I don't have a whole lot of time to elaborate on this, but this is one of the issues I'm addressing in my book. Since no one has posted to this thread in over six months, I will reactivate it with my own, personal contribution and come back to it when I have more time to discuss it further. As many of us already know, the Bible was translated from the Hebrew and Aramaic language to the Greek and then into English and other languages. I honestly believe that without the Spirit of Christ, the scriptures cannot be opened to us in a way that we might receive the fullness of understanding them directly from GOD. I am of the persuasion that the scriptures are indeed the inspired (GOD-BREATHED) Living Word, set in writing. Language can be a very subtle mode of communication and script can be easily nullified according to the deadness of the letter among those who are of little faith. I guess what I'm trying to say here is that I would not be so inclined to make an idol out of a bunch of ink, paper, and cowhide. That said, it behooves me to say that the text book is a vital part of learning to the student of scripture that she or he might reflect on the things of GOD, learning those laws which are moral and good and profitable. I would in nowise suggest that lawlessness (iniquity) is the directive of those who desire to follow the faith that was once delivered to the saints, but merely point out what still holds true with respect to the text itself: "Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." (2 Corinthians, 3:5-6) For it is also abundantly stated in the scripture that the Holy Spirit grants the true worshipers of GOD the ability to know all things that those who are found in the Body of Christ have no need that any man should teach them!
1 John 2
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming. If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.
Yet, the following admonishing is also stated for the sakes of those so concerned with the letter that they are
dull of hearing what the Spirit saith unto the churches of GOD:
Hebrews 5:11-14
Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
Or, Romans 7
6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
Now it is quite likely that the Son of man did not teach his followers in the Greek language (though I dare say that it is possible that all heard him speak in their native tongue) so much as he duly instructed his disciples in the Aramaic, Babylonian tongue; for this was the language of the Iudean rabbis, the Pharisees, Saducees, and so-called "Hebrews" of that era (though Moses and David never spoke Aramaic); but concerning that which we call "marriage" in the English tongue and what the Greek referred to as "gamous", Iesous called this "ONE FLESH". I believe that it is vital to our biblical understanding what this term means, because when the Pharisees contended with Christ concerning this matter of
marriage and divorcement, Christ did not refer to the Greek "gamous" directly, but to the Hebrew
'l basar echad. Understandably, the Classical Greek had its own version of "marriage" and both terms, being interpreted, are not without that clear implication of the "joining" or "union" requiring the twain to be "as one", or, "of one". I should think that the matter is academic when one considers that a man does not become his wife, or that a wife does not become her husband after they marry; wherefore it behooves me to say that the term "one flesh" is a more of a metaphor more than it is a simile. This does not make the act, state, or condition of marriage any less real.
Going back to the English rendering of
'l basar echad is the difficult part for those requiring a fullness of understanding of this term, because of the translation from the Babylonian Hebrew (Aramaic) to the Classical Greek. The word "mia" (one) is not the literal, numerical word "heis" (one), which literally refers to the number one; but rather, the word "mia" used in this context regarding marriage between a (one) man and a (one) woman, refers to that initial "union", or "joining", to become "as one" or, as the word is translated directly into the English, "of one", and not "one" in the numerical sense of the word. If the term in the Classical Greek literally meant "one" in the numerical sense, then "heis" would have been used instead of "mia". Obviously, "heis" and "mia" are not the same, identical word; but that marriage is
union in the flesh (one flesh) in all three translations is more than evident. These nuances in language tend to lend a good deal of confusion to the understanding of the English word "marriage". In the English, the word "marriage" can imply a verb, a noun, or even an adjective. I would suggest that there is a considerable difference between the act of marriage and the state, or condition of marriage. To marry is to perform the act of marriage. The state, or condition of marriage, applies to those who have performed the act. There is also a difference between a marriage and a wedding (though one may be inclusive of the other) but the truest definition of marriage, at least from a biblical perspective, is that which Christ gave to those who challenged it when disputing the matter of marriage and divorcement on paper and the genuine articicle in the Sight of GOD:
Mark 10
5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
A wedding ceremony does not make anyone "more married" than a funeral ceremony makes a corpse any "more deader". Until the actual marriage is consumated, that is to say, until the deed is done, the condition, or state of marriage, being understood to be "one flesh" simply does not exist. Despite any vows made, the twain are merely betrothed. No amount of paperwork, vows, rings, or extraneous devices can change this. Once the act, or deed of uniting in the flesh is performed, a man and a woman are indeed married (adjective) have married (verb) and have acquired a marriage (noun). I'll leave it at that for now.
GOD bless the reader
