• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Genesis 2:24 : In the beginning....

The Revolting Man

The Revolting Man

Moderator
Staff member
Real Person
Male
Most folks will agree, and I know what kind of risk I'm taking saying that here, that marriage is instituted in the Creation story. When asked about divorce Christ Himself quoted the Creation account. That seems pretty significant.

I know why polygyny supporters would gloss over this account. It's the main argument the monogamy only crowd points to. They say that Adam's marriage to Eve was normative. God married Adam to Eve, not Eve and Inga. There are not many debate points to be scored in Eden for us and so we frequently gloss over it.

That may be holding us back. This was God's statement on the reason why and the way to form a marriage. This was literally the marriage He officiated at. This happened before the fall so the groom was perfect, the bride was perfect and the ceremony was perfect. Aaaaaawwwww, that's so sweet! And then Christ came and reiterated it just so no one would think that had changed in the New Covenant. In other words, this is important. We should be talking about it.

So here's the text:

"Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife and they become one flesh." Genesis 2:24 New Revised Standard Version

This is a remarkable sentence. I don't know if so much has ever been conveyed so simply. There is not even one comma in that sentence.

I think it's pretty clear that this is the foundational statement on how to form a marriage. So let's talk about what could fit in to that verse. What actions could someone take and still be able to credibly claim that they were obedient to God's Word?

I think the breadth is quite wide. Certainly one can read in to the passage a need for deliberateness and steadfastness, but it's not explicit in the text. One can, and many have, argued that cling can mean many things.

So what are the barest minimum actions that would qualify under this passage as forming a marriage?
 
But that line isn't all of it. I think we'd have to discuss starting when God presents Eve to Adam. Hell, let's start with MAKING Eve. He determines that Adam is lonely and needs companionship and a helper, and so He makes one.

Boom. From the dawn of Eve's existence she has been destined to compliment, accompany, help, and support Adam.
Adam's response is, to me, where the man's part comes in. But note that Eve comes 'first'. Well, God comes first I guess. God purposes to provide a 'wife' for Adam, and 'knits her together' for that very purpose. Every cell in her body is made to be Adam's helpmeet. She's BROUGHT to Adam (God doesn't ask her what she thinks, far as we know, or whatever. Probably because in the perfect set up, He knew exactly what she would like and want...Adam!), and THEN Adam responds. God invites Adam to something through offering him this gift of a 'wife'.

Then, Adam's actions. He names her and (sort of) makes a vow. I'd argue naming her is itself a vow. Naming implies dominion and hierarchy, as well as a place in the formation of identity. We name our children, we name animals we care for...we name cars we especially like. Names not only mean ownership, they mean care (we care enough to name) and they mean 'creating identity' (This is part of who you are now: your name is Zec). Adam does those 3 things when he names Eve. He says "I care for you", "You are mine", and "This is who you are". There's also implied reverence/thanksgiving to God for the provision ("This, FINALLY,..."), and there is an implied promise. "Bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh". That is, she is a part of him. Literally and figuratively. One could argue that she has been a part of him from the day she was conceived. And as we know, from Christ's mouth "no man hated his own body...". We love others 'as we love ourselves' because we love ourselves. We love our wives because we love ourselves, because they are a part of us, our body. So, Adam says "you are a part of my body". Ergo, "I'll take care of you and look after you and love you like I do for myself". That's my read anyway.

Anyway. So then we get that summary sentence.
Leave parents and 'cling to' wife and thus become one flesh. Leave parents + Cling to wife = become one flesh, is my reading. Seems simple enough to me.
The man decides that he is now his own family, with (at least 1) wife, and they go to act it out. Simple as that. Now, re: sex = one flesh versus family = one flesh and so on, I'm not sure that is neccesary to determine from this structure.
 
EternalDreamer said:
But that line isn't all of it. I think we'd have to discuss starting when God presents Eve to Adam. Hell, let's start with MAKING Eve. He determines that Adam is lonely and needs companionship and a helper, and so He makes one.

Boom. From the dawn of Eve's existence she has been destined to compliment, accompany, help, and support Adam.
Adam's response is, to me, where the man's part comes in. But note that Eve comes 'first'. Well, God comes first I guess. God purposes to provide a 'wife' for Adam, and 'knits her together' for that very purpose. Every cell in her body is made to be Adam's helpmeet. She's BROUGHT to Adam (God doesn't ask her what she thinks, far as we know, or whatever. Probably because in the perfect set up, He knew exactly what she would like and want...Adam!), and THEN Adam responds. God invites Adam to something through offering him this gift of a 'wife'.

Then, Adam's actions. He names her and (sort of) makes a vow. I'd argue naming her is itself a vow. Naming implies dominion and hierarchy, as well as a place in the formation of identity. We name our children, we name animals we care for...we name cars we especially like. Names not only mean ownership, they mean care (we care enough to name) and they mean 'creating identity' (This is part of who you are now: your name is Zec). Adam does those 3 things when he names Eve. He says "I care for you", "You are mine", and "This is who you are". There's also implied reverence/thanksgiving to God for the provision ("This, FINALLY,..."), and there is an implied promise. "Bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh". That is, she is a part of him. Literally and figuratively. One could argue that she has been a part of him from the day she was conceived. And as we know, from Christ's mouth "no man hated his own body...". We love others 'as we love ourselves' because we love ourselves. We love our wives because we love ourselves, because they are a part of us, our body. So, Adam says "you are a part of my body". Ergo, "I'll take care of you and look after you and love you like I do for myself". That's my read anyway.

Anyway. So then we get that summary sentence.
Leave parents and 'cling to' wife and thus become one flesh. Leave parents + Cling to wife = become one flesh, is my reading. Seems simple enough to me.
The man decides that he is now his own family, with (at least 1) wife, and they go to act it out. Simple as that. Now, re: sex = one flesh versus family = one flesh and so on, I'm not sure that is neccesary to determine from this structure.
Click to expand...
You went too big! We're talking about what is the bare minimum standard you think a man could do and still claim to be in obedience to Genesis 2:24. Because the passage deals with all that came before when it says, "For this reason.." and then it goes on to say leave and cleave and they will be on flesh. We're just looking at that leave and cleave to be one flesh.
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
The leave father and mother part is easy.

What does cling mean and how do you prove it?
Click to expand...
Now I started this thread to keep us out of our normal corners. What I want to establish is what is the bare minimum that a man has to perform to be in compliance with this verse? Or if you disagree that this is the verse that establishes the standard be free to share why.
 
I don’t know if I’d go as far as to say that this verse is THE standard though it definitely gives us a good model.

For that era of human history (one man, one woman, in the garden) that was no doubt sufficient and it gives quite a bit of info on the topic. There are other factors that are added by God after the fall re roles and responsibilities, but for that moment, that was sufficient.

I will say again, The bare minimum a man does (within that single verse) is to leave and cleave.
 
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Certain verses are too immense to try and break down to fit a pattern that can easily be understood. They take a lifetime. Genesis 2:24 is more than marriage.

The father and mother cleave and become one flesh. That one flesh leaves and cleaves with another and they become one flesh, which leaves and cleaves with another and become one flesh, and then leaves and cleaves with another and they become one flesh and....

This is the description of a family. Cleaving to someone is becoming a part of a family. And what is the mechanism that makes that possible? Sex, but that's not the point. And if that mechanism is done incorrectly you risk disrupting the pattern that God laid out. So be careful who you cleave to. Simple.
 
Two fallacies (at least) in the framing of this...

1. @ZecAustin says, 'no commas'.... first fallacy. Commas don't exist in Hebrew. For that matter, punctuation marks don't exist...
2. Verses don't exist, so @EternalDreamer expanding the scope to include context and basis for the creation is perfectly valid and informs the overall understanding of 'cleave'.
 
And, here's another potentially major thought concerning this passage...

The 'leave and cleave' clause, while inspired Scripture, is not said by Adam or God... It is a statement of commentary from Moses upon recording the events of the day. Now, this could help us to understand that he, by inspiration of the Spirit, is explaining the role/purpose/initiation of marriage in light of everything else on the subject written in the Torah...

Hmmm....
 
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be† one flesh?
This would appear to say that He which made them at the beginning . . . Said, For this cause
 
Ancient Paths said:
1. @ZecAustin says, 'no commas'.... first fallacy. Commas don't exist in Hebrew. For that matter, punctuation marks don't exist...
Click to expand...

It’s also only no commas in that particular translation. For instance the kjv definitely has a comma and a semicolon. I understand that punctuation is not present in the original but in English it definitely helps with understanding...

Genesis 2:24
[24] Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
 
ZecAustin said:
"Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife and they become one flesh."
Click to expand...

Since "802-Ishshah" can represent one woman/wife or more than one woman/wife, I see that as representing any number and not exclusive to only one woman/wife. And to me, any number qualifies. I think if the intention was to be only one, the phrase might be written differently. "Therefore shall man ...shall cleave to his wife (Ishshah) and they shall be one flesh" (Gen). The man is simply instructed to take hold of his Ishshah and they shall be one flesh. All a man has to do is say you are now my wife/Ishshah, and they are one flesh, whether he takes one or more, the verse covers any number . No other acts are necessary, to be one flesh. Since the verse says "his wife (Ishshah)", it is likely a consenting union/relationship.
 
Not sure this is relevant, but remember there's "earlier" insights on male & female humans in Chapter 1 (NRSV):

"Then God said, 'Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness;...' So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them...."​

Discussion on why there's "two versions" of the creation of humans (Chap 1 vs Chap 2) makes rounds in science circles...

I haven't seen anything correlating the 2 chapters from a marriage perspective.

Best,

--JAG
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
I don’t know if I’d go as far as to say that this verse is THE standard though it definitely gives us a good model.

For that era of human history (one man, one woman, in the garden) that was no doubt sufficient and it gives quite a bit of info on the topic. There are other factors that are added by God after the fall re roles and responsibilities, but for that moment, that was sufficient.

I will say again, The bare minimum a man does (within that single verse) is to leave and cleave.
Click to expand...
So what were the additions and where were they laid out?
 
Ancient Paths said:
And, here's another potentially major thought concerning this passage...

The 'leave and cleave' clause, while inspired Scripture, is not said by Adam or God... It is a statement of commentary from Moses upon recording the events of the day. Now, this could help us to understand that he, by inspiration of the Spirit, is explaining the role/purpose/initiation of marriage in light of everything else on the subject written in the Torah...

Hmmm....
Click to expand...
I can't go here. It's all inspired scripture straight from the mouth of God or none of it is. If any of it's just Moses' teaching how do we know he's even relaying God's Words correctly?
 
Bare minimum is leave and cleave.

What do they mean?

Cleave is simple, it means to join closely. Doesn't clearly mean sex, but in my experience that tends to happen when you get that close to a sexy woman so the two are clearly linked...

Leave is actually more interesting from my perspective. What does that mean?

Is it about authority? Does it mean that a man is under the authority of his father until he takes a wife, and then is suddenly completely his own boss? Or that he must leave and become his own boss prior to marriage? What does this mean for tribal structures though, how can grandad be the chief if his sons and grandsons are not under his authority in any way?

Is it about physical separation, does it mean hou must move out of your father's house or tent prior to marriage? What does that mean for cultures with intergenerational living arrangements?

Lots of stuff to ponder there.
 
Preceding that verse, I also see a verbal comittment from Adam to Eve and a point that the one flesh begins that conflicts because she was actually the same flesh from before her creation. Adam says, This is “now” bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. Giving us an exact moment when one who was the same exact flesh becomes one flesh.

I think the leave part is fairly simple. Heb 3:6. But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.
And John 14:2 In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told†you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

It would seem that Christ is as a son over his own house, and yet preparing a place for his bride in his Fathers house.
The leaving may involve a new roof, or simply an addition to the fathers house, either way, when the son is acknowledged as a son over his own house, that seems to be the point of separation or leaving.
 
FollowingHim said:
Bare minimum is leave and cleave.

What do they mean?

Cleave is simple, it means to join closely. Doesn't clearly mean sex, but in my experience that tends to happen when you get that close to a sexy woman so the two are clearly linked...

Leave is actually more interesting from my perspective. What does that mean?

Is it about authority? Does it mean that a man is under the authority of his father until he takes a wife, and then is suddenly completely his own boss? Or that he must leave and become his own boss prior to marriage? What does this mean for tribal structures though, how can grandad be the chief if his sons and grandsons are not under his authority in any way?

Is it about physical separation, does it mean hou must move out of your father's house or tent prior to marriage? What does that mean for cultures with intergenerational living arrangements?

Lots of stuff to ponder there.
Click to expand...

The leave is giving me a case of the chap right now. It certainly raise up some questions. If all it means is a physical removal from your father's house then it leaves a few questions. Were Isaac and Rebecca not married then? He moved Rebecc into his mother's tent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top