Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Genesis

[Nic J]

I was recently reading in a devotional for Genesis 2 that "it is not good for man to be alone" (Gn. 2.18). The writer was saying that "we are not expected to find fulfillment in God alone." That's a little fuzzy to me. I should be able to find fulfillment in God alone, right? It actually made me a little mad when I read it. I get his point that we need each other—"No man is an island" kind of thing. But shouldn't we be able to find fulfillment in God alone? I asked another Christian, and they said "No. If we don't know human love, how would we know God's love?" So we need each other, in addition to God? I have reread this for two days, and I need help.

[jimwalton]

Great questions. I’ve heard that interpretation MANY times. Understanding the context and the purpose of the statement will be what helps us.

We’ve only talked a little about Genesis 1, but you probably know I take it as a functional account of creation, not a material one. It’s how the cosmos is to function (why it’s there and how it works), not about how it came to be. The ancients (2nd millennium BC) all agreed that deity created everything there is; there was no debate in the culture ever about that. The debates were what the cosmos (and the earth and humanity) were for, how it all functioned, and the roles that each particular segment played. They cared about order as against disorder, functionality over against chaos.

The way I take Genesis 2.18 is that the reference to man’s aloneness means that the functionality of the ordered system (the cosmos, the earth, the things on the earth as told to us in Gen. 1) is not yet complete. Everything is not yet functioning optimally as it was designed to do in an ordered system, working the way God intended. “The man” in the verse means “humanity,” not an individual. It’s a category, not a personal name.

It’s not saying that Adam is lonely, incomplete without a female human, in psychological need of a soulmate, or in physical need of a reproduction partner. None of that is under discussion here, or the comment about looking among the animals for such a accomplice is just downright weird. Rather, God is stating that humanity functions best as a community instead of individuals. That interpretation is very different from “We are not expected to find fulfillment in God alone.” I agree with you. We are expected to find fulfillment in God alone, but to fulfill the role and function on earth that God has given us requires community, family, and cooperation.

By the way, the role and function we are given to do is to be fruitful and multiply, to fill the earth and subdue it. We are to care for the earth as if it’s sacred space (which it is), and to rule it as God would, as if we were his co-kings and co-queens (which we are).

When God makes a “helper” for man, he uses a word that is used of God throughout the Old Testament: God was the helper of Israel. It’s obviously nothing inferior or lesser than, but noble. The woman part of humanity is equal in dignity, role, functionality, and status as the man part of humanity. “Bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh.” It is a statement of kinship, correspondence, and parity.

This may engender MANY more questions. Feel free to ask.