The Biblical Foundation of Marriage

The story of God’s creation provides the foundation for marriage in the Bible. There the concept of marriage occurs for the first time in Scripture.1 The creation account provides the foundational pattern for all later biblical teachings on marriage. That Genesis 2:24 is mentioned in subsequent passages of Scripture, particularly in the New Testament (Matt 19:5; Mark 10:7; Eph 5:32), shows that the creation account is understood by Jesus and the apostle Paul as paradigmatic for the biblical concept of marriage.

The Creation Story

Marriage exists because the living God has instituted and designed it in Eden.2 We might say that at creation marriage was God’s idea for the human race. Furthermore, the manner in which God created Adam and Eve reveals God’s design that in marriage there should be male and female. Seeing that it “is not good for the man to be alone,” God made a helper fit for him (Gen 2:18).

Scripture depicts marriage as the foundational structure of community for human beings. Marriage—and the family that grows out of marriage (cf. Gen 1:28), “be fruitful and multiple” presents a pattern of social fellowship that exists before all other social conventions of society. In contrast to the creation of the animals, the creation of humans begins with a divine conversation: “Let us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness” (Gen 1:26). 3 In other words, a divine communication and relationship within the Godhead culminated with the creation of humanity in God’s image.4 And this relational dimension of humans is further shown in the parallelism of Genesis 1:27.

In the image of God (A) He created him (B), male and female (A) He created them (B).

This reveals some important aspects of human nature: the human being is understood to be “male” and “female.” Remarkably, the Hebrew text does not use the common Hebrew words for man and woman (’îš and ’iššâ), but the words “male” (zākār) and “female” (nĕqēbâ). Furthermore, the change from the singular (“in the image of God He created him”) to the plural (“male and female He created them”) makes it absolutely clear that God’s creation did not bring forth an androgynous5 human being, but that human nature (hā’ādām) since the beginning consists of being male or female. While man and woman are created in the image of God, it may be said that only male and female together constitute the human image of God in its fullness.6 The transition from the singular to the plural in Genesis 1:27 thus emphasizes the difference of the sexes within the unity of both, while at the same time emphasizing the unity of both despite all differences.7 This idea is taken up again later in the first marriage ceremony in the garden of Eden in Genesis 2:24 where we read that “man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh” (emphasis added). Thus, Genesis 2 teaches that God created marriage when He made the first woman from the flesh of the first man so that the bond of marriage unites man and woman as one flesh.8

Implications for Marriage

Before we look more closely at the description of this first marriage in Eden, we would like to point out some important implications of this aspect of creation for God’s design for marriage. Creation in the image of God encompasses the concept that we are created by God as male and female. Thus the Bible shows that our sexuality is part of our human existence and as such is an expression of our being.9 No abstract term for sexuality appears in the Bible because sexuality is an integral part of personhood and personal relationship.10 Sexuality therefore cannot be detached from human existence. Man as a sexual human being (male) is oriented in creation toward woman, another human being (female); that is, he turns to the one he is not in himself, and vice versa. Human beings were created by God in such a way that they need the help of a companion; they lean toward the other to complement each other.11 This is part of our human existence and means that God’s design for marital relationships is heterosexual. Adam needed a complementary helper to fulfill his calling to perpetuate and multiply the human race and to cultivate and govern the earth.12 Furthermore, both man and woman together are oriented toward God, their Creator, in whom they find their fulfillment together.

When God created humanity, it was very good (Gen 1:31).13 The only aspect evaluated as “not good” was the man’s loneliness. God could have solved that loneliness with another male being or several male beings. But instead, God created a woman. God did not create several women but one woman who was “a helper, suitable for him” (Gen 2:18). For this reason the Bible rejects homosexual and polygamous partnerships. A homosexual or polygamous lifestyle does not reflect the divine pattern created by God in Eden. In this sense, homosexual or polygamous behavior becomes a form of idolatry because it distorts the divine pattern. In homosexual behavior the movement of the partners is not to bring together their male and female sexual distinction and peculiarity but rather to practice same-sex relations. Furthermore, homosexual relationships have no potential to fulfill God’s commandment and blessing: “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28). Only the marriage between a man and a woman joins male and female, as instituted and ordained by God in the beginning. Indeed, only a man and a woman have the God-given potential to be fruitful and multiply, thus fulfilling God’s design. Homosexual partnerships seem to reflect, among other things, the consequences of a deviant and inadequate view of the relationship between male and female as intended by God. Furthermore, such relationships convey the misleading notion that one sex is sufficient. Thus, only the monogamous marriage between one man and one woman reflects the divine pattern of faithful marriage.

The First Marriage in Eden

The creation account of Genesis 2 focuses on this earth and the task God has given to human beings. This passage draws attention to humans as the cultivators of relations—that is, the relationship between God and His creation and the relationship between man and woman. Genesis 2 contains the first occurrences of the Hebrew words for man and woman: ’îš and ’iššâ (Gen 2:23). After creating the woman, God Himself brings her to Adam, “in effect pronouncing the first marriage union in history.”14 It has been pointed out that “the creation of the first couple leads naturally to their relationship expressed through marriage since it is the couple’s charge to procreate and subdue the earth (Gen 1:28).”15

All this leads to Genesis 2:24, where we find the first statement about marriage in Scripture, which remains foundational to all later expositions. Therefore much depends upon a correct interpretation of Genesis 2:24,16 which mentions three important aspects that are constitutional for the biblical view of marriage: leaving, cleaving, and becoming one.17 We shall briefly look at each of them.

Leaving

“For this reason a man shall leave (‘āzab) his father and his mother” (Gen 2:24a). The command to leave father and mother, thus severing the closest relationship a human being can have, expresses the idea that the marriage between a man and a woman has priority over all other family relationships.18 Leaving father and mother opens the way for an exclusive new relationship between man and woman, thereby providing the home and seedbed for new life. Although Adam had no parents, God commissions him to leave father and mother, which indicates the universal character of marriage for all humankind. Remarkably, the biblical narrative particularly urges the man, rather than the woman, to leave his father and mother. The Israelite marriage was usually patrilocal—the man continued to live in or near his parents’ home.19 That the man is to leave his parents indicates the importance of the new commitment that takes place in a marriage. It also shows that Adam was a full-grown man, an adult person, rather than an immature young child. Leaving one’s parents implies that the marriage partners are mature enough to become independent from their parents.20 Hence, marriage should take place between sufficiently mature adults—not between immature children.21 Leaving father and mother implies sufficient independence; it also presupposes mental, spiritual, financial, and emotional maturity. The idea of leaving also occurs in covenant contexts.22 Israel is bidden not to leave the covenant with God (Deut 12:19; 14:27; 29:24) just as God promises not to forsake Israel (Deut 31:8; Josh 1:5). Thus, covenant language frames the concept of marriage, indicating that “on marriage a man’s priorities change. Before marriage, a man’s primary obligations are to his parents; afterwards, his primary obligations are to his wife, who is his new equal partner. 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”23 because it makes very clear that the wife now comes first.

The process of leaving entails an important public notion that goes along with the marriage covenant relationship. The holy covenant entered into by a man and a woman, in the presence of witnesses (God and representatives of their families), indicates that “marriage is both personal and communal”24 in the sense that there are public witnesses who testify to the beginning of marriage. Marriage is not just a private, personal commitment given to another person. It involves the presence of witnesses and a certain ceremony.25

Cleaving

The Hebrew word dābaq (to cleave, to cling) in the clause “and be joined to his wife” (Gen 2:24b) implies a relationship of passion with a strong and deeply felt attraction.26 The same word is used in Genesis 34:3 where Shechem’s heart was drawn (dābaq) to Dinah, Jacob’s daughter, and he loved the girl and spoke tenderly to her. The verb dābaq also expresses the idea of permanence. The same verb occurs in Isaiah 41:7 to express the joining of two pieces of metal.27 Any attempt to separate the two of them would severely damage both. It has been pointed out that the previously dominant ties to one’s parents “have been loosened in order to tie a still tighter, more fundamental bond: between man and wife.”28

The cleaving that takes place in this marriage covenant relationship is between one man and one woman. In other words, “monogamy is clearly intended.”29 According to the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, these words “hold up monogamy before the world as the form of marriage ordained by God.”30 The significance of this passage lies in the fact that marriage involves a new pledge to one spouse (his wife, not wives) in which former family commitments are superseded.31 The cleaving to one’s wife also conveys the idea of loyalty and affection32 and permanence (cf. the use in Num 36:7).33 In other words, it is a relationship that is not to be broken. The bond should be deep and lasting. Just as the believer is called to hold fast to the only true God (Deut 4:4) so man is to hold fast to his only wife. The literal reading of Genesis 2:24 “and cling to his wife” involves the idea of permanent faithfulness to one’s wife and excludes extra marital intercourse.34 It signifies an underlying sense of “belonging” or commitment.35 Adam does not hold fast to a wife but to his wife. This also excludes polygamy as God’s original design for marriage.

It has been correctly pointed out that “this process of ‘leaving’ and ‘uniting’ involves a public declaration in the sight of God. Marriage is no private matter. It involves a declaration of intention and a redefining of obligations and relationships in a familiar and social setting.”36 This public character of marriage derives from the fact that Adam and Eve did not celebrate any private arrangement but that God Himself brought Eve to Adam. Hence, a divine element (in the presence of God and under His guidance and supervision) is an integral part of the first marriage in Eden. Furthermore, this indicates that God Himself arranged the marriage order of one man and one woman for humankind. This seems to indicate that whenever people marry they follow a basic divine design for the relationship between man and woman. This divine design is reflected even when unbelievers marry.37

Marriage, therefore, should be accepted as valid and indissoluble.

Covenant language is again used by the biblical writer. Israel is repeatedly urged to hold fast to the Lord (e.g., Deut 4:4; 10:20; 11:22; 13:4; 30:20). Thus, it has been observed that “the use of the terms ‘forsake’ and ‘hold fast’ in the context of Israel’s covenant with the Lord suggests that the Old Testament viewed marriage as a kind of covenant.”38 To leave father and mother and cling to one’s wife means to commence a new loyalty that supersedes any other, except one’s loyalty to God. Hence Hamilton concludes, “Scripture has sounded the note that marriage is a covenant rather than an adhoc, makeshift arrangement.”39 A “commitment is essential, therefore, to any true marriage as described in the Scriptures and requires more than a voluntary physical experience.”40 Thus “marriage in general, and the marriage of Adam and Eve in particular, is eminently qualified as a plausible example of a covenant.”41 Westermann correctly points out that man’s cleaving to his wife means that “he enters into lasting community of life with her because of his love for her”42 which involves “a situation of very personal concern, fidelity and involvement.”43 The intense love and excitement for the new person resounds in the words of Adam at the sight of the woman, who is fashioned by God from his side (Gen 2:23). This love is the basis for the covenantal commitment to the marriage partner, who is “bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh” (Gen 2:23), thus indicating that this is a covenant relationship between two equal partners.

Becoming one

“And they shall become one flesh” (Gen 2:24). The biblical text indicates that becoming one flesh took place only after Adam and Eve had made a public covenant in the presence of God. The order of events is: leaving before cleaving, and cleaving before becoming one flesh. Derek Kidner therefore concludes that marriage comes before intercourse.44 In Eden, the act of sexual intercourse does not in and of itself constitute the beginning of marriage. In later biblical tradition this original pattern is maintained (cf. Exod 22:16, 17), where sexual intercourse with a virgin did not automatically lead to marriage.45 Thus, sexual intercourse is connected with the consummation of marriage, coming at the end of a public ceremony.

A man by himself is not one flesh. Similarly, a woman by herself is not one flesh either. “What is being pinpointed is solidarity.”46 Becoming one flesh denotes more than sexual union that follows marriage. It encompasses more than the children conceived in marriage or even the spiritual and emotional relationship that it entails, although all those aspects are involved in becoming one flesh. It implies that marriage is a relationship over against which even the relationship between a parent and their child moves to the background.

Furthermore, marriage is the place where human sexuality finds its God-given fulfillment. God has not devised sexuality to be experienced apart from marriage, outside of marriage, or before marriage. Sexuality is part of God’s good creation and should be enjoyed when exercised within the boundaries set by God.47 Outside of those boundaries sex can easily degenerate into exploitative behaviors—such as prostitution, pornography, and other kinds of distortions—because it lacks the commitment and safe environment intended by God through the marriage covenant. Thus, biblically speaking marriage as a gift of God is intended to be established and lived in the presence of God and with His blessing. As such, marriage “is to be distinguished from mating in that it is formalized, and in that it has important functions in addition to the sexual gratification of its members.”48

Summary

God created human beings as man and woman, male and female. God Himself led Eve to Adam and thus initiated and carried out the first marriage ceremony in Eden. It was a marriage covenant between a man and a woman that was executed in the presence of God. Thus, marriage is not a private act between two persons. Rather, marriage is a public covenant, which has legal connotations. It is conducted in the presence of God, under His supervision, and with His blessing and it is a covenant between two equal partners, a man and a woman.

In the marriage covenant, one’s priorities shift from one’s parents to another person, which involves leaving the closest (family) bonds and bonding closely and permanently to a new person as to no other. Such a monogamous relationship49 is characterized by fidelity and mutual love. Marriage is designed to take place between one man and one woman. In other words, the biblical pattern is not same-sex relationships but a heterosexual relationship between a man and a woman. As a covenant it has a public character and is designed for permanence—that is, for life and lived in fidelity. Both marriage partners share the same faith in God.

Marriage was not invented by man. Like the Sabbath, marriage is God’s gift to humanity. As such, marriage can be understood as a creator-order50 because it is part of God’s creation plan.51 As the Sabbath gives structure and meaning to the relationship between humans and God, marriage gives structure and meaning to the closest of all human relationships. Both marriage and Sabbath existed before the entrance of sin. Both were given to all humankind.

That said, we turn to some other aspects of the Old Testament that shed more light on the nature of marriage in the Bible.

__________

1 Contra Westermann, 232, who claims that Genesis 2:24 “is not concerned with the foundation of any sort of institution, but with primeval event.” Yet, even Westermann has to admit that the language used in Genesis 2:24 points to a “lasting community of life” (233). It was Jesus Christ Himself who appealed to this very passage to indicate the divine institution of marriage (cf. Matt 19:4, 5). According to Richard J. Clifford and Roland E. Murphy, Genesis in The New Jerome Biblical Com-mentary, eds. Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer and Roland E. Murphy (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1990), 12, “God made marriage part of creation.” J. P. Lange, Die Genesis oder das Erste Buch Mose (Bielefeld: Velhagen und Klasing, 1864), 70, calls God the first “Brautführer,” the man attending or leading the bride to the bridegroom.

2 C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament. The Pentateuch (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), 1:91, affirms that “marriage itself, … is a holy appointment of God.”

3 All biblical quotations are from the NASB, unless otherwise indicated.

4 In other words, God establishes a relationship with the human person who is understood to be in relation with his spouse. This becomes foundational for marriage. The human being is created as “them.” Thus “marriage appears designed to reflect the same relational unity-in-plurality as the Godhead” (Alexander, 510). Hence one can say that “the purpose of marriage is to reflect the relationship of the Godhead and to serve him” (510). Similarly Heinzpeter Hempelmann, Ehe, Ehescheidung und Wiederverheiratung: Eine biblisch-exegetische und praktisch-seelsorgerliche Orientierung (Liebenzell: Verlag der Liebenzeller Mission, 2003), 36, says that marriage is grounded in the Trinitarian God.

5 Androgyny expresses the idea of having both male and female characteristics in the same being at the same time.

6 We cannot resolve and should not dissolve this mystery by mere logic. Perhaps this is like the two sides of a coin. On one side both bear the image of God; on the other side only man and woman together constitute the image of God for all of humanity. The image of God, however, is broader and encompasses more aspects than the aspect of “male and female” (cf. Aecio E. Cairus, “The Doctrine of Man,” in Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, ed. Raoul Dederen [Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2000], 206–208).

7 The parallelism between “the man” and “male and female” indicates that the difference of the sexes is not hierarchical. Rather it indicates that on the ontological level both are worth the same in the sight of God.

8 R. C. Ortlund, Jr. “Marriage,” in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, eds. T. Desmond Alexander, Brian S. Rosner, D. A. Carson and Graeme Goldsworthy (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000), 655.

9 R. K. Bower and G. L. Knapp, “Marriage, Marry,” in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), 3:265.

10 Therefore sexuality should never become some-thing impersonal so to speak, some-thing that is being sold, bought, dealt with, or that is exchangeable at will. Where this happens, the person, the human being, is despised, disgraced, misused, and abused because sexuality is part of our nature. Sexual intercourse is intended not just to give (or receive) something but to give oneself wholeheartedly with all that one is, with one’s whole existence and emotions (cf. Helmuth Egelkraut, “‘Gott schuf sie als Mann und Frau’: Biblische Grundlinien zur Frage der Geschlechtlichkeit und der Ehe,” in Käte Brandt and Helmuth Egelkraut, “… denn die Liebe ist stark wie der Tod.Biblische Perspektiven zu Partnerschaft und Ehe. Porta Studien 10 [Marburg: SMD, 1986], 35).

11 Westermann, 227.

12 Keil and Delitzsch, 1:86–87.

13 The Hebrew word for “good” (ṭôb) carries a wide variety of meanings, including “good,” “pleasant,” “beautiful,” “delightful,” and “moral goodness” (cf. Andrew Bowling, “ṭôb—[be] good, beneficial, pleasant, favorable, happy, right,” in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, eds. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke [Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1980], 1:345–346).

14 “Marriage,” in Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, eds. Leland Ryken, James C. Wilhoit, and Tremper Longman III (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998), 538.

15 Kenneth A. Matthews, Genesis 1–11:26. The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1996), 222.

16 Gerhard von Rad, Das erste Buch Mose, Genesis Das Alte Testament Deutsch (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1967), 68.

17 “As a model for marriage this passage involves three factors: a leaving, a uniting, and a public declaration” (Matthews, 222).

18 Commenting on the leaving in Genesis 2:24, Andrew Cornes, Divorce and Remarriage: Biblical Principles and Pastoral Practice (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993), 57, states that for us in the West “who pay scant regard to the opinion of our parents, who (in most cases) would not even think of obeying them if their wishes were contrary to ours, who regard the respect paid to parents in, for example, many Eastern countries as desperately restrictive, and who anyway have often moved away from the parental home long before marriage—for us, this leaving of parents seems rather a minor point to make. But to an Israelite it was a revolutionary thought and shows the profound effect that marriage has on all our relationships.”

19 Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word Books Publisher, 1987), 70.

20 According to Cornes, 57, leaving “must mean that he leaves emotionally, psychologically. Up until now, his first loyalty, the first call on his honoring of other people, has been due to his parents. Now it will be due to his wife.”

21 The Bible does not give much information about the age at which one is to be married. Leo Trepp, A History of the Jewish Experience (New York: Behrman House, 1973), 223, says that “Jews used to marry young; the Talmud suggests the age of eighteen [chapters of the Fathers 5:24].” The chronology of 1 and 2 Kings suggests that Jehoiachin married at sixteen, Amon and Josiah at fourteen. Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1961), 29, affirms that “in later days the Rabbis fixed the minimum age for marriage at twelve years for girls and thirteen for boy.”

22 Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1–17 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990), 181.

23 Wenham, Genesis, 71.

24 O. J. Baab, “Marriage,” in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, ed. George Arthur Buttrick (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1962), 3:284.

25 C. H. Ratschow, “Ehe/Eherecht/Ehescheidung, I. Religionsgeschichtlich” in TRE, 9:309–310, states, “It is remarkable that considered from a history-of-religion perspective, marriage in all cultures is based on religion and, consequently, is cultically concluded. Therefore, marriage it not a private action between people, which is motivated by their love. Since in all cultures, it is religiously based, it has a more general, truly cosmic significance” (translated).

26 Cornes, 58.

27 Cf. also Numbers 36:7 and Deuteronomy 10:20; 11:22; 13:4 etc. where Israel is urged to faithfully “cling” to the Lord.

28 Cornes, 58.

29 Matthews, 222. Similarly Keil and Delitzsch, 90. Wynn, 676, points out that “monogamy appears as the most common type of marriage throughout history and in the world’s current societies. This long-established pattern of wedding one woman to one man has no end of variations and violations and yet serves as the model by which other forms are judged and adjusted.”

30 Francis D. Nichol, ed., The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1978), 1:227. Cf. Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets (Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1958), 46.

31 Cf. Matthews, 223; cf. also Victor P. Hamilton, “Marriage (OT and ANE),” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 4:565.

32 According to Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, The New BrownDriverBriggs Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1979), 179–180, s.v. “dābaq, dābēq,” the term dābaq expresses loyalty and affection. Cf. also Gen 34:3, which says that Shechem “was deeply attracted (dābaq) to Dinah.”

33 Wenham, Genesis, 71.

34 Hansjörg Bräumer, Das erste Buch Mose. Kapitel 1–11. Wuppertaler Studienbibel (Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus Verlag, 1997), 81.

35 G. Wallis, “$$ dābhaq,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, eds. G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988), 3:81.

36 Matthews, 224.

37 In the New Testament Jesus seems to endorse the idea that it is God Himself who is joining man and woman together in marriage. Speaking of marriage in general and of all marriages, Jesus says, “Therefore what God has joined together let man not separate” (Mark 10:9; Matt 19:6). Cornes, 66, comments on this: “It is God who joins men and women together in marriage. This is not simply stated about the original couple, Adam and Eve. Rather, it makes the very striking claim that whenever a man and woman marry, whatever the circumstances that have brought them together, it is God who is joining (literally: yoking) them to one another.” Elsewhere Cornes points out that “it is God who, in Genesis 2 says: ‘It is not good for the man to be alone’ (Gen 2:18). It is God who ‘makes the woman’ (Gen 2: 22). And it is ‘God himself who, like a Father of the bride, leads the woman to the man’ (von Rad commenting on ‘the Lord God … brought her to the man’ (Gen 2: 22).” Cornes, 81–82, then makes the following thoughtful statement: “But can we say this of every marriage, or only of those which, it is sometimes said, are ‘made in heaven’? We know from the story that Eve was meant by God for Adam; can we say the same of Fred Smith who marries Jane Baker because his parents push him into it when Jane finds she is pregnant? The answer which the New Testament gives is ‘yes’. When Jesus was asked about divorce, he said of marriage in general, of all marriages, that in marriage ‘God has joined together’ the man and the woman (Mark 10:9, Matt 19:6). It is not, then, the clergyman or the judge or the registrar who joins a couple together. It is not even the couple themselves (although of course they must give their free consent to the marriage). In the Anglican wedding service, the clergyman indeed says: ‘I proclaim that they are husband and wife.’ But he instantly adds: ‘That which God has joined together, let not man divide.’ God has joined this couple together, whether the wedding takes place in church, in a registry or the open air. The clergyman or secular official merely proclaims publicly what God, not he, has done.”

38 Wenham, Genesis, 71. See also Matthews, 222.

39 Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, 181.

40 Bower and Knapp, 3:265.

41 Gordon P. Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant: Biblical Law and Ethics as Developed from Malachi (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 181.

42 Westermann, 233.

43 Ibid., 234.

44 Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1967), 66, note 1.

45 If the public character of the marriage covenant and thus the public legal aspect that is part of every covenant is present already in Eden, before the entrance of sin, how much more is this protective and stabilizing framework essential after the Fall, when man because of his sinfulness is prone to be unreliable and unfaithful.

46 Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, 181,

47 Because sexuality is one of the most intimate and powerful aspects of human life and involves the human person in its totality, and since it easily creates a dynamic that affects us like no other aspect of our human nature, sex is being protected and safeguarded by God in a special way, like no other area of our human existence. If our sexual urge is not exercised within the safe boundaries God has instituted at Creation, sex can easily become destructive.

48 C. R. Taber, “Marriage,” in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: Supplementary Volume, ed. Keith Crim (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1976), 573.

49 For de Vaux, 24, “the story of the creation of the first two human beings (Gen 2:21–24) presents monogamous marriage as the will of God.”

50 Rather than creation, it is the creator who gives meaning and guiding structure to marriage. To speak of creator-order indicates that creation, which has fallen in sin, does not reflect marriage perfectly any more (cf. Egelkraut, 28).

51 Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, 138.