The CBE Scroll

Comment by Kathryn

July 17, 2006 @ 9:51 pm

If that caught on, it would really change our wedding ceremonies. Maybe they are overdue for a change. I’m for that. Thank you for your observations.

Comment by TeriLynn

July 18, 2006 @ 10:02 am

Just wondering why the Bible says that “a man leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife” rather than “a woman leaves her father and mother…..”

It is interesting why pretty much the entire history of civilization has us going opposite of what Scripture says on this issue. But in a way that isn’t all that surprising as I consider patriarchalism to be going the opposite of God’s ways also and it’s been around the whole time.

Balance and complementarity within uniqueness and differences seems to be God’s route to harmony and unity. We see it in 1 Corinthians 11:8-12.

8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. (TNIV)

So we have first woman being formed through/with the body of the man; from then on all humans are formed through/with the body of the woman. So, though we must be independent in some senses having full authority over our own bodies and being responsible for our own actions and beliefs, yet we must acknowledge that we cannot live without each other. Finally, we must remember that ultimately God is the source of everything and the support that all must rely upon.

So, in marriage because there is a strength that men have to begin with and that women seek, the balance comes by men recognizing their need of the woman to fulfill, enrich, and nourish their lives. Thus, man gives up his strength to cleave to the woman. In then end, they are both cleaving to each other in different ways and by that we have true unity of the two becoming one. And this is why I believe that God set the stage for the first human to experience aloneness. He needed to comprehend the importance of companionship.

Just a bit of philosophical thinking. :)

Comment by Rob

July 18, 2006 @ 10:50 am

That’s a great observation! I had never looked at it that way before, but you’re right.

Ancient patriarchal societies did not dislocate the men from their families. This Genesis passage is not describing patriarchy.

Comment by Psalmist

July 18, 2006 @ 2:15 pm

I’m not so sure about the patriarchal pattern not involving a man leaving father and mother. While he did not usually leave his clan’s area, a groom *generally* was expected to provide a separate home from that of his parents, at least by the 1st century A.D. (if what I remember from my studies is correct). Much earlier, when the tribes were still nomadic, a married man provided separate tents for his own immediate family, which could mean a considerable investment if he had much wealth and a household with servants. It wasn’t considered advisable for a newly-married couple to be housed with EITHER set of in-laws. In close proximity, yes (often his, but occasionally hers). Within the same walls, no.

It’s really fascinating to read about the wedding customs. When I have more time, I’ll see what online resources I can find and provide links for.

I will concur with Rob’s observation that the “leaving and cleaving” pattern is no commendation of patriarchy. It’s part of the Bible’s pattern of husbands and wives as strong partners perfectly suited to each other (ezer kenegdo).

(Yes, I know that it is the first wife who is specifically called ezer kenegdo. But if she was the perfectly matched strong partner for her husband, it seems quite obvious–at least to me–that he was perfectly matched to her as well, and undoubtedly also a strength for her weakness when one considers the full scriptural witness on the subject of marriage. Head + body and all that…)

Comment by Lori

July 19, 2006 @ 1:38 am

I’ve actually seen this idea in print before. I believe it was in Why Not Women? by David Hamilton and Loren Cunningham.

As to how it relates to modern comp., I’m not sure. Doubtless a comp. would say that even though the husband leaves his family, he still becomes the authority over the new, autonomous family unit he and his wife create.

Comment by Alone

July 19, 2006 @ 10:33 am

I thought about that a lot when I got married, particularly dealing with the question of whether to change my / his name. I hate the assumption and tradition that women change their name, because it implies exactly what you said - a woman leaves her family and cleaves to her husband. She becomes part of HIS life. Our compromise was that we both changed our names - I replaced my last name with his, and he took my last name as his middle name. This way, we BOTH symbolically left our families and cleaved to the other.

Comment by Liz

July 19, 2006 @ 7:37 pm

TeriLyn #2

“A strength men have to begin with” Do you mean physical or privilege or ?

Comment by TeriLynn

July 20, 2006 @ 10:12 am

re: post #6

Hi Liz,

It seems to me that generally men have both throughout the various cultures. Here’s my take on it.

First men have a strength physically that is power based. Every cell, every muscle, all his tissues, even his bones are more densely packed. This is why men are generally stronger in a powerful way and why men weigh more. Women need men’s strength for help in many ways from lifting heavy objects, lifting them, enduring danger to protect, etc. Men’s bodies can be buffeted about and survive.

Women’s bodies are more loosely packed so to speak starting on the cellular level. This is why women’s flesh is softer and partly why she is more flexible. This does not hinder women from being strong in powerful ways. But the strongest woman can never attain the power of the strongest man. It’s in the “packing”. :)

So, in relationship women need that power in a man. And interestingly men sense a need to give that power.

Also, culturally men generally have in’s with the system that women must struggle to attain. This is because of sin that those with more power want to hoard privilege instead of using their privileges to serve others. In Christ we learn that whatever gifts, skills, resources we have, we have them in order to have something to give. It is not all for ourselves. The joys and worthiness of life comes in serving others. Thus, what each gender has, they have it to benefit the other. Marriage is a unique joining of differences including different personalities, that builds up both partners while blessing the givers. It’s a great system. :)

Comment by Kathryn

July 31, 2006 @ 7:27 pm

Re: comment #6: What a unique and creative way for two to become one.

Comment by Johno

October 23, 2006 @ 3:19 am

A Man shall leave his parents and cleave to his wife….

My thoughts -
A man shall leave his parents….
meaning he shall leave his parents, and become the head of his household. He shall then cleave to his wife and they become one. Genesis 3:16… He shall rule over you. Basically, the guy leaves home, stops working for his parents, and makes a living for himself, builds a house, and starts to make a home. Wife, kids, etc.

Another way to look at it is that the guy is no longer under the rule of his parents.

Comment by Liz

October 23, 2006 @ 6:00 am

“become the head of his household” is not in the text so you must be making an assumption here. It could just as easily mean that the man leaves his parents and joins himself to his wife who is already a person in her own right.

Comment by B

April 4, 2007 @ 10:13 am

I always thought that it was funny, because so much of a wedding ceremony involves symbolic “women leaves her family” stuff. If you wanted to take this very seriously, you’d have the father and mother giving away…the groom! Actually, there should be NO giving away. He should leave.

Based on this, I cannot imagine why people are subverting the God given role of men leaving by having WOMEN change their last names! They are obviously attempting to force men to cling to their family in a dependent, clingy manner that subverts all that we know about masculinity! Blasphemy! (I’m giggling here)

Comment by Rose

May 21, 2007 @ 1:46 pm

What do you think about a man who leaves his wife to return to his family?

The husband was formerly estranged by his family, married a woman who took care of him emotionally, they had a child, then he decided that he “didn’t want to do this anymore.” He didn’t want to be responsible for a family. So he moved into an apartment building owned by his parents, pays no rent, and pursued divorce. The man just turned 50 years old, and his parents are wealthy.

Seems irresponsbile to me, like returning to the womb.

Comment by S A Mkhize

March 5, 2008 @ 4:55 am

recently I had a defferent version, that when a boy grow up he becomes a men, he then start to have new feelings or needs that no one in his family can satisfy but onother person from other family. not his sister/s or his mother but a woman from other family. So he leaves to seek or to find that something that is missing. Not that it means that he should leave his parents after he merries.