.
†. Gen 2:23b . .This one shall be called Woman, for from man was
she taken.
The Hebrew word for "woman" is from 'ishshah (ish-shaw') which is the
feminine form of 'iysh (eesh) which means a human being as an individual
or as a male person. So 'ishshah doesn't indicate another species of homo
sapiens (e.g. Lilith) it just simply means the opposite of the same species;
viz: it's mate.
†. Gen 2:24a . . Hence a man leaves his father and mother and clings
to his wife,
At first glance it appears that Adam was the speaker of Gen 2:24, but
according to Christ, it was man's creator who spoke it rather than Adam.
†. Mtt 19:3-6 . . Haven't you read? he replied; that at the beginning the
Creator made them male and female, and said: For this reason a man will
leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will
become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God
has joined together, let not man split apart.
Oddly, there is no specific Hebrew word for "wife". The word for wife in that
verse comes from the very same word as woman-- 'ishshah (ish-shaw').
What makes a woman somebody's wife? The possessive pronoun "his" So
Eve became Adam's woman; and Adam of course became her man. They
quite literally owned each other. New Testament marriage retains the Old
Testament's concept of possession.
†. 1Cor 7:1-5 . . The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her
husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone
but also to his wife.
Adultery is very serious not only because it's immoral, but also because it's
an act of theft. Spouses that cheat on their partners are no different than
carjackers taking an SUV that doesn't belong to them and selling it to a chop
shop.
An important point in Gen 2:24 is the clinging. There comes a time in every
young man's life when it's time for him to grow up; to stop depending on his
parents, sever the apron strings, leave home, leave the diversions of youth,
and take up residence with a woman-- his own woman.
†. Gen 2:24b . . so that they become one flesh.
Adam and Eve were the same species; so their joining was a joining of the
same flesh rather than cross-breeding the flesh of two different critters like a
coyote and a caribe.
Bible marriage isn't a political arrangement like the marriages of feminism
where couples retain their independence. In Bible marriage, the two
individuals lose their independence and become, no longer two autonomous
individuals; but one. People who regard their spouse as an associate rather
than their own body, have got the wrong attitude about marriage.
In Bible marriage, opposite genders are fused together and the half each
brought to the union forms one whole human being. They may appear on
the surface to be two separate individuals but in marriage they aren't; no
they're an organic unity-- one body, one person --and all other loyalties take
second place; especially loyalty to parents. If married people are still putting
their parents first, marginalizing loyalty to their spouses, then they have not
really cut the apron strings yet, and they surely don't think very much of
their spouse either.
If a boy and a girl are not prepared to shift their loyalties to an intended
spouse, then their marriage would be an evil union. They dishonor their
spouses; and they spurn their maker's wishes regarding the marriage
relationship. Marriage isn't for people who are incapable of running their
own life; and it is absolutely not for children who cannot put loyalty to their
spouses ahead of their parents.
In the movie "Moonstruck", Loretta Casterini's fiancé comes over to the
house and wishes to speak with her in private. Loretta responds by saying
she needs her family around her. Well, guess what? A guy in that
predicament needs to get out NOW, while he can; before it's too late,
because he will always be marginalized in his own home by the meddling of
his best girl's family.
†. Gen 2:25a . .The two of them were naked, the man and his wife,
It's very difficult to believe that God fully intended for people to always live
without clothing. So how come early Man didn't need protection for his skin?
Nobody really knows for sure; maybe because human beings had fur, or that
human skin was a whole lot tougher and thicker than now; and far more
resistant to abrasion and sunlight.
Still; nudity seems so impractical. And I would imagine that Adam and his
wife needed to bathe pretty often too. Without clothing to protect their skin
from dust and grime, in no time at all they would be as funky as two pigs in
a puddle.
†. Gen 2:25b . . yet they felt no shame.
Webster's defines shame as: 1) guilt, or disgrace, 2) a feeling of inferiority
or inadequacy, and 3) inhibition.
In other words, there was absolutely nothing in early Man's psyche
restraining him from parading around in full frontal nudity; and actually,
neither was there anything in his psyche encouraging him to. They weren't
exhibitionists by any stretch of the imagination because in their innocence,
Adam and his wife simply were neither proud of, nor humiliated by, their
appearance in the nude.
Adam and his wife didn't feel naughty about frontal nudity at first, nor were
they self conscious in the slightest respect because as yet they knew no
cultural boundaries, nor were they infected yet with a guilt complex about
sex and the human body; and concepts like vanity and narcissism had no
point of reference in their thinking whatsoever. They had absolutely no
natural sense of propriety, nor were they even aware of any because their
creator hadn't taught them any proprieties yet at this point.
That was an interesting time in the first couple's development. They had
neither intuition nor conscience as yet to moderate their dress code. Some
expositors label this era in the human experience as the age of innocence;
which implies not just an ignorance of ethics; but primarily a lack of self
consciousness-- which Webster's defines as uncomfortably aware of one's
self as an object of the observation of others. Had you spoken with the first
couple about their appearance, they would no doubt have stared at you like
a man taken leave of his senses.
Cont.
/
†. Gen 2:23b . .This one shall be called Woman, for from man was
she taken.
The Hebrew word for "woman" is from 'ishshah (ish-shaw') which is the
feminine form of 'iysh (eesh) which means a human being as an individual
or as a male person. So 'ishshah doesn't indicate another species of homo
sapiens (e.g. Lilith) it just simply means the opposite of the same species;
viz: it's mate.
†. Gen 2:24a . . Hence a man leaves his father and mother and clings
to his wife,
At first glance it appears that Adam was the speaker of Gen 2:24, but
according to Christ, it was man's creator who spoke it rather than Adam.
†. Mtt 19:3-6 . . Haven't you read? he replied; that at the beginning the
Creator made them male and female, and said: For this reason a man will
leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will
become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God
has joined together, let not man split apart.
Oddly, there is no specific Hebrew word for "wife". The word for wife in that
verse comes from the very same word as woman-- 'ishshah (ish-shaw').
What makes a woman somebody's wife? The possessive pronoun "his" So
Eve became Adam's woman; and Adam of course became her man. They
quite literally owned each other. New Testament marriage retains the Old
Testament's concept of possession.
†. 1Cor 7:1-5 . . The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her
husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone
but also to his wife.
Adultery is very serious not only because it's immoral, but also because it's
an act of theft. Spouses that cheat on their partners are no different than
carjackers taking an SUV that doesn't belong to them and selling it to a chop
shop.
An important point in Gen 2:24 is the clinging. There comes a time in every
young man's life when it's time for him to grow up; to stop depending on his
parents, sever the apron strings, leave home, leave the diversions of youth,
and take up residence with a woman-- his own woman.
†. Gen 2:24b . . so that they become one flesh.
Adam and Eve were the same species; so their joining was a joining of the
same flesh rather than cross-breeding the flesh of two different critters like a
coyote and a caribe.
Bible marriage isn't a political arrangement like the marriages of feminism
where couples retain their independence. In Bible marriage, the two
individuals lose their independence and become, no longer two autonomous
individuals; but one. People who regard their spouse as an associate rather
than their own body, have got the wrong attitude about marriage.
In Bible marriage, opposite genders are fused together and the half each
brought to the union forms one whole human being. They may appear on
the surface to be two separate individuals but in marriage they aren't; no
they're an organic unity-- one body, one person --and all other loyalties take
second place; especially loyalty to parents. If married people are still putting
their parents first, marginalizing loyalty to their spouses, then they have not
really cut the apron strings yet, and they surely don't think very much of
their spouse either.
If a boy and a girl are not prepared to shift their loyalties to an intended
spouse, then their marriage would be an evil union. They dishonor their
spouses; and they spurn their maker's wishes regarding the marriage
relationship. Marriage isn't for people who are incapable of running their
own life; and it is absolutely not for children who cannot put loyalty to their
spouses ahead of their parents.
In the movie "Moonstruck", Loretta Casterini's fiancé comes over to the
house and wishes to speak with her in private. Loretta responds by saying
she needs her family around her. Well, guess what? A guy in that
predicament needs to get out NOW, while he can; before it's too late,
because he will always be marginalized in his own home by the meddling of
his best girl's family.
†. Gen 2:25a . .The two of them were naked, the man and his wife,
It's very difficult to believe that God fully intended for people to always live
without clothing. So how come early Man didn't need protection for his skin?
Nobody really knows for sure; maybe because human beings had fur, or that
human skin was a whole lot tougher and thicker than now; and far more
resistant to abrasion and sunlight.
Still; nudity seems so impractical. And I would imagine that Adam and his
wife needed to bathe pretty often too. Without clothing to protect their skin
from dust and grime, in no time at all they would be as funky as two pigs in
a puddle.
†. Gen 2:25b . . yet they felt no shame.
Webster's defines shame as: 1) guilt, or disgrace, 2) a feeling of inferiority
or inadequacy, and 3) inhibition.
In other words, there was absolutely nothing in early Man's psyche
restraining him from parading around in full frontal nudity; and actually,
neither was there anything in his psyche encouraging him to. They weren't
exhibitionists by any stretch of the imagination because in their innocence,
Adam and his wife simply were neither proud of, nor humiliated by, their
appearance in the nude.
Adam and his wife didn't feel naughty about frontal nudity at first, nor were
they self conscious in the slightest respect because as yet they knew no
cultural boundaries, nor were they infected yet with a guilt complex about
sex and the human body; and concepts like vanity and narcissism had no
point of reference in their thinking whatsoever. They had absolutely no
natural sense of propriety, nor were they even aware of any because their
creator hadn't taught them any proprieties yet at this point.
That was an interesting time in the first couple's development. They had
neither intuition nor conscience as yet to moderate their dress code. Some
expositors label this era in the human experience as the age of innocence;
which implies not just an ignorance of ethics; but primarily a lack of self
consciousness-- which Webster's defines as uncomfortably aware of one's
self as an object of the observation of others. Had you spoken with the first
couple about their appearance, they would no doubt have stared at you like
a man taken leave of his senses.
Cont.
/
