Roasted When You Order
Get 10% off and FREE shipping on your first coffee subscription order.
Use code “BREW” at checkout.
Shop Now
Get 10% off and FREE shipping on your first coffee subscription order.
0
Photo: @FatCamera from Getty Images Signaturevia Canva.com
Podcast Coming Soon
You may want to read:
Video Coming Soon
When we arrive at Genesis 2:18, we encounter one of the first instances in Scripture where God declares something to be “not good.” This twist is striking because, up to this point, everything God had created was declared good—indeed, “very good” (Genesis 1:31). But now, in the middle of an unfallen world, God observes something lacking—not in terms of sin or failure, but in terms of completion. “It is not good for the man to be alone.” This divine pronouncement is not a reflection of deficiency in Adam’s emotional state. Adam had unbroken fellowship with his Creator, access to all the blessings of Eden, meaningful work, and the pleasure of divine communion. He was not lonely. He was alone.
To conflate aloneness with loneliness is a category error. Loneliness is a soul problem—often a consequence of discontentment, unmet expectations, or fractured relationships. Loneliness implies a sense of absence, a yearning for something to make life whole again. But Adam, in his pre-fall condition, had no such deficit. He lacked nothing in terms of contentment, security, or purpose. His soul was not fractured. There was no offense, no sin, no grief, and no longing for companionship out of personal emptiness. Therefore, to read Genesis 2:18 through the lens of loneliness misplaces the context entirely.
It is essential to emphasize that Adam did not make this observation himself. He did not say, “I am incomplete,” or “I need someone.” Rather, it was God who made the declaration: “It is not good.” The implication here is profound. God was not responding to Adam’s complaint; He was initiating a revelation about His design. He was not merely providing a companion for Adam’s satisfaction, but unfolding a divine pattern for His glory. Therefore, the “not good” of verse 18 is not about emotional deficiency but about the inadequacy of man, by himself, to fully image the relational nature of God.
We must remember, again, that this scene unfolds before the fall. There is no sin yet. No idolatry. No relational dysfunction. That line—Genesis 2:25—marks the boundary between a world of divine order and the descent into a world of confusion. Before that point, Adam existed in perfect alignment with God’s creative design. In that context, aloneness is not a problem due to internal dissatisfaction, but rather because it does not reflect the plurality-in-unity that is essential to the nature of God Himself. God is One, but within the One, there is a perfect relationship—Father, Son, and Spirit—distinct yet united.
This reality also speaks directly against the idea that Eve was created to “complete” Adam in some emotional or psychological sense. If we adopt that view, we must ask a series of questions that quickly unravel the biblical framework. What exactly was missing in Adam? Was it love? Was it contentment? Was he lacking identity or self-worth? And if Eve were to supply what was absent, how much would be enough? What would Adam do when Eve fell short? Would his sense of identity collapse? Would he become resentful, demanding, or bitter?
These questions mirror the struggles I have encountered repeatedly in the counseling room. Husbands and wives come into marriage believing the other exists to fill a void. They speak in terms of “my needs are not being met” or “I don’t feel fulfilled.” The orientation is self-centered rather than God-centered. The relationship becomes a transactional arrangement where each partner is a consumer. But this is precisely the opposite of the one-flesh union that glorifies God. The Bible does not present marriage as a platform for self-actualization. It presents it as a calling to reflect the self-giving love and unity found in the Trinity.
The problem is not with desire, per se, but with the direction of desire. If we seek in our spouse what we can only find in God, we will place a crushing burden on them. No human being was designed to carry that weight. The result is disappointment, disillusionment, and often domination. It is the spouse saying, “Give me what I crave—or I will take it by manipulation, control, or withdrawal.” This pattern breeds hostility rather than harmony. Instead of imaging the Trinity, the marriage mirrors the fall.
To understand why God said it was not good for man to be alone, we must return to His purpose in creation. Isaiah 43:7 says God created us for His glory. Ephesians 1:12 says we exist to live to the praise of His glory. 1 Corinthians 10:31 encourages us to glorify God in all things, including mundane acts such as eating and drinking. Therefore, the creation of Eve was not about supplying Adam with something he lacked for his happiness. It was about God completing His design to display His glory more fully. Eve was created as a helper—a term of strength and dignity—not to fill Adam, but to join him in the divine task of imaging God. This foundational truth is echoed throughout the Psalms, where God’s people express their longing for Him, not others, to be their portion and satisfaction:
“As the deer pants for the water brooks, so my soul pants for Thee, O God.” (Psalm 42:1)
“Whom have I in heaven but Thee? And besides Thee, I desire nothing on earth.” (Psalm 73:25)
“A day in Your courts is better than a thousand outside.” (Psalm 84:10)
These verses expose the error of looking to a spouse—or anyone else—to fulfill what only God can. If our soul’s longing is not first and foremost directed toward God, then every human relationship will be distorted by self-interest and idolatrous demand. Thus, God’s declaration in Genesis 2:18 is not cryptic, though it may seem so at first glance. It is a theological statement. Man, by himself, could not fulfill God’s image-bearing purpose. God created Eve not as a solution to Adam’s loneliness, but as a divine provision to display relational unity, diversity, and harmony. The two would become one flesh, not so that their needs might be met, but so that God’s glory might be magnified through their union.
God is our peace, our satisfaction, our portion, and our delight. And from that wellspring of divine sufficiency, He calls us to enter into relationships, not as consumers, but as worshipers. Marriage, then, is not about gaining what we lack. It is about glorifying the One who lacks nothing and who graciously includes us in His eternal purpose.
When God fashioned Eve from Adam’s side, the moment was not random, nor was it merely poetic. It was profoundly theological. What occurred in Genesis 2:21-24 was not the introduction of romance; it was the manifestation of God’s design for the most intimate of human relationships. God did not create another man for Adam, nor did He pull Eve from the dust as He had done with Adam. Instead, He took something from Adam’s own body—his rib—and formed a woman. The image is not only personal, but purposeful. This act reveals God’s intention for two distinct yet unified beings to become one.
Adam immediately recognized something essential in Eve. Upon waking and seeing her, he exclaimed, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man” (Genesis 2:23). Adam understood that she was not foreign to him. She was not merely another creature. She was part of him—literally, relationally, and spiritually. There is a depth of knowing, a divine affirmation of identity and belonging, that permeates his words. She was like him, but not him. She was distinct, yet made from him. Together, they were now more complete, not in a sense of lack filled by another person, but in a divine design that revealed something greater than either of them alone.
This divine act culminated in Genesis 2:24, a verse so foundational that it is echoed throughout the rest of Scripture, including by Christ Himself and later by Paul: “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” This statement was not just descriptive—it was prescriptive. God was establishing the covenant of marriage. It is a union that transcends mere physical intimacy; it is a spiritual, emotional, covenantal joining of lives into one. The phrase “one flesh” has been interpreted in many ways, but its deepest meaning is found not in biology but in theology. It is not simply the joining of bodies—it is the intertwining of two whole persons, both of whom are made in God’s image, into a new relational entity. They do not lose their personhood, nor do they dissolve into one another, but they become a union designed to reflect God’s glory uniquely and powerfully.
This union, while mysterious, also provides us with insight into something far more significant: the very nature of the Trinity. While the comparison must be made carefully, and while human marriage can never fully encapsulate the perfection of the Godhead, there is something about the mutual love, unity, diversity, and shared purpose within marriage that echoes the divine. Paul recognized this in Ephesians 5:31-32 when he wrote, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” Then he added, “This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.” There is more happening in marriage than meets the eye. The joining of man and woman in covenantal oneness is not merely about companionship or procreation. It is about proclaiming the mystery of the gospel—the unity between Christ and His bride. The husband reflects Christ’s sacrificial love; the wife reflects the church’s respectful submission. Together, they reflect the relational harmony of God’s redemptive purpose. The one flesh union, then, is not about ownership or dominance, but about mutual giving, selfless love, and shared mission. It is a covenant meant to model the unity, love, and cooperation found in the triune God.
Wayne Grudem insightfully observed that God’s creation of two persons—male and female—reflects, in some measure, the relational plurality within the Trinity. The Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct persons, each fully God, existing in perfect unity and love. This plurality-in-unity is essential to the image of God. Therefore, when God created man and woman, He was crafting a relational reality that could begin to mirror that unity and diversity. It is not a perfect analogy, but it is instructive. Just as the Trinity functions in a harmonious relationship, with each Person fulfilling distinct roles, so too in marriage we see distinction without competition and unity without confusion.
This reality crushes the secular narrative of self-fulfillment in marriage. The one-flesh union is not built on neediness or emotional deficit. It is built on mutual self-donation: each spouse pouring themselves out for the good of the other, not to get, but to give. This truth is the love of Christ, and it is the model for marriage. A man who thinks his wife exists to fill his personal voids or meet his emotional expectations is not acting as Christ. He is acting as a consumer. A woman who enters marriage to receive what her soul craves is misunderstanding the very purpose of covenantal love. The marriage union is designed for God’s glory, not our comfort. When we understand this, we are freed from the tyranny of emotional dependency. We no longer look to our spouse as a savior but as a fellow worshiper. We no longer approach marriage asking, “What can I get from this person?” but rather, “How can we, together, display the glory of God more fully?” In this one-flesh union, love is not a transaction—it is a declaration. A declaration that God is worthy of our surrender, our trust, and our obedience. He is the One who joins two into one.
As we see in Genesis and throughout Scripture, this one-flesh covenant is not optional—it is essential. It is not a manmade social construct, but a divine design. To violate it is to distort the image of God. To embrace it in humble faith is to participate in something that echoes eternity.
Rick launched the Life Over Coffee global training network in 2008 to bring hope and help for you and others by creating resources that spark conversations for transformation. His primary responsibilities are resource creation and leadership development, which he does through speaking, writing, podcasting, and educating.
In 1990 he earned a BA in Theology and, in 1991, a BS in Education. In 1993, he received his ordination into Christian ministry, and in 2000 he graduated with an MA in Counseling from The Master’s University. In 2006 he was recognized as a Fellow of the Association of Certified Biblical Counselors (ACBC).
