Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
The Lord is our husband, and in this relationship we are one spirit with Him. The husband and wife on earth in like manner become one flesh. 1 Cor 6:16-17 indicates a parallel between these two types of joinings.
However, even though we become "one flesh" we know from experience that one spouse's body does not literally become the other spouse's body. One can die and the other live, for example. So the expression cannot be literal.
So we know that "one flesh" is talking about something different than actually becoming one another's body. It is clearly talking about intimacy in relationship. So we can surmise that "one spirit" means something in the same way, because 1 Cor 6:16-17 draws a parallel between them. We don't actually become the same Spirit as the Lord. But we become "one" because of the intense intimacy.
To say we actually become the same Spirit literally is actually to miss the whole point of the intimate relationship. We are not absorbed into God to "become God." He remains God and we remain us. Yet we are one. That is much more profound than "becoming God." Again it's about relationship, not about becoming God.
|
OK, let’s see if I understand this correctly. “We are part of Christ in the same way that spouses are part of each other”. This is proved by 1Cor 6:16-17 “What? Know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? For two, saith he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.” Here Paul is quoting Genesis with regard to Adam and Even and using this clear word concerning the two becoming one flesh to condemn fornication, but also uses this same story as a metaphor to describe our relationship in spirit with Christ. This is something that I agree with.
However, even though the clear word of both the Old and New Testament say that they become “one flesh” you say that we know from experience that this is not true. You give the example that if one spouse dies the other can still live as though this proves they are not one flesh. If you cut off my hand and it dies my body will still live, but it will be missing a hand. I think that is a much closer to many people’s experience of losing a spouse.
You say that we know that they are not “one flesh” from experience. You are mistaken. First, half of all the genetic material in your body does not have your DNA. Most of these organisms are living a symbiotic relationship with you. When you have sex the organisms from both bodies are mingled and can all create offspring, this is how we get such diseases as HIV. In a monogamous society we would never get an AIDS epidemic, AIDS (the epidemic) is a result of unclean living. But with billions of sexual unions on this earth the chances are very great that we are creating many deadly diseases like HIV. Through the experience of sexually transmitted diseases we know that they are indeed one flesh. Hence the idea of “practicing safe sex” code for trying to have sex without “becoming one flesh”.
Second, although most everyone is familiar with DNA being passed down, what fewer are aware of is epigenetics. The genetic traits you pass down to your offspring are influenced by your environment. They have shown through statistical analysis that the environment that your granddad or grandmother went through when they were children will have a direct impact on the genetic traits of their grandchildren. Since in many of the cases studied there was no direct contact between the grandparent and grandchild the conclusion is that these traits were passed down in the same fashion as other genetic traits. This is called epigenetics. It has also been proved in plants that environmental factors will get passed down genetically. So the process of epigenetics has been proved. Now it seems to me that my wife will play as big a role in my environment as any single factor. So on many different levels we are becoming “one flesh”. No doubt this is psychological and spiritual, but it is most definitely “fleshly” as well.
Your whole theory of “one spirit” being solely relational and not organic is based on your “surmising” that when God said “they become one flesh” and when Paul said “they are one flesh” that that really did not mean “one flesh” but meant “relationally”.
Now this interpretation of yours was presented in Post #172, in which you said “pictures are pictures and plain words are plain words”. It was reasonable to assume based on this that WL’s teaching was based on his interpretation of a picture whereas the plain word proved he was wrong. However your interpretation is not based on the plain word, you discredit the plain word saying it doesn’t mean what it says, and you use sex as a metaphor to describe our relationship with Christ. I have no issue with the metaphor, but I don’t like the pretense that your interpretation was based on the plain word.
On the contrary, the word by the Lord in Acts “why persecutest thou me” is a plain word. To theorize that this is the basis for Paul’s vision of the Body is clearly an interpretation, but it is based on the plain word. Likewise, if someone says that Romans 12 uses the Body as a picture is fine, but Ephesians 4 uses the Body as the plain word. There is one Lord. Is that a metaphor or a plain word? There is one God and Father. Is that a metaphor or a plain word. There is one Body.