Traditions: Israelite-Jewish scripture; early Christian reception Motif: Marriage as union and interpretive image Connection verdict: Explicit quotation with ecclesial rereading Article status: Expanded Date: 2026-10-31
Summary
Ephesians quotes Genesis’s one-flesh line.
Read the two scenes
Genesis moves from the man’s solitude to the formation and recognition of a suitable partner. The concluding sentence about leaving parents and becoming one flesh functions as a bridge from the origin scene to human unions. Ephesians cites that sentence after urging care for one’s own body and one’s spouse, then says it speaks of Christ and the community. The older text grounds a human relationship; the later writer develops a theological analogy from it.
What connects—and what does not
Genesis gives an origin story and a general account of kinship; Ephesians uses the line in a household exhortation and then reads it in relation to Christ and the church.
The borrowing is direct, but the letter’s later analogy should not erase the woman’s narrative role in Genesis.
Why read them side by side?
A familiar marriage phrase has both its own narrative setting and a later ecclesial interpretation.
Sources and reading notes
- Genesis 2:21-24 (WEB) — the woman’s formation culminates in the saying that two become one flesh World English Bible, a modern public-domain English translation; read the named verses in chapter context. Ancient Israelite/Judean Hebrew text within the first-millennium BCE corpus; composition and redaction dates vary by book.
- Ephesians 5:28-33 (WEB) — the saying is quoted in an exhortation about spouses and Christ’s community World English Bible, a modern public-domain English translation; read the named verses in chapter context. Early Christian Greek text of the first or early second century CE; exact dating and authorship vary by book.
Research limit
A named parallel can establish literary reuse or related tradition; a general resemblance alone cannot prove borrowing. Linked editions and translations vary. Where a source is identified as secondary orientation, the comparison does not claim direct close reading of that tradition’s primary text.