Quote:
Originally Posted by John
Guest 1,
As I recall, you pursued Igzy to give you verses to support what you quoted as from him: “We are part of Christ in the same type of way spouses are part of each other.” He gave you 1st Cor. 6:16–17, stating that the “one flesh” was not to be taken literally, since one spouse’s body does not literally become the other spouse’s body. You came back with a science discussion to try to show that husband and wife literally become one flesh, referring to some kind of symbiotic relationship of the genetic material within a person’s body.
By the way, I do not plan to discuss science in detail but, rather, turn back to the Bible. It seems to me that you have made a similar mistake to the one that Cassidy made earlier. Remember Jane’s presentation about 1st Cor. 6:17 that showed that the “one spirit” there could not be a mingled spirit as Witness Lee taught? Well, the same reading applies to verse 16:
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. (16–17) Jane wrote about 6:17 regarding the word “joined,” and pointed out that the Greek word for “joined” means “glued.” We are to be glued to the Lord and then we become one spirit. Contrary to the meaning of the Greek words in this verse, Mr. Lee said that we were a mingled spirit with the Lord, and, once mingled, could not be separated.
With the understanding that “joined” means “glued” (since it is the same Greek word in verse 16), I hope you can see that “one body” and “one flesh” in verse 16 should not be taken literally to mean that husband and wife become some new symbiotic, mingled entity. Instead, when a person is gluing himself to a harlot, that person is only becoming physically united with another person into what the Bible refers to as one body, one flesh. |
The discussion between Igzy and I focused on whether the term “one flesh” used in Genesis and by Paul in 1Cor 6 is to be taken literally or figuratively. I am stating that this word is clearly presented as a plain word by Paul and Paul interprets the word in Genesis spoken by God as a plain word.
To jump from the term “one flesh” to a definition of “a symbiotic relationship of genetic material with a person’s body” is not something that I did.
What I did do was argue that the word should be taken literally and I provided various views on how the two bodies of a husband and wife do “become one flesh”. If you don’t want to discuss the science then my argument is simple: this word is not given figuratively but should be understood literally.
The example that Igzy gave of the Lord’s table is a word that I also believe should be taken literally, however, the Lord is giving us a plain word on what the significance of the sacrament that He is establishing means. So the bread and wine are figuratively the Body and blood of Christ, not literally.
A third example was the use of the “one spirit” in 1Cor 6. Paul’s use of the joining of husband and wife as an analogy of how the human and divine spirit’s “become one” is figurative.
I do not wish to enter the discussion on “the mingled” spirit. I would say that I agree with Jane that the idea that tea is mingled and can no longer be “unmingled” is false.
The “mingled spirit” is WL’s attempt to explain what is going on. I did not try to explain what “one flesh” means. Personally I believe that because of the context, the transmission of STD’s and the creation of new strains of organisms as a result of the union of a man and woman must be part of what is meant. This is also where the analogy of “mingling” being something that cannot be undone would actually be true.
I have read the discussion about being joined equaling “being glued”. I don’t buy this argument for several reasons. You could tell me that a man and woman are joined together in sex, you could even in some circumstances describe them as being “glued” together. But we think of “glued” as joining inanimate things together, like making a chair. If I “join” a branch to a tree (another analogy used by Paul) then it is quite different from joining pieces of wood together to make a chair.
So then I don’t presume to know what “one flesh” means. I do feel I understand in part, but not in whole. I am interested in others, like WL, attempting to explain what this means. I see the shortcomings in their explanations, but I consider the effort more profitable than just telling people ‘this is not to be taken literally, nothing to see here, move along’. To me the “Bad Lee” was not in teaching the “mingled” spirit, but in prohibiting a free and open discussion.
(P.S. I did send the email to register)