Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
Unfortunately for that argument, the NT was written in Greek, not English. Flesh in the Bible usually means one of three things.
- The human body.
- Humanity.
- Fallen humanity.
It never means meat. The word became flesh means the word became humanity, not the word became meat. |
In the NT I was under the impression that the word flesh always carried the idea of fallen or sinful. So if it is referring to "the human body" it would include the idea of sin. So, to become "one flesh" can also mean that the two bodies now carry the same corrupting influence.
The word flesh also, in my understanding, does not carry a spiritual connotation whereas the word Body can. The word flesh always refers to something you can touch and see, whereas the word Body does not. If God had said "they become one body" then clearly He would be referring to something we can't see. In that case a spiritual or relational interpretation would be much better supported.
My point was that you should not substitute the word "Body" for "flesh". The word flesh carries a distinct ("biblical") meaning. For someone who seems so clear on following key principles in deciphering the Bible it is strange to me that you would so easily overlook the substitution of the word Body for flesh. You even appear to be justifying its use in your post?
Secondly, the context of 1Cor is clearly using this word of the two becoming one as a plain word to prove there is a lasting and permanent damage done to your flesh in joining to a prostitute (you are sinning against your own body). This lasting and permanent damage has subsequently been proven scientifically. The unknown is not that a visit to a prostitute will leave an indelible mark on your flesh, what is unknown is if this is the only mark that it will leave.
There are many ways to make two things "one". If both bodies now carry HIV would that make them one? Certainly that understanding would be in line with Paul's condemnation of fornication and the reason he gave.