The Biblical Design for Marriage: The Creation, Distortion and Redemption of Equality, Differentiation, Unity and Complementarity

Paul A. Twelker
Professor Emeritus of Psychology
Trinity College
Trinity International University

Chapter 4: The Two Shall Be One Flesh

• The One Flesh Union
• "A Man Shall Leave His Father and Mother"
• "And Shall Cleave to His Wife"
• "And the Two Shall Become One Flesh"
• Reflections

The One Flesh Union

And the man 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." For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. (Gen. 2:24)

"Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female", and said, "For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? Consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." (Matt. 19:4-5)

"But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and the two shall become one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." (Mark 10:6-9)

Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot? May it never be! Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a harlot is one flesh with her? For He says, "The two will become one flesh." But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him. (I Cor. 6:15-17)

So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh. This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. (Eph. 5:28-32)

Five passages in the Bible mention the one flesh concept. One writer indicates that Jesus and Paul did not have the same viewpoint on the meaning of the term, "one flesh" (Bowman, 1959). He bases this on the use of the term by Paul to include sexual intercourse with a prostitute: "it is difficult to imagine Jesus subscribing to the latter usage" (Bowman, 1959, pg. 81). These passages will be examined with great care, and in the process, we will be able to evaluate Bowman's thesis as well as determine to some degree of precision what is involved in the one flesh relationship, how is it formed, and how the bond may be jeopardized. In the process, it will be necessary to return to Old Testament passages on the covenant relationship between God and Israel as a guide in interpreting the New Testament passages on the one-flesh relationship.

Three of the four New Testament passages quote the Genesis passage. I will focus on this quoted section at great length, using the Ephesians passage as my starting point. The reason I will begin with the Ephesians passage is that it is the most difficult to interpret because of Paul's inclusion of the sentence, "This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church." Köstenberger (1991) argues convincingly that the term, mystery, should be taken in light of its Old Testament usage as denoting a "divine truth which was once hidden but has now been revealed (Köstenberger, 1991, pg. 5). But what does the "mystery" refer to? Commentaries on the passage are divided.

Some theologians, including most Roman Catholic theologians, believe that Paul uses the term, mystery, as a symbol or "sacrament" of the human marriage relationship. According to these theologians, Eph. 5:22-33 refers to the mystical nature of marriage. Barth (1974) criticizes this opinion on several counts:

• it makes every marriage a reenactment of Christ's union with the church;
• by sacralizing a human institution of society, it makes it into something more than it really is;
• it allows deeper interpretations which were not meant by Paul, e.g., marriage partners use each other to draw closer to God.

Köstenberger concludes that there is no obvious reason to let "mystery" refer to marriage. He disagrees with the view that "when marriage is entered into under the auspices of the Church it is in itself an institution where Christ is 'personally present' in a mystical way" (Köstenberger. 1991, pg. 16).

Other theologians argue that the mystery mentioned by Paul refers to the typology found in the human marriage relationship (cf., Barth, 1974). That is, the mystery is that Paul "uses a principle regarding marriage found in Gen. 2:24 and relates it to his contemporary referent, the union of Christ and the Church" (Köstenberger, 1991, pg. 17). In essence, Paul finds a deeper meaning in the one-flesh union concept that previously had been hidden--he reads a truth into an Old Testament passage, similar to what Gnostics would do. Köstenberger (1991) admits that this view is difficult to evaluate, and simply notes that there is no evidence in the passage to support this type of interpretation.

Another group of theologians claim that Paul is speaking allegorically in the passage (cf., Bornkamm, 1967). The problem with this interpretation is that no allegorical correlations are established, as in other passages (e.g., Gal. 4:21-31 and John 15:1-8).

Köstenberger explains the term, mystery, in this way:

Rather than focusing on typology or allegory, Paul takes the Gen.2:24 quote literally as referring to the fact that "the two" become "one flesh" in human marriage. He then implies that, in the union between Christ and the Church also, "the two" become "one flesh." It is this spiritual union itself that Paul calls a "mystery," not the typological correspondence between marriage and the relationship between Christ and the Church (Köstenberger, 1991, pg. 20).

Both Klingler (1984) and Lewis (1983) argue that the passage is about the husband-wife relationship as well. They point out that the context clearly is concerned with husband-wife relationships, and that a literal and natural reading requires that the subjects are a man, a wife, and the parents. The original Genesis account clearly has marriage as its theme. Additionally, Lewis states that:

Paul brings in the nuptial analogy of Christ and the church to show that oneness and unity in the marriage relationship is the same kind of unity that characterizes the church and Christ, of which Paul has been speaking all along. The analogy reflects truth reciprocally about the intimate oneness and unity that exists between Christ and the church and between married man and woman (Lewis, 1983, pg. 15).

In other words, for Lewis, there are two mysteries alluded to in the Ephesians passage: the profound mystery of how "two people can become one-flesh", which serves to illustrate an "even more profound mystery of the intimate oneness between Christ and the church."

Klingler (1984) is helpful in his review of writers who hold to the contrasting opinions. Those holding that the Ephesians 5:31 passage refers to Christ and His church include Fausset (1945), Alford (1894), Guthrie (1970), Calvin (1948), and Meyer (1884). It is interesting that none of these commentators give reasons why they hold to this opinion, but Klingler speculates that they would cite the context of the passage: the statement in verse 31 is preceded and followed by comments on the Christ-church relationship. Further, Paul specifically states that he is talking about Christ and the church.

Sampley (1971) also argues that the mystery refers to the entire relationship between Christ and His church. This conclusion is reached after an exhaustive hermeneutical analysis of the six passages in Ephesians where mystery is mentioned, as well as the immediate context of verse 32, where Paul states that it has to do with Christ and the church. This mystery is important, claims Sampley, because it helps explain the relationship between husband and wife. The mystery involves "God's purpose in uniting all things, both in heaven and on earth, in Christ" and that includes the joining of Jew and Gentile and husband and wife. Klingler gives his reasons why this opinion has problems:

• The future tense of the verb (shall) that appears in the original Genesis passage and repeated by Paul requires that the interpretation involve the husband and wife rather than Christ;
• The use of the term, "mother", is difficult to reconcile with the interpretation that the passage refers to Christ and the church. Jerome stated that the mother refers to the heavenly Jerusalem, an unacceptable conclusion that has no basis in fact.

The view that the passage speaks of the husband-wife relationship is held by the majority of commentators. In essence, the analogy illustrates two "one-flesh" unions, one earthly relationship between a husband and wife, and the other spiritual relationship between Christ and the church. And, as I will show presently, this is consistent with the Old Testament parallel between the covenant relation between husband and wife and the covenant "marriage" relationship between God and Israel.

The theme of Ephesians is unity in Christ.

He made known to us the mystery of His will...the summing up of all things in Christ...(Eph. 1:9-10).

Jews and Gentiles are united in Christ into a community of believers (Eph. 3:6). Individuals were gifted to demonstrate unity (Eph 4:4-6). Believers are exhorted to be subject to one another so that no one lords it over another and place their interests ahead of another (Eph. 5:21-33). Finally, the oneness and unity exhibited in the marriage bond between husband and wife is the same kind of unity that is involved between Christ and His church.

Unity is not a natural human consequence of relationship. The Genesis account of the Fall clearly notes that disunity would affect relationships:

Yet you desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you (Gen. 3:16).

Paul speaks of where this disunity originates:

And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience, among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest (Eph. 2:1-3).

Note that after the Fall, humans are spoken of as having a "nature of wrath", or in other words, "alienated and hostile" (Col 1:21). Disunity breeds in a person who withdraws from others, places barriers between themselves and others, and takes anger to its ultimate end, hostility. The oneness that should characterize the relationship between husband and wife is the antithesis of the nature of wrath. The total unity which showed itself in total openness,

...the man and his wife were both naked and unashamed (Gen. 2:25),

is also the antithesis of the nature of wrath. Adams (1980) points out that the ideal for a marriage is represented in the relationship possessed originally by Adam and Eve where there was:

...openness without fear or shame. Two persons with nothing to hide could be utterly frank; there was no need to have anything come between them--not even clothes. They were entirely open to one another (Adams, 1980, pg. 18). Note that I am not saying that openness and unity are impossible to achieve. Obviously, many couples are able to achieve some degree of openness and unity, but this achievement is against great odds and probably represents a cheap facsimile of the original.

Paul encourages the believer to keep the unity (Eph. 4), and provides the key: "be filled with the Spirit" (Eph 5:18). There are several results of this filling:

• believers will speak to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs;
• believers will sing and make melody with their heart to the Lord;
• believers will always give thanks for all things in the name of the Lord;
• believers will be subject to one another in the reverence to the Lord.

Obviously, the matter of subjection or submission cannot happen without the filling of the Spirit.

Recall that in Ephesus, men had a negative view of women. Gregory Lewis quotes Hipponax, a poet, as saying,

There are two happy days in a man's life, the one when he gets a wife, and the other when he buries her (Lewis, 1983, pg. 6).

In addition, the Jewish view of women was low. In a Jewish morning prayer, one of the sentences a man prayed gave thanks to God that he was not created "a Gentile, a slave or a woman". I have previously pointed out how women were considered more as a possession than a person. Lewis asserts that:

the marriage bond was in great peril as Jewish girls were refusing to marry at all because the position of the wife was so uncertain (Lewis, 1983).

Paul presents in the Epistle to the Ephesians a convincing theological argument against these cultures' distortion of the man-woman relationship, including marriage. Unfortunately, societies through the ages have twisted Paul's reasoning, thus inadvertently embracing the distortion.

Having made these opening comments concerning the proper interpretation of the Ephesians passage, I want to examine in detail each phrase of the Genesis quotation. In the process, I will attempt to bring into focus what exactly is meant by the term, one flesh. In so doing, I will be able to slowly build a case for reconciling the two seemingly diverse positions, headship and submission, on the one hand, and equality, on the other.

"A Man Shall Leave His Father and Mother"

Klingler (1984) suggests that "because God created woman from man, and therefore they are complimentary parts of a whole, the general human pattern is that a man eventually will leave his parents to be united to his wife". Does this leaving refer to the husband only? Why didn't the text make it clear that the woman leaves her parents as well? Lange (n.d.) believes that leaving parents should be interpreted as a command for the husband only. He points out that there is an old saying, "My son is my son 'til he gets him a wife, but my daughter's my daughter all her life" which sums up the idea that only men leave their parents, while women remain bonded with their parents throughout their lives. On the other hand, Keil and Delitzsch (1951) argue that the statement applies to both men and women.

Sampley (1971) points out that man is an active agent while woman is a passive receiver, both in this phrase and in the "cleaving" phrase.

• At no point in Gen. 2:24 is the wife the subject of the action; she is instead the object. The wife is the recipient of the action undertaken by the husband; she is never the actor. This is thoroughly consistent with the admonitions to the wives in 5:21-33 and indeed with the tone of the whole passage in which the wives are consistently expected to be submissive (Sampley, 1971, pg. 112-113).

Although I believe that the observation that man is pictured as the initiator and woman the receiver of an action is appropriate here, it is not a complete explanation. At the time Genesis was written, it was customary in the Mediterranean-Near Eastern world for the wife to move into the household of the husband's family. However, the scripture clearly states in the Creation narrative (and repeated by three different New Testament writers) that the man shall leave his parents, implying an uxorilocal arrangement where the husband would be expected to move in with his wife's family. Smith (1903) cites evidence that female kinship preceded male kinship in Arabic society. Thus, it is reasonable to speculate that the earliest arrangement was uxorilocal but rather quickly evolved into a virilocal arrangement as the husband exerted dominance over the wife. If this be true, then Sampley's assertion that this phrase implies that women are expected to be submissive misses the point since an uxorilocal arrangement presumably predates strong dominance of the husband over the wife.

Perhaps the most important thing to note is the significance of the leaving. The word that is used may be translated at various times as "to leave behind," "to forsake," "to relinquish," "to desert," "to let go," or "to abandon." There seems to be a great deal of debate on its actual meaning here. Blaikie (1950) thinks the word expresses a normal, everyday type of leaving, without the strong connotations of forsaking: the idea here seems to be that the man-wife relationship simply supersedes the parent-child relationship. Calvin (1948) concurs that the word means that the wife is to be preferred to the parents. Bayne (1959) expresses the meaning as "leaving in affection" in that the wife is to be loved more than the parents.

Klingler (1984) claims that the word refers to a permanent and definite separation, a "once-for-all break from circumstances as they have been to this point." It denotes a new beginning that is deliberately chosen. Klingler quotes Foulkes (1963) who states that:

• prior to marriage a man or woman has his or her closest bond with parents, and to them owes the greatest obligation. The new bond and obligation that marriage involves transcends the old. Filial duty does not cease, but the most intimate relationship now, and the highest loyalty, is that between husband and wife, and parents only imperil that relationship by trying in any way to come between. There must be a leaving of parents on the part of the husband and wife, and a corresponding renouncing of rights on the part of parents.

Stott (1985) points out that the leaving represents a public social occasion--it cannot be done in secret. Kent (1971) suggests that unless a man and woman are able to leave their parents, they are not mature enough to be married.

"And Shall Cleave To His Wife"

The use of the word, cleave, connotes a sense of clinging to someone in affection and loyalty. The term is used repeatedly in the Old Testament:

• the men of Judah clave to David their king during Sheba's rebellion (II Sam. 20:2);
• Shecem loved Dinah and clave to her (Gen 34:3);
• Solomon clave to his many wives (I Kings 11:2);
• the Israelites were to cleave to the Lord if his blessing was to be theirs (Deut. 10:20; 11:22; 13:4; 30:20; Josh. 22:5; 23:8).

The word, cleave, has been translated, "to stick, as things that are glued together," "to follow closely," "to keep close to," "to give oneself," or "to join to." Klingler (1984) asserts that this is described in the passive voice, implying that an outside force is the active agent. This outside agent is not a minister or judge, but God Himself, as indicated by Christ Himself in Matt. 19:6: "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." "Joined together" is used in the sense of yoking together, as animals. This yoking or joining means "to glue," "to cement," or "to join fast together." From these meanings, many scholars have concluded that the word means a very strong, permanent uniting into a union or marriage. Pattison (1859) suggests that the word is stronger than "to be added to," or "to be associated with." In medical usage, the word refers to the uniting of wounds, which once joined, do not separate (Vincent, 1946). Klingler (1984) reminds us of the new glues available on the market that create bonds stronger than the pieces that are glued together. If there is a break, it will occur in the material itself, not the bond. Likewise, if a couple are pulled apart, they themselves suffer harm in the form of emotional scars. The important thing to remember is that in Klingler's use of the term, in the passive voice, God does the uniting, not man.

An examination of eight popular translations reveals a fascinating difference with respect to the meaning of "cleave", in regard to the passive or active tense of the verb:

• King James Version: "a man...shall cleave to his wife"
• Living Bible: "a man should...be forever united to his wife"
• Today's English Version: "a man will...unite with his wife"
• New International Version: "a man will...be united to his wife"
• Phillip's Modern English: "a man...shall cleave to his wife"
• Jerusalem Bible: "a man must...cling to his wife"
• New English Bible: "a man shall...be made one with his wife"
• New American Standard Version: "a man...shall cleave to his wife"

In five of the versions, the singular masculine noun, man, performs the action of cleaving (literally grabbing or clinging). In the other versions, a weaker, more passive form of the verb is used, opening the door to an alternative interpretation that removes the singular masculine noun, man, from directly performing the action. This interpretation allows for a third party, God, for example, to effect a uniting, such as Klingler suggests. There is, however, another interpretation: the phrasing allows for the uniting to be considered a result of the initial action of leaving the parents.

According to Sammir Massouh, of the Biblical Studies Department of Trinity International University, a competent scholar and translator of the Hebrew scripture into Arabic, the use of the alternative, weaker form (e.g., "a man...will be united") is rare. Beeston (1986) also argues against the passive form on the basis that it is contrary to Near Eastern societal norms.

In fairness to Klingler, I would point out that the reasoning that God does the joining because of Jesus' words in Matt. 19: 6, does make sense. However, there is no reason why the statement that God joins the two together has to relate to cleaving--it could relate to "shall become one flesh" in the next phrase. My hunch is that most theologians approach the scripture with a culturally developed view that God instituted marriage at creation. That is, God married Adam and Eve. Since marriage is seen as a prerequisite to sexual intercourse, Adam and Eve had to be married. The easiest way to get Adam and Eve married is to have God unite them in marriage, substituting the phrase, "a man shall...be made one with his wife" for the phrase, "a man shall...cleave to his wife", hence implying marriage. If we allow Adam the privilege of actively uniting with Eve, without being married by an outside agent, it allows freedom to "cleave" or "unite" without the necessity of reading "marry". What we believe about marriage is what we understand the Bible to say.

In summary, I have introduced a crucial dilemma that emerges in the Genesis account: does the Holy Spirit, through Moses, want us to understand that God joins a man and wife together in marriage, or does the Holy Spirit want us to understand that the man actively cleaves or follows or cements or unites himself together in relationship to his wife? The first view emphasizes the work of God while the second emphasizes the work of man, insofar as the meaning of cleaving is concerned. This distinction is perhaps overly simplistic, as I shall eventually show that God does indeed have a part in the joining together. One fallout of this dilemma is that its answer helps us understand the difference between marriage and becoming one flesh. In order to resolve the dilemma, we must gain an understanding of the next phrase in the passage, "the two shall become one flesh."

Before turning to the one flesh phrase, it would be well to point out that not only is the bond produced in cleaving permanent and unbreakable, the mere joining of two lives together creates extreme closeness and intimacy. Pattison (1859) states that "there is no other relationship as intimate." The connotation of intimacy has led some writers to suggest that the meaning should be interpreted as "sexual intercourse". However tantalizing this interpretation may be, I would opt for another interpretation: a man must put aside his natural post-Fall tendency to rule over his wife, and instead, focus his mental abilities and attention on joining with his wife as though the bond is inseparable. This, I submit, is what is missing from marriage today: the stickiness of cleaving has all but been superseded by a mentality that emphasizes romance over reason, sex over emotional intimacy, and the possibility of divorce as a cure-all for the lack of bonding. In this sense, I like the Jerusalem Bible's rendering of the phrase: "a man must...cling to his wife." Carlson (1978) points out that "cleaving implies effort and desire" or else the marriage is in trouble.

As discussed above, only the man is mentioned as cleaving to his wife. Sampley (1971) insists that only man is the actor here. Here, the psychological principle of synchrony holds, where the two partners do not operate in a vacuum, but respond to the other's actions and attitudes. Think of synchrony in terms of a dance, where an action is followed by a reaction which immediately sets the stage for another reaction. Humans created in the image of God establish synchronous relationships, and it is not necessary to state that the wife must also cleave. The other thing that must be mentioned in this respect is that the scripture clearly places man in the initiator role in this synchronous relationship, a role that is characterized not by authoritarian leadership but by servanthood. Bonding or attachment does not occur in the absence of a warm, nurturing and physically close environment. Again, this takes effort and desire, and it does not come naturally for a post-Fall man, a "child of wrath", who is prone to relate through rulership and whose basic roots rest in hostility and alienation. This topic will be discussed in some depth in a later section.

"And the Two Shall Become One Flesh"

Scholars have disagreed more on this phrase than they have on the previous phrase. Admittedly, there is an opportunity for a great many interpretations. An understanding of the meaning of the term, one flesh, is crucial to our understanding of its relationship to marriage. A number of different interpretations are summarized briefly below.

Bayne (1959) considers the phrase as a command to be one flesh, not polygamous or adulterous. Calvin (1949) agrees, and claims that the term forbids polygamy and divorce. Olshausen (1858) states that this is the only place in scripture where monogamy is commanded.

Another set of commentators believe that becoming one flesh refers to a union established by sexual intercourse. Nixon (1970) claims that the passages teaches that a man and his wife are made one by the sexual act. Piper argues that three main ideas are included in the passage:

• "by sexual intercourse a union between the two parties is established such as did not exist before;
• it is a unity of the flesh, or of the body, i.e., of the entire sensuous selfhood of these persons;
• the union creates a genuine unity, and therefore cannot be broken off" (Piper, 1953, pg. 40).

Piper maintains that this unity is to be understood in the sense of becoming complete, and this happens only when the two have sexual intercourse because "since Eve was taken from Adam. man and woman always have the possibility of becoming a unity again ...for the present life here on earth." Bailey (1952) as well as Capper and Williams (1950), Stott (1985) and Williams (1981) also affirm this viewpoint that one flesh refers to a union created by sexual intercourse.

A variation on this theme limits the meaning of one flesh to the sexual act itself. Lenski represents this thinking:

That is the Scriptural conception: that is the Christian conception. This is sexual union. For this purpose God created the two sexes. It was for the sake of marriage, not for harlotry and fornication (I Cor. 6: 16), the great crime against marriage. With his mind still unclouded by sin, Adam saw this and expressed it, and Paul with his mind enlightened, found no more adequate expression" (Lenski, 1946, pg. 642).

Wood (1978) also limits the term to sexual intercourse.

Another interpretation claims that the one-flesh union is attained in the offspring from the marriage. Carter (1965) points out that a child is a combination of characteristics from both the man and the woman, attributes that are permanently united in a new, unique person. This view implies that the highest purpose of marriage is procreation, since the one flesh union cannot be attained in any other way.

Yet another set of interpretations focus on the idea that the one flesh union is a reunion, a coming together of what was previously broken apart. Findley (1910) suggests that man seeks his "other self, the complement of his nature" when he leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife. Alders (1970) agrees that each person needs the other for self-completion. This view asserts that man was made in the first place as a personal unity, not as a pair, so in marriage, man returns to a personal unity. Stott (1985) also takes this position.

Another interpretation asserts that "one flesh" refers to unity, or a gradual coming into unity, as compared with union. Different scholars define unity in various ways:

• the complete identification of one personality with the other involving a community of interests and pursuits, and which is consummated by sexual intercourse (Leupold, 1942, pg. 137);
• a oneness that involves a unity of persons (as compared with a mere joining of bodies, or a community of interests, or a reciprocity of affection (Whitelaw, 1950);
• the two constitute one person (Calvin, 1948);
• one soul in two bodies (Benson, 1846);
• male and female are complimentary, making together one perfect human being (Nichol, 1957; Fausset, 1945);
• unity represents a completeness (just as Christ is incomplete without the church) (Graham, 1929).
• a unified or corporate whole (Fennema, 1971; Lewis, 1983)

A common meaning of "one flesh" among authors of devotional books on marriage indicate that the term describes what it means to be married. Hulme (1972) states that a new entity is formed, and is in the process of being formed. This new entity, the marriage, which is recognized by the community and committed to by the two persons, is what the scripture means by one flesh, according to Hulme. Jay Adams (1980) also equates marriage with one flesh.

Beeston argues that the "one flesh" is a legal term for clan membership:

...to say therefore that a man who abandons his parental clan thereby becomes "one flesh" with his wife implies entry into membership of the wife's clan, with all its attendant rights and obligations--particularly, no doubt, in the domains of inheritance and the blood-feud system (Beeston, 1986, pg. 117).

Stuhlmiller (1979) maintains that the one flesh union refers to a "relationship or community bound by covenant oath". He questions the use of the term, "flesh" in Gen. 2:23, and suggests that Gen. 2:23 should be interpreted as a covenant formula :

The associated meanings of "flesh" and "bone", viz., "weakness" and "strength", have been drawn upon to understand the character of this covenant relationship as one in which the oath of the covenant pledges abiding loyalty which will remain unaffected by changing circumstances which might vary from the extremes of strength to the extremes of weakness (Stuhlmiller, 1979, pg. 4).

He bases this idea on the use of the term, "flesh" in conjunction with "bone" in the Old Testament. He adds that because of the context, the term. "one flesh" used in Gen. 2:24 demands that it "be understood in terms of the sexual drive and relationship which reunites the "flesh" of man." He agrees with other writers who state that the one flesh union is established by sexual intercourse and that it is not synonymous with marriage.

In order to evaluate these various positions, some of which are complementary while others clearly oppositional, it would be appropriate to examine what the term, flesh, means. The root of the term translated flesh, basar, means publish, bear good tidings, preach, and show forth. As used in these passages, basar refers to animal musculature, and by extension, the human body, blood relations, mankind, living things, life itself, and created life. The Israelites considered the human reality as permeating all of its components with the totality being the person. Therefore, flesh can be taken as an inclusive term that represents the person within a societal context.

Lewis (1983) claims that the term, flesh, as used in the Ephesians passages is used metaphorically and refers not only to the physical substance of the body but also to the immaterial part of man. Flesh is not simply the outward body that can be shown to others, nor is it something a person possesses. Flesh refers to what a person is (cf., Robinson, 1952). This may be seen throughout the New Testament. For example, when Paul exhorts believers to "present your bodies a living sacrifice" (Rom. 12: 1) or "glorify God in your body" (I Cor. 6:20), he means one's entire self or whole personality.

Klingler (1984) concurs with this meaning, but goes further by stating that the rendering in these passages denotes a single body, "emphatically to the exclusion of others." Thus, Klingler maintains that the passages teaches that two bodies actually do become one body. From this, Klingler concludes that marriage is more than a union. It is a unity, a oneness that in a very real sense involves two persons becoming one person.

With the meaning of "flesh": clearly in mind, I want to consider several of the viewpoints I mentioned above. Does the passage represent a command to be monogamous as Bayne (1959, Calvin (1949), and Olshausen (1858) claim? In the sense that the term, flesh, connotes a single body to the exclusion of others, the passage would clearly indicate that monogamy is the norm. However, this does bring up an interesting question: can a person have more than one one-flesh union at a time? It appears that a believer can be in two one-flesh unions, one with Christ and the other with the spouse, on the basis of the Ephesians passage. However, having more than these two specific one-flesh unions is questionable in that a third union would jeopardize the one-flesh union between a believer and Christ:

Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot? May it never be! Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a harlot is one body with her. For He says, "The two will become one flesh." But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him (I Cor. 6:15-16).

Bailey (1952) states that the union with a prostitute is a parody of the true union. Further, Bailey asserts that this union involves becoming a "member, so to speak, of the Devil's community". Obviously, a believer cannot be at one time members of both communities. It might be recalled that in Paul's time, many prostitutes were related to the temple worship of pagan gods; hence prostitution was considered by Paul to be a very serious thing and to have very serious implications.

Returning to the question of whether the one-flesh passage refers to a condemnation of polygamy, my answer would be that such a command is implied. However, as Stott (1985) points out, monogamy is implied in the phrase, "a man shall leave...", the singular indicating that marriage is an exclusive union between two individuals.

Does the one flesh concept refer to sexual intercourse, as claimed by Lenski (1946) and Wood (1978)? If, as stated above, the act of sexual intercourse is involved in the act of cleaving, then sexual intercourse cannot be equated with the one flesh union. However, it is difficult to make a confident statement to the effect that cleaving involves sexual intercourse. Taking the meaning of "flesh" to involve personhood or the entire self, then the use of the term, one flesh, to mean sexual intercourse may be consistent with this meaning, if sexual intercourse is thought of in its broadest sense as involving the whole person.

Rather than equating sexual intercourse with the one-flesh union, most authors seem to prefer showing the functional relationship between sexual intercourse and the one-flesh union. Both Bailey (1952) and Piper (1953) make a strong case for the one-flesh union being established by the sexual act. Paul indicates in the previously quoted passage from I Corinthians that sexual intercourse establishes the one-flesh bond with a prostitute. By extension, we may infer that sexual intercourse establishes the one-flesh bond between a man and his wife.

We would miss the point if we stopped here. We must not take the act of sexual intercourse out of context, that is, apart from the way in which men and women are created in the image of God and the way in which the two interact on the basis of their individual natures, i.e., what it means to be a man or a woman. We cannot understand what it means to be in a one-flesh union until we relate it to the sexual drive and how that functions to meet humankind's deep need for relationship.

Piper uses the Genesis creation narrative to make the point that "the individual is incomplete and desirous of completion until he achieves sexual intercourse with a person of the other sex." Lewis (1983) makes the same point:

Since the woman was originally a part of man, that is why the two long to be joined together in the one-flesh relationship. This natural pull to be joined to his counterpart is strong enough so that the man breaks the emotional ties with his father and mother (Lewis, 1983, pg. 41).

Alders (1970) states it this way:

The significance of this act [referring to Eve being made from Adam] is that male and female are originally one. In their present separated existence each needs the other for self-completion. Mankind was made in the first place as a personal unity, not as a pair. Personality is therefore, something greater than mere individuality (Alders, 1970, pg. 79).

Adams also makes the same point:

Then God created man in His own image. They were one, not separated in the beginning into two persons. Within that one man were all the possibilities of male and female, all the possibility of fruit...This man, within whose nature were both male and female elements...(Adams, 1979, pg. 16).

John Stott (1985) argues that in the Creation narrative, two fundamental truths emerge: the human need for companionship, and the divine provision to meet this human need. Stott argues that since man is made in God's image, and God is love, man has the capacity for love and to be loved. This need for companionship is inherently sexual, and provides both for the consummation of the love between two people in the act of sexual intercourse and the potential procreation of children. This arguments rests on the way God met the need, in that He differentiated between the sexes and created a helper to live "alongside" or "opposite" the man in a complementary relationship. When Stott speaks of differentiation, he refers to the emergence of male and female out of "the undifferentiated humanity of Adam". This is the same point that Alders and Lewis made. But note the implication here, which is so easily missed when we talk about these matters. Adam was different after the creation of the woman--he was missing one half of himself.

This idea is not new. It may be traced back to rabbinic writings. Reuven Bulka states that the Talmud portrays Adam and Eve as originally Siamesely linked:

It was not a spare rib that was taken out of Adam and built into Eve; it was a Siamese section straight down the middle in which the two halves of one whole were split up into separate entities (Bulka, 1989, pg. 79).

I need not remind the reader that these ideas are speculative. It is the philosopher and the theologian's best attempt to explain the reason why a man and a woman are attracted to each other and eventually decide to forsake parents and form a separate social entity. But these speculations are not without a degree of support. Terrien (1976) suggests that while Adam was molded of clay from the earth, Eve was architecturally "built", in the sense of being made aesthetically beautiful as well as reliable and permanent. Further, he suggests that the word used in the creative act, "deep sleep", suggests more than the use of anesthesia to surgically remove a rib. It "connotes the idea of divine disclosure in the midst of a deathlike state of unconsciousness" (Terrien, 1976, pg. 18). We are not told the nature of the disclosure, but Terrien gives us a fascinating hint by suggesting that the sexual drive is grounded in the violent extraction of Eve from Adam, a disruption that cries out for a reversal in the coming together of male and female after the abandonment of parents. The words, "take out of", are too tame since the intensive passive voice favors "violently extracted from". He suggests that the man was made aware of these meanings by God during the creation act of the woman.

Certainly, Terrien's idea that Eve was violently extracted from Adam implies a major disruption and change in Adam's state, a view consistent with both Stott and Bulka. Adam wakes up to see a reflection of himself that is both a complement to himself as well as a very part of himself. The woman God creates is similar, yet she is different. The newly created woman corresponds to the man because she was derived from Adam's flesh and bone. But at the same time, this newly created woman is complementary to the man since part of Adam was split off, endowing the woman with different characteristics, both physical and mental, that made her uniquely woman.

I must now present some dissenting arguments to the viewpoint that Adam originally had both male and female natures, and that the splitting during Eve's creation is the basis of sexual attraction. Keil and Delitzsch (1951) indicate that the word, "them", in the phrase in Gen. 2:27, "male and female He created them", implies that God created both the man and the woman as two human beings, which completely overthrows the notion that Adam was originally androgenous. Hall (1989) explores the nature of this "original man", Adam, before the woman was created, and states bluntly that nowhere is there substantiation for views such as Stott's in the Creation narrative:

It does not say that the man had "all the possibilities," nor does it state that male and female were "one" in the way expressed above. The "oneness" of this statement is that both were created in the image of God rather than some man and woman unit. The "them" of Genesis 1:26 must be a reference to mankind....It is clearly shown in chapter 2 that woman was created as a partner for the man and not that the man was somehow divided into parts which were then made into the man and woman (Hall, 1989, pg. 12).

Hall cites several reasons for his view:

• The context of the naming of the animals would be meaningless if the man were androgenous--the task of naming the animals was given by God to show Adam that he was without a partner, and to help Adam develop a desire for a helper;
• The statement that there was not found a helper suitable for Adam is incongruous with Adam being androgenous at this point;
• The name used by Adam is the same both before and after the creation of the woman. If Adam were completely different after the creation of the woman, his name would have been changed to reflect this new state.

Early rabbinic writings support Hall's viewpoint. Anderson (1989) states that these ancient rabbinic writings, most likely based on an even more ancient oral tradition, contend that God does not create the animals in an attempt to provide a mate for Adam (cf., Gen. 2:19-20). Rather, God helps Adam learn on his own of his need for companionship by educating him over a period of time that he is a social creature. One rabbinic writer notes that Adam noticed that the animals were copulating but could not determine what they were doing because he had no erotic attraction as yet. Adam's complaint, according to this writer, was that "everyone has a mate except me."

The book of Jubilees, which dates to the second century B.C., states that the creation of the animals is "an instructive event which informs Adam of his incompleteness and need for a mate." Only after Adam sees this need for a mate does God provide the woman, differentiating the male and the female (Anderson, 1989). The book of Jubilees suggests that before Eve's creation, the feelings of erotic attraction had no power over Adam. Perhaps this could be due to the undifferentiated state of Adam--it seems logical to think that sexual attraction would only exist between differentiated males and females. There is another point brought out in the Creation narrative that sheds light on our discussion. You will recall that after God placed Adam in the garden, He gave him responsibilities to keep the garden and He also set limits on the man in the form of a command to not eat of a particular tree. Yee (1990) provides some helpful insights into these responsibilities that allowed Adam:

to discern and order the world as his own, as a vice regent over it. The man's role in the world carries with it real authority and freedom to exercise on behalf of the Lord God ...the account does not present these responsibilities and privileges as rigid boundaries defining the man's life. Instead, the account portrays the man as a genuinely free being who has the authority to make choices on his own behalf, living as he pleases as long as he keeps his responsibilities to tend the garden and observe the Limit. He is capable of making meaningful decisions about how he will live his life. The world is truly his to roam and to enjoy (Yee, 1990, pg. 19).

The very next thing reported in the narrative pertains to the observation by God that it was not good for the man to be alone. We generally take this to mean that humans are social creatures, and that Adam was lonely.

God gave man a partner in order that man would not be lonely. The cosmos without woman had not satisfied the pang of loneliness within Adam. Animals had not quenched this longing, only woman could fulfill this purpose. Within such a partnership there exists a natural function of mutual aid (Wojcik, 1968, pg. 1).

Since man was designed with the capacity for personal intimacy with God and other persons, he experienced loneliness apart from them. Even with God's fellowship, man felt a loneliness without communion with another human being...God's remedy was the creation of woman as a companion or completer (Thornton, 1988, pg. 20).

However, the narrative does not specifically allude to loneliness. The scripture does not portray Adam as pining away for companionship. Yee concludes that since God's observation that it was not good for the man to be alone is proximal to the command involving keeping the limit, the sense is that it is not good that the man should have to enjoy the benefits of the privileges or bear the burden of the responsibilities alone. And Yee points out that "the man is particularly alone in regards to his responsibility to keep the Limit." Yee suggests that the term, "help", is usually used to refer to God's "life-saving aid in the midst of a crisis." In the Eden narrative, the crisis is brought about by the threat of death if the Limit is not observed. The specific kind of help is "according to the opposite of him" or corresponding help in the sense of having as "an equal bearing with him the moral responsibility of keeping the Limit and so enabling him to avoid death" (Yee, 1990, pg. 21-22). The newly created woman corresponds to the man because she was derived from his flesh and bone. Thus, equality is a characteristic of the relationship by nature of the woman's derivation and purpose. Yee points out that this relationship is later alluded to as "one flesh", a term which must minimally involve the mutual enjoyment of the privileges of being human, created in the image of God, as well as the mutual responsibility of keeping the Limit, or keeping the other out of harm's way.

These speculations provide tantalizing hints on the etiology of sexual attraction. The emphasis on shared purpose, as alluded to by Yee, and the emphasis on companionship as alluded to in early rabbinic writings as well as many contemporary scholars help us to understand the dynamics behind the act of sexual intercourse as it relates to establishing the one-flesh union.

Related to the idea that Adam was originally androgenous is the commonly heard viewpoint that man is somehow incomplete without a woman, and vice versa. Sherrard (1976) is critical of this notion:

It is true that Genesis says that the creation of woman is out of Adam. But it does not say that woman is meant to exist only as part of Adam, or that she is his projection, or a kind of tool or instrument necessary or useful to him for carrying out some purpose. There is nothing to prevent the creation from being taken to signify not a decline for man from his original state of perfection but the creation of a new and separate entity, an independent creature of God, independent of Adam, an end in herself, with her own destiny and her own perfection...it may be regarded as a creation in which the image of God is further and more fully made manifest on the human plane, so that woman--Eve--stands with man--Adam--not as part or portion of an original androgyny...but as one pole of the archetypal, ideal, and potentially eternal human relationship (Sherrard, 1976, pg.70-71).

Piper (1953) makes it clear that man and woman essentially belong to each other because of the creation of Eve from Adam's side, thus tempering the independence spoken of by Sherrard:.

...at the very beginning our Bible points to the danger which lies in the mere fact of human individuality. Nothing in God's creation exists for itself; everything exists for everything else. But this is a more difficult task for man than for any other creature to live in accordance with this condition, for he is not only differentiated from all other persons as a separate individual; he has also the capability of becoming a personality who makes conscious decisions and has power to determine his own life. This involves, at the same time, the dangers of believing in his self-sufficiency, and of self-complacency (Piper, 1953, pg. 95).

Hugh Davey Evans makes the point that the image of God is best seen in the combination of the man's nature and woman's nature:

The more perfect reflection of the image of God in the combined natures of man and woman than in either separately, implies that these two natures are complementary to each other. This is equally true, whether it be viewed in connection with the combination of the two natures in the persons of one married pair, or in the whole human race, of which both sexes are portions. If neither of the sexes can reflect the Divine image so perfectly as the union of the two, each must have some qualities answering to something in the Divine nature, which the other wants, or has but imperfectly. Each must, therefore, be the complement of the other; so that, when joined, the constitute one whole (Evans, 1870, pg. 61).

Sherrard gives us another insight into what it means for both man and woman to be created equally in the image of God:

The suggestion is that man as image of God is more the image of the active and masculine pole of the divinity. He is the image of God's Being, of his consciousness of himself and his creative will in so far as these are directed outwards, so to speak, toward creation. Woman, on the other hand, is more the image of the feminine pole of the divinity, of that pre-ontological and pre-conscious abyss of infinite possibilities. She mirrors the divine darkness of God's innermost ground...man represents the more active consciousness while woman represents more those functions associated with the heart" (Sherrard, 1976, pg. 73).

Sherrard is quick to point out that this does not mean that the man and woman should be opposite where the various facets of their natures are concerned--they must be complementary. The basis, then, of a relationship is mutuality in giving and receiving. Each person may have needs that can be met by the other's gifts, and each person has gifts that meet the other's needs.

Sherrard makes a compelling case for considering man and woman as equals (incidently, a point with which Piper and Bailey both agree). However, the fact remains that in the Genesis creation account, woman was taken from Adam, thus opening the possibility of becoming a unity again.

Klingler (1984) states that a major aspect of oneness has to do with sexual union. He admits that sexual intimacy results in bodily oneness, but he stresses that "although sexual union is a key aspect of becoming one flesh, there is much more involved." Kent (1971) states that:

Sexual union unites husband and wife as one flesh in the most intimate way. Yet this is merely the physical aspect of the union; and there are many other ways in which the relationship of true marriage forms the strongest and most enduring of human ties" (Kent, 1971, pg. 105).

Bailey (1952) points out that the Church has always taught that the mutual consent of the parties, and not sexual union, is the essential constitutive factor in marriage. None of the early church fathers considered sexual intercourse as the sole means of establishing a state of one-flesh. The Summa Theologica stated that only the ability to have sexual intercourse is requisite, but not its performance; further, sexual intercourse was not necessary to a marriage. In contrast, Bailey points out that:

the mere exchange of vows, whether in public or in private, does not and cannot bring about any essential change in the character of the personal relation between man and woman. That is to say, consent by itself has no ontological connexion with marriage and is powerless to effect a union in 'one flesh'; it is simply the precondition of the establishment of that union by sexual intercourse (Bailey, 1952, pg. 49-50).

Bailey rests his case squarely on the assertion by Paul that:

"even the most irresponsible and ephemeral connexion between a man and a woman (whether in ignorance or defiance of the consequences) makes them, like husband and wife, 'one flesh'...Intercourse therefore is much more than a mere physical act which takes place on the periphery, as it were, of personal experience; it involves and affects the whole man and the whole woman in the very centre and depth of their being, so that afterwards neither can ever be as if they had never come together. This is true even of fornication, which cannot be excused or dismissed as something insignificant, done in complete detachment, and from which no consequences follow (Bailey, 1952, pg. 51-52).

Bailey charges that the Church lost the truth of Paul's understanding of the importance of sexual intercourse in establishing the one-flesh relationship, and in fact, committed itself to unscriptural positions. I have previously reviewed the thinking of the early Church Fathers and shown how their views of sexuality became increasingly negative and repressive. Bailey does not mince words when he indicts the church:

...it is remarkable that the Fathers should have failed so completely to appreciate the bearing upon sex of the doctrines of Creation and the Incarnation, and that the moral degradation of their times did not impel them to attempt a Christian theory of sex based upon the truth which they recognized in the abstract--the goodness and God-giveness of those faculties which the heathen abused (Bailey, 1952, pg. 56).

...it must be emphasized that sex is one of God's gifts to man and woman, and as such is good in itself and to be 'received with thanksgiving'; there is no place for the unconsciously blasphemous attitude which regards sexual activity as something 'nasty' or 'impure'. On the contrary, the right use of the sexual faculties is one of the most natural ways by which God is glorified in the body. This, however, demands a Godward orientation of the will; in the immediacy of intercourse there can be consciousness of none but the beloved, but the sex act itself must take place in the context of a common God-centered life and must be offered to Him...(Bailey, 1952, pg. 59-60).

Klingler (1984) and Kent (1971) hint that something more than sexual intercourse is involved in establishing the one-flesh bond, but neither states what more is involved. Indeed, it would be a mistake to say that mere genital contact is all that is involved. Both Piper and Bailey clearly point out that the act of sexual intercourse is more than the conjunction of genital organs, as it involves the whole person. Its meaning derives from the love each person has for the other and from their intentions to express "their acceptance and affirmation of the consequent ontological change in themselves and their relation."

In summary, it would serve us well to reflect on Bailey's succinct statement of what constitutes true, authentic one flesh bonds:

The true, authentic henosis (union) is effected by intercourse following consent between a man and a woman who love each other and who act freely, deliberately, responsibly, and with the knowledge and approval of the community, and in so doing (whether they know it or not) conform to the Divine law. In this class must also be included unions of the kind described by Augustine in de bono conjugali 5 (v), which lack nothing but public recognition (Bailey, 1952, pg 52).

Bailey makes room for false unions effected by casual sex, mercenary acts of fornication, or adultery. He specifically excludes cases of rape and seduction of the young or mentally challenged on the basis that Paul's principle was never meant to apply in these cases. Further, in these cases, sexual intercourse occurred without consent and love. Bailey also allows for the redemption of a false and invalid union through marriage when their is a growth of love and responsibility.

Sherrard (1976) provides some insights into the richness and complexity of the sexual act. He begins his argument by emphasizing the importance of sexual love:

Without such love the inner dynamics of tensions in the relationship will be lacking. There will be no polarity. The hidden potentialities of the two beings will not be awakened and brought into activity...un-less love is sexualized the creative tension of forces between the two beings is not brought into play. A non-sexualized love may be full of devotion and self-sacrifice. But it is incapable of setting into motion that transforming process which is the key to the purpose of marriage. It cannot provide the yeast to the dough of our nature or release that flow and return of energy which magnetizes all the cells of our being and quickens them into life and radiates our existence and that of everything about us (Sherrard, 1976, pg. 87-88).

Sherrard warns us that he is not speaking of mere genital intercourse, or a simple consummation of marriage on the honeymoon. He speaks of the sexual forces expressing themselves on levels other than the mere physical or passionate or even the emotional level.

...the union between man and woman must embrace all the aspects and capacities of their beings... (including) an intellectual sympathy and a common spiritual orientation and aspiration. Without the development of each aspect of their multiple natures the union cannot be consummated. Only when the sexual forces are able to express themselves on all levels of being can the union be said to be complete (Sherrard, 1976, pg. 89).

Obviously, these expressions of sexual drive must be actively developed and nurtured over time.

As if this were not difficult enough, Sherrard further states the requirement for a complete union must involve the reciprocity, or polarity between these corresponding levels when they begin to function in each mate. Sherrard admits that this is in no way easy work. Some couples may be attracted to each other because of shared intellectual interests, but be stymied by an unequal capacity for further development.

One cannot "marry" with the intellectual side on one's nature, and the sexual forces cannot express themselves through this side of one's nature, if the corresponding side in one's partner has not unfolded, or is incapable of unfolding, or if when it does unfold it is of another type than one's own. And unless there is such a reciprocity and polarity on the higher levels, the marriage must remain unconsummated and deprived of its sacramental fulfillment...Only when two persons are powerfully drawn together and their subsequent development is such that level after level of their natures unfolds in a way that allows them an ever richer and more miraculous intercourse of sympathy and understanding can a complete union be achieved (Sherrard, 1976, pg. 91-92).

Sherrard admits that this ideal of mutual love, cannot be acquired without the benediction of the Creator:

It is conferred by the Creator on two creatures, man and woman, who have run the course of their love through whatever it may have led them and have entered, transfigured at last, the holy ground of their being (Sherrard, 1976, pg. 93).

Sherrard poses an ideal which in most likelihood is reached by few couples. Yet he correctly points to God as the creator of the bond, although it is clear that the recipients of His love certainly have their work cut out for them!

I have dealt with the connection between sexual intercourse and the one-flesh union at great length. Recall that the connection is based on Paul's writings to the Corinthian church concerning intercourse with a prostitute, where he seems to attribute the power of making two persons into one flesh to sexual intercourse, even when it is unlawful. Evans (1870) rightly points out that God has not joined the fornicators, and therefore the union is not indissoluble, and as such, may be "put asunder". Obviously, those who assert that a marriage has occurred here are wrong since there was no intention to marry, no mutual consent to live together, and no Divine blessing. Evans is also correct in stating that the fornication:

...may have its own mysterious power of uniting the sinners in a mysterious unity of guilt...(Evans, 1870, pg. 131).

However, Evans does not hold to the notion that sexual intercourse establishes the one-flesh bond. Neither does he say that love or conjugal affection produces this unity since unity causes the conjugal love. Instead, Evans states that the blessing of God "which is sought by prayer, and will be given to those who seek it in the right frame of mind and heart" unites the persons (Evans, 1870, pg. 134). This blessing is symbolized by the blessing of the Church as given by a minister or priest, who acts as "an ambassador of God". Evans asserts that until the blessing of God occurs, "the married couple are living in a state of sin" (pg. 115).

The actual consent and the actual Divine blessing form the unity and confer the sanctity, and thus constitute the true marriage. There is no reason to believe that either is tied down to the moment of the formal marriage. That is only the means of publicly expressing the consent which may and ought to have been internally given at an earlier time. [As] the Divine blessing may also have been invoked and granted, so both the consent and the Divine blessing may follow the formal marriage , if the consent had not been given, or the conditions on which the blessing depends have not been performed until after the ceremony (Evans, 1870, pg. 115-116).

Although Evans' position is consistent with Piper's and Bailey's in that consent is a precondition to the one-flesh union, it differs dramatically as to what establishes the union. In essence, Evans thinking is consistent with Jesus' thoughts that God joins the couple together (Matt. 19:6). It would be a mistake to quickly come to the conclusion that one view must be right and the other wrong. Actually, both views may represent God's truth. Sexual intercourse following consent in the context of love, a free, deliberate and responsible action that involves knowledge of the community, may establish the conditions under which God blesses the union and joins the partners, quite apart from any marriage ceremony or minister's blessing. In Evans' eyes, the consent may be considered:

...as the root, out of which, when watered by the Divine blessing, grow the unity and the sanctity (Evans, 1870, pg. 127).

I do not think that anyone would deny the truth of this statement as it pertains to marriage. This unity involves:

...two persons, having two wills, each capable of performing all the functions of life. It is known that they have separate responsibilities, and that their final destinies may be different...Yet it is many times said in the Holy Scriptures that they are one flesh...(Evans, 1870, pg. 118-119).

It is difficult to imagine anyone saying that establishing a one-flesh bond could not be accomplished without the blessing of God. But the obvious fact that must not be overlooked is that Evans places absolutely no importance on sexual intercourse in establishing the bond. It is odd that Evans would allow for fornication uniting a couple in some sense, which is consistent with the views of Bailey and Piper, but reject the notion that lawful sexual intercourse has no place in establishing the true bond.

Helmut Thielicke points out that the mystery of sex cannot be objectified by scientific means. He states that:

...mystery is unveiled in the temple of love, but not in the laboratory. Sexual knowledge is qualitatively different from knowledge about sex (Thielicke, 1964, pg. 66).

He reminds us that in the Old testament, sexual intercourse is described in terms of "knowing" (yada). He concludes that there is a distinct relationship between the act of sexual intercourse and the act of knowing another person. This involves more than knowing about nakedness and extends to "the ability of the body to express the person and their emotions and thus to be symbolical." This special knowledge of the other person possesses a quality that is somehow different from other forms of knowing because it involves learning, in addition to how I relate to the other person, who I am in relation to myself.

Otto Piper speaks of a mutual self-disclosure that happens through sexual intercourse where each person is prepared to enter into harmony:

Each sets himself in relation to the other. What is impossible to communicate by means of words is transmitted by the mutual affection concomitant to sexual union " (Piper, 1953, pg. 56).

When Piper speaks of the mystery of sex, he is thinking of our sexual instincts as well as our sexual characteristics of maleness and femaleness. The mystery or inner secret:

consists in the fact that as a male (or female) I can be nothing by myself. It is only by union of two persons of different sex that their physical existence is made meaningful. Thus the unity of the flesh consists in the fact that the two persons have mutually revealed to each other the inner secret of their bodily being, and that by means of this knowledge they are now permanently and inseparably bound together. They interpret each the other (Piper, 1953, pg. 60).

This is the paradox of the mystery of sex. I am created not to be an isolated individual, but rather part of a couple; and the couple has greater dignity than the two individuals as such because only through their union can they achieve what the single individual is unable to do. By sexual contact I learn that by myself I am, and I must always be, a fragment; only my partner enables me to gain my own completeness...The fact of sex makes it impossible for a person to be content with his own selfhood; he must seek a partner of the opposite sex (Piper, 1953, pg. 61).

If I read Thielicke and Piper correctly, sexual intercourse is absolutely mandatory for the "knowing" to be complete. As Thielicke states, it cannot be transmitted, only witnessed.

One cannot be instructed concerning this mystery; one can only "undergo" it and by undergoing it, experience it (Thielicke, 1964, pg. 74).

Although consent is a precondition, it appears that sexual intercourse has an integral part in the establishment of the union. This does not detract from God's blessing and joining together of the two. Bailey goes so far as to state that the validity of the one-flesh union is related to the nature of the sexual intercourse:

...a union in 'one flesh' is valid or false according to the character of the sexual act by which it was established, and that the latter is determined by the intention of the parties, and by the context of their intercourse. What is true of the initiation of the relation must also hold good in regard to its continuance. Upon love alone the validity of intercourse and the permanence and exclusiveness of marriage depend, and love means nothing if not freely-willed, unqualified fidelity (Bailey, 1952, pg. 78-79).

There is another viewpoint summarized at the beginning of our discussion on the one flesh bond that now requires our attention. Recall that Carter (1965) theorized that the one flesh bond is equivalent to the offspring from a marital relationship. In one sense, there is truth to this view in that "as two united in 'one flesh' they seek to enrich the life of the henosis by building around it a small society through procreation, not accretion" (Bailey, 1952, pg. 117). A one-flesh-bonded couple have an opportunity to fulfill a creative purpose by furthering the human race, and specifically their own family. Bailey quotes Gerald Vann in this respect:

Lovemaking--and with it the whole common life of work and play and thought and speech and prayer--is the first act of husband and wife as creators. Together they create through these things the first new thing, the unity of the two-in-one (Vann, 1942, pg. 171).

Bailey makes the point that the union, once established, is ontologically complete but "socially imperfect". Children, who are uniquely the couple's own creation and who represent the "expression of their love in its complete self-giving", are the result of the one flesh union, not the union itself. In other words, the one flesh union is the nucleus around which the family is created. The family is an extension of the one flesh union.

Some people have taken the statement in Genesis, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth" (Gen. 1:28; 9:1) as a commandment as well as an indication that procreation is the purpose of sexual union. Piper (1953) clearly rejects this notion as suggests that children should be considered as "a further blessing added by God" to sexual union. "We have here a promise of children and not an obligation to beget them" since in the same passages, fruitfulness is spoken of as blessing, addressed both to creatures of the sea and air as well as to Noah.

We shall now turn our attention to the Old Testament parallel of the union between Christ and the church, namely, the covenant relationship between God and Israel.

Reflections

I must admit that every so often, this question crosses my mind: Did the writers of Holy Scripture really ascertain the truth as it pertains to the meaning of the one-flesh bond? Did the writer of Genesis understand the meaning in the same way as the Apostle Paul? The principle of progressive revelation would force us to admit that most likely each of the writers understood the term in different ways. Do we understand the term in a more complete way today? Or are we in the same position as the early Church fathers, who lost sight of the way sex and sexuality interfaced with the doctrines of Creation and the Incarnation. The various scholars alluded to in this chapter certainly add varied meanings to our understanding, but upon reflection, I wonder if we are closer to the truth. Could it be that the way that man and woman become one flesh together will be shrouded in as much mystery as the way we become united with Christ?

Would you not agree that the act of sexual intercourse holds different meanings for different persons? After reading this chapter, I hope that your perceptions have been forever altered. I would implore you to pause and write a paragraph or two in response to these questions:

• What does sexual intercourse mean to me?
• What does a one flesh union mean to me?

If a person has sexual intercourse, does it mean they have entered into a one flesh union? If you are married, have you fully realized the meaning of being one flesh together?

Readers of this document are permitted to download any portion provided "all such use is for . . . personal noncommercial benefit." Please cite the document as follows: Twelker, Paul A. (1998). The Biblical Design for Marriage: The Creation, Distortion and Redemption of Equality, Differentiation, Unity and Complementarity. Deerfield: Trinity International University. Internet resource available at URL: <http://www.kamsandsinfo.com/BDFMChap4.htm> (last updated 20 April 1998).

Go to Top

Go to Index

Go To Chapter 5 Marriage and Union