40. The separation of Eve from Adam was, then, an exceptional instance within the human race of what is well known to take place in lower orders of life. Professor Agassiz, the naturalist, in describing gemmiparous or fissiparous reproduction, says: “A cleft or fission, at some part of the body, takes place, very slight at first, but constantly increasing in depth, so as to become a deep furrow. . . . At the same time the contained organs are divided and become double, and thus two individuals are formed of one, so similar to each other that it is impossible to say which is the parent and which is the offspring.” Each human body retains still abundant traces of a dual nature, in almost every organ and part.
41. The Bible is not a treatise on science, but wherever rightly translated it is found not to contradict science. Nothing could be more unscientific than the representation that Eve was made from a single bone taken from Adam’s body. We have already (par. 24, and Additional Notes thereon), commented on the possible original bisexual nature of the human being,—the androgynous, or hermaphrodite state, which persists, imperfectly, to the present time within the human family.
…
44. We pass on to Genesis 2:24. Here is something most interesting. God seems to interrupt the ancient history, as given by Moses, and steps forth, as it were, in His own person, to address humanity directly and impressively in the words, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and cleave unto his wife.” Some have attributed these words to Adam, who was speaking in the previous verse, or to Moses, but Jesus Christ speaks of them as God’s own language, in Matthew 19:4, 5, saying “Have ye not read, that He which made [no “them” in the original] at the beginning, made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife.” Many commandments are promulgated in masculine terms, though meant equally for both sexes, but in this instance the case is different: One man and one woman stand before the Almighty, on the very occasion of their differentiation into two sexes, and God enunciates a law as lying between those two just formed, which indicates for all time the duty of husband to wife, not of wife to husband. And then, in the Hebrew original expression, “for this cause ought the man,” the word for “man” is not the generic term meaning “man-kind,” it is ish, “husband,” corresponding to isha, “wife, in the expression “his wife” of this verse. When man and woman marry, there must be created a line of cleavage, on the part of one or both, between parent, or parents, and children. This Scriptural marriage law declares that the line of cleavage shall separate the husband from his parents rather than the wife from her parents. We will continue this subject in our next Lesson.
Interesting observation! I very much appreciate the FACT that accurate science and accurate Bible never contradict 🙂 I think that Bushnell’s professional expertise as a medical doctor shines through her observations in this lesson.
The responsibility to “leave and cleave” is given by God exclusively to the husband.
When Eve was taken out, the one became two. The mysterious formation of “one flesh” from two (in marriage) is not without pain! I happen to be married to a man who has obeyed the charge to cleave. He stuck with me when I wanted to push him out and made his life miserable (in many ways).
You said, “This Scriptural marriage law declares that the line of cleavage shall separate the husband from his parents rather than the wife from her parents.”
But isn’t that contradictory to the fact that Jesus – the “husband and head of the church” goes to his FATHER’s house to prepare a place for us, and contradictory to the Jewish custom of a man building on to his FATHER’s house and bringing his wife there to live with him?
Just wondering.
That is an observant and thought provoking point, PAG. 🙂
My “off the cuff” response is that Jesus’ Father is GOD- who is Spirit, and Jewish custom had moved away from God’s original marriage law. But, I’m sure I am missing lots of pieces, since I am not well schooled in Jewish wedding customs and their biblical origins.
Actually, Lesson 7 (GWTW-click here) adresses both of those points masterfully. 🙂
Thank you TD 🙂
I took some time to read over Lesson 7 again. When I was initially on that Lesson, I was so taken by some points of paragraphs 51 and 56 which deeply touched me that other points of the lesson went over my head at the time (to see those posts click here 51 and click here 56) …
This bit from paragraph 52 (click here) seems relevant to Pag’s second question about Jewish custom:
As for Pag’s first question, paragraph 50-51 refers to HIS second coming as bridegroom… Pag points out that HE is preparing a place for us “in HIS Father’s house”. TD, how do you see that fitting with God’s Marriage Law ‘A man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh.‘ and/or should we even expect GOD to conform to that law? I’m not sure how HE could, since there are no kindred of THIS bride (the church).
This is indeed a thought provoking question and I congradulate Pag for raising it. I’m going to study it more deeply, but I do have two thoughts immediately in my mind.
1) God the Father is not just Christ’s Father, but our Father too. “I am ascending to My Father and your Father, to My God and your God.” (John 20:17) This fact makes it difficult to match our marriage to Christ STRICTLY with our marriages to each other.
2) Concerning “leaving and cleaving”, though I realize the question was about Christ’s second coming I believe that is what He did in his FIRST coming. 1) He left His Father when he came to earth and 2) we have now become one flesh with Him since we are members of His body.
That is a great insight, TD! Thank you. 🙂
Amazing how some deep things of God turn out to be right in front of me all along and I didn’t see…
“the simplicity that is in Christ” 2 Cor. 11:3
TD said:
2) we have now become one flesh with Him since we are members of His body.
And I agree but the fact remains that we will return with Him to His/our Father’s house. Which means there will be a temporary separation at best.
After studying this further I am of the opinion that “cleave” means to “hold on and become one with” and leave means simply”to turn affections and transfer all sense of security from parents and commit fully to another.” I do not believe there is a physical intonation here. It does not mean “get away from”. I can find no example in scripture of God commanding families to separate when they are living according to his plan.
1)
PAG: leave means simply”to turn affections and transfer all sense of security from parents and commit fully to another.” I do not believe there is a physical intonation here. It does not mean “get away from”.
That is a beautiful description of marriage! However, I must disagree with your interpretation of the word leave in this verse. This word is used 215 times in the OT (KJV) and translated respectively: commiteth 1; destitute 1; faileth 2; FORSAKE 129; fortify 2; LEAVE 72; leave off 4; refuseth 1; surely 1.
Paul says in Ephesians 5:29 – 32 : “For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. For we are members of his body, of His flesh and of His bones. ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’. This is a great mystery, but I speak concering Christ and the church.”
2)
The separation between sons and their families was not counted in terms of distance/time, I don’t believe. Leaving his own parents “home” he went into the “home” of his wife’s family. Gen. 24:28 “So the young woman ran and told her MOTHER’s household these things”
Similarly, Christ left His Father and became part of His bride’s “family”, that is human. He then made us One flesh with Himself. All of this accomplishes what was said in Gen. 2:24. If it has already been accomplished I don’t believe it can be violated by us going wtih Him to our Father’s house.
To springboard a bit from both PAG and TD here:
What is the significance of “leaving” for a 21st century husband? I have found myself wondering if “leaving” his father and mother has much more to do with what goes on between his ears than physical distance. Can a man fail to “LEAVE” even though he lives at a great distance from his earthly parents?
In other words: is he still living under unresolved issues and childhood baggage- projecting those into the marriage? Is he failing to mature? Is he making a break and leaving behind the “futile ways of the forefathers” (1 Pet 1:18 ) to follow GOD his FATHER? or does he relentlessly follow in his earthly daddy’s fallen footsteps more and more as the years march on?
I belive you are proving my point – that physical separation is not the intent of what is meant. I have witnessed successfully married sons who have “left” but remained close in proximity to their families and others who were successful in leaving only after they put distance between themselves and their families. The questions I am raising are “Is it necessary to leave physically in order to successfully “leave”?” and “Is that distance necessary to follow scriptural instruction?”. I think it is contrary to say “We are modeling our marriage after Christ’s union with the church” to say it is NECESSARY to move away in order to fulfill that instruction. Hence my argument over the definition of the word LEAVE.
Also, the context of Genesis 24 is the marriage of Rebekah to Isaac. As you know Rebekah ended up leaving her family to marry Isaac. Further, Abraham was pretty adamant that Isaac NOT leave. We also know that Isaac was self sufficient in his own right so my position is that he had “left” his parents.
Regarding the “expectation” of who leaves … Bushnell’s observations about Leah and Rachel and about Sarah (all in the same patriarchal era as Isaac and Rebekah whom PAG mentions) made quite an impact upon me:
see “In those days, it was NOT expected that a wife would follow her husband“
PAG: The questions I am raising are “Is it necessary to leave physically in order to successfully “leave”?” and “Is that distance necessary to follow scriptural instruction?”
No. As I mentioned in post 10, distance nor time was the issue. This was about identity. A man “left” his family – a mental breakage of their attachment (like what you said) – but the woman was not expected to “leave” her family. If she did follow her husband away from her kin, it was by her own choice. (see Lesson 8, in Bushnell’s book)