I just finished reading
your answer to your second objection "The
'One Flesh' gambit". While your answer is O.K.,
you appear to omit what I would think would be
the definitive reply.
In Deuteronomy 6:4, the
author says, "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our
God, the Lord is one." Here, the Hebrew word
for 'one' is 'ECHOD'. Some cult groups like the
Jehovah Witnesses (and similar groups who also
deny the Trinity) frequently use this verse to
note that God is not three persons as the Trinity
teaches but ONE. However, the word ONE (ECHOD in
the Hebrew) does not denote absolute unity as in
ONLY one, but rather denotes composite unity--meaning
more than one (as in ONE pair of shoes means more
than one shoe). This only makes sense that there
be composite unity because in Genesis 1:26, God
says, "Let US make man in OUR image after
OUR likeness," not "in MY image, after
MY likeness." There is another word in
Hebrew to denote ONE in the singular (YEHOD) this
word is not used here.
In Genesis 2:24, the
Lord says, "A man leaves his father and his
mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become
ONE flesh" (again the Hebrew word ECHOD is
used for 'one' and not YEHOD). As a result, this
does not mean that in marriage a man and his wife
become one person, but that they become one in
unity--they become one couple.
Elsewhere in the Old
Testament, Moses sent twelve spies into Canaan (Numbers
13:23) and when the spies returned they brought
with them a great cluster of grapes (in Hebrew
ESCHOL ECHOD). Now since there were hundred of
grapes on this ONE stem, it could hardly be
absolute or solitary unity, and so again ECHOD (one)
and not YEHOD is used to describe the cluster.
Thus, "the two will
be ONE flesh" uses the Hebrew word ECHOD
meaning one in unity and not the Hebrew word
YEHOD meaning actually just one. This is an
important distinction because like the grapes on
the vine which can be plentiful, there can still
be ONE (ECHOD) cluster of grapes.
Thus, a polygamous
relationship does not violate the ONENESS in
flesh talked about in Scriptures because
Scriptures does not use YEHOD but instead uses
ECHOD.
View 2
It is the purpose of this study to show
that a child (the natural outcome of the physical union of male
and female) is the real meaning of the term "one flesh"
used in a biblical context. Not as is usually implied, the
mystical "joining" of two beings through ritual or
ceremony. It is not the intention of this study, but if we were
to embark on a careful examination of the importance and place of
"seed" or offspring in the "biblical society"
I believe we will throw further light on this proposition.
In Genesis we read, "For this
reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to
his wife, and they will become one flesh". Gen 2:24. This
verse follows the creation of the second human being, the "helpmeet"
or "complement" to the male being. In the context of
creation and the later commandment to "multiply" we may
propose the idea of "one flesh" to refer to the
wonderfully creative and genetically accurate fulfilment of that
human "union" in a child created in "the likeness
and image" of the parents.
"When Adam had lived 130 years, he
had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him
Seth." Gen 5:3. Rather than the traditional mystical "union"
attributed to marriage. How often do we hear "isn't he/she
like (this or that) parent/relative". How many of us hear
our parent's voice in our own speech or manner? Few would argue
that most of us are a composite of our parents with the naturally
resulting "mix" of certain traits creating a new
person, a new individuality.
In these days of contraception, and
planned families it is easy to loose sight of the more obvious
divine intention and the responsibilities and consequences of
sexual union.
Jesus said quoting Genesis 2:24 "'For
this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united
to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'" Mat 19:5, (Mar.10:8).
Jesus is speaking in support of the
permanence of marriage, while the Pharisees where seeking to
justify divorce as allowed by Moses. Jesus is taking opportunity
to "underline" human sinfulness, especially to the
Pharisees who considered themselves more righteous than their
fellows and at the same time explain the provision and grace of
God.
The whole of the "Law" was
given because of the "hardness" of human hearts. Both
the Pharisees and Jesus agreed that the commands to "Love....
God.... and.... neighbours as yourself" summed up the whole
law. The rest was only given as "commentary" because of
the "hardness" of our hearts.
36 "Teacher, which is the greatest
commandment in the Law?" 37 Jesus replied: "'Love the
Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with
all your mind.' [Deut. 6:5] 38 This is the first and greatest
commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbour
as yourself.' [Lev. 19:18] 40. All the Law and the Prophets hang
on these two commandments." Mat 22:36-40
Clearly stated here are the words "they
are no longer two, but one". A "contract" has been
made between two persons by an act ordained by the creator and
the resulting "union" is intended to be permanent.
However, it is also clear that the "union" can be
terminated under certain conditions and with stipulated
restrictions, even if not God's original intention.
This indeed emphasizes the "contractual"
nature of the union rather than the "spiritual" or
"mystical" one. It does not lessen the gravity of the
act but helps us see marriage in the practical perspective
intended by God. This does not belittle or lessen the importance
of marriage. Covenants or contracts are "heavy stuff"
with God. We need to know what they are about and the obligations
involved. As is sometimes said in the marriage service - it/they
"should not be entered into lightly".
As so often in other matters the
traditional emphasis we have "majored on the minors".
Weaving a pretty, mystical fabric around marriage, while
neglecting the basis principles and the resulting consequences of
our neglect. A good example of this is the modern attitude of
major "Christian" denominations towards homosexuality
and bigamy. Clergy make compromising statements on homosexuality
while condemning bigamy while the Bible condemns homosexuality
but says little on bigamy.
Many talk about "sex outside
marriage. In Catholic tradition a marriage, correctly, has not
actually taken place, until "consummated". This
suggests that the basic unbreakable commitment between a male and
female is actually made in bed. However, even among Catholics,
the idea of "one flesh" still seems to pertain to the
mystical rather than the practical. Most other denominations have
lost the connection altogether making marriage some sort of (more
or less) mystical ritual that is consummated by a "celebrant"
saying "I pronounce you man and wife".
"Do you not know that he who unites
himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is
said, "The two will become one flesh."" (Gen. 2:24)
1Cor 6:16
With this statement Paul give a clear
indication of how he at least understood Genesis 2:24 and if we
realise how important "descendants", "hereditary"
and "inheritance" are in the scriptures we will see
that there is a very practical meaning and purpose in the idea of
"one flesh". The idea of doubtful parentage would play
havoc with the hereditary structure of the nation of families
founded and rooted in the 12 patriarchs. God gave Moses laws of
inheritance that depended on clear genealogical lines being
established and respected. To become "one flesh" with
someone not wholly committed to the structure could and did cause
all kinds of problems.
