• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

One flesh, a different pov

steve

Seasoned Member
Real Person
Male
If we, when we marry, become one flesh as described by our Creator, what does that actually mean? How can the meat on our bones physically combine with another to where we become one person?
Obviously it can’t, so it has to mean something entirely different.

One of the explanations that has been given for this phrase has been that when the man’s sperm combine with the woman’s egg, a new human comes forth who is a combination of each of them. The problem with this is that it doesn’t make them one with each other, only within the offspring. So while it is a partial fulfillment, it isn’t a complete one.
Another explanation is at the moment of utmost intimacy, the two bodies become as close together as is possible. That they are virtually one being at that point. But that is pretty weak, they are only in that state for a relatively small percentage of their lives. Again, a partial fulfillment but an inadequate one in my opinion.

So I knew that there had to be an explanation, Yah doesn’t say things just to hear His voice echo.
I looked up the Greek word that flesh had been translated from and way down at the bottom of the list of definitions was a very interesting one.
“the flesh, denotes mere human nature, the earthly nature of man apart from divine influence, …..”
The Hebrew word used includes “flesh as frail or erring (man against God)” as one definition. Meat/muscle doesn’t err so it would more indicate man’s nature, in my opinion.

A quick side note to show that there is another place in the NT that uses the word flesh in the same way.
Do you remember the phrase …the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak? We all understand that it is not talking about the weakness of the muscle. Shucks, if the muscles are weak enough, you can’t even get up and go get into trouble.
It is our human nature that is weak.

Now that is a definition under which the phrase makes perfect sense. The mental nature of the two is intended to become so blended that they become one in who they are, how they approach life and the aspects of life.
So does this happen automatically? We all know that old couple that looks and acts like each other. But mostly it doesn’t. All too often there is enough tension in the relationship to keep it from happening. The enemy of our souls makes sure of it. He doesn’t like when things follow Yah’s plan.

So why did Yah make the statement?
Because it is His intention for our relationships. And it can absolutely happen. One of the things that I have realized is that if we focus on Him, the closer that we get to Him the closer that we will be to each other.
And what did Yeshua say? That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us:……

Be careful in your choice of a life partner. Are they headed towards oneness with Yah and you, or will it be a lifetime of tension as each of you pull in a different direction?
 
How can the meat on our bones physically combine with another to where we become one person?

I really appreciate your analysis, Steve, but I'll just add that biophysics has long had an explanation for how not the actual meat on our bones but the actual flesh over the meat really does literally become one between two people. When two objects are touching, first the electrons in the atoms of each begin intermingling and exchanging -- swapping around into each other. This can happen between inanimate objects or between an inanimate object and a living being, but the process is enhanced and expanded between two living entities, extended even to the point of entire cells migrating from one living being to another. The closer the genus and species, the more the transfer. And, in human beings, there are a few places where the membranes are so thin, pliable and conducive that the process is significantly further enabled. Two such regions of membranes are inside the mouth and sexual organs; the process also involves exchange of electrical impulses and electromagnetism.

So, sexual intercourse really does result in each partner leaving the experience taking a bit of the other along with him or her, and I'm not just referring to bodily fluids.
 
Thankyou @steve, good points - the "spirit is willing, flesh is weak" one is interesting.

For the benefit of other readers, here's a link to a thread exploring the purely physical interpretation @Keith Martin mentions. Just to keep things cross-referenced.
 
For the benefit of other readers, here's a link to a thread exploring the purely physical interpretation @Keith Martin mentions. Just to keep things cross-referenced.
Yeah, and the critters we share with each other become one flesh with each other as well (I wonder if they have tiny little cigarettes they smoke together, too).
 
So, sexual intercourse really does result in each partner leaving the experience taking a bit of the other along with him or her, and I'm not just referring to bodily fluids.
While this is true, is it the full meaning of Yah’s multiple use of the phrase?
Why do you feel that He would need to make such a point of the fact that exchanges are made and that each of us carries part of the other? Does it actually result in us becoming one person in any significant, life changing way?
Or is it merely another partial fulfillment?

What I didn’t address here are the spiritual aspects that are also involved.
Are we affected by the nature of the spiritual entities that are hanging around our partner?
Are they affected by ours?
I believe that this is the major point of the statement about becoming one with a prostitute.
To this point, I have run across two different stories from widely separated parts of the world where missionaries had been eaten. In both stories, the natives later readily received the Gospel and stated that Jesus was, to a degree, already in them, having been part of the flesh that they had partaken of.
In one case it was the man’s wife, in the other it was his son. Each of the men vacated the field with no intention of ever returning, feeling like they had sacrificed more than enough for His Kingdom. Each of them under conviction returned years later and were completely surprised to be told that Jesus was already within themselves and that they were eager to understand more.

Keeping the main thing the main thing, what would be Yah’s point for telling us multiple times that we will become one if it is the mere technicality of sharing some cells?
 
Maybe we are too quick to think that the spiritual is something entirely disconnected from the physical. Might it not be that it all goes together, that being together with our wife in many ways we both grow closer physically and psychologically / spiritually, and the two actually occur simultaneously because they're actually very closely related to each other and not two entirely different things as we tend to view them?
 
Maybe we are too quick to think that the spiritual is something entirely disconnected from the physical. Might it not be that it all goes together, that being together with our wife in many ways we both grow closer physically and psychologically / spiritually, and the two actually occur simultaneously because they're actually very closely related to each other and not two entirely different things as we tend to view them?
I'm inclined to agree. Sometimes we try to divide the indivisible.
 
Maybe we are too quick to think that the spiritual is something entirely disconnected from the physical. Might it not be that it all goes together, that being together with our wife in many ways we both grow closer physically and psychologically / spiritually, and the two actually occur simultaneously because they're actually very closely related to each other and not two entirely different things as we tend to view them?
Very possible, but the reason that I am focusing on the psychological/spiritual is because that is where our lives change.
The physical changes don’t, as far as I can see, have an actual walkout in our lives. So that is why I see them as peripheral to what Yah was trying to communicate to us.

I find it significant that both the Hebrew and Greek words that were used include a definition that isn’t meat.
 
but the actual flesh over the meat
Minor point, but what we refer to as the flesh being the skin wasn’t how it was viewed a few thousand years ago.
Flesh was the part of the animal that was eaten. The skin was used in other ways.
 
I spent some time in Europe a while back. At a cookout I was asked by my very hospitable host which type of flesh I would like to eat... cow flesh, pig flesh or chicken flesh. After fighting back the urge to vomit, I explained that, while technically correct, the word flesh is less than appetizing to American English speakers. After we all had a good laugh we eat some of that delicious flesh.
 
While this is true, is it the full meaning of Yah’s multiple use of the phrase?
Why do you feel that He would need to make such a point of the fact that exchanges are made and that each of us carries part of the other? Does it actually result in us becoming one person in any significant, life changing way?
Or is it merely another partial fulfillment?

What I didn’t address here are the spiritual aspects that are also involved.
Are we affected by the nature of the spiritual entities that are hanging around our partner?
Are they affected by ours?
I believe that this is the major point of the statement about becoming one with a prostitute.
To this point, I have run across two different stories from widely separated parts of the world where missionaries had been eaten. In both stories, the natives later readily received the Gospel and stated that Jesus was, to a degree, already in them, having been part of the flesh that they had partaken of.
In one case it was the man’s wife, in the other it was his son. Each of the men vacated the field with no intention of ever returning, feeling like they had sacrificed more than enough for His Kingdom. Each of them under conviction returned years later and were completely surprised to be told that Jesus was already within themselves and that they were eager to understand more.

Keeping the main thing the main thing, what would be Yah’s point for telling us multiple times that we will become one if it is the mere technicality of sharing some cells?
Oh, man, Steve -- just to clear up the record, I was in NO way attempting to assert that electron or cell exchange was the GIST of one-fleshness -- all I was doing was simply adding another piece to what I see as a multifaceted experience of being one-flesh, a literal example, but I'm right with you in considering the much more profound meaning to denote something in the spiritual realm.

Risking again being overinterpreted, I have to agree with Samuel while not disagreeing with you, Steve, that the physical and the spiritual are inextricable. Some of our innate difficulty comprehending this turns on our purposeful design by our Creator, which causes us -- in most circumstances -- to filter out of our consciousness huge aspects of what our sense are capable of sensing. One that would almost universally be interpreted (and is by cultures who practice religious doctrines that more thoroughly invite the spiritual into moment-to-moment existence) as being inextricably linked to one's spirituality is one's aura, the energy field around one's body. To most of us, the aura is 'invisible;' most Westerners would, in fact, deny its existence, and yet science developed 83 years ago something called Kirlian photography that can capture images of the constantly-in-motion energy fields around all living beings (even plants) that is referred to as the aura. In the interim, significant studies have been performed to demonstrate that the extent and type of a person's aura is highly correlated to that person's level of spirituality, either as measured by others or self-perceived. In addition, aural 'transfer' has been observed between people who spend significant time existing within the fields of each other's aura (also an explanation for why people have widely-ranging requirements for how much physical 'personal space' they want between themselves and others, especially strangers).

Along with this, I have no doubt that there are some among us who can see real spiritual (and separate) beings. Consequently, perhaps the most cogent thing I've taken from what you've introduced is the likely wisdom of Yah in promoting one-flesh as an additional bulwark against malevolent forces.

And that is just one more reason why there is nothing frivolous about asserting that every woman in our world needs covering, just as there is nothing frivolous in asserting that no man is an island.
 
I spent some time in Europe a while back. At a cookout I was asked by my very hospitable host which type of flesh I would like to eat... cow flesh, pig flesh or chicken flesh. After fighting back the urge to vomit, I explained that, while technically correct, the word flesh is less than appetizing to American English speakers. After we all had a good laugh we eat some of that delicious flesh.
Well I never, just learnt another thing about American English. You never know how many differences there are until you stumble upon them!
 
I was thinking about how we as believers are to be "one spirit" with the Lord. Among other things, I take that to mean that our hearts, minds, and wills are submitted to and conformed to Christ, as our Head. We love what He loves. We want what He wants. We follow where He leads.

Could the one flesh of marriage be something similar? The man is the head of a new unit, a new family. The man and woman are united in his vision, and work together to pursue it.
 
I was thinking about how we as believers are to be "one spirit" with the Lord. Among other things, I take that to mean that our hearts, minds, and wills are submitted to and conformed to Christ, as our Head. We love what He loves. We want what He wants. We follow where He leads.

Could the one flesh of marriage be something similar? The man is the head of a new unit, a new family. The man and woman are united in his vision, and work together to pursue it.
Children and additional wives coming into this family unit will need to be united in this vision.
 
The man is the head of a new unit, a new family. The man and woman are united in his vision, and work together to pursue it.
Children and additional wives coming into this family unit will need to be united in this vision.
By (edit), I think he’s got it!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top