Genesis 2:24

[Eristhophanes]

Zec

I don't know if you've ever read any of the history of the Protestant Reformation and the violent disagreements over things that folks now-days don't even care about (consubstantiation vs transubstantiation for example), but all of a sudden I'm seeing it played out before me in real life.

In my opinion, the real issue under discussion is whether sex makes one married, not where sex is in Genesis 2:24. However, as this discussion has proved, that issue needs to be narrowed even further and restricted to virgins before moving on to non-virgins and discussions of consent of non-virgins with the resulting foodfight over extra-marital sex. Taking into account all that we know and using the process of elimination, I cannot see any other way to interpret Genesis 2:24 than this:

1) Man leaves his parents (legal status change, does not require physically moving out of the house)
2) Man consummates the marriage (man's act on the woman, shedding her blood to initiate the covenant of marriage with the act of sexual intercourse)
3) God makes them become one flesh (God's act on the man and woman, sealing the covenant of marriage and making them one flesh)

Thus, my position is that "When a man has sex with an eligible virgin it results in a covenant marriage, every single time with no exceptions." And that is the critical point because that is the law. All the discussion about women who are non-virgins and their consent issues is way downstream from the major point that sex with an eligible virgin is to marry her, every single time. No exceptions. I'm going to rest this on two issues:

Sex with a virgin is the act of marriage with that virgin because in the act of shedding her blood the covenant is formed and God seals the covenant by making them one flesh.

The marriage relationship is a type for the relationship between Christ and His church (the body of believers, who are the members of His body).

There is only one thing that will make someone a Christian, but that person had to do something to become a Christian. Anyone who is a Christian did that at a specific point in time. Every Christian is saved by one specific thing because they took one specific action, and if that action is taken, they are in Christ. If that action is not taken, they are not in Christ.

What is the one specific thing that makes us Christians? Blood: His. Shed. Blood. What one specific action must we take? We must place our faith in the fact that because He willingly died in our place and by faith ask Him to redeem us from our bondage to sin. We do that by confessing our sin and asking Him to forgive us of our sin, redeem us and be our Master. When that event occurs, Christ redeems us and forgives us of our sin. All sin. Past, present and future. He also sends us a Helper, the Holy Spirit. In this manner, we become His servants, new creatures in Christ. We have been born again.

Likewise, one specific thing makes every every woman a wife but she has to do something specific to become a wife. Every wife becomes a wife with one specific act and if that act occurs she is a wife. If that act does not occur she is not a wife. What is the specific thing that makes her a wife? Blood: Her. Shed. Blood. What specific act must occur? Penetrative sexual intercourse that breaks her hymen and sheds her blood to initiate the covenant of marriage. This is also known as "the consummation" because in that act, everything that the man and woman had to do is done. When that act occurs God joins her to her husband and they become one flesh, sealing the covenant. She is now a wife to her husband.

How do we know this? It is written: "we are members of His body. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh. This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church."

The common denominator is blood. The shed blood that initiates the Covenant, whether it be the New Covenant or the Marital Covenant.

The question is not "where is the sex" but rather "where is the marriage without the sex?" I think that is the key to this discussion and all that follows.

And, yes, I'm well aware of what I just did. Now I know how Calvin felt.

 

[Jason]

I can show you Biblical examples that are called marriage, but without the breaking of a hymen.

I can also show you biblical examples when the covenant alone was treated as a marriage, without the sex.

I can also show you biblical examples of sex with a virgin that does not result in a marriage.

I can also point out that "sealing a covenant" implies a covenant exists to be sealed.

I can also point out that Christ's covenant with us is dependent on not only his sacrifice, but our acceptance of it. There is no covenant without both.




But . . . . . . . . if we're still here, I must firstly request that you justify your primary assumption.

Now please, if you will, what does it mean to cleave? I'm not really impressed by "she was probably super hot, man! So I assume it must mean sex, cuz I would'a done her!" I don't accept colorful commentary. Please include the verse with the corresponding Hebrew.

 

[Eristhophanes]

I can show you Biblical examples that are called marriage, but without the breaking of a hymen.

You can also show us where the birth of Jesus was called sinful. Are you now claiming Jesus was born of immorality?

I can also show you biblical examples when the covenant alone was treated as a marriage, without the sex.

Really? Just because I treat my neighbor like a brother doesn't make him my brother.
Just because you can find an example of a covenant does not make it a marriage covenant.
Just because you can find a covenant that's treated as a marriage doesn't make it a marriage covenant.

I can also show you biblical examples of sex with a virgin that does not result in a marriage.

ASTOUNDING! Jason has discovered God's prohibition on incest.

I can also point out that "sealing a covenant" implies a covenant exists to be sealed.

And you're doing it again. Sealing a covenant does NOT imply a covenant exists, it proves it exists by bringing it into existence.

But . . . . . . . . if we're still here, I must firstly request that you justify your primary assumption.

Again with that word "assumption." My primary assumption in this discussion (rapidly being proven) is you are both disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. But as to my primary evidence-based assertion in this discussion, I already have already justified that with the exegesis I've already given. You know, the one you have not refuted.

I asked you a question, Jason, which you have refused to answer. In doing so, you choose to refuse to justify your primary assumption (see, it's different- yours is an assumption because you've offered no proof while mine is an assertion backed up with proof).

You asked me to answer a question about what a word means because you claim that "cleave" does not mean sex and therefore sex doesn't make one married. Interestingly, you refute your own argument.

"This argument is like saying "an ark is something made out if gopher wood, but not a boat, because genesis doesn't specifically say boat". Moses used the word appropriately, according to its meaning."

 

[Jason]

I'm not going to get into the examples I mean if you cannot prove your assumption.

I've asked, what, 7 times now? And you have no answer but insults and derailments?

You assume "dabaq" refers to sex.

Prove it. Cite the verse with the Hebrew.

Please.

 

[Eristhophanes]

I'm not going to get into the examples I mean if you cannot prove your assumption.

I've asked, what, 7 times now? And you have no answer but insults and derailments?

Answer a fool as his folly deserves, That he not be wise in his own eyes.

You assume "dabaq" refers to sex.

Prove it. Cite the verse with the Hebrew.

Please.

Your claim that I "assume" that "dabaq" refers to sex is actually only a claim and it's false. Kind of a "focus the discussion on the trees so nobody will notice the forest" gambit. But you're still trying to take control of this and reframe what I'm saying into your narrative. Then you demand I redefine my position according to your view and answer your questions based on your assumptions.

Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Or you will also be like him.

 

[Jason]

Your words: "A man shall cleave to his wife. This is the physical act of consummation. The sex."

This was a bad assumption.

If you want to show that it's not, then please prove your special definition with a verse. Any verse. Any Biblical reference where "dabaq" refers to sex. Prove my foolishness.

Go ahead. Please. Should be easy, shouldn't it?

 

[Eristhophanes]

Your words: "A man shall cleave to his wife. This is the physical act of consummation. The sex."

Read the entire sentence, Jason. You get sex when a MAN lays hands on his WIFE, their bodies come together and he CLEAVES TO her.

But you don't want to hear that. You want to see a verse.

"Any Biblical reference where "dabaq" refers to sex."

That actually begs the question of what sex is. Is it a metaphysical experience? Is it just swapping body fluids? A mixture? All of the above? I'm asking you, Jason, but this is really for anyone reading that's interested in the truth and it's a serious question.

If we're talking about the first time a woman has sex and God is joining the two as one flesh, I'll go with the metaphysical experience. Pain, pleasure, loss, bonding, love, joining of body and soul... So, how to describe it? "Moses used the word he used according to its meaning," as you put it, and maybe, just maybe, the covenant of marriage is so special that this is a situation like Genesis 3:16. Perhaps, instead of pointing at all the different ways in which the word is used to express a meaning and saying "which one is it?" the answer is "all of the above." Which probably means that sex is an act that, under the right conditions (or even the wrong conditions) involves more than we can imagine.

Have you ever had sex with a woman and she refused to let go of you? Literally, refused to let go of you? And then, as she's staring into your eyes, she says something like "I want to spend the rest of my life with you." That's how I mentally "picture" the word "cleave" and I'm thinking that's what it was like for Shechem with Dinah.

Shechem saw Dinah:
and he seized her
and lay with her
and defiled her
and cleaved his soul to her
and loved her

I see the "and lay with her" as general overall statement rather than the horizontal struggle to get her clothes off; of which he specifically defiled, cleaved and loved her are all a subset of that, all happening at the same time. Which raises the question of whether 'dabaq" is a term, that when used to describe the consummation of a marriage, is a general term, a term that describes a specific group of things, or a specific term that describes only one specific thing.

At any rate, in this passage I see sex, defilement, cleaving and love all rolled into one. And according to Genesis 2:24, it was in that event that Shechem cleaved to his wife, Dinah. Since this is the only other husband-wife consummation act that's being described and dabaq is there as an integral part of the sexual event... in the middle of a violent sexual experience... I'd call that a reference, but I think there's a better one if you're seriously looking for "dabaq" on a straight up reference to sex.

Are you familiar with the Coolidge effect? It should be called the "Solomon effect."

Given the context, dabaq translates into English far better as "have sex" than "held fast" in 1st Kings 11:2. It helps if you understand the concept that if a woman wants to ask her husband for something, the best time to do it is either right before or right after.... sex. When she's one of a thousand, all she's really got is sex. Look at the text, normal translation first.

Now King Solomon loved many foreign women along with the daughter of Pharaoh: Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite women, from the nations concerning which the LORD had said to the sons of Israel, “You shall not associate with them, nor shall they associate with you, for they will surely turn your heart away after their gods.” Solomon held fast to these in love. He had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines, and his wives turned his heart away.

Now King Solomon loved many foreign women along with the daughter of Pharaoh: Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite women, from the nations concerning which the LORD had said to the sons of Israel, “You shall not associate with them, nor shall they associate with you, for they will surely turn your heart away after their gods.” Solomon loved to have sex with them. He had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines, and his wives turned his heart away.

Again, Coolidge effect writ large. What was it all about if not sex? If you want to make the argument that dabaq doesn't refer to sex in that passage, I would love to hear of the commitment or affection a man can have with each of a 1000 different women. He was the wisest and most intelligent man who ever lived, so I'm fairly sure he could remember all their names, but what was the substance of their relationship? Even when you consider the politics involved with strategic alliance marriages (Pharaoh's daughter for sure), when a man has 1000 wives, what is their relationship going to consist of other than sex?

Solomon "held fast to these in love" or "Solomon loved to have sex with them."

 

[Jason]

In the first example, there is sex. It is the word "shakab". The word "dabaq" is not used in that verse.

It IS used in a subsequent verse to describe his real love for her and desire to marry her. So once again, it denotes a commitment. Also, the fact that the word "shakab" and then "dabaq" are used to describe different aspects of the story also lends to the evidence that "dabaq" means something other than sex, since it is just as well established that "shakab" holds this meaning.

In the second example, sex is not mentioned in the verse at all. Nor is it sensible to even think that Solomon at that moment had sex with all his 1000 women at once. He can certainly re-affirm his commitment to them, but most of them probably rarely saw the inside of his bedchambers more than once or twice. Certainly, the majority of his marriages had little sex involved. Even if he had sex at the ridiculous rate of ten times a day, each woman would only be having sex 3-4 times a year. At a more realistic rate it is abundantly clear that sex was not a big part of these marriages. But a commitment was. Regardless, the verse doesn't mention sex.

Let me remind you that I am not interested in your commentary.

"Dabaq" is a Hebrew word with a known meaning. You claim Hebrew speakers are wrong. You claim lexicons are wrong. You claim it has a meaning only you know about.

Prove it.

I am not interested in flowery commentary. It is a waste and a cover for ignorance. Show me the Hebrew.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Jason, you have decided there is no sex in marriage at all. You've written it right out of Genesis 2:24, claiming that Adam and Eve didn't have sex for two more chapters even though they're one flesh in chapter 2. Considering this is the verse that introduces and codifies marriage it seems like you are in implying that sex is incidental to marriage.

But Genesis 2:24 has Adam and Eve being one flesh. There was some sex going on in chapter 2. That pretty much means the cleave had to be the sex. Unless the one flesh was the sex, but if it was then they are never declared married and we may all be wasting our time here.

You keel asking for an instance where cleave means sex and we keep telling you its Genesis 2:24. You keep replying, not that one, show me another. There is no verse that says, "The Lord decrees that cleave means sex."

But Genesis 2:24 gets very close. Now you explain why it isn't a euphemism for sex. And is it really possible to form a marriage without sex? Because that's what you're saying is you take sex out of this verse.

 

[Jason]

Are you serious Zec? If so, that's a pretty weak straw man.

As you said earlier, Zec, there's a difference between the narrative and God's commentary. The narrative does not mention them having sex until chapter 4. That's just the way it is. It doesn't even mean they didn't have sex immediately, it just means it wasn't mentioned. To say they did is an assumption. Kindof like Adam never left his father's house either, ya know, cuz he didn't have a dad. Or a house. Ya know.

My view of Genesis 2: cleave means commit, just as it does in every other verse. One flesh means sex, just as it does in every other verse. I never claimed any different. Go back over the posts. I actually said this explicitly a few times. My views of both are consistent with their usage everywhere else in scripture.

In case you don't believe me, here's my quote from a week ago- "a man leaves his father's home (where there are no eligible women) cleaves to his wife (by making a covenant with her) and they become one flesh (sexual intercourse). Three steps. Three conditions. All must be present."

Your view (apparently): cleave means sex, to heck with what it means everywhere else, and one flesh also means sex.

If you are going to reject every single verse that uses the word "dabaq" in favor of your own assumptions, where else can we go? You are determined to add your own meaning into scripture regardless of what the Bible says.

Anyone looking at the word "dabaq" can see that it never never never never never refers to sex. Ever. Period. But you don't care about the truth.

I am more than a little disheartened that the detriments of this teaching have been clearly spelled out to you, and yet with all your talk about being true to the Bible and not reading into it, you are determined to do the opposite.

When scripture tells us that David's men cleaved to him, does it mean that they had sex with him or that they were committed to him?

When scripture tells us that Ruth cleaves to Naomi, does it mean that she had sex with her or that she was committed to her?

When scripture tells us to cleave to the Word, does it mean to have sex with a Bible or to be committed to it?

When scripture says that a tongue cleaved to the roof of a mouth does it mean that the tongue and mouth had sex or that they were stuck together?

When scripture says that Eleazar's hand cleaved to his sword does it mean that his hand had sex with his sword or that it was stuck to it?

Claiming a word means in one verse something it doesn't in any other, for no other reason than it must to fit your assumption is not exegesis. It is blindness.

I ask again (10th time? Something like that). Cite the verse where "dabaq" refers to sex.

 

[Eristhophanes]

"My view of Genesis 2: cleave means commit, just as it does in every other verse. One flesh means sex, just as it does in every other verse. I never claimed any different. Go back over the posts. I actually said this explicitly a few times. My views of both are consistent with their usage everywhere else in scripture.

In case you don't believe me, here's my quote from a week ago- "a man leaves his father's home (where there are no eligible women) cleaves to his wife (by making a covenant with her) and they become one flesh (sexual intercourse). Three steps. Three conditions. All must be present."

Jason, you are claiming that the "become one flesh" is the sex but Jesus said you're wrong.

Jesus quoted Genesis 2:24, then said "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together let no man separate." Matthew 19:4-6

God is making the two become one flesh so that's not the action of the man and woman, it's the man and woman being acted upon by God. Therefore it cannot be the sex, which is the action of the man. That means the only place left for the sex is in the "shall leave" element and that means that by golly, "dabaq" means sex in Genesis 2:24.

There is another problem with your view of this, because you are correct that all three elements/conditions/steps must be accomplished for a marriage to be initiated. If "dabaq" means commitment you've created an antinomy with several other passages in the Law in which the woman made zero commitment and/or gave zero consent. Either the following are not married or "dabaq" doesn't mean commitment in Genesis 2:24.

Exodus 21:7 Father sells his daughter as a slave to be wed to another man.
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 The marriage of a woman captured in war.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 The woman who was discovered being raped.

The woman in Exodus 21 was a concubine (wife) and had conjugal rights.
The woman in Deuteronomy 21 was called a wife.
The judgment in the case of the woman raped and discovered was "she shall become his wife."

That said, by process of elimination it has to look like this;

The man leaves (status change, no longer under the authority of father and mother)
The man cleaves (consummation of the marriage, blood is shed, covenant is initiated)
They become one flesh (God does His part, sealing the covenant by joining them as one flesh)

Which means that having sex with an eligible virgin results in marriage every single time.

 

[Jason]

E - I don't think most people assume that it's only the last part that God is involved in. If you notice, Jesus repeats Genesis 2:24 in its entirety, then says "hoste". This is a conjunction that means "the combined, end-accomplishment; the combination of elements in the correlation, underscoring the inevitable effect of the paired elements". Then, after using this conjunction, Jesus says the effect of their combination is God having put them together. In other words, God is responsible for putting the marriage together in its entirety, not "man does some / God does some".

So, as you can see, Jesus didn't "say I'm wrong". You're just reading the scripture in your own special way that is unsupported by the original language, as usual.

Besides, even if this were not the case, I would have no problem if Jesus had literally said it is God who does the work of bringing a husband and wife together physically. I believe In predestination, so every action of men is due to God. I would have no problem with that.

Regardless, this is an extremely weak bit of scripture manipulation to hang such a claim on. "This word means something it doesn't mean anywhere else because some other word also must mean something that it doesn't elsewhere because it says God did it when I know man did it but in a way also God did it but anyway it's gotta be different because I said so and sex is marriage and I said so". You're basically saying your assumption about dabaq must be right because if it's not then all your other assumptions don't work.

Unfortunately that's not how exegesis works. Words have real meanings.

Also, it would be difficult to claim a proper definition for a word based on the idea that your assumption of its meaning makes it difficult for you to understand other passages. As I said, that's not how exegesis works. Words have real meaning wether you understand the passage or not.

I would love to move forward to those other passages. I would sincerely like to hear the next "proof text" and split it down to the Hebrew and some rationality. Unfortunately, we are in a situation where your dedication to your own assumption and rejection of scripture has been exposed, and you have dug in to protect your ego.

It is plainly obvious what "dabaq" means. I know it. You know it. Everyone reading this knows it.

And I have not even asked you to see a covenant in Genesis 2. Only to admit that it is not the directive from God that sex=marriage that we're looking for. Which it obviously isn't.

The fact that you can't even admit these very elementary facts brings the legitimacy of this entire conversation down.

 

[Eristhophanes]

E - I don't think most people assume that it's only the last part that God is involved in. If you notice, Jesus repeats Genesis 2:24 in its entirety, then says "hoste". This is a conjunction that means "the combined, end-accomplishment; the combination of elements in the correlation, underscoring the inevitable effect of the paired elements". Then, after using this conjunction, Jesus says the effect of their combination is God having put them together. In other words, God is responsible for putting the marriage together in its entirety, not "man does some / God does some".

So, as you can see, Jesus didn't "say I'm wrong". You're just reading the scripture in your own special way that is unsupported by the original language, as usual.

Sigh... There you go again.

"I don't think most people assume that it's only the last part that God is involved in."

That is probably the lamest of all appeals to authority- what others think or assume, because it really only matters what the text says. What others assume doesn't affect anything until they claim the text says something it doesn't, or doesn't say something it does... which is actually what you're doing.

The really amazing thing is that if that statement is taken within the Christian context of "broad is the way to destruction - narrow is the way to life" you are actually saying mine is the correct position because the majority reject it. Yet, you said it in such a way as to pressure the reader with the peer-group pressure of the popular opinion of the crowd that their position (which happens to be yours) is the correct one.

If you are doing all this consciously, it displays an intelligent, nuanced level of arrogant contempt for everyone here that is breathtaking in its breadth and depth, nothing less than world-class chicanery.

Your argument fails on more than just the standard you set because Jesus quoted Genesis 2:24 in its entirety but that was not all He quoted. He also quoted from Genesis 5:2 first. Which neatly solves your faux concern, because regardless of your beliefs in predestination, you are correct that words mean things and what those words mean- as you have been so kind to point out, is frequently driven by context.

I agree, it is a rather weak manipulation of Scripture that you're attempting here, because "they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together let no man separate." is a declarative statement that stands alone in terms of the interpretation of the third element of Genesis 2:24. It gets special treatment because this is the Son of God giving us His special insight (explained no-where else in Scripture) as to what the third element of Genesis 2:24 means. And with marriage, we're talking about a covenant, which *is* a case where, as you put it: "man does some / God does some."

If that weren't enough, the text clearly states the first two elements of Genesis 2:24 are the actions of the man. Up until Matthew 19:6, it could easily be *assumed* the third element was a physical action, just like it was *assumed* that when Moses said "some indecency" it meant a man could divorce his wife if she burned his meals. Jesus set the record straight for both. (For the reader who is not aware, the standard Moses gave for divorce was if the husband found "some indecency" in his wife, but Moses didn't explain what "some indecency" actually meant. Jesus instructed in Matthew 19:9 that "some indecency" is defined as porneia, which is translated as immorality or fornication)

Also, it is difficult to accept a proper definition for a word when we see that your assumption of its meaning makes it difficult to understand other passages, but that is exactly what we are seeing here. You are trying to claim that what Christ said isn't really what He said. You have to do that because your assumption about "dabaq" must be right because if it's not then all your other assumptions don't work. Unfortunately that's not how exegesis works. Words have real meanings, even when the meaning is applied in a unique way in only one passage. Whether you understand the passage or not.

You said "I would love to move forward to those other passages. I would sincerely like to hear the next "proof text" and split it down to the Hebrew and some rationality."

Interesting choice of words. It's always easier to re-arrange things the way you like them to support your assumptions if you split things up first. And "rationality" is in the eye of the beholder.

Unfortunately "moving forward" requires intellectual honesty on your part, Jason. We all saw it when you refused to admit you were wrong and then lied in an attempt to cover it. Everyone here has seen you claim I say things I've never said. The accusation that I chose to cite text with NASB because it was the easiest for me to "twist" Scripture, coming from the man who praises parallel translation reading and chooses from different translations the one to best support his points is a special form of chutzpah usually reserved only for politicians. But, over time what you do becomes apparent, for it is written: "be sure your sin will find you out."

We all saw it when you hung your exegesis of Exodus 22:16-17 on additions by the translators that changed the meaning of the text. And with your assumption for 1st Kings 11:2 that "all at the same time" is a requirement, and obviously no man can have sex with 1000 women at the same time so "dabaq" can't be about sex. Even though there is nothing in the text to imply that "dabaq" must be performed on all the same wives at the same time, it was necessary to support your assumption about the definition of "dabaq" in Genesis 2:24 so you claimed a non-existent requirement to meet your need.

Unfortunately, we are in a situation where your dedication to your own assumption and rejection of scripture has been exposed, and you have dug in to protect your ego. You're doing it again here, this time choosing to overlook the fact Christ quoted two passages in order to twist the meaning of "hoste" to support your position. You're just reading the scripture in your own special way that is unsupported by the original language, as usual.

It is plainly obvious what "dabaq" means in Genesis 2:24. I know it. You know it. Everyone reading this knows it.

**EDITED TO CORRECT BROKEN BBCODE

 

[Jason]

Ok, let me put it this way then:

That's not what "hoste" means.

Kindof like "that's not what dabaq means"

None of your personal interpretations of languages you apparently know nothing about are impressive, or relevant to reality.

This is getting sad.

 

[The Revolting Man]

This has gotten sad and I am withdrawing. It is unfortunate because I have had some beliefs challenged and even had some of them morph a little but the tone has deteriorated to the point that we will be doing more harm than good here.

Prior to this I had assumed that one flesh was sex. I now think that one flesh is the result of sex. Also, I don't think leaving your father's house is a requirement for marriage. In that case Isaac and Rebekah weren't married. I think it I more like that this means a man who I married is freed from his father's absolute authority, otherwise a father would have authority over his daughter-in-law through his continuing authority over his son.

May I suggest that if a level of civility and respect can't be reestablished that you both take a break from this. Otherwise we might all be embarrassed when we meet I heaven. And since I didn't insert any predestination jokes I'd like to think I'm leading by example. Oh wait.....

 

[Jason]

"Prior to this I had assumed that one flesh was sex. I now think that one flesh is the result of sex."

That's because it has been shown in this conversation that the foundation of a sex=marriage doctrine is a misinterpretation of Genesis 2. As Net and others have said, it is clear that one flesh means sex, as that is the only way it is used, and it is clear that cleave means a commitment, as that is the only way it is used as well.

But the only way to maintain the preconceived assumption of sex=marriage is to deny the meaning of "dabaq" and insist it has a special translation in this case. All the twisted teachings and denials stem from this "simple and unnecessary assumption", as I noted about 7 pages ago. I had hoped to cover more verses before then, because I didn't think that once this verse was covered we would be going anywhere else. There is simply no where to go. To admit this very simple definition of a word is to remove the foundation of a host of misapplications. I didn't think either of you would ever do that. Instead, claiming a special meaning to a simple word used dozens of times in scripture and thousands of times in other sources is preferable. There is no doubt about the meaning of this word. Claiming that it means sex is as silly as when E thought he had some great epiphany and wedabaq was a different word than dabaq.

To cleave still means the same as it ever did, and one flesh still means the same as it ever did. But that truth wobbles a whole house of cards. So this is expected.

"I don't think leaving your father's house is a requirement for marriage. In that case Isaac and Rebekah weren't married."

Not that I think it's necessary to be so legalistic about it, but just to be thorough, Isaac did have his own place. That being said, a more 'authority' understanding of the term rather than a physical one is not out of bounds I wouldn't think.

Since I'm hoping this part of the "debate" is over, I would like to at least touch on one personal attack. I think acknowledging such a thing at the time only helps the other person derail the conversation. Poking at me is no big deal, but in defense of my wives, this topic is not relevant to either of them. I am quite certain of both of their histories.

If anyone would like to claim a next "proof text" for sex=marriage, I would love to go there.

Barring that, if anyone would like to pick up on whether fornication exists in scripture (as in sex outside of marriage not covered elsewhere), I would love to finish that also.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Hey guys, I just noticed something. In I Corinthians 6:16 Paul says, "What? know you not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body?..." This word "joined" in the Greek is kollomenos, Strong's 2853. It means to unite or glue together.

It is the exact same word the Christ uses in Matthew 19:5 for "dabaq" when He translates Genesis 2:24. So Christ equated cleave with sex, the same kind of sex a man might have with a harlot. He literally says a man will leave his mother and father and "kollomenos" with his wife. So I think this controversy may be settled. If Christ equates the "cleave" of Genesis 2:24 directly with the "joined" with a harlot in Matthew 19:5, we have to as well. I don't know how you can come to any other conclusion than the sex happens at "dabaq" and the one flesh is the result.

Thoughts?

 

[Eristhophanes]

And, literally as I was about to post this, ZecAustin nailed it shut:

Hey guys, I just noticed something. In I Corinthians 6:16 Paul says, "What? know you not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body?..." This word "joined" in the Greek is kollomenos, Strong's 2853. It means to unite or glue together.

It is the exact same word the Christ uses in Matthew 19:5 for "dabaq" when He translates Genesis 2:24. So Christ equated cleave with sex, the same kind of sex a man might have with a harlot. He literally says a man will leave his mother and father and "kollomenos" with his wife. So I think this controversy may be settled. If Christ equates the "cleave" of Genesis 2:24 directly with the "joined" with a harlot in Matthew 19:5, we have to as well. I don't know how you can come to any other conclusion than the sex happens at "dabaq" and the one flesh is the result.

Zec, thank you very much, that is huge, because it definitively answers Jason's request for a verse in which "dabaq" is defined as sex. The really neat thing is nobody can claim the Apostle Paul didn't know what the word "dabaq" meant because when Paul translated Genesis 2:24 at Ephesians 5:31 he used "proskollaó" which is Strong's 4347: proskolláō (from 4314 /prós, "towards" and 2853 /kolláō, "to glue"). And... if you think about it, that means Christ put even more emphasis on the sex when He quoted Genesis 2:24 than Paul did.

Want some fun? Check out the word Christ used for "joined together" when He said "What therefore God has joined together..." and see how that's defined. I think it removes all doubt about the difference in the man's actions (sex) and God's action (one flesh).

I love it when Scripture defines Scripture.
______________________

This is kind of like a civil trial. Except the jury (the readers) have the right to ask questions or even join the fray. As the person who brought this issue up, I have the burden of moving this forward and Jason has appointed himself as the defense. The moderator is the judge (referee). Working together we are supposed to be able to ascertain the truth. Sometimes after listening to all the argument somebody puts their finger on the point that everyone else missed, because the jury can listen and join in any time they want.

Below, I've summarized the argument to date on Genesis 2:24 (not counting what Zec just posted because I wanted to thank him at the beginning. He deserves credit for his study). The "nutshell version is this:

My position is the three elements are required, the second element is the consummation of the marriage and the third element is the action of God sealing the covenant.

Jason's position is the three elements are required but the second element is the man and woman committing to marriage and the third element being sex with God then "taking responsibility for everything."

The critical evidence bearing on these claims is the 3 passages of the Law that govern the women who are married by being sold into marriage, being captured in war and forced to marry and those raped into marriage. According to the Law they are all wives and that is irrefutable.

According to Jason's position, in order for these women to be wives either commitment (Jason's view of the "shall cleave" element) is not necessary for marriage OR the word "dabaq" doesn't mean what he insists it means but rather, it means sex.

According to my view, those women are married, as the text says they are. However, my view does not hinge on the definition of a single word, rather, how it interacts with all the rest of Scripture and how we must interpret that Scripture to guide our lives.

There is one area that has a great deal of bearing on Jason's argument that I have not presented, which is the evidence from the history of the church that the church did not want to define "dabaq" as sex because for policy reasons they desired that sex not be associated with marriage. It is extremely important to understand this for several reasons:

• 1st, the default position is always "how was this translated before" when looking at the translation of any particular passage.
• 2nd, there is an assumption that the translation of the Scriptures occurs in an atmosphere, a "bubble" if you will, in which the way any particular word or passage is translated is not affected by any outside influences. Unfortunately, as the history of the church proves, nothing could be further from the truth.
• 3rd, if there is a conflict of opinion on how any particular word or passage is to be translated, great weight is always given to tradition and any change must bear a greater burden than just being a reasonable reading of the text.

These three factors are extremely important in understanding the impact of the patristic writers of the 4th and 5th centuries on the meaning assigned to specific passages of Scripture (that is, how words are defined), especially with respect to the issue of sex.

Following this I will post a series of quotes from "Law, Sex and Christian Society In Medieval Europe" by James A Brundage to illustrate the attitudes and beliefs of the influential church fathers who essentially "set the tone" for the past 1500 years.

_____________________________________

Detailed Summary of the Arguments Concerning Genesis 2:24

Genesis 2:24 describes a process that is often described as "leave, cleave, become one flesh" Based on what Jason said about Isaac we appear to be in enough agreement that we don't need to discuss it, because the "leave" aspect is a change in status and authority for the man WRT his new family. We are in agreement that all three elements must be present for a marriage to be initiated. However, the meaning of the two other elements is contended.

1.) Concerning Jason's claim "shall cleave to his wife" means commitment

Jason's evidence reduces to the meaning of the word "dabaq." He asserts "dabaq" must be translated as some form of commitment because in other places in Scripture it is translated as a form of commitment and "dabaq" cannot be translated as anything that refers to sex because it is not translated as sex anywhere else. Thus, he argues to disallow it's use in Genesis 2:24 to describe sex, claiming that sex is referred to with the use of the term "one flesh" because in all the uses of "one flesh" it refers to sex.

Jason presents zero evidence that the word "dabaq" cannot be translated as a reference to sex.

Refuting Jason's claim that "shall cleave" is commitment is the testimony of the Law that the wives of Leviticus 21:7-11, Deuteronomy 21:10-14 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29 are married by force without commitment. Jason claims the "shall cleave" element is required and within that element the word "dabaq'' means commitment, not sex. Yet, the Law specifies 3 classes of women who become wives in the absence of commitment or consent: Those sold by their fathers, those captured in war and those raped.

Thus, Jason's claim that the use of "dabaq" in Genesis 2:24 must be defined as commitment contradicts the testimony of three separate passages of the Law that describe three separate classes of women who are married (by force, coercion or duress) without consent or commitment. Jason has presented zero evidence other than his opinion to answer the question of why "dabaq" cannot be defined as a word that carries with it the specific denotation of sex as used in Genesis 2:24.

Therefore, based on the claims, arguments and irrefutable evidence, either "dabaq" cannot mean commitment as used in Genesis 2:24; OR, the element of "shall cleave" is not required. In either case the result is that sex is the act that initiates marriage. Otherwise the women sold as slaves to be married, the women forcibly married after capture in war and the women forcibly raped into marriage are not actually married. The testimony of the Law says they are married.


2.) Concerning Jason's claim that the third element is sex

Jason presents no evidence, this is a claim by process of elimination resulting from his insistence that the second element is commitment, therefore "become one flesh" must be the sex.

Refuting Jason's claim is the testimony of Christ in Matthew 19:6 that "the two shall become one flesh" is an act of God, taken by God, for as He said, "what therefore God has joined together...". That testimony means any use of the term "one flesh" refers to the act by God that occurs after the sex is initiated. While the two may occur simultaneously, there are two different actors at work. Sex is the act of the man and joining the two together is the act of God. The text is clear that the "shall leave" and "shall cleave" are the actions of the man. Christ is clear that the "shall become one flesh" is a specific act taken by God ("God has joined together"). Therefore, "become one flesh" cannot mean sex because Jesus identified it as the action of God, not the man.

Jason argued against this, claiming the Greek word "hoste" means God is taking responsibility for all three elements of Genesis 2:24; "In other words, God is responsible for putting the marriage together in its entirety, not "man does some / God does some"." In the face of objections, Jason insisted "hoste" has a special definition that modifies the text to mean God takes responsibility for all aspects of marriage and compared it to his argument about the word "dabaq" previously made.

Thus, in order to accept Jason's claims, we must accept that contrary to the testimony of the Law, the word "dabaq" as used in Genesis 2:24 must be defined as commitment and marriage without commitment is no marriage at all. In addition we must accept that the word "hoste" as used in Matthew 19:6 must be defined as a modifier that defines the text to mean God is the actor in all three elements of marriage, contrary to the evidence that a covenant with God is initiated with the action of shed blood. In both cases Jason has presented zero evidence as to why either "dabaq" or "hoste" cannot be defined otherwise.

 

[Jason]

Why do you keep writing a book based on squat? You literally just looked at this verse in the original language TODAY, and you're ready to write a book about it.

That's Greek.

We are talking about the Hebrew word "dabaq", which is not necessarily translatable into another language.

In other words, do you have a better word that could be used for the same concept?

But, in Greek, kollao also always means "joined". In fact, it usually means something like "utterly committed to" We never got here, because you guys can't get past Genesis 2, but remember Zec, when you said "its a little sophomoric to suggest that only means sex. Paul would have been saying Don't have sex with a prostitute. Don't you know you'll be having sex with her if you do?"

Well, here's the second concept. It's not just sex being talked about in that verse. Paul says not to be joined to a sexually immoral person. And also notice, that just like in the instructions on marriage, the joining comes first, then the one flesh. Of course, we never got around to talking about this due to . . . . . Some people . . . . Making up their own definitions of words.


So let me put this new "epiphany" into perspective for you. You have discovered that every time the Greek says "cleave" they use thw same word.

Ummm, so?

How is this not exactly what would be expected? Unless you thought there was nothing being talked about except sex. But you already knew better, and said so yourself.

What WOULD have been important is if Paul talked about ONLY joining. That would be odd. But he didn't. He mentioned becoming one in body and becoming one flesh also.

Oh, by the way: look at the next verse if you're still not sure. We are instructed to be joined to The Lord. Claiming "kollao" means sex would again put many verse in a weird place. It means joined. And we are not being told to have sex with God, we are being told to be committed to him. Very next verse man.

I guess if anything, it's good to see you guys looking into the actual original languages.

 

[The Revolting Man]

What? I'm not sure what just happened. We showed in the text where the action taking place in Genesis 2:24 in the marriage is the exact same action taking place with the harlot. Jesus Himself translated dabaq from the Hebrew into a word that He, as The Word speaking through Paul, means what you do with a harlot that then makes you one flesh with her.

The dabaq in Genesis 2:24 is the kellomenos in 1 Corinthians 6:14. A=B, B=C, A=C. That's the only issue we've been debating for days.