Then the Lord God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him." Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said,
"This at last is 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 his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (ESV)
In the same chapter, the creation of man gets a single verse, describing how the first man is formed by God from the dust of the ground. But the creation of the first woman becomes a sort of story by itself.
In the first chapter of Genesis, God's creative work is described as "good" six times and "very good" once. But for the first time in Scripture, something is described as "not good," which is that man is alone, without "a helper fit for him."
The idea from the context is that there is no helper suitable for man because there is nothing like him in the animal kingdom. [1][2] And so the "animal parade," in which God brings the animal kinds to the man to see what he will name them, with the additional purpose of helping him to see that there is nothing in the lower orders like him, and thus nothing capable of being a suitable counterpart to him.
The purpose of emphasizing this fact to Adam was, I believe, to help Adam fully appreciate the gift he was about to be given - his wife, the first woman. This supposition is borne out by the context, for after Adam meets his newly created bride, he exclaims:
"This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man."
Notice the expression "this at last" which is captured by a few translations. This evidences that Adam "got the point" of the animal parade. Under this realization, he meets his bride, and she fills the void of companionship that could only be filled by someone who was fundamentally like him.
But why all the drama of removing the rib? Why does not God just make woman from the dirt, as he made the man? The reason is clear from the context: this emphasizes that she is indeed like him, and thus a suitable companion for him. The differences, in characteristics and in physical makeup, are important. But they are both fundamentally the same in constitution - they are both human, made in the same image and likeness of God. (1.27) He must recognizes that she is, indeed, "bones from his bones" and "flesh from his flesh."
But why does man need woman? Why is it "not good" that he be alone? There are at least several reasons that could be given. The first is obvious from the context: without the genders there is no family and no procreation, and thus man cannot fulfill God's intention that humanity should multiply and fill the earth, serving as lords and stewards over God's beautiful creation. And man needs someone to help him do the tasks God has laid out for him, to be his "helper."
Another is to provide him with companionship. The writings of Solomon and the other sages bear out how the virtuous woman has the power to make a home more than simply a place to live, and how that she brings both joy and pleasure to her husband.
There is another benefit which is not mentioned here, but receives treatment in later Biblical teaching, especially in the New Testament epistles. A man finds, in caring for his wife, a higher satisfaction than when caring simply for himself and for his own needs.
As Christ taught us that "it is more blessed to give than to receive," so Paul writes (in the context of ecclesiastical discussions):
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. (Ephesians 5.25-33)
The reader will forgive my lengthy exposition, but it was necessary to make this point: when the feminist throws out the Biblical perspective on gender, she gives up the significance of what it means to be female. She removes herself from that special place she has in the created order which makes her an exalted object of love and attention, a source of joy, and a reason for thanksgiving. And she does this, all so that she can achieve this so called ideal of being treated exactly the same as men.
---
[1] An interesting Vulgate translation: faciamus ei adiutorum similem sui with similis meaning "like, similar, or resembling."
[2] Contra evolutionary dogma.
Leave a comment