Skeptics have occasionally cited 1 Corinthians 7 as an 'against marriage' passage and suggested it contradicts Genesis 2:18 (which states it is not good for man to be alone). This claim generalizes from particulars: each verse represents a specific situation where the condition described is desirable, not a universal rule. Obviously, it is not 'good' for the first man ever to be alone. But there is more to this passage contextually.

The first point to consider is what Paul calls the 'present distress' in 7:26. Some have seen eschatological warnings here and concluded that Paul sees the end of the world at hand. However, the words 'present distress' do not indicate an eschatological event, but rather a food shortage in Corinth. There were severe grain shortages in the 40s and 50s AD which in turn produced social distress (riots, crime). Paul speaks of the distress as present, not as impending or future. This is not an eschatological warning.

The second point is that the language used by Paul here is not about unmarried persons, but about a husband and wife abstaining from sexual intercourse. Note that in verses 1 and 2:
> 1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

The rendering of the word 'woman' as 'wife' reflects secular use of the word. It is recognized that 7:1 is Paul quoting back a Corinthian viewpoint. Apparently due to the famine, some perceived that it would be good to abstain from sexual intercourse, and Paul responds to this by noting that married persons did have this obligation to one another.

Far from advising against marriage for all time, or contradicting Genesis, Paul is speaking on an entirely different topic related to a specific local crisis.

Genesis 1 says that animals were created before man; Genesis 2 says that man came first, there was a need to designate a helpmeet, then animals were created for the first time...or does it?

For quite some time now the classical solution to this problem has been to render the verb in verse 2:19 not as simple past tense, but as a pluperfect, so:
> Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air.

Some have cited Gensenius' Hebrew Grammar and asserted that such a reading is not possible in the Hebrew since the narrative consists of a number of temporally consecutive clauses, linked by a special marker known as "waw consecutive."

However, the "waw consecutive" is rather a more complicated matter, for it does not ALWAYS indicate temporal sequence. There are examples in the OT, NT, and in Egyptian and Assyrian literature of "dischronologized" narratives where items are arranged topically rather than chronologically, and this would justify the use of the pluperfect for the sake of context. Even commentators that prefer to keep the simple past tense suppose not that there is a contradiction, but that Genesis 2 is reporting the order out of sequence purposely in order to stress man's dominion over the created animals.

Another option relates back to the indication of the garden as a special sort of "domestic creation" for man to do his service in. The naming of the animals was not simply a pre-Linnean classification exercise; it was a demonstration of Adam's dominion over the entirety of nature. The giving of names, in ancient oriental thought, was an exercise of sovereignty and command. One may compare here the idea of bringing subjects before a sovereign.

Notice: God "formed" beasts and fowl here -- but he brings before Adam beasts, fowl, and cattle -- the domestic creatures! Where did they come from? The answer, under this proposition, is that they were already in Eden (a place of domestic specialty set aside), and that the "forming" of the beasts and fowl is an act of special creation, giving Adam "samples" of these beasts and fowls from outside Eden for the sake of presenting them to the earth's appointed sovereign.

In this passage the author clearly shows awareness of the cattle having already been created in Genesis 1, for he does not indicate their creation here, but rather assumes that they don't need to be created. Even without the pluperfect rendering, both accounts demonstrate a perfect consistency.

After reading the first two chapters of the Bible, some skeptics, in an attempt to disprove the Bible’s inerrancy, have accused the writer of Genesis of erring in regard to the record of events occurring on day six of creation. While Genesis 1:24-27 plainly indicates that man was created after the animals, critics claim that Genesis 2:18-19 teaches that man was created before animals. They strongly assert that such language by the author of Genesis proves that the Bible is not divinely inspired.

Does Genesis two present a different creation order than Genesis one? Is there a reasonable explanation for the differences between the two chapters? Or is this to be recognized as a genuine contradiction?

Some Bible students resolve this alleged contradiction simply by explaining that the Hebrew verb translated “formed” could easily have been translated “had formed.” In his Exposition of Genesis, H.C. Leupold stated:

> Without any emphasis on the sequence of acts the account here records the making of the various creatures and the bringing of them to man. That in reality they had been made prior to the creation of man is so entirely apparent from chapter one as not to require explanation. But the reminder that God had “molded” them makes obvious His power to bring them to man and so is quite appropriately mentioned here. It would not, in our estimation, be wrong to translate yatsar as a pluperfect in this instance: “He had molded.” The insistence of the critics upon a plain past is partly the result of the attempt to make chapters one and two clash at as many points as possible (1942, p. 130, emp. added).

Hebrew scholar Victor Hamilton agreed with Leupold’s assessment of Genesis 2:19 as he also recognized that “it is possible to translate formed as ‘had formed’ ” (1990, p. 176). Keil and Delitzsch stated in the first volume of their highly regarded Old Testament commentary that “our modern style for expressing the same thought [which the Holy Spirit, via Moses, intended to communicate—EL] would be simply this: ‘God brought to Adam the beasts which He had formed’ ” (1996, emp. added). Adding even more credence to this interpretation is the fact that the New International Version (NIV) renders the verb in verse 19, not as simple past tense, but as a pluperfect: “Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air” (emp. added). Although Genesis chapters one and two agree even when yatsar is translated simply “formed” (as we will notice in the remainder of this article), it is important to note that the four Hebrew scholars mentioned above and the translators of the NIV, all believe that it could (or should) be rendered “had formed.” And, as Leupold acknowledged, those who deny this possibility do so (at least partly) because of their insistence on making the two chapters disagree.

The main reason that skeptics do not see harmony in the events recorded in the first two chapters of the Bible is because they fail to realize that Genesis 1 and 2 serve different purposes. Chapter one (including 2:1-4) focuses on the order of the creation events; chapter two (actually 2:5-25) simply provides more detailed information about some of the events mentioned in chapter one. Chapter two never was meant to be a chronological regurgitation of chapter one, but instead serves its own unique purpose—i.e., to develop in detail the more important features of the creation account, especially the creation of man and his surroundings. As Kenneth Kitchen noted in his book, Ancient Orient and the Old Testament:

> Genesis 1 mentions the creation of man as the last of a series, and without any details, whereas in Genesis 2 man is the center of interest and more specific details are given about him and his setting. Failure to recognize the complementary nature of the subject—distinction between a skeleton outline of all creation on the one hand, and the concentration in detail on man and his immediate environment on the other, borders on obscurantism (1966, p. 117).

Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe summarized some of the differences in Genesis 1-2 in the following chart (1992, p. 35):

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Genesis 1 | | Genesis 2 |
| Chronological Order | | Topical Order |
| Outline | | Details |
| Creating Animals | | Naming Animals |

The fact is, “Genesis 2 does not present a creation account at all but presupposes the completion of God’s work of creation as set forth in chapter 1…. [C]hapter 2 is built on the foundation of chapter 1 and represents no different tradition than the first chapter or discrepant account of the order of creation” (Archer, 1982, pp. 68-69). In short, Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are harmonious in every way. What may seem as a contradiction at first glance is essentially a more detailed account of chapter one. The text of Genesis 2:19 says nothing about the relative origins of man and beast in terms of chronology, but merely suggests that the animals were formed before being brought to man.

If one still rejects both the possibility of yatsar being translated “had formed,” and the explanation of the two chapters being worded differently because of the purposes they serve, a final response to the skeptics allegations is that the text never says that there were no animals created on the sixth day of creation after Adam. Although in my judgment it is very unlikely that God created a special group of animals to be named by Adam (after creating all others before the creation of man—Genesis 1:20-27), some commentators hold this view. After his comments concerning the translation of yastsar, Victor Hamilton indicated that the creatures mentioned in 2:19 refer “to the creation of a special group of animals brought before Adam for naming” (p. 176, emp. added). Hamilton believes that most all the animals on the Earth were created before Adam; however, those mentioned in 2:19 were created on day six after Adam for the purpose of being named. In U. Cassuto’s comments on Genesis 2 regarding the time Adam named the animals, he stated: “Of all the species of beasts and flying creatures that had been created and had spread over the face of the earth and the firmament of the heavens, the Lord God now formed particular specimens for the purpose of presenting them all before man in the midst of the Garden” (1961, p. 129, emp. added). Both of these long-time Bible students recognize that the text never says there were no animals created after Adam, but that all animals were created either on days five and six (before and possibly even after Adam was created). However unorthodox (or unlikely) this position may be, it does serve as another reason why skeptics have no foundation upon which to stand when they assert that a contradiction exists between Genesis 1:24-27 and 2:19.

Generally, marriage is looked upon by the world around us as a good and acceptable institution. Since the commencement of time, the universal law has been that marriage is proper and beneficial. On the very day that God created the first man, He stated: “It is not good that man should be alone” (Genesis 2:18); thus He created a wife for Adam (2:21-24). Everything God had created and examined up until that point had been “good” (1:4,10,21,25). The one thing He stated as being “not good,” however, was man’s lack of human companionship. Therefore, God created woman to be man’s helper and lifelong companion. It was only after her creation (at the end of the six days) that we read for the first time His creation was “very good” (1:31).

Although other biblical passages confirm that “marriage is honorable among all” (Hebrews 13:4), and that “he who finds a wife finds a good thing” (Proverbs 18:22), some have questioned the reliability of the Creation account in light of Paul’s assessments of marriage in his first letter to the Corinthian church. In this epistle he wrote the following:

> “It is good for a man not to touch a woman” (7:1).

> “I wish that all men were even as I myself [i.e., not married— EL]” (7:7).

> “I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am” (7:8).

> “It is good for a man to remain as he is” (7:26).

It is alleged by some that Paul’s analysis of marriage is in opposition to the view found in the Creation account. Whereas God said, “it is not good that man should be alone” (Genesis 2:18, emp. added), Paul told the Corinthian church that “it is good” to remain single. Can these two views of marriage be reconciled? Or is this a legitimate contradiction?

As is often the case, the verses in 1 Corinthians only present a problem because the context of chapter 7 has been overlooked. The reader must understand that Paul is responding to questions he received in a letter from the Corinthians (7:1). Obviously some of the questions pertained to marriage, and whether or not the apostle deemed it advisable. What many people overlook is that the questions were asked, and Paul’s responses were offered, in light of “the present distress” that the Corinthians were facing. Likely, the members of the church at Corinth had asked him whether or not it was proper for a Christian to marry in their present circumstances. In 7:26, Paul wrote: “I suppose therefore that this is good because of the present distress —that it is good for a man to remain as he is [single—EL]” (1 Corinthians 7:26, emp. added). Exactly what “the present distress” was at this time is unknown, but it likely involved oppression and persecution at the hands of the Romans (possibly Emperor Nero).

Whatever the precise “distress” was in Corinth, it is clear that God inspired Paul to write that it was in their best interest to remain unmarried. Perhaps he wanted to spare them situations like someone telling them they would have to either deny Christ or see a family member put to death (cf. Jeremiah 16:1-4). Even today, if a person is aware that severe persecution is imminent, he likely will delay getting married and having children. When Jesus spoke about the “great distress” that would come upon Jerusalem, He specifically warned “those who are pregnant” and “those who are nursing babies” (Luke 21:23). Jesus informed them that they would have greater difficulties surviving “the edge of the sword” that would come upon Jerusalem (Luke 21:24; cf. Matthew 24:19-21). Similarly, Paul advised those in Corinth to remain unmarried “because of the present distress” (1 Corinthians 7:26).

The Bible teaching on marriage is clear to the unbiased reader: marriage is indeed “ honorable among all” (Hebrews 13:4), and since the beginning it normally has been “good” for mankind (Genesis 2:18). In certain instances, however, it might be inadvisable. The apostle Paul mentions one such case in 1 Corinthians 7.

---

The “Problem”

> Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. (1 Corinthians 7:1)

> For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that. But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am. (1 Corinthians 7:7–8)

> And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” (Genesis 2:18)

> He who finds a wife finds a good thing, and obtains favor from the Lord. (Proverbs 18:22)

Occasionally, we will get questions about whether marriage is a bad thing because of what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:1, 7–8. Yet Paul allows for marriage. Looking at the greater context in the intervening verses, we see a reason Paul accepted marriage:

> Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. … Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment. (1 Corinthians 7:2, 5–6)

So how can marriage be somehow not preferable or a concession in light of the verses we see in Genesis 2:18 and Proverbs 18:22?

The Solution

There is more to consider here than just marriage itself. Why does Paul think his (single) lot is better? In 1 Corinthians 7:33–35, Paul explains that being unattached is better for a Christian so “that you may serve the Lord without distraction.” Paul’s entire post-conversion life was absorbed by service to the Lord. It would have been difficult for Paul to have been an undistracted husband and father with his calling. And, while we’re told to “be fruitful and multiply” in Genesis 1:28, it is also a high calling, albeit not for everyone, to serve the Lord continually, as Anna was able to once she was widowed (Luke 2:36–37).

Matthew 19:11–12 discusses those who are not able to marry or have children for one reason or another. Sadly, many would consider this to be a disadvantage, but the Bible paints a different picture, noting that “All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given.” Since “all things work together for good to those who love God,” they are called to a high (His) purpose (Romans 8:28). And it has been given to those individuals the strength and privilege to be thus used by God (1 Corinthians 10:13). Not that it is always an easy path: Paul’s path was beset with illness, discomfort, disaster, contention, imprisonment, and finally death. Yet the Lord always sustained him, and Paul, in fact, felt honored to be persecuted for the sake of Christ (Colossians 1:24). Now, that’s God-given strength!

So, within Christianity there are two good and blessed paths. If you are gifted with singleness, you can serve Him wholeheartedly while not having to worry about neglecting a family. Or you can get married and raise children in the Lord. If your spouse is a believer, you may have a unique opportunity to serve synergistically as a team. God both sets the path and then allows provision to the individual for that path.

But why would God have said that it was not good for man to be alone, then, in Genesis 2? In the hours prior to this, the Lord had brought animals to Adam to name, partly to demonstrate that He had a special plan for Adam: a special “helper,” not merely brought forth from the earth as the insufficient animals were, but specially formed from part of him by the hand of God and in His image. God wanted Adam to be fruitful and to multiply, yes, but He also wanted him to see that He had a special plan for man unlike the mere procreation of animals: marriage. God would later use marriage to symbolize the joining of the church to His Son, Jesus Christ—a beautiful relationship where Jesus would demonstrate Divine love by laying down His life for His bride. This analogy was given in regards to the roles of husbands and wives in Ephesians 5:22–33.

Conclusion

So is marriage a good thing? Absolutely. It was instituted by God in a perfect world, but it is not for everyone. If you are called to celibacy, you can serve God without distraction. If you are called to marriage, you can still greatly benefit from the beautiful God-given gift of marriage as it was originally intended to image Christ and His Church. Praise the Lord for His provision in both paths of life.