Was Marriage ordained in Genesis 2 or Genesis 3?

The default answer among my fellow Fundamentalist, theologically Conservative Christians would be that it's clearly established by Genesis 2.  The simple fact that God created Two Genders proves that God's sole intent for both Sex and Marriage was inter-gender relations.  And those two things are inseparable from each other.

But Genesis 2 has no ceremony, nor does it lay out any rules or costumes for how this Male-Female relationship is supposed to be.  We're simply told it was not good for Adam to be alone, so God created a Helper for him, and then told them to be fruitful and multiply and to fill and populate the Earth.  And in reference to future generations, that a man would leave his father's house and join with a woman.  (The emphasis is on the man leaving his family, not the other way around, interesting).

It's not till Genesis 3:16, after The Fall happens and the The Curse begins that we're told.  "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee"

So it's at least accurate to say that marriage as we know it is the product of The Fall.

I've done many posts on the nature of The Resurrection here, since it's linked to The Rapture.  And feel at times it's important to remind people that The Resurrection is the restoration of Humankind to how we were meant to be before The Fall.  But there is one key verse on The Resurrection people constantly forget to consider with that context in mind, Matthew 22:30 (and it's parallel in the other Synoptics).

"For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."

This is abused by supporters of The Sethite view of Genesis 6 by insisting this means Angels are not Biologically capable of sexual reproduction.  But even people who get Genesis 6 right still have it in their mind that this means Believers when we're Resurrected will not engage in any sexual procreation.  They're politically wrapped up in the notion that NEVER under any circumstance is ANY sex allowed outside Marriage.

Problem is Isaiah 65 and Ezekiel 40-48 both refer to reproduction going in the coming Kingdom.  And I have argued that that Kingdom is the New Jerusalem, not the Millennium.

Either way on that.  I have trouble being sold on the idea that The Millennium is at it's start populated by anyone but Resurrected Believers.  Which combined with people who's Eternal Destiny wasn't decided yet clearly being in existence for Satan to deceive at the end of The Millennium, implies Resurrected Believers biologically reproducing during that time.

I know it's popular to argue that even though there are Resurrected Believers co-ruleing during The Millennium, there are also still normal fallen Humans who survive The 70thWeek.  But the problem is I don't hold the Post-Trib view of The Resurrection and the meaning of Revelation 20.  So to me verse 5, "But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection." must mean that only the Damned were not Resurrected yet.

I believe those born to Resurrected individuals will not need to be Resurrected if they side with Jesus, they will not be born with original Sin.  But they can still choose to fall as Adam did, unlike those of us who'll be Redeemed in the Blood of The Lamb.

Because in The Resurrection we'll be immune to even the temptation of Sin.  There is plenty of reason to see there as being less moral restrictions then we have now.  And we're already no longer bound by The Law.

Now let me be clear.  I believe while we're under The Curse that Biblical Marriage is between a Man and a Woman, that potentially procreative Sex should only be performed between a Husband and Wife.  Because it's important in this fallen world to provide Children with a healthy family.  I do not pass judgment on people who aren't able to follow that however.

But in The Millennium, and the New Heaven and New Earth there will be no failure to provide that family.  Resurrected Born Again people will not fail to make sure they provide for and take care of their Children.

The context in Matthew 22:30 was Jesus responding to Sadducees trying to discredit the Resurrection doctrine altogether.  They were confused about situations where Widows had married other Husbands in obedience to The Torah.

I think some Christians take this phrase in English as if the "Given in Marriage" part refers to the consummation of the union.  But the Greek word there is actually specifically about the act of a Father giving his daughter to a man to wed.

I think it's the Genesis 3 redefining of Marriage that Jesus was referring to as being done in The Resurrection.  But Marriage does exist in a sense in Eternity in New Jerusalem being The Lamb's Wife.

Hosea 2:16 refers to Baal as a name or title Yahuah has been called, but as one he doesn't like.  The main context there is how Ish and Baal are both words for Husband (marriage is the major theme of Hosea) but Baal also means Lord while Ish is a word for man as in male gender that is introduced in Genesis 2.

In the Eternal Kingdom no one will be leaving one family to join another.  All The Saved will be one family.  With Jesus as the Patriarch, The Church as the Matriarch, and the rest of The Saved as their children.

But I do think we might still be held to God's original instruction to Adam and Eve from before The Fall, to be fruitful and multiply.  And I think Saved Women in The Resurrection will be able if they choose to experience painless Childbirth as was originally intended.