.
● 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.
It's also important to note that the woman wasn't constructed from the dust of the earth. She was constructed 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 just as much Adam's progeny as Eve's.
● 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 and loyalty: day in, and day out. You know, people who indulge in starter marriages have got the wrong idea about what it means to hook up 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 and Rom 7:1-3, this particular unification is permanent till death, which, according to 1Cor 6:15-16 isn't limited to marriage; it takes effect even when people sleep around; ergo: when a man sleeps with a woman, any woman, he becomes bonded to her for life, and she with him. Whether they agree to it or not makes no difference because God's decree trumps His creatures' feelings about it.
● 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 hog wallow.
● 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.
I think we could probably add self consciousness to that list; defined as uncomfortably aware of one's self as an object of the observation of others.
In other words, there was absolutely nothing in early Man's psyche restraining him from parading around in full frontal exposure; 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 buff.
Adam and his wife felt neither naughty nor perverted by frontal exposure 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. Had somebody criticized the first couple's 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.
It's also important to note that the woman wasn't constructed from the dust of the earth. She was constructed 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 just as much Adam's progeny as Eve's.
● 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 and loyalty: day in, and day out. You know, people who indulge in starter marriages have got the wrong idea about what it means to hook up 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 and Rom 7:1-3, this particular unification is permanent till death, which, according to 1Cor 6:15-16 isn't limited to marriage; it takes effect even when people sleep around; ergo: when a man sleeps with a woman, any woman, he becomes bonded to her for life, and she with him. Whether they agree to it or not makes no difference because God's decree trumps His creatures' feelings about it.
● 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 hog wallow.
● 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.
I think we could probably add self consciousness to that list; defined as uncomfortably aware of one's self as an object of the observation of others.
In other words, there was absolutely nothing in early Man's psyche restraining him from parading around in full frontal exposure; 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 buff.
Adam and his wife felt neither naughty nor perverted by frontal exposure 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. Had somebody criticized the first couple's appearance, they would no doubt have stared at their critic like a man taken leave of his senses.
_
