October 28, 2007

  • Genesis 1-4: Commitment

    Today, the pastor preached on Genesis 12-22; being ADD-ish, I was reading Genesis 1-4. I found some interesting tidbits there, and decided to do a series on it. I will look at commitment first. I'm intrigued by these verses from Chapter 2:

    22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib [j] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

     23 The man said,
           "This is now bone of my bones
           and flesh of my flesh;
           she shall be called 'woman, [k] '
           for she was taken out of man."

     24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

    We'll leave alone for now the intriguing feature that the man names the woman rather than the woman naming herself. More interesting is verse 24. Note the steps in what sounds very much like marriage:

    1: It's a man and a woman. Those Christians who advocate committed relationships for Christian gays and lesbians must show how that plan fits against the context of this verse, in my opinion. It seems that there's something deeper at work in a man and woman uniting than just reproduction or reproductive parts.

    2. Notice that a man has to be united to his wife after he leaves the father and mother. It's not enough just to leave; there has to be a union subsequent to the exodus from the parents.

    3. I don't know about whether or not the Hebrew version of "and" has chronological implications. But I'm intrigued that it says "and they will BECOME one flesh." I think that too often, men and women think they are supposed to become one flesh before the marriage ceremony itself. Although Christians may withhold physical intimacy, many couples are certainly emotionally and spiritually intimate before the wedding ceremony. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing. But I would point out, couples BECOME one flesh. You aren't just one flesh as soon as you both don the wedding rings. You must BECOME one flesh; it's a process, not a point in time. Interesting, eh? EDIT: Just to make it clear, I'm not saying that "one flesh" refers to physical union only. I'm pretty sure it means on all levels-spiritual, emotional, etc. END EDIT

    There's also an interesting debate in there if verse 24 is pre-fall in origin, or just a parenthetical insertion by the writer living in Jewish times, and why is it the man who must leave his father and mother? Sounds like the man is the weaker of the two, if he is the one told to leave his parents behind. Intriguing! EDIT Zynverwex has an interesting counterpoint; does it mean that the woman is allowed to stay with her original family to some extent, but the man must be independent? It's a possibility. END EDIT

Comments (10)

  • I used to tell people that that ^ is why the man should change his last name, not the woman.

  • and in hebrew can mean...a lot of things. It can be conjunctive (and) or disjunctive (but). It sometimes introduces a subordinate phrase, somewhat chronological...

    Basically, what it means depends on context.

    Most 'ands' in the OT are not translated, because it's also sort of sylistic to just run on and on, idea after idea (especially in narrative passages), having every single verb say 'and' before it.

  • I'm sure B. could give you the cultural background for why the man must leave his parents.

    3. Agree with you on most of it, other than your understanding of "flesh". You seem to be going with it meaning physically, specifically sexually, only.

  • excellent thoughts!

    maybe the man is told to leave so he can then provide for his bride vs. his own family, I don't know.

  • ffw, don't think I didn't have you in mind when I was wondering what the Hebrew meaning of and was Thanks for contributing. Same to you, jalixx3.

    Oh no, galumph, let me correct that, then. I certainly meant to imply one in every way, not just flesh. Argh, I wish I was crisper with my word usage.

    ah, LRF, that's a good point. Perhaps it's saying that the man must venture out in some way? Take the initiative to sever family bonds first, to show he's serious about wanting a new family? Hmm...

  • oh gp, you couldn't possibly have written a post more likely to draw me to comment on this dark, cold monday morning.

    on 1. you are assuming that the marriage relationship is the basic relationship in society. while that may have been true in OT. it is not true in the church. your prohibition against homosexuals would then be extended to singles. marriage isn't the crux of human existence. adam and eve are a model of human intimacy first, maritial intimacy subsequently.

    on 2. this IS a shocker. the woman was intended to be a free agent, independent. the man joins the woman. NOT the patriarchal model at all, is it?

    i have nothing to say to 3, beyond what galumph said.

    THANK YOU THANK YOU for not saying anything stupid about the rib and headship. :)

  • Writing is hard. It's why we have others read over what we've offered and give suggestions.

    Everybody's doing it. ;)

  • why does it imply the man is weaker? i didn't really understand that. if he's leaving, doesn't that in fact show that he is stronger and SHE needs her fam?

  • Hey John. I really do need to start blogging again. Work is keeping me extremely busy and, on top of that I am in the middle of a semester in school. Plus, since we moved I don't have internet at home (trying to conserve money). Maybe I'll write a little before class tonight. Hope things are well!

  • You make me smile. :)

Comments are closed.

Post a Comment