evidence? Ironically, although he called his book The Origin of Species the one thing Darwin failed to explain was how species actually did originate. Even at the time his more thoughtful critics were asking, “Where are the transitional forms that this theory calls for?” They just weren’t there! If Darwin’s premise is true we would naturally expect to find traces of evolutionary change all around us today, but this is not the case. It is said that millions of specimens have been studied over many years, yet no conclusive evidence has been forthcoming. Notwithstanding the absence of real and definite evidence, the received wisdom of those who promote the idea is that the hypothesis should be accepted even if the missing links have not been found. The ultimate missing link is the point at which inanimate matter became animate. But they must be few in number who can really accept with any degree of conviction, that nobody plus nothing equals everything. Scientific research, particularly in the past ten years, has established beyond doubt that living organisms, such as the eye, are far too complex to have evolved by random processes. In this debate it is often said that we have to postulate something. The bewildering thing is that anyone can find it easier to postulate a speck of dust that contained within itself all the various life forms that fill the earth today, than to postulate almighty God. The evolutionary theory claims that man started on the bottom rung of the ladder and that he is still struggling to climb to the top. Hence the much vaunted expression, the ascent of man. But the Bible teaches the descent of man. Man started at the top and then fell through his sin and disobedience. Belief in a Creator Donald Barnhouse, for five decades one of the truly great preachers on the American scene, wrote in his commentary on the epistle to the Romans, “The only ultimate reason for accepting reason itself as valid is belief in the Creator. The alternative is the atheistic position that mind and reason are the accidental products of mindless matter.” And this is the issue: evolution is an attempt to prove that life on earth did not originate by the fiat of the living God but that it evolved, from one species to another, by a gradual process of unlikely mutations. The attempt has certainly revealed an implicit, and in some instances an openly admitted, philosophical bias against the Genesis record on which we rest our case. The first verse of the Bible says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” This is not a discovery; it is a revelation! When it was done we do not know, for the age of the earth would seem to be greater than the history of man. In any case, just as God created a mature man, so He could have created the heavens and the earth at whatever degree of maturity He desired. It might be argued from the second verse of Genesis that after its creation some cataclysmic catastrophe took place that plunged the earth into darkness. This may even have coincided with the fall of Satan. (See Isa.14: 12-17.) And then, out of the resultant chaos the earth was prepared in six days as a habitation for man who was created on the sixth day. We readily admit that some feel compelled to reject the creation account in Genesis simply because of the young earth view propounded by certain creationists. The latter argue with varying degrees of persistence that the earth is probably no more than about ten thousand years old. However, as we have hinted, this seems to confuse the age of the earth with the age of man. Others have suggested that an indeterminable period of time could have come between the first and second verses of Genesis. None of these matters, however, is fundamental to the point being made here. The essential issue is original creation, and not when it happened, or how long it took. In Popular Thought It scarcely needs to be said that the theory of organic evolution has already done great harm. It has permeated the legislatures of the western world and powerfully impacted the ethical standards of a whole generation. In fact, many appear to have grasped at the idea of everything being the result of blind chance as an escape route from ultimate accountability. If it is true that man evolved from the monkey, even though the contrast between the two is more pronounced than any comparison, then everything has to be relative and nothing can be absolute. Post-modern man goes even further and argues that if everything is still in the process of evolving then we simply cannot be sure of any finality. And if there is no finality, no final authority and no ultimate judge, then it is quite understandable that self-discipline, and with it every other kind of discipline, has largely disappeared. And in its place we are left with a philosophy of self-expression that in the end says, Let us eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die. In the view of many, the old certainties are gone and gone forever. They have been replaced by a liberal relativism that denies even the existence of absolute or objective truth. As a result, multitudes of young people are growing up without any sense of moral value and without a clue as to what life is all about. For them, uncertainty is the only certainty that remains. The issue facing us today is not that evolution has been proved or that special creation has been disproved, it is nothing less than the recognition or otherwise of the existence of God. Evolution challenges this: it challenges the claim that every man, because he is the result of special creation, is answerable to his Creator. On the other hand, the existence of an intelligent Creator by whom all things were made and apart from whom nothing was made, challenges every materialistic philosophy. The irony of the current debate is that the pressure on evolution is coming not so much from biblical scholarship as from science itself. World-renowned scientist and author Professor Paul Davies is an undoubted authority. He has held academic appointments in Astronomy and Mathematics at the Universities of Cambridge and London, and currently holds the Chair of Mathematical Physics at the University of Adelaide in South Australia. While never an apologist for Bible doctrine he did come to some very interesting conclusions when he turned his piercing rationality to the very nature of scientific inquiry and to man’s role in the cosmos, Davies wrote, “I cannot believe that our existence in this universe is a mere quirk of fate, an accident of history, an incidental blip in the great cosmic drama. Our involvement is too intimate … the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance … this can be no trivial detail, no minor by-product of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here.” (See The Mind of God by Paul Davies p.232. Published by Simon & Schuster, London.) Sir John Herschel, the famous astronomer, graduate of Cambridge University and fellow of the Royal Society, stated his case well when he said, “All human discoveries seem to be made only for the purpose of confirming more and more strongly the truth contained in the sacred scriptures.” “He who made them at the beginning, (The creation of man and of woman, and thepartnership established between them). His adversaries constantly tried to trip up of our Lord Jesus Christ throughout His public ministry. They attacked Him from every angle and on all sorts of subjects but without avail. For instance, on one occasion they challenged Him about the vexed question of divorce, but He responded by taking them back to the scriptures. They argued that Moses seemed to take a more relaxed view of the subject than others, but going back beyond Moses, and the law, to the first chapter of Genesis He affirmed man’s special creation. He said, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning, made them male and female” (Matt.19: 4). He always maintained that man’s existence was not an accident of evolution but a special creative act. The First Man God made man on the celebrated sixth day of creation week and He did the work in two parts. He first created the man and after that the woman, and so He created them male and female. Of the first part we read, “The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul” (Gen.2: 7). This means that man is more than dust: there is another dimension to him besides the material. A man may lose an eye or a limb without his personality being affected by the loss. The Body Nothing is said of the processes that were employed in forming the human body. The statement merely tells of the base material, the dust of the ground, from which the first man was made. Yet it does highlight the well-attested fact that the human body is formed of the same basic elements that enter into the composition of the earth. In modern terminology, the chemical elements of dust: nitrogen, oxygen, calcium, etc., are also the basic physical elements of the human body. Although human flesh looks and feels very different from dust, they are both formed of the same substances. The real difference between them is found in the breath of life. David, the psalmist, found great comfort in this; he used it to show how the Lord can empathize with us in our frailties. “He knows our frame; He remembers that we are dust” (Psa.103: 14). Having said that, we must carefully guard against the unwarranted assumption that all our feelings and emotions are nothing more than merely chemical reactions. The Soul When the man had been formed, God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” The word ‘became’ means he came to exist or he came to be something he had not been before. He came into being at the precise point when God breathed into him the breath of life. His existence resulted from a single act of special creation, and not from a process of gradual evolution. This breathing of God made man unique throughout creation. In his marvellous treatise on the resurrection of the body, Paul wrote: “The first man Adam was made a living soul … the first man is of the earth, earthy” (1Cor.15: 45,47). In this way, the apostle restated the dual nature of the human constitution and it’s because of this that man continues to exist even after he dies. Eventually his dead body will be raised again, and he will abide in a conscious state throughout eternity. The Name After the man had been formed he was given a name; he was called Adam. The name is said to derive from Adamah, meaning earth or red earth. It was probably a permanent reminder to the first man that God had formed him of the dust of the ground. Following the fall, and immediately before his expulsion from Eden, Adam was expressly reminded of this fact. God told him: “Dust you are, and unto dust you shall return” (Gen.3: 19). And so it happens at death with every man. Superiority of the Human Before moving on to the creation of the woman we must pause with an event that was of considerable importance. The whole creation was caused to pass before Adam, who became responsible to name each individual part of it. Whatever Adam called it, that was the name by which it became known and, as it happens, is still known to this day. The organizational details of this naming ceremony are withheld from us, but we know that all the various species of the animal kingdom were identified. The stupendous task of evaluating the different creatures with their distinctive features and characteristics, and then putting a name against them, meant that Adam must have been a person of astonishing insight. Clearly, he possessed a quite extraordinary degree of intelligence. Laying aside for the moment, what we know of the last Adam, the man Christ Jesus, we have really no conception of how great that first man was when he came from the hand of God. His faculties were untrammelled by sin and he was perfect in all his ways. The best specimen of humanity known to us today is really only a pale reflection of that original man. A Companion for the Man When the exercise ended the observation was made: “For Adam there was not found a help meet [fit] for him” (Gen.2: 20). After a full and thorough investigation, it was plain that a suitable companion for the man could not be supplied from the lower orders of creation. This simple reality made a further act of creation necessary. That such a need arose bore powerful witness to the superiority of the human over the animal creation. The essential difference between a human being and a mere animal is that the human has a moral sense and is not governed merely by instinct. Man alone was made in the image of God, and of him alone it was said, “God breathed into him the breath of life.” While some animals do have certain features that approximate to the human, the gulf between the two has proved unbridgeable, and so it remains. Adam for his part could name the animals and rule them, but he could not relate to them on an equal plane for he belonged to a different order of creation. On the other hand Eve, when she was created, while distinct from Adam, was a part of him. She was his complement and fullness. He could delight in her, and together the man and the woman could enjoy the provisions of the world around them. And they could share the privilege of communion with their creator God. The naming ceremony, therefore, besides highlighting the greatness of the first man also underlined the greatness of the first woman for she would be the precise counterpart of the man. The First Woman And so it happened, after Adam was formed and the animals named, God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet [fit] for him” (Gen. 2: 18). Far from implying anything inherently wrong in the unmarried state, this announcement signalled that partnership in marriage was the divine ideal for humankind. The woman would make up what was lacking in the man. At that point, however, the work of creation was not yet complete: a partner for the man had still to be provided. In language quaintly picturesque and yet full of meaning, the history records how this was done. “The Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made He a woman, and brought her unto the man” (Gen.2: 21,22). All other men have been born of woman, but the first woman was made from man. This is the force of the scripture that says, “For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man” (1Cor.11: 8). Eve’s existence derived entirely from Adam. Although distinct from him she was part of him, his life was her life. The man already had life, and the woman was formed out of that living man. The several details of the woman’s creation are rich in symbolism. We simply call attention to the three primary things that took place. (See Gen.2: 22.) (i) Adam’s sleep In the first instance, Adam was caused to fall into a deep sleep, and when this happened God took a rib from his side. Although the original word is found many times in the scriptures it is never again translated rib. It is probably best to simply think of Eve as having been taken from Adam’s side. In any case, this must have been the first anaesthetic and the first surgical operation. It was as if Adam had died in order to secure his bride. Spiritual minds have always seen in this striking incident the death of our Lord Jesus Christ. Just as Eve could trace her origin back to the time when Adam died, at least in figure, so the Church looks back and traces her origin to the death of the cross. We read, “Christ loved the church, and gave Himself for it” (Eph.5: 25). Clearly, in Jesus’ death, as in Adam’s sleep, God did something that only He could do and, in both instances, it was something that will never need to be done again. (ii) Adam’s side God then built a woman from the [rib] He had taken from Adam’s side. (See Gen.2: 22.) This is the force of the word ‘made’ in the a.v. text, and the actual rendering of it in the New King James Version. Being a descriptive term, the word conveys an impressive illustration of God’s primary activity in the world today. Responding to Peter’s memorable confession at Caesarea Philippi, Jesus said, “I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt.16: 18). The building of a bride for Adam is a figure of the building of the Church today. And in due course, the Church will become Christ’s bride. Since the present age began this mighty enterprise has been progressed through the preaching of the gospel. At the point of conversion every believer becomes a living stone in that spiritual building which, all the while, is growing unto a holy temple in the Lord. (See Eph.2: 21.) The pledge to build the Church, first given at Caesarea, holds to this day and so the work continues. All who engage in evangelistic work, either at home or abroad, should settle for nothing less than to see this great enterprise as the ultimate goal of all their endeavours. (iii) Adam’s bride Finally, God brought the woman He had made and presented her to Adam and she became his bride. In the day she came from the Creator’s hand Adam’s bride was perfect in beauty, in intelligence, and in every other way. She lacked no human attribute of grace or of charm. Milton, in Paradise Lost said of her: “ … Grace was in all her steps, heaven in her eye, in every gesture dignity and love.” Formed after the man, she reflected the glory of the man. Alas, all this would be compromised by the fall. But in the day of her presentation to Adam that first ever bride was flawless in all her ways. Symbolically, this anticipates a day of coming glory when the Church will be presented to Christ, a glorious Church, a spotless bride. That day is also anticipated in Asenath who, as we shall see in a later chapter, became Joseph’s bride in the day of his glory in Egypt. And it is the theme of Jude’s magnificent doxology: “Now unto Him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy … ” (Jude 24). The presentation of the heavenly bride to the heavenly bridegroom is described in some detail in the book of Revelation. “Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to Him; for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and His wife has made herself ready. And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white; for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints … blessed are they who are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb” (Rev.19: 7-9). The First Marriage A Lasting Relationship The nature of the marriage bond is so special that Adam could say of Eve, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Gen.2: 23). Separating bone from bone, and flesh from flesh, will always be a delicate matter. It certainly highlights our need to be exceedingly cautious in judging issues of a matrimonial nature. We must beware lest we should diminish, however unintentionally, the significance of the marriage bond itself. Such issues should always be discussed against the background of the ideal union between Christ and His Church, for that is an abiding union: it is a tie that will never be broken. Immense damage can result when we yield too easily to the cavalier spirit of easy compromise that is such a feature of today’s society. Judgements made on that basis, no matter how sincere their intention, will always lack the vital ingredient of divine revelation. In the long run, accommodating biblical principles to the changing moods of a careless world will prove counter-productive. A Loving Relationship The parallels between Adam and Eve on the one hand, and Christ and the Church on the other, do not end there. When God created the man He formed him of the dust of the ground and breathed into him the breath of life. But in creating the woman God did not simply repeat what He had done in the first part of that day’s work. Eve was not formed from more dust; she was taken from Adam’s side. That first marriage was more than just a union it was a marvellous oneness. It is described as a ‘one-flesh’ relationship. God said, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh” (Gen.2: 24). This is what prompted Paul to write, “He that loves his wife loves himself for no man ever hated his own flesh” (Eph.5: 28,29). A Living Relationship It would be palpably absurd to suggest that the reference to a one-flesh relationship means that in marriage the man and the woman become one person. The expression simply means that two distinct and separate personalities have now come together in such a way that they are to be considered no longer two, but one. And almost invariably as the marriage matures they become increasingly one. They become one in their approach to life, and in their response to issues as they arise. In all these respects Eve’s union with Adam foreshadowed the Church’s union with Christ. As the woman had no existence apart from the man, so the Churchhas no existence apart from Christ. This incredible spiritual oneness was emphasised to the believers at Colosse in these terms, “Your life is hid with Christ in God.” And again, “When Christ who is our life shall appear, then shall we also appear with Him in glory” (Col.3: 3,4). An Exclusive Union The one-flesh concept also teaches that God established marriage on an exclusive or monogamous basis. The Creator’s plain intention in instituting marriage was that each man would be a one-woman man, and each woman a one-man woman. Patently, throughout the western world this ideal is under threat today as never before. Consummation Becoming one-flesh will necessarily involve a consummation of the marriage. When Paul insisted that sexual intercourse resulted in the parties concerned becoming one flesh, he based his assertion on the actual terms used in the original marriage. “What? Know you not that he who is joined to a harlot is one body? For two, said He [i.e. the Creator], shall be one flesh” (1 Cor.6: 16). All truly married couples have indeed become one flesh, but not all who have become one flesh are truly married. The union postulated here could hardly be considered a marriage in any meaningful sense of the term. But as plainly as words can, Paul’s statement implies that when a married person engages in extra marital affairs an almost intolerable burden is placed on the original one-flesh relationship. Cohabitation By the same token, a couple simply deciding to live together as man and wife does not constitute a meaningful marriage. Marriage is a creation ordinance that was established for the welfare of society as a whole, and for this reason society must give its consent. This will involve a formal and legally binding contract, a marriage certificate or licence that will commit each party to the other. In one form or another, such a contract is necessary throughout the civilized world before a marriage will be recognized as valid. It is true that western societies are now taking a much more liberal view of cohabitating couples. In a recent report commissioned by the National Council for Social Research, government statistics show that the number of cohabitating couples in England and Wales has now exceeded one and a half million and it is expected that this number will double over the next twenty years. The report claims that people generally, including church people, are becoming less inclined to maintain traditional views on marriage. In line with this, the media routinely portrays cohabitation as an acceptable norm, presenting it as an assumed and practical alternative to marriage. It is even argued that the traditional view of no sex before marriage is outdated and, in any case, it is too great a burden to be imposed on the present generation of young people. The implications of this new libertarian attitude are quite imponderable for the future of society. Adultery The vexed question of adultery is as old as the hills. It is a third party coming between a man and a woman who are already one in God’s sight. In some Old Testament instances where adultery was established the law demanded death by stoning. Although not always explicit in defining adultery, the fact remains that scripture consistently passes a severe censure on marital infidelity. In a society like our own that is dominated by sex, we do well to note the cautionary word contained in one of scripture’s wisdom books, “Whoso commits adultery with a woman lacks understanding; he that does it destroys his own soul” (Prov.6: 32). Many a hard earned reputation, developed over many years, has been cheaply sacrificed on the altar of momentary sensual pleasure. Polygamy There is sufficient evidence to show that polygamy was practiced in certain instances in Old Testament times. In fact, scripture actually cites the well-known cases of David and Solomon. And it would even seem that sometimes God blessed people in that position. The blessing however, was always in spite of what they were doing and not because of it, for even in those days such practices were at variance with marriage as God had established it. For our part, it behoves us to pay close attention to the fact that where suchpractices are reported, the scripture record invariably shows that far from bringing happiness in their train they brought untold misery. A Permanent Union Like most things, there are two sides to the marriage covenant: a leaving side and a cleaving side. Scripture states the case in these terms, “For this reason shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his wife and they shall be one flesh” (Gen.2: 24). The two sides are obviously correlative, each requiring the other. But we should note the order of their presentation for there cannot be a true and meaningful cleaving without a prior leaving. Leaving Since God made the woman for the man, the man must leave his parents to establish a new family unit. This is the idea behind the question in the marriage ceremony, “Who gives this woman to be married to this man?” The reply, usually made by the bride’s father, is a simple “I do.” Although this is simplicity itself, it is deeply significant. It transfers the bride from her father’s headship to that of her husband. In this way a new relationship is established, a new union is formed. The leaving can sometimes be painful for the parents especially where there are factors in the marriage that, as they view them, give cause for anxiety. Further concern may arise if the newly weds are leaving their respective family homes for the first time or are perhaps going abroad to live. Nevertheless, wise parents will recognize the changed relationship and while still available to help and counsel they will be careful not to interfere on one side or the other. Interference by parents or in-laws can sometimes put strains on a fledgling marriage and might even jeopardize its success. The leaving can also be difficult for the newly married couple. They may be leaving the security of the childhood home where they have been able to fall back on the support of their parents. Now they must meet problems as they arise and solve them in their own way. They may seek advice from their parents and from others but they too must recognize their new status. Together they must face whatever difficulties arise and work with each other to build up their own relationship. Cleaving The other side of the covenant is the cleaving side. “A man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife … ” (Gen.2: 24). In modern terminology, the word used here quite literally means to be glued together. Those united in marriage are intended to stick together. Scripture everywhere presents marriage as a life-long union between a man and a woman who have been lawfully joined together. While the leaving and the cleaving are essential features in every normal marriage, they do not imply an abandoning of parents on the one hand or of offspring on the other. They signify rather a clear-cut recognition of a new reality; a new family unit has been formed, a new headship has been established. And Why One? At the close of the Old Testament, the prophet Malachi posed a most pertinent question about the marriage bond. Why did God make just one woman for Adam? He had the residue of the Spirit, He could have made two, or several, but He made just one. “And why one?” The question may have been rhetorical but the prophet’s answer is deeply significant for today’s society. “That He might seek a godly seed” (Mal.2: 15). The reasoning behind the ideal of each man being a one-woman man, and each woman a one-man woman, had everything to do with the welfare of the offspring. Child Welfare. Is anything causing greater alarm at the present time than this? In the minds of all responsible and informed members of contemporary society there is a deep foreboding about the welfare of our children. That sixty thousand children should be before the courts in the U.K. every year in cases of domestic breakdown is surely a reproach to this nation. Moreover, it would be naive in the extreme to consider the frightening statistics on paedophilia, and child abuse, unrelated to the many complex issues thrown up by society’s current attitude to the marriage bond and the subsequent break-up of the family unit. A further factor that may not be so immediately obvious is the impact family breakdown has on the education of those children who are the innocent victims of such situations. An international study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development revealed, that in the U.K. where teenagers are among the world’s best students, those from broken families scored more than 17 points less in reading tests than others who lived with both their parents. A recent report from the Office of National Statistics ( UK) states that children in care are at least twice as likely to have mental and emotional problems as those living with their families. For too long, political correctness has obscured the fact that children from stable homes and regular family backgrounds, with two parents of the opposite sex living together, have a distinct advantage over others. Marriage is Honourable Scripture insists, “Marriage is honourablein all” (Hebs.13: 4). ‘Honourable’ is a term that might be used of a scholar who is eminent in his discipline: his reputation for scholarship is be held in honour and jealously guarded. In the New Testament the word is also translated precious, as in ‘the precious blood of Christ,’ and ‘the precious promises of God.’ Even where a marriage is not a distinctively Christian marriage it is still to be prized, for that is what honourable means. Marriage as an institution, should be held in reputation simply because of its divine origin and because God calls it honourable. As if to underscore this the triune God set His seal to the marriage bond, by both word and deed. The Father instituted it at the dawn of creation and said, “For this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave to his wife and they shall be one flesh” (Matt.19: 5). The Son sanctified it by His presence as well as by His words: He performed His first miracle at a marriage feast in Cana. (See John 2: 1-11.) And the Holy Spirit placed His seal on the marriage relationship by using it as a type of the heavenly union that exists between Christ and His Church. (See Eph.5: 32.)It should be fairly evident, therefore, that society’s health as well as our own personal happiness is bound up with a proper view of marriage. Here is a concept that has served the race well throughout the centuries, and it should not be lightly cast aside by this generation. The ideal of a man and a woman being joined together in matrimony, and then establishing a decidedly Christian home is not an outmoded notion; it is something vitally relevant and urgently needed in today’s world.
Chapter Three Adam’s Bride (Chapter 3) “Adam was first formed, then Eve” (1Timothy 2: 13). (The respective roles of Husbands and wives). The first marriage took place in Eden’s primal hour. It was a first in every sense of the term for it was the marriage of Adam and Eve, the first man and the first woman. And it was unique in that it was a marriage arranged and instituted by the Creator. Moreover, it foreshadowed the heavenly union that now exists between Christ and His Church and it was intended to be a prototype for every subsequent marriage. The family unit That original marriage signalled the establishment of human society in the earth. It would be a structured society based on the family unit and underpinned by the marriage bond. From then until now the family unit has been the basic building block of every integrated society. Indeed, society itself is the aggregate of its families and its ultimate health is reflected in the state of its family life. The family is also a universal institution: no society has yet been found that did not have some sort of family arrangement. And because marriage provides the optimum environment for the cultivation of family life, it plays a vital role in the maintenance of a stable society. As well as providing a healthy setting for the nurturing of children the family unit fulfils important functions that are essential to good government. A Creation Ordinance Contrary to popular opinion, marriage is not primarily a Christian ordinance: it is a creation ordinance that was ordained for the welfare of the whole human race. While perversions and distortions have sometimes been tolerated, there is abundant evidence to show that monogamous and permanent marriage, certainly in ‘Christian’ lands, was the accepted norm throughout the centuries. And because it was archetypal, the first marriage ruled out such so-called marriages as between man and man, or woman and woman. Same-sex marriages, as they are called, cannot be true marriages for the simple reason that the only marriage sanctioned by God is between a man and a woman who have been lawfully joined together. To say that western societies have moved away from the principles enshrined in the first marriage is simply to state the obvious. The swinging sixties (the 1966’s) brought basic and long accepted concepts under intense pressure. And since then the pressure for change has been maintained until a point has now been reached where the very fabric of society itself is under threat. Individual Choice Much of the legislation that is currently passing through the various legislatures of the western world is based on something called individual choice. It is very largely legislation responding to the feminist demand for woman to have equality with men in every area of life. Precisely what the feminists are seeking is left deliberately vague. But the watchwords are well known, i.e. equal rights and equal pay for equal work, etc. etc. Serious Departure On a superficial level this seems fair enough, but the subtle effect of it has been to move western society away from its corporate basis in the family. Many of the earlier feminists are now prepared to concede that this fundamental change carries a high price tag. It is even reported that some career mothers, woman who have attained to high-profile positions, are having second thoughts. Many are concluding that the care of their families is more important than material rewards, however lucrative these may be. Meanwhile, the cost in terms of broken marriages and shattered homes, not to speak of the epidemic of juvenile crime and unsocial behaviour that besets us on every hand, is incalculable. The problems currently facing us, such as the yob culture, muggings and rape and the appalling increase in child abuse, seem almost beyond the power of our statutory authorities to control. In these matters the official statistics make heavy reading indeed. It is accepted that in any civilised society the legal processes must be kept under constant review; imbalances and anomalies will inevitably be revealed and these must be corrected. But exchanging one set of anomalies for another will not solve anything. And when the balance swings too far, as it now seems to have done, and the integrity of family life is threatened, then it is time for our legislators to urgently reappraise the situation. Alternative Lifestyles A further consequence of this departure is that so-called alternative lifestyles, such as homosexual practices and lesbianism, are now quite common. Pornography on the Internet has become an immense problem, while ‘semi-porn’ is all the time being thrust before us in the press. Ours has become a promiscuous society. Yet political correctness insists that such things must be tolerated simply because they are said to be matters of individual choice. The argument runs that consenting adults may do as they please so long as third parties are not affected. But there always will be third parties: it’s in the very nature of our existence that what we do will impact others. Scripture insists that no man is an island. “None of us lives to himself … ” (Rom.14: 7). And even if we lay aside human considerations, we must still give account to God, and where moral issues are concerned God will not be mocked. An old adage says, ‘You can’t play with fire and not be burned.’ It simply expresses the old principle of cause and effect that the Creator built into the system. Paul put it like this, “Whatever a man sows, that shall he also reap” (Gal.6: 7). The awareness of this principle is innate and universal: and it enters into every aspect of our lives. Moreover, it has been in operation from the beginning, even in the dark days before the great flood. The inspired historian tells us that in those days “women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. And in the same way men abandoned natural relations with women and became inflamed with lust one for another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (Rom.1: 26,27 n.i.v.). The essential thing for us to keep in mind is that this old principle of cause and effect still operates today. Equality of the sexes And the values enshrined in the first marriage are still valid as well. Far from being outdated they address up-to-the-minute issues, not least among them is the pressing question of equality between the sexes. In the brief interval between Adam’s creation and Eve’s, God said: “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make ahelpmeet for him” [the word literally means a counterpart] (Gen.2: 18). This important statement is enough to regulate equality between the sexes. To suggest, as some have done, that scripture diminishes or devalues womanhood is an inexcusable caricature. The reference to husbands and wives being heirs together of the grace of life should put to rest any reservations on that point. (See 1Pet.3: 7.) The reality is that when the light of the gospel began to penetrate lands once benighted, the initial manifestation of its power was the honour it bestowed on womanhood. The position insisted upon in the sacred records is that while God created the man and the woman fearfully and wonderfully different, He created them intrinsically equal. Equal before God Each has dignity as an individual and then in marriage they both form a unique and beautiful oneness.Always equal in God’s sight, scripture represents the woman to be the complete complement of the man physically, socially, intellectually and in every other way. The Genesis account of creation reflects this fine balance: there we have difference but not independence. Within the framework of a happy marriage the woman will never be seen as a second-class partner nor should she regard herself as such. But we are discovering, rather late in the day and somewhat painfully, that the modern rush to make the man and the woman more equal than God made them does not always have a happy result. In the very nature of things, if we try to add to a perfect thing the result will always be imperfection. Take a simple illustration. Each of us has two hands, they are both are equal and yet they are different for one is a right hand and the other left. Leave them as God made them and they can work together in total harmony. But how clumsy we should become if in trying to make them more equal we reversed the fingers and thumb of one hand so as to make both of them either right or left hands. Commenting on the details of the woman’s creation in his highly prized commentary on Genesis, Matthew Henry pointed out that God did not take a bone from Adam’s head for the woman was not intended to be his superior, nor from his foot for then she might have been considered his inferior. He took a bone from his side teaching us that the woman is the equal of the man, his companion and true helpmeet. Eve was taken from under Adam’s arm that he might protect her; and from near his heart that she should be the object of his affection. Headship in Principle Even the order of creation is significant; it is stated no fewer than three times that the man was created first and then the woman. It is first written into the record, then it is noted in the story of the woman’s creation, and finally, before the narrative ends, the precedence of the man is again emphasised. Adam said of his counterpart, “She shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man” (Gen.2: 23). In the New Testament Paul used this order to demonstrate the truth of headship, and to regulate the relationship of husbands and wives in family life, and of men and women in the church. He put it like this: “Adam was first formed, then Eve” (l Tim.2: 13). And again, “The head of the woman is the man … for the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man” (1 Cor.11: 3,8). Love and Submission On this basis he exhorted married couples in the following terms; “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as unto the Lord.” And again, “husbands love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church.” (Eph.5: 22,25). The submission of the wife should be of the same character as the Church’s subjection to Christ, while the love of the husband should draw its inspiration from Christ’s love. Where the second of these exhortations is granted there will normally be no difficulty with the first. But to stigmatise Paul, claiming that he advocated an inconsiderate regime of dominance in the home would simply do violence to what he says. Why, he even invoked the principle of love above that of submission! More careful attention needs to be paid to the apostle’s assertion of the loving character of the marriage relationship. He presented a delicate balance and called for understanding and the recognition of a kindly spirit of co-operation. Not one of his exhortations calls into question the basic issues of equality or dignity; they are simply matters of order and of priority. Headship in Practice Bearing this in mind, we recognise that within the marriage bond ‘headship’ can be put into effect in two opposing ways, one constructive and the other destructive. The former will yield honour and blessing: the latter, only bitterness and strife. Experience shows that where believing couples adopt the divine order and resolve to honour God in their marriage, they find the ancient promise still true “Them who honour me I will honour” (1Samuel 2: 30). Parents In practice, husbands will usually leave their wives to handle routine matters as they crop up within the domestic circle. More often than not such matters will admit a fairly straightforward solution, but others might prove more difficult. In that event, both should hold their counsel until they have prayed and talked things over. Usually, this will result in them being of one mind about the matter in hand. But if this should not be the case and a decision is pressing, the responsibility for making that ultimate decision will rest on the husband. Headship also puts on the wife an onus to go along with her husband and to support him in the decision he has made. Normally, this is what headship will mean. On this basis, while recognising their place in God’s order, husband and wife will be able to walk together, united in their subjection to the ultimate headship of Christ. (See l Cor.11: 3.) Children Where children are involved the occasion will present them with a superb object lesson. The home should always be seen as the basic unit for the training of our children. What they learn in that context will remain with them forever. It follows that the relationship of parents to each other and to the Lord will demonstrate to the children, in a living and balanced way, the principles of loving authority and true obedience. Is the truth of headship largely ignored today? Then it is all the more important that Christian husbands should face up to its implications. Since the man is the head of the woman he is the vessel of primary responsibility. This will mean that where there is failure in an otherwise properly constituted marriage we must look at him first. For this very reason, scripture directs its analysis at the man first of all when marital matters are discussed. (See Mal.2: 14,15.) The Supreme Example The truth of headship was finely demonstrated in the life of Christ. Although co-equal with the Father, He lived on earth in complete subjection to the Father’s will. Once, when the disciples had gone to buy food, He said, “My food is to do the will of Him that sent me” (John 4: 34). This was His characteristic attitude, and we know that it never involved any loss of dignity. By the same token wives should recognize the headship vested in their husbands. If a woman feels she is not able or perhaps is not willing to do this she should not marry for in marriage the wife’s life is bound up with that of her husband. A woman should never marry a man she cannot look up and genuinely respect. The failure of Adam and Eve, our first parents, effectively underlined the abiding character of divine principles. While their failure occasioned the fall, God’s purposes for the earth and for mankind were not abandoned. On the contrary, He has taken them up in a second man, a last Adam, who is the Lord from heaven. And one day all things in heaven and on earth will be harmonised under Hisheadship. (See Colossians 1: 16-18.) When that time comes and the Lord Jesus reigns upon the throne of His glory over the whole earth, the Church will reign with Him. We must insist, therefore, that the ultimate pattern for the marriage bond is not Adam and Eve, but Christ and the Church. The Lord had blessed Abraham in all things. And Abraham said unto his eldest servant of his house, that ruled over all that he had, Put, I pray you, your hand under my thigh: And I will make you swear by the Lord, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that you will not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell: But you will go unto my country, and to my kindred, and take a wife unto my son Isaac. And the servant put his hand under the thigh of Abraham his master, and swore to him concerning that matter … And Rebekah arose, and her damsels, and they rode upon the camels, and followed the man: and the servant took Rebekah and went his way. And Isaac came from the well ofLahai-roi, for he dwelt in the south country. And Rebekah lifted up her eyes, and when she saw Isaac, she alighted from off the camel. For she had said unto the servant, What man is this that walks in the field to meet us? And the servant said, It is my master: therefore she took a veil, and covered herself. And the servant told Isaac all things that he had done. And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent, and took Rebekah and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death. From Genesis Chapter Twenty Four |