The First Wedding
Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
When God brought the first woman to the first man, as we are told in the second chapter of Genesis he did, he did not merely provide Adam with a suitable helper and companion. He also established marriage as the first and most basic of all human institutions. Long before there were governments or churches or schools or any other social structures God established a home based on the mutual respect and love of a husband and wife, and all other human institutions came from it. From the authority of the father there developed the patriarchal and later tribal systems of human government. These gave rise to monarchical systems and then democracies. From the responsibility of parents to raise and educate their children came more formal systems of education: academies, institutes, colleges, and centers of higher learning. From the need to care for the family’s health came hospitals. From the obligation of parents to educate their children in the knowledge of God and the ways to worship came synagogues and then churches. One cannot think of a contemporary social or cultural organization that does not have a derivative relationship to the home and marriage.
And that is the problem! Today marriage is under attack. It is being destroyed, and if marriage falls then all these other institutions—churches, schools, businesses, hospitals, and governments—will inevitably fall with it.
It is not difficult to discern directions from which the contemporary attack against marriage comes. There are four. First, marriage is attacked by the rampant hedonism of our age. It has been called the “new” hedonism or the “Playboy” philosophy. But it is new only in the sense that it is being accepted as never before, and it is “play” only in the sense that a child can play with matches or a pagan can play around with sacred things.
Hedonism says that the chief goal in life is pleasure and that this is to be pursued regardless of whatever long-range detrimental effects there may be. Generally it denies them. Sex is for fun, says hedonism, and the more of it with the greater variety of partners there may be, the better. Certainly one does not have to be married to enjoy a sexual relationship. In a strange way, this new hedonism has been supported by so-called Christian theologians through what has come to be called the “new morality,” though it is actually no more new than the old hedonism. The new morality has been popularized by such well-known churchmen as Bishop John A. T. Robinson of England, Joseph Fletcher, Harvey Cox, and others. It says that there are no ethical norms except for the one rather vague norm of love. Anything goes. Anything is permissible “as long as it does not hurt the other person.” Whether it will or not is to be determined solely from the situation.
The difficulty, of course, is that it is not so easy to define a situation. A couple in the privacy of a living room or bedroom may decide that intercourse outside marriage will not hurt them and that no one else need know. But they cannot be sure that it will not hurt them, and they cannot foresee the consequences that go beyond their own relationship. If nothing else, their decision will change their attitude toward marriage, and that, as I am pointing out, has consequences for the whole of society.
A second direction from which an attack on marriage comes is the widespread acceptance of adultery. Indeed, it is worse than acceptance. There is a sophisticated justification for it in the argument that adultery is often a tonic for a lackluster marriage and may well revive it. I have noticed a strange thing about this, however. People who are having affairs readily buy this argument as a defense of their own activity. They feel they are better lovers or at least happier and more interesting spouses to be married to. But when they discover that their spouse has been doing the same thing they are shocked, outraged, wounded, and often quickly on the way to the divorce courts.
It does not require a great deal of effort to think clearly on this matter. A person simply has to put the burgeoning divorce statistics next to the justification of adultery to see what is wrong. If adultery is good, if it is a tonic to faltering marriages, if it helps to hold homes together (as is so often claimed), if it is common (as we know it is), why are there so many divorces? The divorce rate has been rising for decades. In some areas of America more than half the marriages do not make it. One does not have to be brilliant to see that the fault is in the theory. It is not true that adultery helps failing marriages. Adultery actually destroys them, though by the grace of God (particularly in the case of Christians who sometimes also sin along these lines) it does not have to. The theory is a lie. No doubt those who want to sin this way and need to justify their conduct will go on believing the lie. Eve believed the devil’s lie when she wanted to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (“You will not surely die,” Gen. 3:4). But Christians at least should not believe it. Let us stand by the truth and warn even non-Christians of where their sin will lead them.
A third source of attack on marriage is the ease of divorce itself, for which our changing social mores and laws are responsible. A generation ago, when divorce was still considered a disgrace, it was not nearly so easy to get a divorce and there was enormous social pressure to hold the home together. No one would be so foolish as to say that all such homes became happy homes. Many were terribly unhappy. But the homes did hold together, and the children did grow up with the benefit of both parents. Besides, in other cases the need to live together and work things out, in spite of what may have been their first desires, did lead many couples to do precisely that with the result that their home became stronger.
Which is the better of the two ways? An approach to marriage that recognizes that it is often hard to live together and that therefore determines to work hard to make the marriage viable? Or an approach that demands easy perfection and that is prepared to dissolve the marriage if the perfection is not immediately forthcoming? The second is increasingly common, but it is not for the good of the couple or society.
The fourth attack on marriage is more recent and more subtle. It is the legalization of abortion on demand in which abortion is made an exclusively private affair between a woman and her doctor. Why is this detrimental to marriage? It is detrimental because it excludes the father from a decision affecting his as well as the woman’s offspring and, even more importantly, excludes him from the time-honored obligation and right to defend his child.
Not long ago Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a New York doctor who had probably performed more abortions in the country than anyone else, published a book in which he turned his back on his past and called for a reversal of the 1973 Supreme Court decision permitting abortion on demand, which he had worked for. One of his reasons for this change was a gradually dawning realization of what he had done. He had considered himself working in utilitarian fashion for “the greatest good of the greatest number.” But he came to see that, whatever his justifications may have been, he was actually presiding over multiple murders—seventy-five thousand by his direct action, and countless others indirectly. He now argues that each human life, however small, is precious. A second reason for this change of mind is the family. It is being dissolved, he maintains. By fiat of the high court the father has been denied the natural right to defend his child. And if he has, then he cannot reasonably be saddled with any other responsibility toward it—to society’s detriment.
The conclusion is clear. By upholding the right to kill the newest member of a family, the court makes the state a foe of the family. Marriage, pregnancy, and childbirth act as cohesives holding the family together. Sexual activity separated from the family and from childbearing tends to dissolve the family and destroy other social institutions.
Dr. Mildred Jefferson, a general surgeon at Boston University Medical Center and a foe of abortion, agrees with Nathanson. In an interview published in connection with her appearance in the film seminar Whatever Happened to the Human Race? she said, “The omission of the father in the 1973 decision implied that he was considered to have no rights in the matter. Later, when the court spoke directly, striking down the Missouri laws in 1976, the courts further denied the father any rights to protect the life of his child before birth.”
Nor is this only a problem for the father. It concerns a mother too, in a case involving the pregnancy of an unmarried minor daughter. According to many state laws, a daughter who is a minor has a right to an abortion without even the requirement of informing, let alone obtaining the consent of, her parents. In this case parents are put in an inferior position even to the abortionist. As Jefferson says, “The abortionist has complete and direct access to the teenagers walking in and out of their clinics; whereas the parents are denied the opportunity of even knowing what is happening.” We have not seen the full effects of these decisions yet. But we will undoubtedly see them in an intensifying weakening of the family and other social relationships, unless such tragedies are reversed and America undergoes a genuine spiritual recovery.
Can We Recover?
Is a recovery possible? I do not know. With God all things are possible, but given a fixed set of historical circumstances not all things are—unless there are changes. What I do know is that there will be no recovery unless Christians first recover a sense of what God intends marriage to be and then set about to achieve that in their own lives and communities.
The reason I say that Christians are the key to recovery is that only they have a gospel adequate to do what needs to be done. More than anything the innate selfishness of the human heart must be broken. It is a poisonous weed that must be attacked at the root and struck down. That does not happen naturally. It happens supernaturally and then only through the surrender of self to God in salvation.
What is most wrong with marriages today, in my opinion, is the love of self that our culture encourages. We put ourselves first. Consequently, if the other person does not contribute to my sense of well-being, serve my goals, and bolster my ego, I am ready to dissolve the relationship. An article by Margaret Halsey in Newsweek magazine entitled, “What’s Wrong with Me, Me, Me?” is very perceptive. It begins by identifying ours as the “me” generation and analyzes its foundations as the belief that “inside every human being, however unprepossessing, there is a glorious, talented and overwhelmingly attractive personality [which] will be revealed in all its splendor if the individual just forgets about courtesy, cooperativeness and consideration for others and proceeds to do exactly what he or she feels like doing.” Halsey denies this assumption on the grounds that most people are just normal human beings and then calls on them, not to intensify the search for this elusive, wonderful person to whom all others should defer, but rather to get down to the rather difficult and demanding task of constructing a personality that is desirable.
All in all, Halsey’s analysis is quite good. But it does not go far enough at the point of a solution. It is true that so long as we put ourselves first all relationships will suffer, including marriage. But how does one overcome what is apparently an innate human desire to put oneself first? Humanly speaking, we cannot. But when the love of self is broken at the cross of Christ—when we see ourselves as sinners in rebellion against God and bow before him—then something happens that inevitably spills over into other relationships. We are less inclined to be self-centered.
The second thing that Christians have and others do not, at least to the same degree, is a proper sense of service. We live to serve, not to be served, and for this reason we are willing to submit ourselves to one another within marriage.
When Paul writes about marriage in that great fifth chapter of Ephesians he instructs wives to be submissive to their husbands. “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything” (vv. 22–24). He tells husbands that they are to love their wives. “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies” (vv. 25–28). Clearly this is a relationship in which husbands are to love their wives and be true heads of their homes and wives are to thrive in this relationship. There is a true headship “as Christ is the head of the church,” and there is a true submission “as the church submits to Christ.” Nothing can deny this. But it is significant that the verse immediately before this calls on Christians to “submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (v. 21).
Is this contradictory? Are we faced with two different models from which we may choose, taking one and rejecting the other? Not at all. It is merely that the husband and wife submit to and serve one another in different ways. The husband serves his wife by loving her as Christ loves the church, building her up, and leaving his father and mother in order to live with her exclusively. The wife serves her husband by submitting to him as head of her home. The place husbands and wives learn to do this is in fellowship with Christ, who served us by taking the nature of a servant, assuming human likeness, and humbling himself and becoming “obedient to death—even death on a cross” (Phil. 2:7–8). This is why Paul can say, “This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church” (Eph. 5:32).
Because of Christ, Christians understand service differently from non-Christians. To most non-Christians service means servility; it implies that the one serving is of little or lesser worth. Christians can never think this way. Christ, who has the greatest worth of all (“God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,” Phil. 2:9), is at the same time the servant. We remember that in the upper room, at the very time he was giving his last instructions to his disciples, Jesus took off his outer clothing, wrapped a towel around his waist, poured water into a basin, knelt down, and washed his disciples’ feet. He then said, “Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you” (John 13:14–15). We are being most Christlike when we serve the other person.
We can sum up by this statement: A marriage does not exist for me, but for us—for the children and society and for the glory of God.
That brings me to my last point, namely, that marriage exists for God’s glory. This is why God instituted marriage. During the week I was preparing this message I attended a membership class at Tenth Presbyterian Church in which the teacher, one of our elders, said that God created sheep so that Christians might understand how they act and what they are. I had never thought of it that way, although I should have. I had thought of it the other way around, that God had created sheep and that Jesus came along and discovered that they made a good illustration. Our elder meant that God had created sheep with this end in view—that Jesus would have the illustration when he should come to this important part of his teaching. The point is: If this is true of sheep, it is even truer of marriage, for the Bible tells us explicitly that God created marriage in order that by marriage we might understand the most important of spiritual relationships.
That is why Jesus is portrayed to us in the Bible as the great bridegroom and husband of the church. It is why we who believe on him are portrayed as his bride. How are we going to communicate this greatest of all relationships if we who are Christians do not demonstrate it in our marriages? On the other hand, if we do demonstrate it there, then the world around will have a real-life illustration of how God works toward us in Christ to bring us to faith and save us from our sins.
24 Therefore man forsakes his father and mother. Von Rad notes and is puzzled by the fact that in a patriarchal society it is the man who leaves his home rather than the wife who leaves hers. One explanation of this verse is that it reflects an erēbu marriage, in which the husband leaves his family and lives with his wife’s family. M. M. Bravmann offers another explanation, interpreting the verse psychologically. Referring to the saying that “A son is a son till he gets him a wife, a daughter is a daughter all of her life,” he suggests that the new husband has more of an emotional detachment from his home than the new wife does from her home.12 He leaves home to a degree that she never does.
Perhaps the most crucial element in this verse is the verbs it uses: forsakes and clings. The verb forsake frequently describes Israel’s rejection of her covenant relationship with Yahweh (Jer. 1:16; 2:13, 17, 19; 5:7; 16:11; 17:13; 19:4; 22:9; many other examples from the OT could be cited). By contrast, the verb cling often designates the maintenance of the covenant relationship (Deut. 4:4; 10:20; 11:22; 13:5 [Eng. 4]; 30:20). Thus, to leave father and mother and cling to one’s wife means to sever one loyalty and commence another. Already Scripture has sounded the note that marriage is a covenant rather than an ad-hoc, makeshift arrangement.
Now covenantally joined with his wife, the man and his spouse become one flesh. Nothing is said yet about any procreating roles that this couple shall assume. The man does not leave one family to start another family. What is being pinpointed is solidarity. A man by himself is not one flesh. A woman by herself is not one flesh.
2:24 / The narrator’s comment here is an aside from the main story, for it speaks about parents, and these first humans had no parents.
In joining with a woman, a man will leave his parents. Some interpreters have taken this extraordinary wording as assuming a matriarchal order, but the context does not sustain this view. Consequently, this wording is a shocking rhetorical device that communicates how radically marriage alters a son’s authority lines, especially in a patriarchal family. In antiquity parents arranged marriages at significant financial cost, and the groom’s parents might easily have thought that they had authority over their son despite the marriage. Therefore the son must leave his parents by breaking the authority line to them and honor his wife as his true counterpart, the central person in his life.
Furthermore, this instruction provides perspective on the commandment to honor one’s father and mother (Exod. 20:12; Lev. 19:3). It preempts parents from using the fifth commandment to challenge the supreme place a wife has for their son. This does not mean a son no longer has responsibilities to his parents, but it does mean his wife has a higher standing.
A man also must strive to prevent any dissolution of the relationship by clinging or cleaving (dabaq, niv be united) to his wife. Clinging conveys commitment to maintaining the union in loyal love. The Hebrew term does not emphasize the sexual side of the relationship; rather, it describes the closeness and the enduring quality of the bond between people, whether it is among women (Ruth 1:14) or among men (Prov. 18:24; G. Wallis, “dabaq,” TDOT 3:81). In a relationship of mutual trust, a male and a female are free to be open and vulnerable in each other’s presence; their commitment to each other provides a secure setting for them to explore their God-given sexuality. The bond between the marriage partners grows as each person contributes significantly to the other’s life. Marriage, then, is one community in which a man and a woman can establish the rapprochement that is possible because humans are made in the image of God. The use of “cling” supports this claim, for in Deuteronomy it describes the desired way Israel is to relate to Yahweh, with whom the nation is in covenant (e.g., Deut. 10:20; 11:22; 13:4).
The declaration they will become one flesh describes further the unity of a man and a woman. The focus is not on the resulting sexual relationship or the children to be born, though it does not exclude these expressions of their union. Rather, the emphasis is on the spiritual and social unity of the new couple. In becoming one flesh a man and a woman become more closely bonded than their blood kinship (Wenham, Genesis 1–15, p. 71). This understanding of the union between a man and a woman is the grounds for the laws of incest (Lev. 18, 20). Because the deepest human relationship is found in marriage, any spouse’s abuse or domination of the other denies their mutuality and disrupts the harmony God intended. Divorce, moreover, is a shattering experience.
2:24–25. Marriage is described as consisting of three essential actions (reflecting the three clauses in the Hebrew text), all of which, if not always perfectly realized in a marriage, are nonetheless intended as life-long ideals for which a married couple is to strive unceasingly. The first action, represented by the statement a man shall leave his father and his mother, is that of clearly shifting one’s primary human loyalty to his spouse. The man is the subject of the verb (the “doer” of the action), suggesting not that the leaving is to be done only by the man, but that the degree of relational “severance” will typically be greater for him than he should expect it to be for his wife.
The second essential action is noted in the clause and he shall be joined to his wife (or “cleave to” KJV), in which “be joined to” (davaq) refers not to the sexual union of the couple, but rather to an intentional and unbreakable commitment, with the best interest of the other party being both the motivation and the goal of the one making that commitment. This verb is often used to describe the ideal of Israel’s (or an individual’s) covenant relationship with God, as in Jos 23:8: “But you are to cling (tidbaqu) to the Lord your God, as you have done to this day” (cf. Dt 30:20; 2Kg 18:6; Ps 63:8; Jr 13:11). The word is also used to describe Ruth’s commitment to Naomi, “Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, but Ruth clung [daveqa] to her” (Ru 1:14). Ruth clarified this commitment in her following statement: “Where you go, I will go, and where you lodge, I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God, my God” (v. 16). These sentiments expressed by Ruth are intended to characterize the “cleaving” within marriage. Genesis 2:24 presents the man as the subject (i.e., the one “doing” the cleaving) perhaps because men frequently have greater difficulty with marital commitment.
The third action is expressed by the statement, and they shall become one flesh. This refers not merely to the sexual union within marriage, but in fact to the uniting of two people into one. It refers to two people sharing of all of life in common so as to be like one person. Sexual union is a way to express this exclusive unity and a reason the Bible limits sexual relations to married couples.
On entering into the marriage union both the man and the woman are obligated to meet the physical needs of the other, just as they would hope for those same needs to be met in themselves. Paul made this point in Eph 5:28–30: “So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body.” As a result of the first couple experiencing marriage in this perfect setting, they are described as being naked and were not ashamed, indicating the lovely innocence and intimacy available in marriage.
2:24. Therefore, a man shall leave his father and his mother, and he shall cling on to his wife. And they shall become one flesh.
The author now inserts an editorial comment on the scene that has unfolded. Moses understands that the marriage of man and woman is to serve as a paradigm, a pattern that God has set in time and history prior to the fall of mankind. Marriage is a creation ordinance and institution. The verse is a description of divine intention.49
In a marriage, the man must leave his parents and cleave to his wife. Only then will the man have full authority within the family. Otherwise his parents still retain authority over the family. The result is that the man and woman become ‘one flesh’, a complete unit. But it is much more than physical unity, also including moral, intellectual, emotional and spiritual aspects. The two may now serve and obey God in a bonded, total relationship.
Ver. 24 Cleave unto his wife.—Marriage:—
- The nature and end of marriage. It is a vow of perpetual and indissoluble friendship.
- It has long been observed that friendship is to be confined to one: or that, to use the words of the axiom, “He that hath friends, has no friend.” That ardour of kindness, that unbounded confidence, that unsuspecting security which friendship requires, cannot be extended beyond a single object.
- It is remarked, that friendship amongst equals is the most lasting, and perhaps there are few causes to which more unhappy marriages are to be ascribed than a disproportion between the original condition of the two persons.
- Strict friendship is to have the same desires and the same aversions. Whoever is to choose a friend is to consider first the resemblance or the dissimilitude of tempers. How necessary this caution is to be urged as preparatory to marriage, the misery of those who neglect it sufficiently evinces.
- Friends, says the proverbial observation, “have everything in common.” This is likewise implied in the marriage covenant. Matrimony admits of no separate possessions, no incommunicable interests.
- There is yet another precept equally relating to friendship and to marriage, a precept which, in either case, can never be too strongly inculcated, or too scrupulously observed; “Contract friendship only with the good.” Virtue is the first quality to be considered in the choice of a friend, and yet more in a fixed and irrevocable choice.
- By what means the end of marriage is to be attained. The duties, by the practice of which a married life is to be made happy, are the same with those of friendship, but exalted to higher perfection. Love must be more ardent, and confidence without limits. It is therefore necessary on each part to deserve that confidence by the most unshaken fidelity, and to preserve their love unextinguished by continual acts of tenderness: not only to detest all real, but seeming offences: and to avoid suspicion and guilt, with almost equal solicitude. (John Taylor, LL. D.)
- Marriage of man and woman is an ordinance of God Himself. And is therefore called the covenant of God (Prov. 2:17). By which He is said to join the married persons together (Matt. 19:6). Of which conjunction especially the apostle speaks, when he warns every man to walk as God hath called him (1 Cor. 7:17). Neither in reason can it be otherwise; seeing—
- We are God’s and not our own; and therefore none of us having power over his own person, can be disposed of otherwise than He directs (1 Cor. 6:19, 20).
- We bring forth children unto God (Mal. 2:15). Which He therefore calls His own (Ezek. 16:21), as born unto Him.
- Married persons must be wholly and entirely one to another. According to the form of that stipulation mentioned (Hos. 3:3), which extends unto all conjugal duties only. One may love other friends, but only his wife with a conjugal love and affection, rejoicing in her alone (Prov. 5:18, 19); dwelling with her as an inseparable companion; advising and jointly labouring with her for upholding and governing of the family (1 Cor. 7:3) and the like—in those the married persons must be wholly one to another. But so that they also, as well as others, must still hold themselves obliged to those general duties of love, due reverence, and service, unto all other persons, according to their several relations.
III. Married persons are not only to refrain themselves from all others, but resides to adhere and cleave firmly one to another. (J. White, M.A.)
The unity of husband and wife:—
Husband and wife should be like two candles burning together, which make the house more lightsome; or like two fragrant flowers bound up in one nosegay, that augment its sweetness; or like two well-tuned instruments, which, sounding together, make the more melodious music. Husband and wife—what are they but as two springs meeting, and so joining their streams that they make but one current? (W. Secker.)
Two hallowed institutions:—
Two hallowed institutions have descended to us from the days of primeval innocence, the wedding and the Sabbath. The former indicates communion of the purest and most perfect kind between equals of the same class. The latter implies communion of the highest and holiest kind between the Creator and the intelligent creature. The two combined, import communion with each other in communion with God. Wedded union is the sum and type of every social tie. It gives rise and scope to all the nameless joys of home. It is the native field for the cultivation of all the social virtues. It provides for the due framing and checking of the overgrowth of interest in self, and for the gentle training and fostering of a growing interest in others. It unfolds the graces and charms of mutual love, and imparts to the susceptible heart all the peace and joy, all the light and fire, all the frankness and life of conscious and constant purity and goodwill. Friendship, brotherly kindness and love, are still hopeful and sacred names among mankind. Sabbath keeping lifts the wedded pair, the brethren, the friends, the one-minded, up to communion with God. The joy of achievement is a feeling common to God and man. The commemoration of the auspicious beginning of a holy and happy existence will live in man while memory lasts. The anticipation also of joyful repose after the end of a work well done will gild the future while hope survives. Thus the idea of the Sabbath spans the whole of man’s existence. History and prophecy commingle in its peaceful meditations, and both are linked with God. God is; He is the author of all being and the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him. This is the noble lesson of the Sabbath. Each seventh day is well spent in attending to the realization of these great thoughts. (Prof. J. G. Murphy.)
2:24 “leave his father and his mother” This VERB (BDB 736, KB 806) is a Qal IMPERFECT, possibly used in a JUSSIVE sense. The importance of the family causes the comment to be read back into this early account. Moses is reflecting on his own day and the importance of the family unit in an extended family living situation. Marriage takes precedence over in-laws!
|“is united with”
|“becomes attached to”
This is a Hebrew idiom of loyalty, even intimacy (BDB 179, KB 209, Qal PERFECT, cf. Ruth 1:14; Matt. 19:5–6; Eph. 5:31).
■ “one flesh” This shows the complete union and priority relationship of married couples. The SINGULAR form of “one” speaks of the joining of the two persons.
 Boice, J. M. (1998). Genesis: an expositional commentary (pp. 136–142). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
 Hamilton, V. P. (1990). The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1–17 (pp. 180–181). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
 Hartley, J. E. (2012). Genesis. (W. W. Gasque, R. L. Hubbard Jr., & R. K. Johnston, Eds.) (pp. 63–64). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
 Rydelnik, M. A., & Vanlaningham, M. (Eds.). (2014). Genesis. In The moody bible commentary (p. 44). Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers.
 Currid, J. D. (n.d.). A Study Commentary on Genesis: Genesis 1:1–25:18 (Vol. 1, p. 113). Darlington, England: Evangelical Press.
 Exell, J. S. (n.d.). The Biblical Illustrator: Genesis (Vol. 1, pp. 195–196). London: James Nisbet & Co.
 Utley, R. J. (2001). How it All Began: Genesis 1–11 (Vol. Vol. 1A, p. 50). Marshall, Texas: Bible Lessons International.