|
|
THE ONE FLESH CONCEPT IN MARRIAGE
The subject of marriage has been the object of countless books,articles, television and radio programs, sermons, discussions, andvarious other methods of evaluation. Ideas of marriage are changingin many circles, not the least change occurring even within thechurch itself. It would seem timely to research thoroughly theBiblical background of the nature of the marriage union itself,rather than studying man's attitudes, current or ancient, regardingthe subject.
Some writers do touch on the subject of what constitutes theessence of marriage, but seldom is this one aspect explored in depth.Others study human sexuality, but regard it apart from it'srelationship to the marital bond. The thesis of this paper is thatthe essence of marriage, the one-flesh relationship, is constitutedin consenting sexual union, and that therefore that which breaks themarriage is that which breaks the one-flesh relationship.
Genesis 2:21 - 24 is generally accepted as the first Biblicalstatement of the marital relationship, and therefore as embodying theessence of that relationship:
And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shallcleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
There seem to be three elements in this original "wedding": (1)leaving, (2) cleaving and (3) the one-flesh union. The first is thedecision to commit to a new relationship, cutting off the pastmaternal and paternal bonds to form a new bond - "leaving."
"Cleaving" is the commitment to the new relationship. It is not atemporary association, but a literal "sticking together", a gluing,an emotional bonding with the mate. This represents the importantelement of permanence.
The "one flesh" undoubtedly refers to physical sexual union. Theemotional bond, the commiment, precedes the sexual act which itself"seals" or consummates the committment.
Crucial to the understanding of marriage, as opposed to a casualliason, are two factors implicit in leaving and cleaving; intent andconsent. Here, perhaps, we may find a clue to the casual attitudetoward divorce so prevalent today; Perhaps there was never anyserious intent (despite the wording of marriage vows) of permanence.And, while the sex act itself may be mutually acceptable, there wasno consent to the lifetime commitment.
Woman was created in response to man's need for companionship, asexpressed in Genesis 2:18. The purpose of this union was to be therulfillment of mutual needs: that of Adam first, by virtue of hisbeing first,created and that of woman by virtue of the complementarynature of her own creation. Man and woman thus became the two"halves" of a symbiotic relationship; or better still, the two"wholes" by virtue of whose union a new "creation" comes intobeing.
God declares (as Jesus affirms in Matthew 19:5) that this"cleaving unto" leads to a man and a woman becoming ONE FLESH.
Thus the institution of marriage is not a legal declaration, but arecognition of a basic, natural fact. Long before the giving of legaldecrees, long before the institution of civil authority, long beforethe institution of ecclesiastical ritual, marriage was - simply was.It came into existence by the very nature of the creative act of God,and all legal declarations and sacramental affirmations concerningmarriage are but the recognition on the part of civil or religiousauthorities of something which exists.
The fact that marriage exists apart from civil and/orecclesiastical authority is self-evident. Civil recognition ofmarriage differs widely, from that which is virtually non-existent,to the most demanding and stringent civil control; yet, marriage ofone kind or another exists in all cultures. Further, while marriagein Christian societies is vested with sacramental authority ofvarying degrees, when it is stripped of ritual it is still seen toconsist in the consent of two persons to live together in sexualharmony. Even the Catholic Church, with all it's emphasis onritualism and sacrament, recognizes that a sexually unconsummatedmarriage is invalid!
Civil and Ecclesiastical authorities cannot create marriage; theycan only recognize and to some extent control the relationship of twoconsenting persons. Even here, civil authority in most societies bowsto primeval fact in the recognition of "de facto" or "common-law"marriages. While society may frown, it acknowledges that marriagedoes exist where consenting cohabitation occurs.
The scriptures do not belabor this point in theological language,but explicitly acknowledges it as fact. Jesus refers to the"one-flesh" relationship in his discussion of divorce:
"And He answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, for this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." Matt. 19:4-6
The becoming "one flesh", Jesus says, is the work of God; that is,God has made it this way. (His admonition NOT to put asunder is not astatement that it cannot be put asunder, but an expression of theideal.
The crucial passage expressing the centrality of the one-fleshrelationship is one that deals with an adulterous relationship ratherthan with ideal marriage. It is the passage in I Corinthians 6 inwhich Paul is defining the kinds of sins that defile the body. In sodoing he uses an extreme example; in so doing he clarifies the natureof what constitutes the one-flesh relationship:
"Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ and make them the members of a harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to a harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh." 1 Corinthians 6:15--16
A casual liason with a harlot creates a one-flesh relationship.Paul is stating what to us may seem startling, crude, and even ratheroffessive; marriage in God's eyes is not the grand ceremony couchedin flawless Elizabethan English, nor even the terse legalisticphrases of a civil ceremony. Put bluntly, Paul is saying "copulationis marriage."
Thus the Bible has clearly defined itself. The "cleaving to" ofwhich God speaks and Jesus affirms is sexual union.Somehow, thephysical sexual act creates, in the eyes of God, a new spiritualentity which ~s expressed in the phrase "one-flesh." Even in theseemingly purely passionate and physical union with a harlot, a"one-flesh" relationship is created.
The full impact of this Biblical truth should lend the highestdegree of sacredness to the idea of sexual union. The ritual, thesacramental, indeed the marriage itself, does not lend significanceto the sexual act; it is the sexual act itself which creates themarriage and the civil and sacramental aspects are recognitions andcontrols only!
There is a uniqueness in the Christian understanding of thisrelationship that does not bear upon the non-Christian; that is, theChristian is also "one-flesh" with His Lord in a spiritual union.Therefore, there is a "trinitarian" aspect of this Christianmarriage; The Lord is Himself involved in both lives and consequentlythe union of the two lives, so that He is Lord of the Marriage.
This is not to suggest that non-Christian marriage is less of aunion in the eyes of God than the Christian marriage. Implicit in theprimeval aspect of the one-flesh relationship is it's bearing uponall of mankind. Rather, the one-flesh relationship in Christ isenhanced and magnified by His presence within the union as in allother aspects of life.
This concept of marriage, then, implies an interpretation of theScriptural teaching regarding divorce centered upon the one-fleshrelationship. When we search the New Testament references,particularly the words of Jesus, this is exactly what we find. Thatwhich severs the marital bond is that which creates a secondone-flesh relationship; committing adultery.
"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, EXCEPT IT BE FOR FORNICATION, and shall marry another, committeth adultery, and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." Matthew 19:9
The "putting away", or giving of a bill of divorcement, does notsever the marriage bond. It is severed in the adulterous act of thewife. She has entered into another "one-flesh" relationship. God hasso made us that we cannot live in two such relationships, for thevery idea is self-defeating. The one who has become "one-flesh" witha third party to the marriage has in effect torn the fabric of theunion, and the conjugal bond between the two original partners nolonger exists.
Whethr or not the original pair seek to reestablish the originalrelationship must depend on the circumstances. There is nothingimplied in all of these statements that a one-flesh relationship isintrinsically a permanent relationship. If that were so, even deathcould not sever it. The expression of permanence is the expression ofan ideal, and an essential ideal, but not of that which is intrinsicto the nature of the relationship. Fidelity to the bond is morallybinding; it does not render the bond inseverable.
Why does death destroy the relationship? Because, as Jesusexplains in Luke 20:35, marriage is for this world. The one-fleshrelationship does not exist beyond the grave.
Despite the ideal, marriages do fail. The marriage bed is forsakenfor the adulterous relationship, or for another reason. At the veryminimum we must recognize that when two persons have lived togetherin a one-flesh relationship, and one partner has entered into anotherone flesh relationship, the marital bond is severed. The firstmarriage is no longer in existence, since marriage is a one-fleshrelationship. We may debate judgments as to whether it is permissiblefor the so-called "guilty party" to remarry, but one fact is certainbeyond question; the first marriage is dead, and the one NOT livingin a one-flesh relationship is unmarried, and consequently in thesame privileged status of all single persons - free to marry.
Whenever a divorce for any cause has occurred, and one partner hassubsequently remarried, the remaining partner is without question asingle person, and privileged to remarry.
In no case under the above circumstances can it be said that theperson who has been so "freed" and has remarried, now has "two livingwives (or husbands)."
Therefore, a man whose wife has abandoned the marriage bed, whohas divorced (legally recognized the severance from) this wife, andwho has subsequently remarried, cannot be said to be "living inadultery", nor can we deny him the privileges of other married men,since he is "the husband of one wife."
J. GENE ADKINS
© 1997
Email me yourresponse