Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. Genesis 2:24
At what point were they declared to be "one flesh"?
JLB
In the very next verse brother as well as the preceeding verse. That's my point.
Genesis 2:25 And the man and his wife, both of them, were naked, and they were not ashamed.
23 And the man said,
“She is now bone from my bones
and flesh from my flesh;
she shall be called ‘Woman,’
for she was taken from man.”
24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall cling to his wife, and they shall be as one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife, both of them, were naked, and they were not ashamed.
Verse 24 is there for a reason. What's the reason? I don't get the reason from Is 9 or Eph 5 (or Job or whatever) as they were not part of what Moses' readers would have understood at the time.
We now have agreement that this phrase at least does represent a spiritual union, right? I know that I get that from the context of the passage and assume you do as well. You now say the phrase represents both a marriage union PLUS offspring.
I don't get why it's both, from the context of Gen 2 or for that matter Eph 5 or any other Scripture.
Also, "one flesh" is a reference to a reproductive union.
JLB
I understand that's your position about this phrase "one flesh" from your original post and others. I disagree it, so it's not necessary for you to repeat it. That's not the evidence I'm looking for.
However, if you are right about it being "Also" a reference to reproductive union (or about four individuals, not just two) and I am wrong (which is certainly possible), I would love to know it and correct myself. So thanks for your time/effort here.
So, what's your evidence?
You mention Is 9...
Isaiah 9:6 For a child has been born for us; a son has been given to us. And the dominion will be on his shoulder, and his name is called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Okay, here we have a prophecy (later fulfilled) of the incarnation. Christmas! God come (sent) in the flesh. A 'child' from The Father made flesh. Furthermore, this 'child' will be called
Mighty God and Everlasting Father (among many other names). I get that (at least I think I do).
‘Everlasting Father’ (to the Hebrew’s of Isaiah’s time) basically meant God (a reference/name for God without having to use the unspoken name). In other-words, this child will be called God. Cool. I get that. All true Crhistians must beleive that.
I notice He will also be called "
wonderful Counselor". I'm not sure how that directly ties into Gen 2's or Eph 5's use of the phrase "one flesh", however. Does the phrase "one flesh" mean: 1) spiritual union, 2) reproduction and 3) a counsuling relationship? I don't think so.
I'm not seeing how Is 9 directly equates to Paul’s use of the phrase "
the two become on flesh" relative to the union between the two individuals Christ and the church.
How does Is 9 teach some sort of a ‘reproductive’ mystery (child producing) involving four individuals?
Sure, there’s ‘mystery’ within the incarnation and "let us produce man", etc. There's mystery all over the Bible.
But is that what Paul means to be pointing out in Eph 5? Or rather does he simply mean what he said, that there is a mystery within the union of Christ and the church.
I do realize there are also metaphors to this expression, but somewhere there has to be the reality for there to be a "metaphor" of the reality.
JLB
I agree that somewhere there is a reality to what the phrase Paul uses in Eph 5 means. I find it within Paul’s message in Eph 5 and what God said right there within Gen 2:24-25 and in what Jesus confirms this phrase means "one flesh" means in Matt 19. I don't speculate further.
In Matt 19 Jesus is approached by a group of Pharisees who asked Him
about divorce. There is no discussion about children. His answer quoted this Genesis 2 passage (as Paul did). And once again Jesus adds “two” to the original phrase in Gen, not “four”, BTW:
Matt 19:3 [The Pharisees] asked if it was permitted for a man to divorce his wife for any cause. 4 And he answered and said, “Have you not read that the one who created them from the beginning made them male and female 5 and said, ‘On account of this a man will leave his father and his mother and will be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, man must not separate.”
Jesus says “they” (the two) are no longer two but one flesh as uses the Gen 2 phrease to prove His point from The Law to the Pharisees about marriage. That’s the union that the phrase originally meant and that it still meant. The male and the female
are “one flesh” in spiritual union, not the male and the female produced a child or even that the male and female had sexual relations, was Jesus’ point.
Obviously Jesus was teaching them about marriage/divorce and that this phrase was a reference to marriage (the spiritual union between a male and a female, “two”). There is not even a hint of “child bearing” or even sexual “relations” within Jesus’ use of this phrase. A marriage relationship is a spiritual union that no man must separate, regardless of whether than union has reproducted children or not. And it's certainly not about a relationship between four indivuduals.
So anyway, that was my point of disagreement with your statement about the phrase in Gen 2 being about four individuals and your and Edward’s belief that this phrase somehow has a meaning of child bearing or ‘relations” within the phrase.
I see no evidence for your view that the Gen 2 phrase "one flesh" is a reference to a reproductive union involving four individuals, Biblically speaking.
But thanks for your time/effort and if you see anything wrong with my exegesis, be sure to let me know. I will not be offended.
