God as Cause: The Cosmological Argument

On October 12, 2018October 15, 2023 By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Christian Apologetics, Christian Evidences, Cosmological, Glendale Gleaner, Published, Theology, Theology

I clearly remember my elementary school science lesson of “cause and effect.” For every effect, there must be a sufficient and adequate cause. It is one of those self-evident truths of the natural world. Yet, when applied to the origin of our universe the matter becomes a disputable principle. For some time now, some physicists, like Dr. Victor Stenger, are on record affirming, “Not everything requires a cause.”[1] Meanwhile, the Hebrews writer affirms, “For every house is builded by some one; but he that built all things is God” (3:4 ASV).[2] Well, what about this “structure” —the universe— that houses “all things”? Is there an adequate cause to explain it? Is there reason to believe it was built by Someone? We, here, affirm that there is a reason to believe God exists.

There are four independent categories of arguments[3] used to provide a basis for believing a personal God exists, that we are not alone in the universe; and, more importantly, that our experiences have meaning and purpose. They all have their strengths, their appeal, and areas which the dispute naturally centers on. Yet, they are all valid reasons to make the case that God exists. Now, let us turn to the argument at hand.

Cosmological arguments are a group of arguments focused on establishing the “cause and effect” link between God (cause) and the universe (effect), by examining the effect and seeking an adequate and sufficient cause to explain it. In other words, it is based on a well established and self-evident principle of the world in which we live. Naturally, then, there are broad and narrow forms of the cosmological argument. A narrow form would be to focus on the origin of human beings as Thomas B. Warren did in his debate with then atheist Antony Flew.[4] We will be considering, however, the broad form, namely the origin of the universe (nothing too big).

First, we will reflect on the Bible’s cosmological affirmations, and then secondly, we will suggest a reasonable argument that affirms that the universe had a cause, and that cause is God.

Arguments from Revelation

The essence of the cosmological argument is found in the Bible. Consider a few examples. The very first line of scripture makes the clear “cause and effect” affirmation, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). Some readers of Genesis think that since there are poetic elements to this creation narrative (i.e., “God said,” “God saw,” measured creation days, etc.) its historicity is questionable; however, as Old Testament scholar Clyde Woods points out the passage conspicuously lacks Hebrew parallelism, “the fundamental characteristic of Hebrew poetry.”[5] Nevertheless, while the passage is stylistically shaped, artistry does not by itself dimmish its historic claims. Would one question the historicity of the “Star Spangled Banner” commemorating the Battle of Fort McHenry in the War of 1812 simply because it is stylized? In a clearly “narrative” text, Moses affirms: “for in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is” (Exodus 20:11).

The “Creation Hymn” psalms also offer cosmological affirmations. They extoll the power and greatness of God and display the sense of wonder, confidence, and admiration filling the psalmist.[6] In Psalm 19, David praises God:

“The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament showeth his handiwork.” (Psalm 19:1)

In Psalm 8, David reflects on both the universe and the status of humanity as part of this universe:

“When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers… For thou hast made [mankind] but little lower than God [lit. heavenly beings]” (Psalm 8:3, 5).

The universe (i.e., “heavens”) exists because of the will of God. David praises God for creating the universe and for creating humanity (cf. 139:7–16). This emphasis on the universe and humanity, reflects both the broad (the universe) and the narrow (mankind) forms of the cosmological argument.

The New Testament likewise affirms the cosmological argument. A biblical faith accepts that the universe was made by God —ex nihilo— from nothing (Hebrews 11:2). The prologue of the Gospel of John affirms that Jesus is the agent of creation.

In the beginning was the Word… The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made. (John 1:1–3; cf. v. 14)

The Father brought “all things” into being through the pre-incarnate Lord Jesus. In a very real sense, then, Jesus is the cosmological argument.

The apostle Paul employed the cosmological argument on several occasions. Acts records sermons where he affirms natural theology (Acts 14:15; 17:24) to Greeks and Romans building his plea from the God who made the world. In Romans 1:19–20, Paul pointedly affirms that the testimony of the visible world reveals the attributes of the invisible Creator, namely, “his everlasting power and divinity.” Those that reject such evidence, he argues, are “without excuse.” Finally, Paul lifts up Jesus as the one who created “all things” and presently holds everything together (Colossians 1:16–17).

Arguments from Reason

Providing reasons for our belief in a personal God from nature and reason is found throughout Scripture. It is an act of faith and a natural outflow of loving the Lord with all our heart and mind (Deuteronomy 6:5; Matthew 22:26). We should be very clear, that God has provided sufficient witness in the world to point us back to him. Yet, when asked why we believe in God and have hope in Jesus (1 Peter 3:15), it would be wise to think outside “the book” since for many quoting the Bible is insufficient.

Even when fully convicted that truth is on our side, we must face the truth of Alvin Plantinga’s words, “there are no proofs of God that will convince all rational persons.”[7] But that has always been the story even among believers (Isaiah 53:1; Luke 16:27–30).

All we can do is present our reasons hoping that the “accumulated weight” of such arguments will be hard to ignore. After all, as biochemist Dr. Joseph DeWeese (Lipscomb University) once said,

“Creationists and evolutionists don’t have different evidence… we have different filters through which we understand and interpret that data.”[8]
Joseph DeWeese, “Why I am a Creationist.”

We share our “filter” in hopes it will persuade them to see that the universe points us to “clues” which point to God as the only adequate answer to existence.

Apologist Dr. Ralph Gilmore (Freed-Hardeman University) stresses that the heart of the cosmological arguments centers on three key concepts: causality, necessity (necessary existence), and contingency (contingent existence).

Causality stresses the cause and effect connection between A and B (A causes B, or B is caused by A). This is the causal relationship.
Necessity means that A necessarily exists due to its essence which makes A impossible to not exist.
Contingency points to the dependency B has upon another for its existences, it has an “iffy” existence (B only exists “if…”). Thus, contingency points to non-eternal things or existence and implies the need for another to bring it into existences.

So, if the universe exists (and it does), its existence must be explained. It is as simple as that.[9] It is either here by necessity or contingently. Does it necessarily exists —is it eternal? Is it dependent upon itself —did it create itself? Did something outside of itself bring it into existence —God? Many have tried to side-step the force of this issue, but not without breaking away from the rules of proper thinking and established scientific knowledge.

The cosmological argument presented here stresses in the simplest terms that the universe began and has a cause for its existence. It is called the Kalam Cosmological Argument and was developed by Arabic philosophers of the late Middle Ages (kalam means “Arabic philosophy”).[10] One of these Arabic philosophers was the twelfth-century theologian Al-Ghazali, and his argument has been employed by theists of various persuasions ever since. It is considered one of the foundations of modern Christian apologetic approaches to establishing a positive philosophical case for the existence of God.

In his volume, On Guard, Apologist William Lane Craig summarizes Al-Ghazali’s argument into three simply stated premises:[11]

Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Premise 2: The universe began to exist.

Premise 3: Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Craig asserts that this is a “logically airtight argument” because in order to deny premise 3 (“the universe has a cause”) one must prove that the first two premises are false. Though the issues are complex we will examine some of the objections made against premises 1 and 2.

Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause

Craig affirms that in order to deny premise 1 two things must be argued: (1) that contrary to experience something can come from nothing and (2) that the universe broke into existence for no reason whatsoever – that is, without a cause.

To invalidate premise 1, some have appealed to subatomic particles (or, virtual particles, elementary particles), which are the basic building blocks of “all matter.” This includes elements which are “various self-contained units of matter or energy”[12] such as electrons, protons, neutrons, etc., and even the smaller parts which make them up. Some have argued that such can appear and disappear from nothing. From this, it is then argued that premise 1 does not always hold true.

Craig reminds us that these particles, however, emerged in a vacuum which is not the same thing as “nothing,” for “in physics, the vacuum is a sea of fluctuating energy governed by physical laws and having a physical structure.”[13] It has contours so to speak. Nothing, on the other hand, has no properties at all. Zero. Meaning, then, that nothing remains to be nothing; whereas, something can emerge in a vacuum.

This is not a controversial assertion. In a 2013 article posted on the Scientific American website entitled, “Something from Nothing? A Vacuum can Yield Flashes of Light,” Charles Q. Choi discusses the Casimir Effect, which was predicted in 1948 by Hendrick Casimir and measured in 1996 by Steve K. Lamoreaux.[14] This “effect” is a measurable phenomenon in quantum field theory. It basically says that the vacuum is not empty space but is full of virtual particles and their electromagnetic wavelengths which leave behind measurable effects.[15]

These subatomic particles have a “quirky” nature. However, though they seem to appear and disappear from nothing, in reality, they are emerging from the complex structure of the vacuum governed by the laws of thermodynamics. Consider Choi’s words:

Quantum physics explains that there are limits to how precisely one can know the properties of the most basic units of matter—for instance, one can never absolutely know a particle’s position and momentum at the same time. One bizarre consequence of this uncertainty is that a vacuum is never completely empty, but instead buzzes with so-called “virtual particles” that constantly wink into and out of existence. These virtual particles often appear in pairs that near-instantaneously cancel themselves out. Still, before they vanish, they can have very real effects on their surroundings. (Italics added)[16]
Charles Q. Choi, “Something from Nothing? A Vacuum can Yield Flashes of Light,” ScientificAmerican.com

If someone were then seeking evidence that something can come from nothing and without cause, subatomic particles, it appears, is not that evidence. They do not emerge from nothing, they emerge from the vacuum.

Premise 2: The universe began to exist

The focus of the denial of premise 2 centers on denying that the universe began. Those that deny that the universe had a beginning appeal to concepts which are a bit complex. Case in point, some have said that the universe must be potentially a part of an infinite series of finite (contingent, “iffy”) causes.

In other words, looking backward, the universe has a whole series of causes, but no ultimate cause. There is no real line to separate a time from when the universe did not exist to when it began to exist. The same is true when looking forward. There is no real moment when the present causes will cease with the end of the universe.

Craig raises two problems to this approach. First, an infinite series of finite (contingent) causes cannot be potentially infinite at the same time. let me add another element to this claim. We must keep in mind that this infinite series of causes is made up of finite, or contingent causes. As Gilmore reminds us above contingency points to non-eternal things or existence, and this implies the need for another to bring it into existences. This denial has not solved the problem for it only further extends the dependent state of the universe indefinitely. This is not a solution.

In addition, it is significant to understand that the mathematical concept infinity (symbolically as ∞) is just that — conceptual; it does not exist in reality.[17] This is not controversial mathematics. Physicist Dr. Tom Hartsfield’s article, “Infinity is Not Real,” from the blog Real Clear Science (6 Aug 2013) outlines how problematic infinity would be if it were real.[18]

In summary, Hartsfield explains that while the concept of infinity is incredibly valuable for fields such as mathematics, physics, and philosophy, when brought into our world of measurable things it ruins all mathematical comparisons. It would require rewriting the rules for counting and division. For example, 6/2=3 and 6+2=8. Makes sense. Now observe infinity in the following mathematical sentences: 6/∞=0 and 6+∞=∞. Makes no sense in our world. “Compared to infinity,” Hartsfield points out, “every other number is nothing.” He concludes:

In our material, measurable world, though, infinity is never a real, physical quantity; it is only an abstraction. A mathematician can tell you about an infinite set of numbers, but as much as he wishes, he can’t find you a cup of coffee with infinite joe. That “bottomless” cup of coffee eventually runs dry.[19]
Tom Hartsfield, “Infinity is Not Real,” BigThink.com

The universe cannot exist due to an infinite set of causes in the past or the future, because actual infinities do not grow or shrink. Thus, you cannot drink infinite coffee out of a cup of infinite coffee, and still, have the same amount of infinite coffee left over. Infinity does not shrink or grow. This well-established application of infinity, then, supports that the universe began to exist and is not the result of an infinite set of causes.

A second problem is found in this arguments rejection of the established thermodynamics laws of nature. These laws clearly establish that the universe had a beginning. Dr. Don B. DeYoung calls them, “the two most basic laws in the entire science realm.”[20] He summarizes them as follows:

The first law states that energy is conserved or constant at all times. Energy, in whichever of its many forms, absolutely can be neither created nor destroyed. This rule ensures a dependable and predictable universe, whether for stars or for human life…

The second basic law of nature also involves energy. It describes unavoidable losses in any process whatsoever which involves the transfer of energy. The energy does not disappear, but some always becomes unavailable, often as unusable heat. Stated in another way, everything deteriorates, breaks down, and becomes less ordered with time.[21]
Don B. DeYoung, “Physics,” in In Six Days (2001)

The second law, known as entropy, says that “unless energy is being fed into a [closed] system, that system will become increasingly disorderly.”[22] Imagine an unopened carbonated bottle of soda. Over time the soda in the bottle will lose its fizz and go flat. That analogy reflects the effects of entropy on the universe.

This implies a few things. First, eventually all the energy in the universe will eventually spread itself evenly throughout the universe, and the usable energy will decrease and the universe will “flatline” like the soda analogy. This is a fixed issue.

Second, since we are not in a present state of disorder, and energy is still available, then our universe has not had an infinite past. As Craig points out, “we’re in a state of disequilibrium, where energy is still available to be used and the universe has an orderly structure.”[23] Since an infinite set of events is a complete number of events, we should be experiencing entropy (equilibrium), but we are not.

And third, this “running down” (entropy) of our universe implies that it had a beginning. Even the late Stephen Hawking affirmed:

Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang.[24]

Whether one’s cosmology (view of the origin of the universe) includes the Big Bang model or not, the universe had a beginning. In order to have a “running down” ending, there must have been a point when all the available energy was at its peak. Much like our cell phones, the fact that the battery will die implies that it was fully charged at its beginning. For our universe, then, the fact that it will “flatline” in what is called the “heat death” points to a time when it was new and full of energy.

Premises 1 and 2, then, still hold firm, and they should be upheld as formidable arguments that the universe and all that is in it had a beginning. It had a beginning and was brought into being (Premise 3) by a Cause Who necessarily exists due to His essence, namely God.

Concluding Thoughts

At times, well-meaning Christians do not feel compelled to enter debates like this, yet the apostle Peter told his Christian readers to be “ready always to give answer to every man that asketh you a reason concerning the hope that is in you, yet with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15).

At other times, well-meaning Christians see the damage often done when entering such discussions. As my friend Jeremy Marshall cautions, “preachers tell the story of the home [the human story] while scientists tell the story of the house [the natural world]; preachers err when they try to tell the story of the house, and scientists err when they try to tell the story of the home.” I agree, but Someone brought both the house and the home into existence, and these point us back to Him (Romans 1:19-20).

Let us remember one significant point to all of this:

[I]f there was ever a time when absolutely nothing existed, then there would be nothing now, for nothing produces nothing but nothingness! Since something does exist, it must follow logically that something has existed always [namely, God].[25]
Wayne Jackson in Surveying the Evidence (2008)

Endnotes

Qtd. in Jeff Miller, “Can Quantum Mechanics Produce a Universe from Nothing?“
All Scripture references are taken from the American Standard Version unless otherwise noted.
The ontological, cosmological, teleological, and the moral/axiological.
Thomas B. Warren and Antony N. Flew. The Warren-Flew Debate on the Existence of God. Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press, 1977. The link leads you to the video version of the debate.
Clyde Woods, “Concerning Creation —Genesis 1,” in New Beginnings: God, Man and Redemption in Genesis, ed. David L. Lipe (Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardeman University, 2001), 488.
Roland E. Murphy, The Gift of the Psalms (2000; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 44.
Timothy Keller, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism (New York: Dutton, 2008), 128, italics added.
Joe Deweese, “Why I am a Creationist – Joe Deweese, Biochemist.” Youtube.com.
Wayne Jackson, et al., Surveying the Evidence (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press, 2008), 24–25.
Bruce Milne, Know the Truth: A Handbook of Christian Belief, 3rd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), 68–69.
William Lane Craig, On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision (Colorado Springs, CO: Cook, 2010), 74.
Christine Sutton, “Subatomic Particle,” Encyclopedia Britannica.
Craig, On Guard, 74.
Charles Q. Choi, “Something from Nothing? A Vacuum can Yield Flashes of Light,” ScientificAmerican.com, 2013.
Choi, “Something from Nothing?”; Stephen Reucroft and John Swain, “What is the Casimir Effect?,” ScientificAmerican.com.
Choi, “Something from Nothing?”
Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), 103.
Tom Hartsfield, “Infinity is Not Real,” Real Clear Science; BigThink.com.
Hartsfield, “Infinity is Not Real.”
Don B. DeYoung, “Physics,” in In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation, ed. John F. Ashton (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2001), 342–43.
DeYoung, “Physics,” 342–43.
Craig, On Guard, 93.
Craig, On Guard, 92.
Qtd. in Keller, The Reason for God, 128, italics added.
Wayne Jackson, Surveying the Evidence, 25–26.

Genesis 2: When Boy Met Girl for the First Time

On May 2, 2008April 11, 2023 By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Bible Study, Genesis, Hebrew Bible, marriage, Old Testament, Women Studies2 Comments

One of the most fundamental principles articulated in the Bible is that God created the universe and that within this grand cosmos, a focal point was given to a small globe predominately covered in water – the planet earth. It is upon this planet that God organized the elements for human habitation over a period of six days (Exod 20:7). During the sixth day, the uncaused Creator made humanity (Gen 1:26-27):[1]

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness […] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."

When God created humanity, the Scriptures show that he also created the first marriage, and consequently the first family. The narrative of this origin is the foundation for a godly marriage. The current study is a brief look into some of the vital lessons found in the creation of the human family – and first marriage.

The Historical Setting

In Genesis 2, the sixth day of creation is elaborated upon (2:4-25). There is a common literary device in the book of Genesis that perhaps is obscured by the English translation to which we call brief attention. It usually is styled the Toledoth formula, and is often translated as “these are the generations,” “this is the family history,” “this is the account,” or some other formulation (Gen 2:4, 5:1, 6:9, 10:1, 11:10, 11:27, 25:19, 36:1, 9, 37:2).

Attention is given to this literary device for two reasons – though several other thoughts could be developed. First, it is one of the clearest features in Genesis that displays to biblical students the “structure intended” by the author.[2] Second, this series of episodes throughout the book both provides a strong sense of unity and harmony within its narrative, and indicates a “historical impulse” to be understood while reading Genesis.[3]

These narratives are not mere “fairy-tales” given for ancient religious and philosophical contemplation. Instead, the biblical material is styled in such a way to make it obvious “the author intended it to be read as a work of history that recounts what has taken place in the far-distant past.”[4]

Therefore, in Genesis 2:4, when it reads, “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth […],” we are beginning a historical – albeit theological – pilgrimage that starts with the historical creation of our forefathers made in the “image of God” (1:27).

Humanity – The Pinnacle of Creation

Heaven’s joy in creating humanity is perhaps seen quite clearly when we compare how God assessed the situation when humans come into the picture. In general, God saw His creation as “good” – “And God saw that it was good” (Gen 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25). The Hebrew word for “good” in Genesis 1 (Heb. tob) has many applications in the Old Testament, employed by different authors as many times as 741 times.

In the Creation Account, “good” anticipates the theme of the fall of Adam and Eve,[5] but at the same time demonstrates that the Creation as God intended was an ideal place for the well-being of its inhabitants.[6] Consequently, at the close of the sixth day, after the creation of humanity God surveyed his handiwork, and saw that “it was very good.”

Perhaps our Creator observed that all the pieces to his creation were now in place, and so now the planet was a very good place to live – God’s ideal world realized. Though not in contradistinction, perhaps we are reading a phrase of great emotion and tenderness, as the only creation made in the Imago Dei (“image of God”) now walks the earth. Furthermore, humanity is entrusted with sovereignty over the animals and with the planets overall care (Gen 1:26); humanity is thus the crown of creation.

The sweet psalmist of Israel (2 Sam 23:1) sets forth a beautiful hymn of praise to God for His creative acts, but most importantly, for his emphasis upon the human family. A segment of the 8th Psalm is as follows:

When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him? Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. You have given him dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under his feet. (Psalm 8:3–6)

No doubt as King of Israel, David had pondered over the Creation Account several times (Psa 19). Perhaps he became more intimately involved in its study since it was his duty as King to be a Scribe of the Law as well (Deut 17:18-20).

God Created the Family

Returning to Genesis 2:4, we see a narrative serving much as a prism fragmenting a beam of light into many unique colors of spiritual insight. We may focus upon many of them as we have done above, but here attention is drawn to one in particular. When God created humanity, he also created the fundamental building block of human society – God created the family.

God employed His sovereignty and created a human community on the sixth day made up of one male and one female. Genesis 1:27 abbreviates the day, but 2:4-25 reiterates and expands upon the sixth day, a common feature in Old Testament narration to focus upon a critical moment that pushes the story forward.[7] We find Adam created from earthen materials, and fashioned into a “living soul” with the “breathe of life” given to him (2:7); however, he was alone, and that was not good for the well-being of the creation (2:18).

One of the aspects of being made in the image of God is that humans are by-in-large social beings. God is a trinity; in other words, God is a community of love made of the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit (Matt 28:19; 2 Cor 13:14; 1 Pet 1:2, etc.). Should it be all that surprising that the Imago Dei is likewise a social being? Hardly, and God saw the loneliness and incompleteness Adam felt and addresses the matter.

In what appears to be an animal parade of potential companions organized by God, Adam still finds no animal that would be a “a helper fit for him” (2:18-20). In other words, “a helper corresponding to him,”[8] suggesting Adam’s deep need to have another person just like him to help fulfill his responsibilities of governing the creation. A companion was needed to work side-by-side, another person like Adam to continue the human family, another person to create a community of love made in the image of God.

Consequently, when no animal met those criteria, the Lord caused a great sleep to fall upon Adam. When Adam awoke, God had created a new being that corresponded to him; someone who would help him in this new world. God presented this person to Adam and he named her Woman (Heb. ‘issah), which is the logical result since she was taken out of man (Heb. ‘is 2.22-23).

Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr., makes a very important point here worthy to be reflected upon:

Unlike the animals – indeed, unlike the man himself – she did not come up from the ground below but out from human flesh, putting her alone at the man’s level.[9]
Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr., Whoredom: God’s Unfaithful Wife in Biblical Theology (1996)

This was indeed a public proclamation of her status as his only true companion in the garden.[10]

Boy Meets Girl for the First Time

It is amazing to fathom how God collaborated with Adam to find a solution to his solitude. God orchestrated the events that led to the creation of Eve, and Adam knew exactly what he saw: “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Gen 2:23). We might respectfully paraphrase Adam as saying, “Finally, a person made just like me!” The event was quite literally that of a match made by Heaven.

Together, they were to share the dominion over the planet (1:26), and dwell in an environment objectively unaware of the evil uses of the sexual appetite – hence “they were naked and not ashamed.”[11]

After Adam’s great announcement of finding his companion, the bedrock biblical principle of marriage is declared in terms of a logical consequence derived from the events of day six leading to the creation of womankind. Moses addresses his post-fall contemporaries, and places a prescriptive emphasis upon this pre-fall narrative: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (2:24).[12]

There have been departures from God’s intent for marriage since the polygamy practiced by Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon (etc.), or whether it is the tolerated relaxation of the original marriage code in Genesis 2:24 allowed under the Mosaic system due to the “hardness of heart” (Matt 19:8).

Jesus appealing back to this Genesis narrative affirms that “from the beginning [of time] it was not so” (Matt 19:8).[13] The marriage can only be severed on the basis of adultery, and while many pollute this teaching, the Lord is quite clear on the subject (Matt 5:32).[14]

The “One Flesh” Aspect

Jesus addressed a much-needed foundational marriage issue, one that our contemporary culture is in dire need of emphasizing: divorce and remarriage is not for any cause.

When God created male and female, and gave them the garden for their home, reproduction as an aspect of life, and delegated the authority to them for the governance of the world and its other inhabitants, He joined Adam and Eve into one flesh (2:24; 1:26-28). Their example is designed to serve all subsequent generations on earth as the templar for the permanent nature of marriage (and its goals).

As we conclude this piece focused upon the first encounter between boy and girl – rather man and woman (Heb. ‘is and ‘issah respectively), it is vital to give some attention to the concept of one flesh. In doing so, there are three pivotal principles articulated by Ortlund based upon Genesis 2:24.[15]

Viewed negatively, marriage severs the strongest of human bonds – parental; and as such, “elevates the marital union above all other personal loyalties, under God.”
Viewed positively, marriage is the context where the male “devotes his primary loyalty to his wife” emotionally, sexually, and socially.
Likewise, “the new life [as one flesh] created by a marriage fuses a man and wife together into one, fully shared human experience, prompting mutual care, tenderness and love.”

These are beautiful principles that would enrich any marriage.

Conclusion

The teaching from Genesis 2:24 is set forth before the Mosaic and Christian covenant, and this means that its teaching applies to the entirety of the human race.[16] God did not allow the creation week to end without the creation of humanity, and subsequently the family.

It was not consistent with the well-being of the creation for Adam to be alone, and God created the perfect companion to help him navigate through the world of Eden. This was the first marriage, and God designed marriage to be a permanent relationship of a “fully shared human experience” – the good, the bad, and the ugly. Human interference in the marriage is strongly warned against by Jesus (Matt 19:6, 9).

All we can do is ponder over these principles, find avenues in our lives to enact them, and allow the idealistic Edenic garden to be planted, cultivated, and blossomed in our marriages. As it is written in the Scriptures:

Awake, O north wind, and come O south wind! Blow upon my garden, let its spices flow. Let my beloved come to his garden, and eat its choicest fruits. I came to my garden, my sister, my bride, I gathered my myrrh with my spice, I ate my honeycomb with my honey, I drank my wine with my milk. Eat, friends, drink, and be drunk with love! (Song of Solomon 4:16–5:1)

Sources

All Scripture references are from the English Standard Version unless otherwise noted.
Raymond B. Dillard and Tremper Longman, III, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 48.
Dillard and Longman, An Introduction to the Old Testament, 48-49.
Dillard and Longman, An Introduction to the Old Testament, 49.
Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann, Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, trans. Mark E. Biddle. (1997; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004), 2:491-92.
William E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger, and William White, Jr., Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1984), 1:100.
Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York, NY: Basic Books, 1981), 50-51.
Clyde M. Woods, Genesis-Exodus (Henderson, TN: Woods, 1972), 9.
Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr., Whoredom: God’s Unfaithful Wife in Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 19.
Ortlund, Whoredom, 19.
Woods, Genesis-Exodus, 9.
Ortlund, Whoredom, 20-21.
Wayne Jackson, The Teaching of Jesus Christ on Divorce and Remarriage: A Critical Study of Matthew 19:9, revised ed. (Stockton, CA: Christian Courier Publications, 2002), 2-8.
Jack P. Lewis, The Gospel According to Matthew (1976; repr., Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press, 1984), 2:67. Some, however, attempt to use 1 Corinthians 7:15 as support for divorce for the cause of desertion, claiming Paul was applying the teaching of Jesus to a new situation. While the teaching of Jesus was certainly being applied to a new situation, there is no reason to assert that desertion in 1 Corinthians 7:15 serves as an additional allowance for divorce and remarriage. We recommend Wayne Jackson article, “What Is the Meaning of ‘Not under Bondage’ (1 Cor. 7:15)?” (ChristianCourier.com), in response to this viewpoint.
Ortlund, Whoredom, 21-23.
Cf. Jackson, The Teaching of Jesus Christ on Divorce and Remarriage, 5-6.