I view it more as a change in status and not necessarily a change in location. He is establishing a new family unit separate from his parents family unit...
-
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....
- Thread starter The Revolting Man
- Start date
I view it more as a change in status and not necessarily a change in location. He is establishing a new family unit separate from his parents family unit...
That's what I think too. He's established a unit that his father doesn't have any direct authority over. But that does imply a deliberateness that seems in conflict with my idea that sex alone causes a one flesh relationship as is implied in 1 Corinthians 6.
Last edited:
This was in my email. Thought it was appropriate. I haven’t watched it yet so if it’s a dud, sorry
Parshat Vayigash opens with Judah’s impassioned speech to his long-lost brother Joseph. "The lad is unable to leave his father," Judah says about Benjamin. As it happens, that phrase "la'azov et aviv" — "to leave his father" comes up in just one other place in the Torah:
"This is why a man leaves behind his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife and they become one flesh."
It's in the second chapter in Genesis, back in the Garden of Eden. It's a description of marriage, of all things — of the powerful love that Adam feels for his wife, Eve.
Why is Judah quoting from the Book of Genesis? What does marriage have to do with the drama of Joseph and his brothers in Egypt?
If there were only this one clue, we might dismiss it as a mere coincidence. But — as is frequently the case here at Aleph Beta — it's only the tip of the iceberg. The Garden of Eden just keeps popping up, all over the Torah, and here it is, in Parshat Vayigash. What does it all mean?
Watch Aleph Beta's latest video to find out.
Parshat Vayigash opens with Judah’s impassioned speech to his long-lost brother Joseph. "The lad is unable to leave his father," Judah says about Benjamin. As it happens, that phrase "la'azov et aviv" — "to leave his father" comes up in just one other place in the Torah:
"This is why a man leaves behind his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife and they become one flesh."
It's in the second chapter in Genesis, back in the Garden of Eden. It's a description of marriage, of all things — of the powerful love that Adam feels for his wife, Eve.
Why is Judah quoting from the Book of Genesis? What does marriage have to do with the drama of Joseph and his brothers in Egypt?
If there were only this one clue, we might dismiss it as a mere coincidence. But — as is frequently the case here at Aleph Beta — it's only the tip of the iceberg. The Garden of Eden just keeps popping up, all over the Torah, and here it is, in Parshat Vayigash. What does it all mean?
Watch Aleph Beta's latest video to find out.
How so?
The leaving part is that deliberateness.
The cleaving part is what is involved in sex.
I mean considering how the law treats someone who has 'sex with a virgin betrothed to someone else' for instance, seems to me the sex = one flesh unification still stands.
I agree. I don't see any other option when looking at the totality of it all; sex forms a one flesh relationship. But we do have a leave and cleave here. I would say that the cleave is sex and that is the indispensable part of the one flesh. No one would say that just because a man left his father and mother he was suddenly one flesh. But I do have to find a hook to hang this word "leave" on. The point of the post is that Genesis 2:24 is the definitive verse on how to form one flesh, so the leave must be important.
Leave:
Make an “agreement” to form a new family unit separate from his fathers family?
Hmm, I wonder if Jesus would have been considered His own 'family' once He left to begin His ministry and was no longer living with Mary and Joseph? Just wondering out loud, I don't know of any proofs.
I am curious to know the implications of the Hebrew word for 'leave' there, and whether it implies a rejection/cutting off. I always thought it was interesting that from Genesis, Moses states it as it being natural for a man to, for all intents and purposes, reject his current hierarchical position in a family to start a new one.
I think reject is the wrong word. I would liken it more to graduate. It's a status increase. And not in any way a negative towards his father...
Agreed it almost is like the father is gaining a daughter instead of loosing a son... But I still see it as a status change. The man is starting his own family. Separate in status but not necessarily separate in location. My understanding is that it was common practice for the groom to build an addition on the fathers house for the purpose of bringing his bride home...
Hmm. I dunno. I think the Bible makes it fairly clear via pattern that a man is the head of his household and family. Compare like, David and Jonathan vs Saul. I think there is certainly the concept of honor thy father and mother, but whether they did it 'better' in those days or not, it seems that it is important from a hierarchical/leadership point of view that the man has his 'own' family (and yes, in the ownership sense 
)
So it seems really strange to me that we would go with this idea of kind of multiple generation housing. I don't know that was ever meant as the 'ideal' or some sort of instruction...it just was what it was. As much as I agree that the idea of complete 'familial divorce' in our modern age is damaging, I would disagree with the idea (not sure if you're saying this @rockfox so, sorry if I am misunderstanding) that there is some sort of hierarchical leadership that carries down a chain. It goes God -> man (husband) -> wife(s), right? Not God -> Father -> Son -> Son's wife(s) -> etc. So there is definitely a point at which I am no longer under my earthly parents' authority and leadership. Which is what I think we are trying to determine in this concept of 'leaving'. What does that look like/mean? It may not mean literally living totally separate...but every cell in my body says that it is definitely NOT my father telling my wife what to do, or telling me who to marry.
)So it seems really strange to me that we would go with this idea of kind of multiple generation housing. I don't know that was ever meant as the 'ideal' or some sort of instruction...it just was what it was. As much as I agree that the idea of complete 'familial divorce' in our modern age is damaging, I would disagree with the idea (not sure if you're saying this @rockfox so, sorry if I am misunderstanding) that there is some sort of hierarchical leadership that carries down a chain. It goes God -> man (husband) -> wife(s), right? Not God -> Father -> Son -> Son's wife(s) -> etc. So there is definitely a point at which I am no longer under my earthly parents' authority and leadership. Which is what I think we are trying to determine in this concept of 'leaving'. What does that look like/mean? It may not mean literally living totally separate...but every cell in my body says that it is definitely NOT my father telling my wife what to do, or telling me who to marry.
Hmm. I dunno. I think the Bible makes it fairly clear via pattern that a man is the head of his household and family. Compare like, David and Jonathan vs Saul. I think there is certainly the concept of honor thy father and mother, but whether they did it 'better' in those days or not, it seems that it is important from a hierarchical/leadership point of view that the man has his 'own' family (and yes, in the ownership sense
So it seems really strange to me that we would go with this idea of kind of multiple generation housing. I don't know that was ever meant as the 'ideal' or some sort of instruction...it just was what it was. As much as I agree that the idea of complete 'familial divorce' in our modern age is damaging, I would disagree with the idea (not sure if you're saying this @rockfox so, sorry if I am misunderstanding) that there is some sort of hierarchical leadership that carries down a chain. It goes God -> man (husband) -> wife(s), right? Not God -> Father -> Son -> Son's wife(s) -> etc. So there is definitely a point at which I am no longer under my earthly parents' authority and leadership. Which is what I think we are trying to determine in this concept of 'leaving'. What does that look like/mean? It may not mean literally living totally separate...but every cell in my body says that it is definitely NOT my father telling my wife what to do, or telling me who to marry.
I totally agree the authority structure changes at or even in some cases prior to marriage...
Hmm. I dunno. I think the Bible makes it fairly clear via pattern that a man is the head of his household and family. Compare like, David and Jonathan vs Saul. I think there is certainly the concept of honor thy father and mother, but whether they did it 'better' in those days or not, it seems that it is important from a hierarchical/leadership point of view that the man has his 'own' family (and yes, in the ownership sense
So it seems really strange to me that we would go with this idea of kind of multiple generation housing. I don't know that was ever meant as the 'ideal' or some sort of instruction...it just was what it was. As much as I agree that the idea of complete 'familial divorce' in our modern age is damaging, I would disagree with the idea (not sure if you're saying this @rockfox so, sorry if I am misunderstanding) that there is some sort of hierarchical leadership that carries down a chain. It goes God -> man (husband) -> wife(s), right? Not God -> Father -> Son -> Son's wife(s) -> etc. So there is definitely a point at which I am no longer under my earthly parents' authority and leadership. Which is what I think we are trying to determine in this concept of 'leaving'. What does that look like/mean? It may not mean literally living totally separate...but every cell in my body says that it is definitely NOT my father telling my wife what to do, or telling me who to marry.
I know God->Christ->man->wife is true. What level of authority exists between a Father and son after the later marries? I'm not sure. I know there is a scriptural argument out there to be made for a multi-generational patriarchal authority where the eldest of the clan welds power over sons and grandsons; but I haven't investigated it to see if true.
I just know that 'leave' could be easily welded to justify the modern nuclear family and well, I see that as confirmation bias. But I am very interested what conclusion is drawn here about the meaning of 'leave' in this context. Given that marriage entails a passing of authority over woman from father to son-in-law I can well see that leave could carry some connotation of changing authority.
But it could also indicate a changing of residence; now you must provide for her and yourself, rather than being provided for by your father. Or it could even indicate the social system (I forget the name) where the son leaves the fathers location/house and joins the location/house of the daughter's family. (as opposed to her joining the fathers house or they both leaving and starting a new house).
I have no firm opinion on these matters; except that most children now show too little honor to their parents and most parents don't help that with their example in behavior with the grandparents and their general uselessness given they severed the connection to the past and now retain little of the intergenerational knowledge and wisdom which generations past would be honored for, and pass on to the grandchildren.
It's certainly a possibility but can you say it's the only option?
Based off of, and I can't believe I'm saying this, @Verifyveritas76 assertion that the word leave only appears one other time and it is in reference to Benjamin being too young to leave Jacob I'm leaning towards saying that this is an age limit of some kind. My leading theory is that it refers to sexual maturity. Thoughts?
But is that the actual other place used?
This has it to mean...
Reading that, I'm leaning strongly towards, leaving the fathers care and support. And if any of you married young while still at home, that is exactly how it worked. You left home and built a new household (figuratively) and were now responsible for supporting it.
As someone who's father has attempted to tell me how to interact with my wife even when I AM the head of my own house now, I am very wary of this idea. I think I hear what you are trying to get at, but I'm just letting you know why it rankles my fathers/makes me cautious
Also: my father doesn't support poly (even though he realizes the scriptural basis for it). So am I to take his direction and let him forbid me from taking a second wife? Ridiculous. So there is DEFINITELY a separation/distinction. Are we just climbing a ladder as men, where as each previous generation dies we get to be 'more' the head of our own families? I don't think so. So, that is why I am cautious. But I think I hear the point/spirit you are trying to convey and generally agree so, I'll leave it at that
Sure, but I still doubt the 'directness' of the authority as it were
Disclaimer. I just posted a link. I still have not had time to verify. Use at your own risk.