And The Two Shall Become One

The concept of marriage is more or less man made and the physical nature of it is more along the lines of something trivial while the whole concept of it just barely breaches the intended connotation.

Adam and Eve were not put here to stand in front of some priest and say meaningless vows then coexist together in an abusive relationship in which neither were supportive or interested in tending to the needs of the other because they knew nothing about each other. But rather there is a spiritual sort of uniting type thing in which something along the lines of the two "actually" become one in nature, spirit, and soul type thing is going on, and this is getting really deep. But yeah. And no earthly priest can do that.

The twin flame sites tend to say that one may never get through the twin flame process of spiritual enlightenment but that is false. It's actually just a spiritual process that God puts you through and they are making it into some paganistic ritualistic type crap.

This is how it really works:

"In Gen 2.18-23 we have the account of the creation

of the woman for the man. Strictly speaking, this

narrative is not an account of the marriage of the

first man and woman but of God’s work in creation.

The subject of marriage is brought up in the decree of

v 24: “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” Creation is God’s act while marriage is the act of union between the man and the woman. Since we are concerned with the subject of marriage, we will begin with the decree of v 24 to get at a biblical definition of marriage. Then we will go back to the creation narrative that leads to this decree to see how marriage fits in with the doctrine of man.

We are focusing on the fact that Jesus defined marriage solely by Gen 2.24 and did not allow any subsequent legislation change the nature of marriage. For Jesus marriage was not a legal procedure. It was the act of union under the decree of the God who made male and female.

In 1 Cor 6.16 Paul clearly sees sexual union as the act of union in Gen 2.24 when he says that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her and quotes Gen 2.24 in support for this. Paul does not regard the act of going to a prostitute as constituting a marriage, but he sees the act of marriage in Gen 2.24 as the act of sexual union. When the Bible says that two shall become one flesh, more is meant than what we would mean by the phrase, physical union. The word, flesh, in Gen 2.24 takes up the term Adam used to describe the woman when he said that she was flesh of his flesh. The idea here is that she was of the same nature as he was. In the Bible, man is flesh. The word flesh does not refer to the physical part of man in separation from his spirit or soul. Without spirit there would only be dust and man would not be flesh. Man as flesh includes his spirit and soul because he is living flesh due to having spirit and in being a living soul. The word flesh refers to his entire nature. The biblical understanding of man as flesh shows that the sexual union is not simply a union of two bodies as if the bodies were separate from the souls of the two persons. Such an unbiblical view of the sexual act was behind the Corinthian view of fornication. They saw sexual activity in the way they regarded food and the stomach (1 Cor 6.13). What we eat does not define who we are. The food passes through. The resurrection body will not be sustained by food that is produced from the ground and so will not have our present digestive system. The Corinthians applied this logic to the question of sexual activity and reasoned that sexual union does not affect the person. In God’s view, a human being is never defined apart from his body. Even in the state between death and resurrection, the soul is still defined by its identity in the body, i.e., who the person was and what he will be in resurrection.

Paul appeals to Gen 2.24. Sexual union does not just involve the sexual organs (which we will not be needed in the resurrection, Matt 22.30). It involves the flesh or the body and so involves the whole person. Genesis 2.24 shows that sexual union involves one’s identity. Paul refers to this union of two as one body in Eph 5. 28-31. He gives the practical application of the idea that two are one flesh as follows: “So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church” (vv 28-29). The man’s love of his own body is his love for himself. He is to love his wife as his own body even as Christ loved the church, and this love is no mere love of “the physical shell” of the soul. It is a love of the whole person.

The full force of Gen 2.24 is pointed out by Jesus in Matt 19. 5-6. It is the decree of the creator by which God joins the two together to become one flesh. Genesis 2.24 is treated as the creator’s word as stated in Ps 33.9: “For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.” Every couple that is joined in marriage becomes one flesh under this decree of the creator. A marriage is not made by a religious minister or by the law of the land. It is not even made by the vows that the groom and bride make to each other. Biblically, a marriage is made by the creator’s decree.

When Jesus said that what God has joined together no one is allowed to separate, he pointed out that this decree stands over the two who are joined under it.

In other words, the work of God through his word stands over the will of the two who are joined by that word. This makes marriage a covenant union. In the OT a covenant is a word or declaration that binds two parties together, and this word is held by God and stands above the will of the person’s bound together. The bond by the covenantal word is thus sacred. The covenantal language is used for marriage in Prov 2.17 and Mal 2.14. Proverbs 2.17 says that the adulterous woman “forgets the covenant of her God.”

The language does not suggest the vows she made to her husband. Rather, it has the weightier sense of the marriage covenant that God established under which she got married. In seeking a sexual relationship with a young man, this older woman has forgotten that she was bound by the covenant of God to the “companion of her youth” (v 17), i.e., the man she married when she was young. By calling the marriage bond the covenant of God, Proverbs hints at the covenant curse on the covenant breaker. Malachi calls a man’s first wife his companion and his wife by covenant (Mal 2.14). The prophet says that the Lord is witness between the man and the wife of his youth, and sees the man’s act of divorcing his wife as dealing treacherously against her. Here we get the clear sense of the man and woman entering a covenant with each other of which God is the witness and the one who will punish the covenant breaker. But, Malachi does not suggest that the covenant consisted of vows made. There is no indication in the Bible of formal vows being exchanged in the making of a marriage. If we stick with the biblical view of marriage, we will understand the prophet’s words as pointing to the fact that the act of sexual union was consciously carried out as a conscious act entering into the covenantal union of marriage. That marriage was a deliberate act of forming such a union is seen throughout scripture. If vows were not ceremoniously spoken, a sacred commitment or oath was made implicitly as the two enter the covenantal relationship.

The Bible knows of sexual unions that are not marriages (such as prostitution, fornication, adultery and concubinage). Paul in 1 Cor 6.16 states that such an act takes place under the decree of Gen 2.24, but it is not carried out as an act of entering a covenant. The act of marriage is thus abused.

The first account we have of a marriage in the Bible is the narrative of the marriage of Isaac and Rebekah in Genesis 24. The marriage itself took place in the simplest manner possible. It says, “Then Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent, and he took Rebekah, and she became his wife, and he loved her.”

Isaac took Rebekah into the privacy of the tent in the public space, i.e., within Abraham’s rather large household. The fact that he took her to be his wife shows that the two united as a covenantal act.

The reference to Sarah’s tent in Gen 24.67, receives an interesting echo in the Song of Solomon. The bride wants to marry her lover and wishes to take him to her mother’s house and into the room where her mother conceived her (3.4; 8.2). In the end, however, the groom takes her to the place where his mother gave birth to him (8.5). In this song of marital love, marriage is the act of union in the place of one’s birth, in home.

In Genesis 1, after God completed each creative work he looked at what he had made and said that it was good. Now in Gen. 2.18 for the first time and only time God said that something was not good. God did not say that the man he created was not good but that his state in being alone was not good. This means that only in the creation of the helper is everything good. The narrative thus puts focus on the human need for relationship.

Mankind alone was created in the image of God, and this gave mankind rule over animals. In the language of Ps 8.6, God put animals under his feet. This uniqueness of man in creation is indicated in Genesis 2 by the different ways in which Adam and the animals were created. God breathed the breath of life (the spirit) directly into Adam, whereas the animals were simply formed from the ground. Adam has the spirit of life in a way that raised him above the animals and gave him an intimate relationship with and closeness to God. As a living soul he stood above the animals and so was alone.

Once Adam established by his naming exercise that indeed in the garden and among animals he was alone, God proceeded to form the woman as the suitable helper. The way he named her shows that she was that helper “according to what was before him.” Adam did not simply give the woman a label. One might add that any man who wants to comprehend a woman under a simple label has a complex problem. Perhaps women are better described in poems rather than in names, and Adam had the innocence and intuition to do this. He described her for what she was in relation to him. Adams poetic description points out three things about this relationship. First, by calling her flesh of my flesh, he stated that she was his equal in nature. She was human as he was. This set her apart from the animals and put her alongside him. Second, he observed that she was not only human like him (this is now flesh) but she was human from him (of my flesh). He named her on the basis of this insight. He called her ishah because she was taken out of ish. He gave her a feminine version of the word used for him.

The decree of marriage is based on the way Adam named the woman. This means that to fully understand the relationship we have to listen to Adam carefully. Only as his equal could the woman be a real helper to Adam. If she was any way inferior in nature, she would leave Adam alone. In whatever way she was below him, she would doom him to being alone. But, as his equal, she would help him by delivering him from the lonely state. But, she is not a mere equal. If all that was needed was an equal, God could have created another human apart from Adam and brought this person to him as a companion, friend, and partner. Such a human creature would be as noble as Adam, but for Adam that creature would not be as fascinating as the woman he received. In the woman, God did not simply give another person, a partner. He formed a relationship that was unique to Adam. She was fully human out of him and only him. This means that he saw her as belonging to him in the most profound way.

The husband should love his wife as his own body, as himself, and nourish and cherish his wife as his own flesh. The sense of belonging and love in this is much deeper and even wholly different from the love a man may have for a friend.  It would be a desecration of friendship to treat a friend as your own body. In friendship we have to leave the friend his own identity and independence. But, the marriage bond is different. A wife can never be just a friend because she is something much more profound.

That Eve was taken out of man was Gods doing. But, Adam had his role in the relationship. He named her. And imparted to her an identity from himself. In this he followed up by naming what God did in creating. In the marriage relationship, the man gives to the woman her identity from his own identity, and this means that he gives his all, his life, to her.

The male identity was designed by God to be fully realized in a relationship with a woman, and the feminine identity was designed in the same way. This is a matter of created design. The relational nature is actualized in marriage ordained by God, and here the transaction is not just physical.

Our personal identity is relational so that we are defined within the union.

The marriage union can be sanctified through sexual union but it is not just a sexual transaction. Human beings are different from animals. Animals have sex in order to procreate but the bible does not say that two animals shall become one flesh. They have a sexual drive, but they do not have the kind of love that makes for human marriage.

When discussing the decree of marriage, we noticed that a man and woman become one flesh under the decree of God. The physical aspect of sex in itself could not bring about the mysterious union of marriage.

The union made through the sexual act transcends the physical side. This is not left solely to the objective fact of the creators decree. Human beings are created with a kinship with God and have transcendence over the physical world. This enables them to rule the world. It also means that what they do with their bodies they also do with their spirits and in their relatedness to the divine. This is seen in the dynamics of love that encompass the sexual union. Adam does not simply copulate with the woman created for him. He pauses over her and evaluates, describes, names, celebrates her and gives her an identity: in short he loves her.

Behind the human words expressing love in momentary exhilarating terms is the abiding word of God that gives the commitment of love a status that is not limited to the human experience of love."

**Marriage is not a formal doctrine created by man.

It is a gift from God.

Eden is the paradise/utopia mentioned in the biblical scriptures. We were created to live in this paradise/utopia, but Satan came and beguiled man to fall into sin. But God sacrificed for us and sent His spirit so that we may overcome the wiles of the wicked one and thus receive His kingdom thus experiencing heaven on earth. We were all intended to experience this heaven on earth therefore we are all seeking this love/Eden.

Love= Fellowship with God.

Sin= Fellowship with Satan.

In the fall of man Adam and Eve chose to listen to Satan… instead of God. Which altered their existence-- which was to live a euphoric life with God. One of the ways they were created to do this was through the fruit of the spirit... with love as the greatest of these.

Adam and Eve were created to live in a paradise/utopia. Satan essentially corrupted this in swaying them against God/their provider. As a result all mankind lost the desire for the fruit of the spirit which was the only path to self realization and true happiness with God.

The relationship that God intended for Adam and Eve can only be realized through divine love. The type of love expressed through Christ' sacrifice for His people. But because of the fall of Adam and Eve this is rarely experienced on earth the way God intended. Most people do not choose the fruit of the spirit over the temptation of sin.

When I say marriage is a gift from God I’m not referring to a legal marriage. I’m referring to the bond between a man and woman... because such a bond does exist. It’s just most people do not have the ability to love the way they are supposed to because of Satan’s influence. So in effect they never experience that bond with the person God created for them...

.. if two that were created for each other ever unite on earth it is a result of divine love... they would have chosen it above all else.

I never used to understand what it meant when I heard that God is love. Because I had always perceived love as a feeling. But I recently started to understand it.

When we love someone we must be "following our heart" per say… but what are we doing when we listen to our heart? We’re listening to God/our conscience. The way Adam and Eve should have… because if they had there would be no such thing as sin.

But Christ defeated sin/Satan on the cross. Satan's entire scheme to prevent us from obtaining Eden was obliterated the minute we received the Holy Spirit as the Holy Spirit is not subject to Satan/sin. And now because of the Lord's sacrifice we are redeemed in Him so that if we desire the fruit of the spirit and we choose it we can now experience the fullness of His love here on earth the way we were intended.

Priscilla 22.02.2016 14:40

Love this, thank you

Angela 22.08.2015 16:48

I like how you break this down. I have a story for you that I would like your insight on.

I'm a very confused soul.