Genesis 2:24

[FollowingHim]

Ok, here's me using the same texts and coming to a rather different interpretation to Eristophanes. I don't see that this is "a grant of authority for the man to initiate marriage", rather quite the contrary, I see this marriage as being initiated solely by YHWH:

We do have a covenant here, between the father of the bride and the father of the groom. It's just not entirely clear since they happen to both be YHWH.

YHWH decides that it is not good for the man (Adam, his 'son' by creation) to be alone - he needs a wife.
He makes a wife for him, (his 'daughter' again by creation), and decides to give her to Adam.
Adam and Eve are then 'blinking in the sunlight' as Zec put it, just having been told "this is your spouse". Neither Adam or Eve have consented, this has been thrust upon them as an arranged marriage - by the consent of their father. This is them "cleaving" to each other in unity (Jason has elaborated the meaning of "cleave" in scripture well, it does not mean sex, rather unity & cooperation).
They then go and have sex, becoming "one flesh".

Covenant is more apparant in later marriages where the parties agreeing to the betrothal are different people. But it is present here.

By contrast, if there were no covenant present, we'd find YHWH creating a man, creating a woman, and then the two of THEM deciding themselves that it was a good idea to have sex, and THEN being called husband and wife by their own decision. But that's not what we see. Rather, this marriage is planned and orchestrated very carefully by a father, and sex is the last step not the first.

 

[Jason]

Zec-

You said "we do not have commitment from anyone since Adam didn't even know what was going on, having been asleep the whole time and not being informed of what was happening. Certainly he wasn't offering any commitment or making any covenant, at least not that was recorded."

You're ignoring the verse:

Adam says "This is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh"

Does it say he had sex with her? No. Don't add it in to support you assumptions. He simply made a statement of committal. Sex isn't even mentioned between the two until two chapters later.

Again, E, with the twisting. You pretend "leave cleave become one flesh" is a modifier of "be fruitful and multiply". Guess you're hoping no one realizes they are a chapter apart. And that we are directly told why a man "leaves cleaves and becomes one flesh with his wife. It's in the verse directly before that. Adam says "this is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh" and then the verse says THEREFORE - a man leaves cleaves and becomes one flesh. Stop lying.

Zec, how you can possibly look at the uses of "cleave" and still think it means sex is beyond explanation. It never refers to sex. How can you be so intent to add your own meaning? It always always always always always means stick to, hold on, never leave, commit, knit together, etc etc etc.

When used in reference to two individuals it means "stick together", when used in reference to a tongue and the roof of your mouth it means "stick together". Always always always always the same meaning. It never means sex. How can I convince you if you reject EVERY verse in the bible that contains the word, in favor of your own thoughts?

 

[Eristhophanes]

So here are all the other verses that use "dabaq" (cleave) in terms of human relations or human to God relations.

Except that's not the word that's used. The word that is used is wə·ḏā·ḇaq and that is the only place that Hebrew term is used. As you can see for yourself.

Every other passage you cited use different terms that all mean close to the same thing, but not necessarily the same thing. We don't know because wə·ḏā·ḇaq is only used once.

The sex isn't in the shall leave (status change, no longer under parents authority)
The sex isn't in the shall become one flesh (According to Christ, this is what God does)
You're trying to say the "shall cleave" isn't sex.

Where is the sex? You are not making any claims about what "cleave" means, but you're obviously working hard to get rid of the sex.

"What don't I see so far? I don't see consent, or even a state of being informed so that meaningful consent was possible for either party, and I don't see a covenant. Restricting yourselves to this verse for the moment, what do you think?"

Pick any covenant you want and I see a covenant initiated with blood sacrifice. As to the Marriage Covenant, women come with a hymen as standard equipment, it's designed to rupture and bleed when she loses her virginity. With that shed blood I see a covenant of marriage instituted with the act of sex and God joining them as one flesh at the same time.

 

[Jason]

The prefix means "and".

It pops up quite frequently in Hebrew.

Again with the twisting, or do you really not know?


Show me where "cleave" means sex. Please. Go for it. Show me.

 

[FollowingHim]

Jason, saying to Eristhophanes "stop lying" is not helpful to this discussion. Eristophanes and Zec are both being very careful to back everything they say with scripture. Nobody is lying or deliberately twisting things, rather everyone is presenting very careful scriptural exegesis, and coming to different conclusions to each other - because we're all fallible humans and have things wrong. Eristophanes will be wrong about some things because he is human (as you will be too), but if so that doesn't mean he is "lying", just that he is wrong. If you believe he is wrong, please just calmly show him a better interpretation, from scripture.

Otherwise, this is an excellent calm discussion, and I commend everyone for not reacting to such statements. I'm enjoying it and pondering things carefully as a result of it. Keep up the great work everyone!

Incidentally - I believe Jason is right that "we" just means "and", so the meaning of "cleave" in these verses is able to be clearly shown in scripture.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Jason, you're making an error in assuming that Adam declaring Eve bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh is a part of the narrative of leave, cleave be one flesh. But that pronouncement by Adam is a separate event from God's pronouncement on what marriage is. Adam's introduction to Eve is the reason why men leave, cleave and be one flesh but its not part of the process. These are two separate statements. Adam and Eve meeting is a narrative. God then breaks in and makes a commandment that is tied to the narrative, but separate of it.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Eristophanes, I will gladly concede that the breaking of the hymen is a blood covenant. I insist on it in fact. But that makes the covenant result from the sex. Consenting to sex is the making of a blood covenant is the establishment of one flesh ergo sex is marriage. Would I be gauche to perform a victory dance?

 

[Eristhophanes]

The prefix means "and".

It pops up quite frequently in Hebrew.

Again with the twisting, or do you really not know?


Show me where "cleave" means sex. Please. Go for it. Show me.

Let's see. The guy who told everyone the word "and" doesn't appear in Hebrew:

At 2:52am - on Wed, 11 May 2016, Jason said: "As if putting "and" in all caps totally changes everything. You know the Hebrew doesn't say "and"

is now telling us that it pops up quite frequently. Jason, you're just ruining this mental image of you being a Biblical scholar. Not unsurprisingly, that comforts me.

I've already stated, repeatedly, that the "shall cleave to his wife" of Genesis 2:24 is where the sexual consummation of the marriage takes place. Bathtubs and bedrooms full of wild, frenzied, screaming, hair-pulling, backscratching, biting, moaning, calling out for God sex... that leaves you laying their dazed and exhausted wondering what happened and how fast you can do that again. Because that was the most fantastic thing you've ever experienced.

Jason, I don't know about you, but it seems to me that when God does something He does it right the first time... and I more than strongly suspect Eve was every fantasy Adam never knew he had rolled into one. Naked and unashamed. Again, I don't know about you, Jason, but when I get my hands on an utterly gorgeous naked woman, you better believe sex is definitely on the menu. No shame.

Are you aware of just how ridiculous an argument you're making? Seriously. "Show me where cleave means sex."

Gorgeous, naked, unashamed. All for him. But you can't find sex in there anywhere. Jason, have you had your testosterone-estrogen ratio checked recently? I think you're suffering from an excess of estrogen and it's effecting your brain.

 

[Jason]

I honestly assume he's lying. I don't assume he doesn't know his error, I think he's purposefully twisting and hoping that his glut of words will cover his tracks. I would assume, since he began this thread with a link to his blog, that the purpose is to be as controversial as necessary to get as many people as possible to visit it. More hits = money. If he honestly doesn't know, then I guess I would be wrong.

Zec-

You said " Adam's introduction to Eve is the reason why men leave, cleave and be one flesh but its not part of the process. These are two separate statements."

Ok? So what? The narrative still does not mention them having sex. You have to add that in. The narrative doesn't mention them having sex until 2 chapters later. Stop adding into scripture.

The only part that IS mentioned is Adam's statement of commitment. That is there. Like, for reals. No foolsies.

Let me go ahead and repeat -

Please. Please please please. Show me where "cleave" means sex. I've shown you where it means a commitment to one another. Show me the scripture! Show me it means sex!!

You have nothing here but a bad assumption. The plain Hebrew refutes it. Don't add to it.

Please. Show me. In the Bible. Show me.

 

[Jason]

E-

Again with the twisting. Definitely not lying. Just twisting mistakenly.

I didn't say there was no way to say "and" in Hebrew. I said it wasn't in numbers 6:6. Does it exist? Yep. Now you know how to find it.

You're welcome "teacher"

Can you understand the irony of claiming to speak for God, and telling us all how smart you are, and accepting the lavish compliments of Zec, but not knowing how to say "and" in Hebrew? You thought "and cleave" was a completely different word than "cleave".

Your terrible assumptions are based on not knowing. FH said I shouldn't say it's lying, so that's all I have left. You just don't know.

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]

Eristophanes, I will gladly concede that the breaking of the hymen is a blood covenant. I insist on it in fact. But that makes the covenant result from the sex. Consenting to sex is the making of a blood covenant is the establishment of one flesh ergo sex is marriage. Would I be gauche to perform a victory dance?

I'm having trouble with the word "consenting" because we're talking about a virgin and her consent isn't necessary. I'm not done with a response to Samuel, but without pointing to Deuteronomy 22:28-29 I can also point to Exodus 21:7. A father who has the right to sell his daughter into slavery has the right to negotiate a marriage contract and hand her off to a man she absolutely does not consent to be with. And when it's over she's married. I see the same thing with the 200 men of Dan who grabbed the virgins at Shiloh and carried them home. I see the same thing in Deuteronomy 21:10-14 with the virgin captured in war. As I've said, the virgin has no agency.

But I do agree that sex with the virgin creates the blood covenant and in the act of the man doing that, God establishes the two as one flesh. I'd also be completely in agreement if you were of the opinion that the particular point about consent means the girl's father has a huge responsibility to protect her and guard her.

As to victory dances... there's no point to dancing alone. And... isn't that what we're talking about?

 

[Jason]

The assumption is laid bare when you simply ignore it and move on as if it never happened. There is no more you can say about the foundation of your ideas (other than repeating without citing and adding some colorful sex stuff, which I'm sure you will). Genesis 2 just isn't cooperating for you.

I'll keep bringing it back. As Zek said, we need to go verse by verse. This is the foundation. I don't care for the commentary. I do care about you twisting scripture to suit your wants.

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 didn't say there was no way to say "and" in Hebrew. I said it wasn't in numbers 6:6.

Really? Seriously? Let's review:

The thing is, I'm almost sure you know that the verse you chose to cite is simply the one you can twist. As if putting "and" in all caps totally changes everything. You know the Hebrew doesn't say "and".

No, Jason, you made it clear that you were talking about Numbers 6:9 because I *quoted from* Numbers 6:9 and capitalized the word "AND" to get your attention. You responded to that and said You know the Hebrew doesn't say "and". So, in the midst of my looking at that, with you snarking about whether I even understand the concept of a conjunction like "and" in the Hebrew language, you're telling me that what I can plainly see in front of me doesn't exist.

Hmmm. And I didn't say anything until you brought up the issue of the word "and" a bit later.

Now you are claiming you didn't *actually* mean the Hebrew doesn't say "and" the way you wrote it, rather, you meant the word "and" wasn't in Numbers 6:6.

Because you still can't admit that you were wrong. Even after it's pointed out, repeatedly, using your own words. Jason, what you are engaged in is a practice known as "intellectual dishonesty."

Jason, Numbers 6:6 is completely irrelevant because you responded to my quote of Numbers 6:9, scolding me saying the word wə·ṭim·mê isn't there when anyone who wants to look knows it is. On top of that, you made that statement using a strange locution that at least implies Hebrew *language* doesn't use the word "and." And when you made an issue of the word "and" later it was simply too much to pass up.

In addition to getting your blood checked you need to learn how to think and write clearly, cite correctly and be able to admit it when you get it wrong. You seem to have a real problem admitting you made a mistake. Even when it can't be denied.

If your behavior in your home is anything close to your behavior in this thread, it's no wonder this subject has you scared silly. I'm not a woman, but if I had to live with this kind of behavior day in and day out I'd be looking for any excuse to leave. "Adultery? I'm actually married to Herbie??" *POOF* Gone.

 

[Jason]

Yep, I was talking about 6:6. You were talking about 6:9. It's good to see you getting the concept down of how to say "and" in Hebrew, since you obviously didn't know before a couple of hours ago. Good on you. But I really don't care. If you want to talk later about how you didn't know Samson violated his vow long before cutting his hair, we can do that.


But first . . . . . . . .


The assumption is laid bare when you simply ignore it and move on as if it never happened. There is no more you can say about the foundation of your ideas (other than repeating without citing and adding some colorful sex stuff, which I'm sure you will). Genesis 2 just isn't cooperating for you.

I'll keep bringing it back. As Zek said, we need to go verse by verse. This is the foundation. I don't care for the commentary. I do care about you twisting scripture to suit your wants.

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.

 

[aineo]

I am appreciating the discussion on this, but I would encourage you all to take a deep breath before replying to each other. Your discussions are beginning to include more attacks at a personal level, and that is not glorifying God.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I agree aineo. The discussion before us is where does the sex occur in Genesis 2:24. I say at cleave because of how one flesh seems to be happening at the same time in the passage and we know one flesh results from sex.

 

[NetWatchR]

I'm going to throw my $0.02 in. And expect change back.

To me, it seems "obvious", just as everyone else's opinion is "obvious" to them as well, that cleave is being tied together and the one flesh is sex.

First let's just dumb it down a bit. You all seem to be learned folk, at least in the area of Bible-ocity, but I think in cases like this, that may be your weakness as well. The Bible, as a whole, needs to be understood simply by simple people.

now let's look at what I consider the easy part. One-flesh. I think we all agree that one flesh is sex. It's only used twice. Once in marriage and once with a prostitute. The only thing these two scenarios have in common is the sex. Nothing else. Everything other than sex is assumed.

Now the real meat. Cleave. Now, again, this seems pretty simple to me. All usages of the word cleave mean some form of sticking together. Either by choice or by force. No sex, at all, period, is ever implied. A non-sexual joining sounds a lot like a commitment.

So what do we have?
1) leave the parents
2) be committed
3) have sex

Is simple.

 

[Jason]

Is simple.

Cleave is a beautiful word. There's better ones, like power and glory and majesty and holiness and Grace and Mercy. But those are all things God does. He's got some great qualities. Cleave is something we can also do, wether it's when we choose to cleave to another person, or when we choose to cleave to God.

It's when we fall in love and want nothing else, like Shechem. Or when we choose loyalty above all else, like David's men. Or when we decide family means family, even after better turns to worse, like Ruth. Or when we can finally look at one of God's creations and say "now. Now I have one who is part of me, and will always be", like Adam and his wife.

Heck, even Eleazar's story is cool. A guy fights so hard for his people and God that at the end of the day, he can't even physically let go of his sword. Never seen that in LOTR or Braveheart or 300.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Fair enough netwatchr. If honorable, Godly centered people are getting married and doing things God's way the simple works out perfectly and I wouldn't argue against it.

The basis of this disagreement though is that since extra-marital sex doesn't appear to be forbidden in scripture, how do we classify it? Is extra -marital sex okay? Does it even exist. The debate isn't about the ironclad definition of what constitutes a marriage but what happens spiritually when a man has sex with an eligible, non-virgin. Maybe we have gotten so off track that we're arguing the side shoot of a side shoot though.

The original contention, which if I remember correctly I raised, is that sex equals marriage. Jason disagrees entirely and Eristophanes disagrees partially. Jason seems to think sex is incidental to marriage and Eristophanes seems to think that sex forms only some marriages and others need consent.

This isn't just an academic question because at the end we're going to have put forth an opinion on why extra-marital sex doesn't seem to get a mention in the Bible.

 

[Jason]

It DOES get mentioned in the Bible. Quite a lot.

But a person's ASSUMPTIONS while reading the verses containing the words "zanah" color how that person reads those verses.

If you believe that marriage requires a covenant, then in the verses that mention "zanah" you can identify adultery, incest, prostitution, and promiscuous sex.

If you believe that marriage happens every time sex with a virgin happens, then in the verses that mention "zanah" you will be able to identify adultery or incest. Prostitution will be seen as adultery (since the prostitute was married to the first guy that had her). Promiscuous sex will be seen as adultery (since the woman was married to the first guy that had her). Then there will be discovered a fourth category of women who are not married, but not virgins either, and a person has to either decide that it's ok to sleep with them casually, or that you're married to them too.

If I show you fornication, you will only say "no, that's not fornication, they are now married". Or "no, that's not fornication, they're committing adultery"

You will never see fornication if you assume sex equals marriage.

Therefore, what constitutes a marriage MUST be concrete first.

Claiming that the only thing required to form a Biblical Marriage is placing a penis into a vagina is an extraordinary claim. You are going against thousands of years of history across hundreds of cultures and hundreds of religions, and the understanding of millions of Christians, Jews, and Muslims who do not believe they are blind to the scripture. This is a claim that requires extraordinary proof.

Like a directive from God.

Are we at a point yet where we agree that Genesis 2 is not that directive? Not only does it not say "if you have sex you are married", but they don't even have sex until two chapters later. And the Hebrew is very clear about the meaning of 'cleave', which lines up very neatly with a commitment between two people. Making it actually seem that a commitment is needed as well as just sex.

But I'm not even saying it's necessary at this point for you to say a covenant is called for.

Only that Genesis 2 is obviously not the sex=marriage directive we're looking for. Are we there yet?