-
†. 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 human life
(e.g. Lilith) it just simply indicates the opposite side of the same coin; viz: a
woman is just as much a man as men except for gender.
It's also important to note that woman was not taken from the dust of the
earth. She was taken from Adam, therefore women are just as much Adam
as Adam; ergo: children born of women are just as much Adam as Adam:
whether virgin-conceived or normally-conceived makes no difference--
they're all Adam's progeny.
†. Gen 2:24a . . Hence a man leaves his father and mother and clings
to his wife,
Clinging implies need. Most people don't care much for needy spouses
because they're so high maintenance; but I don't think Genesis is talking
about that kind of clinging. It seems to me more like reliance; and if a man
can't rely on his wife; who can he rely on? Reliance implies faithfulness: day
in, and day out. You know, people who indulge in starter marriages have got
the wrong idea about what it means to be one flesh with somebody.
There are no specific Hebrew words for "wife". The word for wife in that
verse comes from the very same word as woman-- 'ishshah. What makes an
ishshah somebody's wife? The possessive pronoun "his" So Eve became
Adam's woman; and Adam of course became Eve's man. They quite literally
owned each other.
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.
There comes a time in every youth's life when it's time for him to grow up,
sever the apron strings, leave home, become his own man, and take up
residence with his own woman.
Sometimes it's difficult for a young man to accept that his mother is another
man's woman. When my son was around 29 years old and home for
Christmas one year, his mother and I were having a disagreement and he
stuck up for her. I had to take my son aside and school him that it is a
serious breach of male etiquette to come between a man and his wife. I let
him get by with it that time; but in another man's home his meddling just
might cost him a broken nose. He never did it again.
†. Gen 2:24b . . so that they become one flesh.
The term "one" indicates unification. According to Matt 19:6, this particular
unification is permanent. In point of fact, according to 1Cor 6:15-16 this
unity isn't limited to marriage: it takes effect even when people sleep
around.
†. 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.
Another practical consideration is hyperthermia. How did they stay warm at
night after the sun went down?
†. 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. Adam was a
product of nature; hence he was comfortable au naturel. 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. In their minds; nudity was normal.
Adam and his wife felt neither naughty nor perverted by 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 early human 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 somebody criticized the
first couple about their appearance, they would no doubt have stared at their
critic like a man taken leave of his senses.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
†. 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 human life
(e.g. Lilith) it just simply indicates the opposite side of the same coin; viz: a
woman is just as much a man as men except for gender.
It's also important to note that woman was not taken from the dust of the
earth. She was taken from Adam, therefore women are just as much Adam
as Adam; ergo: children born of women are just as much Adam as Adam:
whether virgin-conceived or normally-conceived makes no difference--
they're all Adam's progeny.
†. Gen 2:24a . . Hence a man leaves his father and mother and clings
to his wife,
Clinging implies need. Most people don't care much for needy spouses
because they're so high maintenance; but I don't think Genesis is talking
about that kind of clinging. It seems to me more like reliance; and if a man
can't rely on his wife; who can he rely on? Reliance implies faithfulness: day
in, and day out. You know, people who indulge in starter marriages have got
the wrong idea about what it means to be one flesh with somebody.
There are no specific Hebrew words for "wife". The word for wife in that
verse comes from the very same word as woman-- 'ishshah. What makes an
ishshah somebody's wife? The possessive pronoun "his" So Eve became
Adam's woman; and Adam of course became Eve's man. They quite literally
owned each other.
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.
There comes a time in every youth's life when it's time for him to grow up,
sever the apron strings, leave home, become his own man, and take up
residence with his own woman.
Sometimes it's difficult for a young man to accept that his mother is another
man's woman. When my son was around 29 years old and home for
Christmas one year, his mother and I were having a disagreement and he
stuck up for her. I had to take my son aside and school him that it is a
serious breach of male etiquette to come between a man and his wife. I let
him get by with it that time; but in another man's home his meddling just
might cost him a broken nose. He never did it again.
†. Gen 2:24b . . so that they become one flesh.
The term "one" indicates unification. According to Matt 19:6, this particular
unification is permanent. In point of fact, according to 1Cor 6:15-16 this
unity isn't limited to marriage: it takes effect even when people sleep
around.
†. 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.
Another practical consideration is hyperthermia. How did they stay warm at
night after the sun went down?
†. 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. Adam was a
product of nature; hence he was comfortable au naturel. 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. In their minds; nudity was normal.
Adam and his wife felt neither naughty nor perverted by 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 early human 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 somebody criticized the
first couple about their appearance, they would no doubt have stared at their
critic like a man taken leave of his senses.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=