a scripture study brought to you by textman & the gospel of mark:

ONE FLESH :
The Interpretation of a Jesus Wisdom-Saying

The Selected Texts:

BUT FROM THE BEGINNING OF CREATION
MALE AND FEMALE HE MADE THEM.
ON ACCOUNT OF THIS A MAN WILL LEAVE
THE FATHER OF HIM AND THE MOTHER,
AND HE WILL BE JOINED TO THE WIFE OF HIM,
AND THE TWO WILL BE ONE FLESH.
FOR THIS REASON THEY ARE
NO LONGER TWO BUT ONE FLESH.
THEREFORE WHAT GOD JOINED TOGETHER,
DO NOT LET MAN SEPARATE.
[Mark 10:6-9 / NGEI]

k

So God created man in his own image,
In the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
[Gen 1:27 / RSV]

k

Therefore a man leaves his father
and his mother, and cleaves to his wife,
and they become one flesh.
[Gen 2:24 / RSV]

CONTENTS:
.
Part One: Biblical Interpretations
.
1. What is the One-Flesh?
2. Historical-Criticism: What is It?
3. The Saying & The Scribe
4. Synoptic Scholars on Mk & Mt
5. Other Interpretations
6. A Buddhist Exegesis
7. Torah Scholars on Genesis
.
Part Two: Theological Interpretations
.
8. Dubarle on Love & Fruitfulness
9. Fecher on 'Man, Woman & God'
10. Beyond Genesis
11. The Greatest Song
12. The Heart of the Matter
13. Pulling It All Together
.
End-Notes
Works Cited

Part One: Biblical Interpretations 

"To be real Christians, we ought to see everything through the eyes of Christ" (Fecher 1).

    This study is a search for the hidden meaning within a particular Jesus-Saying. It is also an incomplete sketch of the history of the Church's response to this Saying as found in the secondary literature of biblical studies. This brief essay also represents a hybrid genre of research-exposition papers. It is not so much a survey or sampling of some of the available scholarship pertaining to our inter-related selected texts as it is a determined search for the wider meaning of a somewhat mysterious teaching. Our focus is to uncover the vital essence concealed within the opaque words. Let us first observe the way scholarship handles our Markan verses. In general, the New Testament scholars view them through the lens of the surrounding (Matthean parallel) pericope, which firmly places the Saying at the heart of the so-called 'divorce controversy'.

     Now this is an obvious and valid procedure, of course, for Mk 10:6-9 is not an independent and complete unit, but rather v.5-9 are part of a dialogue involving any number of people. And any number of themes: Moses and Torah, justice and sin, divorce and adultery, honor and equality, command and creation, love and selfishness, sex and passion, etc. Thus most NT scholars ascribe Mk 10:1-12 to the post-Fall (of Jerusalem) Church (and so tend to prefer Matthew's text); even though the patchwork quality of v.1-12 suggests a gathering of sources-carefully-edited. This may be taken to mean that the core of the pericope was once an original wisdom saying stemming from Jesus of Nazareth. Moreover, the Pauline evidence also suggests that this Saying (one of the rare few on this topic) was already both widely known and authoritative in the pre-Fall Church. In any case, those few scholars who focus on Mk 10 without deliberately importing Mt 19 rarely venture beyond the cramped confines of the theology-of-marriage; although most do not neglect to mention where the quoted LXX verses can be found.

     The Genesis scholars, for their part, are quite content with the complex creation-myth narratives in hand; and so they rarely, if ever, mention Mk10/Mt19, and are not about to set forth 'the mind and attitude of Christ' toward these two well-loaded verses. Beyond biblical studies as such, theologians, psychologists, sociologists, and many others approach the topic of human sexuality from a wide variety of assumptions and perspectives . . . Accordingly, the extra-biblical literature is immense in both volume and scope. Occasionally they will bring various related Bible texts for inspection and interpretation; but very few will attempt an exhaustive analysis of everything that the Bible teaches about sex. And with good reason, for it actually says quite a lot. This abundance of relevant passages, along with the particular concerns of the canonical, historical, theological, and scientific points of view, encourages a carefully selective treatment of the texts (eg. in his book, Fecher does not even bother to mention the Song of Songs), as well as very particular hermeneutical handlings of those texts happily chosen.

     Now Fecher suggests that the most valid interpretive strategy is one that aims to recover the mind and attitude of Christ: "... starting with the Christ of the Gospels and attempting to follow that trail into a territory that has been (if anything) over-explored and intensively mapped-out. A territory which can nonetheless stand a fresh look, a look through the eyes of Christ" (Fech 3). In other words, books on sexuality and marriage abound exceedingly, but none view all the relevant Scripture passages from a consistently Christo-centric hermeneutical vantage point.

     Of course, one might suppose that placing Scripture within the context of Jesus' life and teachings would be simple and easy for Bible scholars, theologians, and indeed any interested Christian writer; but NO! Always there is the risk of reading too much or too little into the text, depending on what we wish to find (or not find) there. Always there is the danger of moving away from the red-hot and razor-sharp point-at-the-center, and getting lost in the myriad minor details. Alas, it is all too easy to move from Jesus to Matthew to Paul to the saints and Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Msgr Fecher's good book (ie. Man, Woman, & God) certainly reveals the mind and attitude of Rome, of Church Tradition, and of Augustine; and implies that all this is consistent with, and revelatory of, the mind and attitude of Christ, but we are not so sure that the correspondence is quite that far reaching.

     In fact, there is a great deal of discontinuity and contradiction among Christian writers; and even among the biblical books themselves. Indeed, if even St Paul could confuse and mislead on such a hot-topic as sex (and he certainly did that, on occasion), we can only conclude that not everything that Scripture says on this matter has equal weight! And so, if even Scripture can err, how much more so the saints, sages, bishops, and teachers? When it comes to a topic as broad and powerful, as mysterious and confusing, as human sexuality, common sense and true wisdom together urge that any sensible investigation in this area be both extremely cautious and highly skeptical (eg. about the unsupported claims and assumptions given by the so-called 'experts'). Having thus established a reasonably secure basis from which to proceed, let us turn at once to our quest, and begin at the beginning.

1. What is the One-Flesh?.

    "... and they become one-flesh". Now at first glance this proposition seems not only false, but absurd as well. Two lovers come together, briefly engage in a physical embrace, exchange a few grunts and muscle spasms, and then go their separate ways. It seems perfectly simple and straight-forward. There is no confusion of bodies during sex, or in any other human activity. Indeed, two bodies can never really merge or meld into a unity. ... or can they? Sometimes one result of the intimate embrace is pregnancy. That biological process usually leads to the insertion of a new human being into the world. It begins as an exchange of genetic information whereby each of the parents-to-be contributes an equal amount of all those things that will determine the specific and unique qualities of the new creature (ie. those elements that are 'hard-wired' into the flesh, as it were). The screaming infant which emerges from the mother's womb is nothing less than a full union of two distinct human beings. In their offspring, the parents literally do become one-flesh.

     Now this vision is simplistic, to be sure, but at least, this view is respectful of the biblical anthropology, which sees the human being not as a soul trapped in a prison-body, but rather as an animated body. Flesh is imbued or merged with the divine spirit-life such that we are embodied spirits and enspirited flesh! God breathes his spirit out and into flesh, and "because we are made in the image and likeness of God, love is our very existence, our very reality of who and what we are, our constitution as human beings" (Riga 18).

    But this also suggests that the one-flesh is more than merely a matter of biological reproduction; that marriage and human sexuality are made for more than mere 'fruitfulness' as such. Indeed, the Bible teaches us that a spiritual sexuality is our best means of "opening and possibility of gift to the other in love, for it is only by love that we can touch another human person" (33). All this simply means that a loving intimacy is the divine-human road to true life and authentic personal identity: "Man and woman discover who they are in their encounter with each other, for each other" (35).

     In other words, marriage is not only an equal partnership that protects the honor and well-being of both parties, but is also the primal means and example of a "dependently co-arisen relationship that defines who we are" (Keen 237). It appears, then, that just as the dyad of man and woman has a double aspect, so the one-flesh has a complex dual nature, both physical and spiritual at one and the same time. And this basic fact means that any neglect or over- emphasis on one or the other aspect distorts the full meaning and reality of 'one-flesh'.

2. Historical-Criticism: What is It?.

    The various facets and techniques that fall under the umbrella term 'historical-criticism' highlight different aspects of the text and its situation. This generally allows for an easy answer to the question: What sort of text is it? So before we can ask 'What does the text say and mean?', we must first know what these words are, and where they came from. Form Criticism indicates that our selected verses from the Gospel of Mark were originally a wisdom-saying placed in the mouth of the Lord. It may have been a free-floating Jesus-Saying in the oral tradition for some decades before being placed in its divorce-controversy context by the evangelists.

     Indeed, there is a good possibility that the saying - or something very like it - came from Jesus directly. Now Collins is of the opinion that it is "rather likely that the scriptural reflection found in Mark's version of Jesus' discussion with the Pharisees emanates from the early church rather than from Jesus himself" (90-91). Apparently, this conclusion is based on the observation that the argument assumes a knowledge of the LXX, which, of course, Jesus could not possibly have had. However, we are not much impressed by Collins' historical cynicism, and so we feel free to consider other options and possibilities.

    Redaction Criticism shows that Matthew's parallel account of Mk 10 'corrects and clarifies' and expands the surrounding pericope; thus giving an 'improved' version of the older tradition. One interesting thing to note about our three selected Scripture passages is that there is no overt mention of divorce or marriage anywhere. Another curiosity is that normally we would expect Mt to be the better constructed and more stylistic text, but it is obvious that Matthew's modifying here gets the better of him, and consequently the Saying itself is much clearer and more effective in Mark's version. On the other hand, redaction-criticism and literary-criticism show that the bulk of the saying is a free-paraphrase of words and ideas found in the book of Genesis (LXX), to which is added an emphasis followed by a Commandment.

     On the whole, then, historical-criticism suggests that this Saying may be an authentic teaching of the Lord's, for it is certain that he did not always teach in parables, but rather adapted his teaching methods to suit his audience. Thus to the scribes and Greeks he spoke in Greek; to his neighbors, and to Jews in general, he spoke in Aramaic. For Jesus, Aramaic and Greek were both equally his mother-tongue (one of the little side benefits from growing up in Galilee). In the same way, being situated in Galilee, Jesus' knowledge of the Scriptures would be more influenced by Hellenistic-Judaism than by Judean-Judaism, which makes perfect sense for a knowledgeable and literate Galilean (but not for an illiterate and ignorant country yokel).

3. The Saying & the Scribe.

    The Lord's wisdom saying in Mk 10:6-9 and Mt 19:4-6 is set within the context of divorce in both parallel pericopes (ie. Mt 19:3-12 & Mk 10:2-12). Now Matthew expands and modifies the text of Mark, as is his custom, and these changes are interesting in themselves, and say much about the concerns of the Matthean community. For example, Matthew adds a discussion of celibacy as part of his marriage meditation, something none of the other gospels do. But the way Matthew changes our Jesus-Saying is most curious indeed! This oddity is highlighted by the fact that the bulk of the saying is very similar to his source (ie. compare Mt 19:5b-6 with Mk 10:7-9). Two alterations in the last phrase are worthy of note. Matthew changes Mark's 'man' to 'a man', and Mark's 'not ... separate' to 'not divide'.

     Both of these changes favor the interpretation of the saying within the marriage/divorce context. If Matthew is drawing on Mark's text, Mark, in turn, is drawing on Paul's epistles. In Mk 10:11f Mark even adds a feminist spin to the teaching found in Paul; which is the Apostle's interpretation of the pre-Markan form of our Saying: "But unto the married I give charge, [yea] not I, but the Lord, That the wife depart not from her husband  (but should she depart, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband); and that the husband leave not his wife." [1Cor 7:10-11/ASV] In these verses it is also significant that Paul does not use the word 'divorce', but does use the Greek word for 'to be separated'. In short, Paul and Mark are better witnesses to the original saying than Matthew.[1]

    Most of the changes to the surrounding context come at the start of the pericope where Matthew cuts the references to Moses, and moves them down to follow the saying. He also alters the references to Torah to make it seem that Jesus is quoting God directly, rather than merely Moses (as in Mark). Oddly enough, this small difference is rather significant (cf. Mt v.4 & Mk v.6). In Mark the beginning of the pericope makes it clear that the Torah is, at least in part, a compromise between the will of God and the human-will, and that what the Saying expounds is nothing less than the full and true LAW (ie. divine and natural law). In Mark divorce is neither natural nor according to the will of God. Matthew, on the other hand, does allow some room for human nature (ie. human weakness).

     But the full power of this Wisdom Saying only emerges once we remove it (ie. liberate it) from the surrounding text. Embedded as it is in these awful divorce meditations, it is easy to overlook the small detail that this Saying is not so much about divorce and its legal or non-legal validity, as it is a positive statement about the Male-Female Relationship (which is not automatically equivalent to marriage). In this open-context we can see that what is wrong with divorce is not that it is sometimes necessary or prudent, but rather that it is, of its very essence (as it were), a denial and negation of the divine-natural law of loving and faithful monogamy between two people of different gender (which is the essence of marriage). In other words, marriage is creative (and so of God), whereas divorce is destructive (and so of Humankind). Jesus hammers this point home in the most forceful way possible by quoting a recognized authority; namely Moses, the author of Torah.

4. Synoptic Scholars on Mk & Mt.

    "The climax of the pericope comes with the judgment of Jesus in v.9 ... 'Man' here refers not to lawyers, but to the husband, who alone had the power to divorce his wife. The verb 'divide' (cwrixw) is used in Greek papyri with the special meaning of 'divorce'" (Hook 236). Now what Hooker has done here with Mk is most interesting. First he calls Jesus' commandment a judgment, and then proceeds to change the general phrase 'man must not divide' into the very concrete and specific 'husband must not divorce'. In our view, a Commandment is meant to be general in order to be broad in scope and application. Therefore, changing the obvious meaning of simple words strikes us as taking our hermeneutics in the wrong direction. His views appear to be based on an unfortunate confusion of Mt (divide) and Mk (separate).

    For Mann the "quotations from Gen 1:27 and 2:24 are not meant to make an appeal to a legal decision but an appeal to the true character of human life as God intended it as against legislation based on fallen human nature" (391). This promising observation is unfortunately marred by Mann's understanding of 'man' to refer to the husband (unconsciously importing Mt into Mk?), and by his notion that the LXX quotes reveal God's purpose in marriage. His assumption that Mt preceded Mk is strange, but mostly irrelevant. What is not irrelevant, however, is the impression so often gained from the Bible scholars and theologians that this Genesis chapter two creation-of-woman scene should not be called 'The Creation of Human Being & Sexuality', but rather 'The Creation of Marriage'. The two titles indicate two radically different approaches to the text. The Reader ought ALWAYS to bear this in mind!

    Stock also interprets Mark's saying within the context of divorce/marriage, but he also recognizes that the "setting of the discussion may have been shaped for didactic purposes" (265). He also focuses on the core of the saying: "sarx ... 'The emphasis is on 'one', not on 'flesh'' (R.Schnackenburg). The expression 'one-flesh' should not be made out to mean that the sexual union alone is essential and decisive. ... God made man and woman from the beginning for union in a personal communion" (266). We would be even more impressed with Stock if he had applied this insight to v.9 instead of reverting to the traditional marriage/divorce perspective as soon as possible.[2]

   Now Keck steps close to the central truth with the observation that Jesus transcends the patriarchal-culture's "views of marriage and the family by making marriage an element of the will of God, expressed in creation rather than merely a culturally conditioned contract on the human level" (386). Of course, marriage is precisely a social-contract on the human level, and so Jesus is clearly pointing beyond marriage-as-such to something more basic: namely, the fundamental sexual-social nature of human being given from the beginning (ie. before the institution(s) of marriage came into being).

    Morris's treatment of Mt 19:4-6 is outstanding in many ways. He brings out a picture of Jesus as a rabbi using the rabbinic principle of 'the more original, the weightier' to teach the Pharisees. Jesus appeals to the 'beginning' of Torah to show that divorce was not according to the will of God. The casual marriage and easy divorce that had become the norm were "not what Scripture meant when it spoke of what God did at the creation" (482). Morris very rightly also points to the strong verbs used by Jesus. 'Cleaving' suggests that "man and wife belong together, bound more closely together than any other two persons" (481). This is also what the two 'one-flesh' references point to. As to the question of whether or not 'one-flesh' refers to sexual intercourse, Morris impressively avoids the usual ambiguity: "This refers to the sexual act, which unites husband and wife in the most intimate fashion" (481).

5. Other Interpretations.

    Malina's social-science commentary also interprets our Saying within the context of divorce, but offers some insights that might otherwise be lost: "Under normal circumstances in the world of Jesus, individuals really did not get married. Families did. One family offered a male, the other a female. ... Divorce, then, would entail the dissolution of these extended family ties. It represented a challenge to the family of the former wife and would likely result in family feuding" (240). For Malina, the 'one-flesh' indicates that marriage is not a legal, but a blood, relationship, and these cannot be dissolved. This implies that Jesus' objection to divorce is based on the idea of the primacy and unbreakableness of blood relationships; an idea that the Lord elsewhere repudiates. But in the matrix of the extended paternal family it is worth noting that the most intense cross-gender relationship is that between brother and sister. Moreover, the "husband-wife relationship does not supersede the intense relationship between brother and sister" (242). Now this is certainly contrary to the intent of our Genesis verses, and contrary to the teaching of the Lord also. Indeed it is hard to see that Jesus would even approve of the normal practice of treating a new wife as a stranger in her husband's home.    . . .

Jesus was and remains very counter-cultural!

    Joanna Dewey applies the feminist 'hermeneutics of suspicion' to the gospel of Mark, and thus brings out some overlooked aspects of the divorce pericope in which our wisdom-saying is embedded. She makes the point that "Jews and pagans alike understood women (and children) basically as property" (Fior 491). The Lord's response to the Pharisees' question denies men the right to end marriage on a whim; but this is not "an unconditional prohibition of divorce for all times, the statement rather makes marriage a more equal institution in its first-century context" (491). This equality is further emphasized by Jesus' remarks on adultery, wherein for "both men and women divorce and remarriage are adultery" (491). For Mark, then, women are full and equal participants in the new community: "Women are equal in marriage; adultery applies to both sexes; there is no double standard" (493). While all of this is doubtless correct, and important to know, it does not much help us get at the heart of our Saying.

    Meanwhile, a more spiritually oriented reading reaches a more Platonic sort of conclusion: "To the Hebrew mind [one-flesh] did not merely suggest sexual and bodily union, but the merging of the whole human being into the other." Now this view is rather extreme (it seems to us), for such a state of total mutual-being would necessarily exclude the mysterious (which is a vital aspect of the gender-encounter). On the other hand, there is no doubt that Trilling knows what Jesus is trying to say here: "God did not create man to be isolated; he created man and woman to need each other so much, to be made for each other so much that they yearn to become one once more instead of two. The force of sex and the longing for personal completion is so strong that it overcomes the links of blood relationship" (346). VERY FEW have paraphrased Jesus' message so succinctly and accurately! If we wished to be optimistic, we could also add that 'love conquers all'. Thus, in some ways, Trilling's interpretation is more useful and insightful than the others; insofar as a more spiritual orientation at least sets our investigation on the right track.

    A psychological interpretation understands 'the hardness of your hearts' (Mt 19:8) to mean ego-centricity, for "it is always our Ego which interferes with love and marriage and family life. ... Ego-centricity is the suicidal poison of all sexual relationships, inside and outside of marriage" (Kunk 210). Now Kunkel's interpretation is very promising, and even leads to the observation that modern marriage is "an endless struggle between selfishness and love. The original essence of man-woman relationship, to be 'one-flesh', has become a remote ideal. To reach it would mean to reach the kingdom of heaven" (210). Unfortunately, Kunkel does not use these insights to illuminate the meaning of our Saying, but he has nevertheless managed to take a big step beyond the limits of most other NT scholars.

6. A Buddhist Exegesis
"Mark is not a world-denying gospel, but a preparing of the way of the Lord" (Keen 29)..

    Keenan's commentary on Mark is unusual and radical in many ways! ...  And therefore requires some explanatory set-up in order to grasp what he is saying about any given passage. This is largely because his approach involves both a Mahayana reading, and a very scholarly exposition, at one and the same time. Simply because it is THAT sort of book, it is veritably overflowing with jargon and multi-lingual code-words that could very easily alienate the casual Christian reader. This also means that just translating Keenan's ideas into plain English is an inherently risky enterprise. It is worth going to all the bother, however, because Keenan's Buddhist-deconstruction reading is the best thing to hit Markan studies in many decades. Consequently, we must take a rather roundabout route to chapter ten.

     Now Keenan adopts the Mahayana philosophy as the best reading grid for handling the Markan rhetoric of indirection and irony. "Such a reading is deconstructive in the extreme, tearing down any fixed textual stability, maintaining that truth is empty of any fixed essence, and in the final analysis [is] beyond the grasp of discriminative thinking" (5). This implies a recognition of the fundamental significance of the concept/reality called 'emptiness': "Emptiness means not that things simply do not exist, but rather that nothing has any firm and fixed essence" (7). But emptiness is not purely destructive, for it goes hand in hand with 'dependent co-arising' since both realities are simultaneously present in the text (as in the cosmos at large).[3] In fact, the "sword of emptiness cuts both ways: to undermine all attempts to erect an absolute viewpoint of signified reality, and to disallow the [complete] deconstruction of conventionally constructed viewpoints" (8).

    One of the insights gained from this seemingly irrational hermeneutical program is that we - as readers and interpreters - "cannot separate the context of the text from its inner message" (11). Part of this context includes the reader, and the reader's response to Jesus. This response involves an internal change of heart that is expressed in external actions. The Gospel draws the reader into the unfolding drama such that s/he joins with Jesus as he travels along the way of his Journey: "Mark is a story about practicing the way, about the conversion of consciousness that enables that practice to occur" (40). Another insight gained is that the ultimate meaning of Mark cannot be spoken: "... for there is no literal, propositional grasp of the silence of ultimate meaning" (13). In the same way, Mahayana teaching "points beyond itself to that which is not said, and indeed cannot be said apart from realization in concrete practice. And that concrete practice is not an uncovering of ancient intentions, but an always decidedly modern engagement in living the middle path" (16).

     In a Mahayana reading of Mark, then, Jesus is the very embodiment of the Middle Path. Hence the importance of the affirmation that Jesus is still going before us to Galilee.[4] Thus the middle path should be understood "in terms of the identity between emptiness and dependent coarising, the differentiation of the two truths of ultimate meaning and worldly convention, and the three patterns of consciousness" (25). Basically, all this just means that we, like Jesus, have not arrived anywhere, but are always 'on the way'. Mark ends as it begins; having come through the Journey and the Passion, we arrive back at the starting point: preparing the way, and making straight paths for the Lord. These then are the main elements that guide a Mahayana reading of the first and greatest Gospel.

    When Jesus leaves Galilee, and sets out for Jerusalem, his first encounter along the way is with some curious Pharisees who wish to know Jesus' views on the Law as it pertains to divorce. But instead of entering into "the framework of the current religious debate", Jesus deconstructs the basic assumptions underlying the entire debate by denying the idea of marriage as "a coming together of two individuals". "What Jesus questions is the very idea of an individual self who might enter into or leave a marital relationship with another individual self" (235). Rather, Jesus affirms the Genesis teachings where one-flesh refers to the "one common body of a married pair". The primacy of the man/wife relationship forces men and women away from the parent-child relationship in favor of the stable identity-in-dyad that overcomes the basic isolation and desolation of self. The dyad should not be easily destroyed, for this shows disdain for the fundamental font of true humanity (and contempt for the Creator), and wrongly assumes that "the individual could establish a fixed identity apart from human relationships" (235).

    The reality of one-flesh precedes and supersedes the ubiquitous hardness of heart. It arises "before the advent of fixed notions about an individual self. Thus Jesus recommends a recovery of that primordial relationship by an abandonment of hardened fixations upon self-definitions"; ie. the clinging to false views, images, and ideas concerning the 'reality' of an independent self (235-6). This means that marriage is "not a partnership or an agreement between consenting adults, but an evolution from selfhood into the intimacy of a life-affirming and shared, other-dependent (not co-dependent in the psychological sense of individuals living off of one another) life together.

     The Pharisees talk about the legal questions of divorce. Jesus talks about what constitutes a person" (236). The one-flesh is thus the primal created means of establishing our basic (selfless) humanity in the image and likeness of God, as it was intended from the very beginning. Clearly, focusing attention on the individual, and his or her rights and duties as pertaining to marriage or the various valid reasons for divorce, completely bypasses the central intent of Jesus' teaching. It may seem odd to us, but perhaps It should not be too surprising that a Buddhist approach should bring us closer to the heart and mind of Jesus than the more 'objective' and scientific' hermeneutics favored by Christian scholars.

7. Torah Scholars on Genesis

"The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so Practice & Observe whatever they tell you " [Mt 23:2-3].

  As we have seen earlier, the New Testament scholars generally treat the selected text from within the context of the divorce- controversy pericope as a whole. It may be that there is not much else for them to say about this odd handful of words, simply because most of the saying is an LXX-type paraphrase of a few lines from the Torah's creation narratives. Now the three verses of Genesis referred to here (1:27; 2:24; 5:2) are most interesting, but our Matthean and Markan scholars do little to enlighten us about them. For this we must turn to the Genesis scholars themselves.[5]

  Thus Wenham has some interesting comments on 2:24: "'And sticks to his wife.' This phrase suggests both passion and permanence should characterize marriage. ... The use of the terms 'forsake' and 'stick' in the context of Israel 's covenant with the LORD suggests that the OT viewed marriage as a kind of covenant" (71). This serves to reinforce from below the mutuality of 'I-Thou' relationships between people, as between people and God, once again suggesting that the human being is indeed an image of divinity, and so is very good. Also, Wenham's understanding of 'they become one-flesh' is most curious. He says that this phrase affirms a "kinship relation between man and wife. They become related to each other as brother and sister are" (71). Of course, this statement only makes sense within the specific cultural context of ancient Palestine.

  "And God said, 'Let us make Man in our image, after our likeness' ..." Gen 1:26a). Now 'Man' or 'Adam' is a generic term indicating all humankind. Sarna also notes that God's double declaration here "emphasizes the incomparable nature of human beings and their special relationship to God" (12). This means that humanity is the symbol of God's presence and life on earth. As to v27, Sarna observes that "Human sexuality is of a wholly different order from that of the beast" (13). While sex is blessed by God (in v28), and therefore sacred, the Torah views sexual perversion "with abhorrence as an affront to human dignity and as a desecration of the divine image in man" (13).

  2:24 is the final and culminating verse in the story of the creation of woman (2:18-24). Creation is completed only with the appearance of woman, and the story begins with God recognizing her necessity: "It is not good for man to be alone; I will make a fitting helper for him." Two ideas emerge from this verse: the human is a social being, and the human is a sexual being. This could be taken to mean that autonomy and celibacy are not good because they are both contrary to the will of God and nature (eg. celibacy means never having to say 'I love you' so as to really mean it).

  Now the creation of woman out of man's rib is a male fantasy intended to place men in the primary position vis a vis God. Moreover it is a blatant contradiction and repudiation of the order of nature where all men are in fact created out of the bodies of women. But the mythical account is not so much concerned with the primacy of the male, as with the nature of the female. The symbol of the 'rib' denotes both intimacy and necessity: "The rib taken from man's side thus connotes physical union and signifies that she is his companion and partner, ever at his side" (22).

  This intimacy and commonality between male and female (or more specifically: between man and wife) is the source of "the mystery of physical love and the intense emotional involvement of male and female"; and also "explains why his bond to his wife takes precedence over his ties to his parents" (23). In other words, the male-female relationship is the most basic and fundamental form of community, and is even stronger than blood relationships (ie. kin). Love, we might say, is thicker than blood.

  Thus Man 'clings to wife, so that they become one-flesh.' Prior to this still mysterious 'clinging' the two are not one-flesh. This latter is something that only emerges out of the love-relationship itself. It has nothing to do with marriage or society, or laws and covenants, or customs and habits and fashions. The 'one-flesh' refers to sexual intercourse which serves as a symbol for the holistic unification of two otherwise separate and distinct entities. In this union the male and female do not blend into one being and so cease to be individuals; they do not become one mind or one person, but rather, individuality is transcended in the creation of a new and greater thing (ie. the dyad).

  The 'one-flesh' therefore emphasizes that the dyad is the greater reality. Sarna puts it this way: "Sexual relations between husband and wife do not rise above 'he level of animality unless they be informed by and imbued with spiritual, emotional, and mental affinity" (Sarn 23). The next verse (2:25) only underlines the innocence and dignity of human sexuality. 5:1-2 summarizes the earlier verses, and stresses that God not only created human sexuality, but approved it (ie. God blessed them and named them).

  Now Plaut points out that the Hebrew word for 'woman' is derived from the Hebrew word for 'man'. In the same way, the rib-scene in the story indicates that woman is herself derivative. But this does not mean that she is simply a female counterpart or doppleganger, but rather a necessary part of his structure as 'man'. "The Torah tradition is frankly male-oriented ... [and] does not see man and woman as equals." Woman was made for man, and Yahweh tells us why: "The words, 'It is not good for man to be alone', speak about man's greatest need.

  The creation of woman becomes in effect the beginning of man's social history; man is able to fulfill his destiny completely only as a social being. Aloneness, in turn, is man's primary helplessness" (31). Oddly enough, Plaut has nothing to say about the 'one-flesh' clause; but his honest recognition of male primacy would probably tend to dismiss this concept as being largely irrelevant as its essence involves affinity, equality, and complementarity as the vital core of the male/female dynamic (as opposed to the domination-ideology of superior/inferior).

  Regarding Gen 1:27 Fretheim states that the 'image' "refers to the entire human being, not to some part, such as the reason or the will". Now 'image' also suggests that the human being is God's designated representative: "That both male and female are so created means that the female images the divine as much as the male ..." (Keck 345). This assumes that a good measure of equality is implicit in the text; but Plaut makes it quite clear that this is not the whole teaching of the Torah. In other words, 'equality' is not a Christian importation as such, but it is certainly a Christian emphasis.

  Also contrary to Plaut, Fretheim interprets the creation-of-woman scene from a feminist perspective, such that he uncovers the "explicit equality of man and woman in the image of God (being created first or last remains immaterial)". In the same way, the "naming entails a difference from but no authority over the woman". He even goes so far as to suggest that the similarity in the sounds (of the Hebrew words for man and woman) 'may emphasize equality'.

  And again: 'bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh' is a phrase that "literally highlights mutuality and equality" (Keck 353). Now it is apparent that Fretheim is reading far too much into the text (Plaut makes it quite clear that Fretheim's vision/interpretation is certainly NOT the teaching of the Torah); but he does make two points worth noting:

  (1) "These verses make no mention of children; rather, the writer focuses on the man-woman relationship, not on the woman as the bearer of children. God's creation values sexual intimacy as being good" (354). Unfortunately, this acute observation is marred by his claim that 'one-flesh' "does not refer to sexual intimacy".

  (2) Fretheim also observes that the rib-scene links with the bone/flesh reference (in v.23), but he misses the fact that the 'one-flesh' reference in v.24 links directly back to both. Indeed, the 'one-flesh' cannot be properly understood without respecting the important inter-connections and mutual associations among all the rib/bone/flesh references leading up to, and including, v.24, the climax of the story. Significantly, this basic literary, rhetorical, and theological feature is often overlooked by both the biblical scholars and the theologians!

  According to Westermann, Gen 1:27 means that the destiny of human beings is to live with each other in community: "This is what human existence means and what human institutions and structures show. Every theoretical and institutional separation of man and woman, every deliberate detachment of male from female, can endanger the very existence of humanity as determined by creation" (160).

  Now Westermann does not mention Mk10/Mt19, but there can be no doubt that he clearly reflects the mind of Christ here; for this is precisely the point that Jesus is emphasizing in quoting from Genesis, and reasoning to the command that 'man must not separate'. So then, 1:27 sets down the basic facts and theology, and prepares for the appearance of 2:24. Here Jesus' emphasis-by-repetition justifies the inclusion of the context (the 'Creation of Humankind' story) into consideration, such that the Yahwist best expresses the mind and attitude of Christ.[6]

  Westermann also observes that marriage has no role in these texts: "It has been said that the narrative [ie. Gen 2] is the foundation of monogamy ... However, it is not concerned with the foundation of any sort of institution, but with primeval event" (232). The significance of the added gloss, v.24, is "that in contrast to the established institutions, and partly in opposition to them, it points to the basic power of love between man and woman" (233).

  Thus the 'one-flesh' does not refer to procreation or sexual intercourse as such, but to the underlying spiritual unity, understood as the most complete personal community. In the same way, the phrase 'the man cleaves to his wife' refers to his entry into a "lasting community of life with her because of his love for her. This does not mean a social state, but a situation of very personal concern, fidelity and involvement" (233-4). This involvement, we should also point out, will naturally include passion, mystery, and romance; all of which are essential elements in the shared reality of one-flesh!

  As can be seen from the brief survey above, the OT scholars are just as selective and varied in their treatment of our Genesis verses as the Synoptic scholars are in their handling of what may well be an authentic Jesus-Saying. What all these scholars seem to have in common is a persistent reluctance to say anything beyond the absolute minimum required (Westermann is a notable exception). It seems this much is necessary because these half dozen verses are THERE after all, and so something must be said.

  Well, it seems to us that Jesus' use and handling of the LXX is just as important as Matthew's use and handling of Mark. Indeed our selected texts show that this latter process is not really all that germane to our investigation. As for the Church's use of these verses down through the centuries, this too is secondary, and the results are anywise reflected in the commentaries we have just seen, and in the various theological interpretations proposed by her many teachers and clerics. Let us turn now to some of these latter approaches to see what light they can shed on our selected verses.

Part Two: Theological Interpretations

   If the heart of Matthew's curious pericope on divorce and celibacy is indeed an authentic Jesus wisdom-saying, is it possible to somehow recover its original force and meaning? The original setting remains hazy, to be sure, but this is unimportant at this stage. The next question to be raised about any verse (regardless of source or setting) is not whether it is true or false, but rather just what exactly does it say, and what does what is said mean! Now the commentators we have seen have not been of much help to us in this regard. At best, they can point us in this or that direction; but they offer little in the way of illumination. In other words, we have no choice but to widen our search for meaning beyond the secondary biblical literature. Well, a reliable theologian is always a good place to begin any open-ended researching.

    So it seems that a fresh approach to this wisdom-saying suggests that it is not about hatred and hardness of heart after all, but rather about love. Now love is the greatest mystery of all. Indeed it is at the very heart of the divine mystery of the Incarnation! So what is it about love that the Lord is here declaring? This is the one question that must arise out of our selected texts. Now Rev Riga wastes no time dancing about, but goes at once to the center: "... and since human sexual activity is an important human activity, it can have no human meaning or significance outside the context of love itself" (Riga 11). He soon goes on to point out that the "question of love is the whole question of the mystery of the human person, because it is the mystery of God himself" (17).

     Hence we are rightly told that 'God is love', and "because we are made in his image and likeness, love is our whole existence" (26). This seems to be the point Jesus is making by emphasizing that 'for this reason they are no longer two'. As to the text of Genesis 1:26-28 and 2:18-24, here "we have the clear teaching that marriage is both an institution for the propagation of the human race as well as a mutual and loving relationship between a man and a woman." The introduction of marriage into the text allows Riga to conclude that both "love and procreation within the text of Genesis are essential if we are to understand the statement that man has been created in the image and likeness of God" (31).

8. Dubarle on Love & Fruitfulness.

  The Dominican Dubarle takes a very specific approach to our selected and related texts. For him, 'love and fruitfulness' are the "two main directives which the Bible sees in the fact of different sexes and the consequent behavior. In the biblical and Christian view, these values are normally realized in marriage" (6). Now all this is quite right, of course, but we are not here interested in the biblical and Christian view of marriage, except insofar as it helps us to an understanding of our wisdom-saying (and the Genesis verses within it). The main question is: Do Dubarle's presuppositions help or hinder us in our quest?

  One of his observations about the author of Genesis is certainly worth noting: "In singling out sexual difference as the notable characteristic above all the other internal differences realized in humanity, the sacred author indicates the importance he attaches to it" (11). This is just so; but Dubarle immediately draws all the wrong conclusions from this fact: "The formula of the first creation account about male and female is concerned first of all with the biological meaning of sexuality: fruitfulness. It says nothing explicitly about the psychological society between man and woman. But it clearly implies their fundamental equality as images of God" (15).

  Now Dubarle's first conclusion is simply incorrect; a careful reading of the verses will show that fruitfulness is little more than an after-thought. As for the rest; he is quite right to point out that very little is explicitly stated; but we are certain that the implications extend far beyond mere equality. But the limits of Dubarle's vision only becomes apparent when he turns to the second creation account. Here Dubarle is loathe to admit that "this account sees the determining reason for woman's creation in the need for companionship'' (16).

  Now nothing could be more contrary to Catholic sex-theology than this brut fact! So does this persuade Dubarle to revise his assumptions? Certainly not. Instead he claims that fruitfulness is simply 'presumed rather than mentioned directly'! Despite such horrendously sloppy thinking, Dubarle does manage to observe a significant element in the story: the text "expresses remarkably the pre-eminent value of the conjugal society over all other social bonds" (17). But, alas, Dubarle has no idea why this is so.

  In his tour through the Bible, Dubarle briefly mentions 'The Song of Songs', which he admits says nothing of fruitfulness, but which again (he claims) implies it. On the other hand, he discusses St Paul at great length. Now a sure sign that are sex-scholar has no idea of the nature of his subject matter is if he quotes with approval Paul's command that "those who have wives should live as though they had none" (1Cor 7:29)!

  In the course of his survey of the relevant biblical literature Dubarle does not neglect Mt 19:3-9. Jesus' reply to the Pharisees, he says, makes the following points: "The distinction of the sexes is the work of God, but so is their stable union in marriage. To dissolve this society would be to go against the will of God" (28). Dubarle doesn't bother to tell us the whys and wherefores of all this; but he does note that Jesus forgets to bring fruitfulness into the discussion. But fear not; Dubarle will gladly correct the Lord on this matter: Jesus "does show that the union of spouses already has a value in itself, even before being blessed with offspring" (29).

  Now Dubarle's overriding concern to import fruitfulness into the biblical text (via a myriad of implications and presuppositions that are supposedly hidden between the lines, as it were) seriously undermines the credibility of Dubarle's survey. Why? Because the abysmal ignorance of human sexuality that we find prevalent in this area of Christian theology is the single greatest motivating force urging sex-scholars to promote the sex-as-biology philosophy that is so much in favor at Rome. The Catholic theology of sex and marriage (the two must always go together!) is hopelessly flawed and tragically inadequate, and will remain so unless and until theologians can get over their reproductive tunnel-vision.[7]

9. Fecher on 'Man, Woman & God'.

    Msgr Fecher affirms that the Bible is its own best interpreter. His study thus pulls together the relevant texts of Matthew, Mark, and Genesis 1-2; as well as Paul's application of these to Christian life (in 1Cor and Ephesians). Fecher also brings in other texts - from the prophets (eg. Hosea), writings, and NT (eg. 1Jn 4:21; Rv 3:15-16) - to support his interpretation; but fails to include any discussion of the Song of Songs. In a study devoted to the biblical texts concerning man, woman and God, this omission is highly significant. The reason for it only becomes clear in the latter half of his book, which focuses directly on the nature and attributes of marriage. The Song, apparently, has nothing to contribute to this topic; and this judgment suggests to us that Fecher's book is not about one-flesh at all, but is simply yet another inadequate 'theological' study of marriage. Within this context, Fecher defines 'one-flesh' by way of the main features of marriage: permanence, exclusivity, and fruitfulness.

    In other words, our texts of Mk10/Mt19 and Gen 1-2 are used to generate an ironclad theology of marriage. Of course, this theology does not arise from the texts as such, but rather is the product of the interpretive grid through which the texts are filtered. Nevertheless, the Msgr is quite right in much of his analysis and reasoning. The main error occurs, I think, from his stress on the idea of One (valid) Model. 'As above, so below' means that Yahweh & Israel, Christ & Church, and Adam & Eve provide us with the structure and features of the one and only sexual relationship between human beings that is recognized, approved and validated by divine and natural law. Put another way, marriage is a biological function reflecting 'traces of the Trinity', and every other expression of human sexuality is a deviant aberration of God's design. This is chiefly because they do not respect the procreative finality and fruitfulness of sex, or the context within which valid sex occurs (ie. the life-long, exclusive and fertile marriage bond). Now all of this flows 'naturally', and quite logically, from an analysis of 'one-flesh' that proceeds from the foundations of Mt 19, the analogical imagination, and a careful selection of supportive texts (rightly understood (ie. according to the priestly vision of all things)).

    So Fecher understands Mt19 as the Lord's rejection of divorce, being grounded upon "the very nature of marriage, the permanent sexual relationship of men and women" (6). In 'following the lead of the Lord', his first step is to go 'back to our origins' (ie. back to Gen 1:27 & 2:24). But Fecher is searching for something very specific in these texts (and their contexts): namely, a theology of marriage. Thus Mt19 and Gen1 "offers us" a consistent theology of marriage, as well as an authoritative model (or pattern) that puts it to practice. Thus Gen2, 'the Second Creation Story', is understood in the light of the First Creation Story. Given the implied primacy of the first account and its affirmation of 'the image of God' as being a participation in the divine procreative activities, we can easily see that permanence and fertility are those attributes of marriage that come first, last, and always.

     The reasoning here is clear: (1) God is the Eternal and Constant Creator; (2) As above, so below (ie. male and female are the image of God); (3) The essence of marriage is permanence, exclusivity and fertility. So when we turn to Gen2, Fecher's argument proceeds from this basis. It runs as follows: Man is created and granted high status, power, and glory. By virtue of his unique 'image' qualities, Man is co-creative maker, and dominant master of the Earth. Oh yes; but - alas - Man isn't happy (and, we might add, it's NOT for lack of children!).

     Now the Maker sees this, and knows what is wrong: "The man needs a mate ... Marriage is natural. A man needs an intimate partner, and a woman needs one too, for she is human" (25). What is said about the man is true of her also. Hence she is 'bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh'. Thus the man 'leaves' and 'clings' and becomes 'one body' [Fecher prefers this term over 'one-flesh'] with the woman, because the "woman comes from man's side, and to his side she returns" (27). In other words: one body (Man) becomes two (male and female), and "now in the marriage union two bodies (husband and wife) again become as one" (28). So the woman "strongly tends to return to his body in the 'clinging' of a sexual embrace which makes them become one again (v.24 and Mt 19:5, Mk 10:7)" (29).

    We can see from these quotes that Fecher seems to have a strangely and excessively literal understanding of the 'one-body': "The act of sex is a passionate attempt at interpenetration, of two bodies occupying the same space, of devouring each other, of assimilating into oneself this other desirable body, of making the two into one" (55). The obvious conclusion to such reasoning is that "sexual intercourse can unite two bodies"; but although it may create 'one-body' (for a fleeting moment), it does not create the 'one-being' (ie. the dyad) that arises from the permanent, exclusive and fruitful marriage bond. What Fecher has apparently done here is to split the meaning of the one-flesh into two components: one-flesh = one-body + one-being.

     There is, of course, a certain logic to this approach: It is "not the act of sex as such that is significant, but the act of sexual union as a statement, a symbol and an expression, of a willed oneness which brings the act of sex about, rather than the act of sex causing the oneness" (64). Now Ephesians 5:28-31 carries this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion: 'Your wife is (an extension of) yourself - basar taken as the whole human being. She is a part of you, like your hand" (31). Now Fecher uses Eph 5:28-31 and 1Cor 6:15-17 to unravel the meaning of 'one body'; but the Ephesians text is simply wrong (especially v.28), and the 1Cor text is both wrong and irrelevant. In our view, little or nothing can be gained by bringing these texts to bear an our selected texts.

    Thus the two accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 are complimentary: chapter one speaks of marriage as fertility, and chapter two speaks of it as companionship. This means that sex is for both making love and making babies; but the Bible does not define which is primary, and which is secondary. Fecher naturally concludes that a valid marriage will uphold both values equally and at the same time, because both are necessary. In our view, however, Fecher is wrong to impose a theology of marriage upon the texts; for this does NOT allow the texts to speak for themselves. He is also wrong to distill the essence of marriage from this and that account, and simply add them together (for the two accounts may not be as complementary as he assumes they are). Again, he is wrong to claim that the Bible does not scale fertility and companionship: the J account is far older, and hence more authoritative (for that very reason); and the Song of Songs clearly awards primacy to the latter by not even mentioning the former (perhaps this is why Fecher ignores it (ie. it does not agree with his priestly view of things)).

    In proposing to examine the topic of sexuality from a fresh perspective (ie. through the eyes of Christ), Fecher first of all takes note that the Christ of the Gospels "seems to have paid surprisingly little attention to the subject at all". This is all the odder when we consider that the subject is such a very broad one: 'sex, marriage, sexual sin'. The few incidents in the Gospels (eg. Mt 5:28; Lk 7; Jn 8) which may indicate a negative view toward sexuality are more than balanced by Mt 21:31, and especially Mt 11:23-24! All this leads to an interesting discovery: "In his teaching, the Lord put the emphasis on faith, forgiveness, and other values. Chastity, or (as they called it a generation ago) holy purity, was hardly given any notice at all" (3). But in the last chapter of his book, Fecher corrects this omission with a brief look at celibacy, and given his Matthean starting point (Mt 19:12), it is not at all surprising that the Msgr should be in favor of it. Indeed, given the parameters and assumptions of his study, it is quite appropriate that the last word about 'Men, Women, & God' should be 'celibacy'. After all, consecrated celibacy and virginity is (according to the priestly vision), our best means of using our common human sexuality 'for the sake of the Kingdom'.

    But this is certainly not the impression given by Genesis! Indeed, for the Yahwist, "sexuality was a gift from God, drawing people from loneliness to relationship" (Kosnik 9). In other words, the "first purpose of sex ... is mutuality, our belonging to one another. When a man clings to his wife and the two become one-flesh (Gen 2:24), their sexual relations" create, strengthen and express a deeper union in love. Thus the one-flesh does not mean 'sexual intercourse' or 'one being', but is a human reality with both physical and spiritual elements (intertwined). Love is a natural-spiritual reality that is made concrete and tangible in the self-giving acts of physical love. Sex without love, therefore, is an abuse of the blessing of human sexuality; and so cannot make the one-flesh that only exists between committed and passionate lovers. In the same way, chastity is simply a denial of sexuality (and its essential necessity) that has no other result than to deliberately separate male and female; which is very contrary to the expressed will of our Lord Jesus Christ.

10. Beyond Genesis

    Having thus traversed a wide spectrum of opinion and judgment from various biblical scholars, theologians, and other interested parties, We are somewhat at a loss as to what we should conclude. Each scholar, each hermeneutical methodology, and every unique insight, perspective and argument contributes valuable information that must be carefully sifted, assessed and evaluated before rendering any final judgment or ultimate conclusion. But Mystery cannot be easily assessed; nor can extreme love be quantified. To what standard can the extreme love of one-flesh be measured against? Only the extreme love of the Cross of Christ; which is beyond comparison in some ways. Nevertheless, Cross and one-flesh both speak to the same realities: mystery and self-sacrifice, passion and commitment, emptiness and fullness, love and spirit, etc. All of our surveyed scholars and sages have something relevant to say to one or another of these cosmic-human realities: sometimes they speak too much, sometimes missing the point, or avoiding the essence of the thing; more often they speak too little, and so cannot get a firm grip on it. In the end, we may suppose that we have overlooked something somewhere, or have failed to properly read between the lines.

     In the Peanuts comic strip (by C.Schulz) there is one episode where Lucy is reading a book. she looks and looks, and then brings the following complaint to Charlie Brown: "I give up ... There's no use trying ... No matter how hard I try, I can't read between the lines!" Lucy here expresses a common characteristic of biblical scholarship in general. And Lucy is quite right, of course. The whole history of the interpretation of our selected verses is very like a long and dangerous attempt to read between the lines. In the battle to wrest the meaning out of the text, oftimes something is lost, and in the end the only real loser is Scripture itself. Now this is most unfortunate, to be sure. Doubly so in light of the hope that the first principle of a sound henneneutic is respect for the text. This means a willingness to listen to the text; to let it speak its own message in its own way. Let us start again, then, because the secondary literature has brought us far; but not far enough. Therefore we should begin by disregarding the secondary literature altogether, and focus fully on the texts at hand. But first, let us ask Lucy to once more clarify things for us.

     In another episode Lucy angrily confronts Snoopy. Her fist is raised in the air, and she declares: "From now on, when I speak, you listen!" Now Snoopy is a good listener, apparently, since he at once lifts his fist in the air, assumes a serious scowl, and proceeds to march about in that fashion. But how shall we do as Snoopy does? Listening to our selected verses only shows that the meaning is objectively uncertain and ambiguous, largely because the key ideas and words are so cryptic, and the key images are symbolic (and therefore ill-defined). However, the transfer of attention from the secondary to the primary may hold the key to our escape from this interpretive dilemma. It is a long established tradition that the best interpreter of Scripture is Scripture itself; but even this procedure can go wrong and mislead us (as Fecher has demonstrated). This is because this foundational hermeneutical principle can be applied in various ways to our Markan wisdom saying. The most common application is to compare the parallel synoptic pericopae, and thus have the gospels shed their light on each other. But this does not help us much here since it inevitably leads us into the marriage/divorce arena of laws, sexual morality, and ethics; and the consequent loss of the deeper meaning within Jesus' message.

     Another approach is to void the synoptic context altogether, and taking the cue from Jesus, to return to the Torah (ie. the prologue to the book of Genesis). The 'Creation of Woman' myth sheds far more light on Jesus' words than the rabbinic controversy context, but it too can only take us so far. From the perspective of interpretive analysis, the Genesis Prologue suffers from some of the same drawbacks as the Saying (ie. symbolic imagery and loaded code-words). It is no wonder, then, that this avenue should also end so often in a cul-de-sac, and leave us wondering where we made the wrong turn. The only other application of this principle is to seek out other passages that speak to similar themes. Since we have identified this Jesus-Saying as an example of the Lord's wisdom, the best place to begin a search for relevant texts will be among the wisdom literature. Once this step is taken, it becomes immediately apparent that there are indeed important passages of immediate value and practical significance.

     The problem is that the Bible has so much to say about love and sex that it is difficult to focus on those passages that are most relevant to the concept/reality of one-flesh. The hardest part is to just pay attention when the Bible says: 'When I speak, you listen.' Dubarle and Fecher, after having exhausted the wisdom of Genesis, quickly find their way to Paul. But asking Paul to help us understand the one-flesh is very like asking an auto-mechanic to 'repair' our sick horse. While Paul is a good witness to the authenticity and authority of our Jesus-Saying, he does not really help us gain a good understanding of it. So where can we turn? Well, Adam's cry of joy upon seeing Eve for the first time finds an echo in Proverbs 5:19: "Let her affection fill you at all times with delight, be infatuated always with her love." Now this text serves us well as a road sign, pointing us in the right direction; gently nudging us toward Solomon's Sublime Song.

     The Song of Songs is, in fact, the best interpretive grid for our selected texts. Indeed, the full meaning of 'one-flesh' can only be seen through the lens of this small book of love poetry. And this should not surprise us; for Mystery and Passion are ill-handled by rational discourse and systematic analysis. This is why the Song itself has the most bizarre history of interpretation in biblical scholarship. Indeed, the Song very nearly missed being included in the canon of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh). But the very fact that these love poems were "collected and form part of the Bible is a sign to the Believing Community that sexuality is essentially a good thing" (Mur'83/p.97). Now this recognition and positive attitude towards human sexuality is also the vital note of continuity between the Song, Genesis 1-2, and Mk 10.[8]

     From the hermeneutical perspective, this continuity is absolutely essential; but the celebration of love, passion and romance between the genders in and  of itself does little to dispel the ambiguity of the 'one-flesh'. On the other hand, the Song has "the power of awakening in the reader unsuspected depths of feeling for the beloved" (97). This deliberate personal involvement is very much in harmony with Mark's intention to fully engage and challenge the reader (another vital element of continuity). Moreover, the Song also provides the interpreter with a powerful language of love (eg. SS 8:6-7) that can, at the very least, provide us with a basic working vocabulary with which to explore, and hopefully chart, this strange new territory.

11. The Greatest Song.

     In his commentary on the Song of Songs, R.E.Murphy challenges the assumption that any "poetry concerned with human sexual love would be unworthy of canonical status", and entirely lacking in theological or spiritual significance. And after pointing out the weaknesses of the allegorical, parabolic and typological expositions of the Song, he goes on to affirm that the OT "provides a coherent frame-work within which one can interpret the Song as expressing a theology of human sexuality" (Mur'90/ p.101). Thus there is no hint in the Song of masculine dominance, and feminine submission, subordination or inferiority. On the contrary, it is the woman's voice that sings the loudest: whereas in Genesis 2:23 we hear only the man's declaration of delight - 'This one now (she) is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh' - in the Song the woman announces the genuinely reciprocal wholeness of identity discovered in mutual enjoyment of physical love: 'My lover is mine and I am his' (2:16) ..." (Mur'90/ p.102).

     But 'one-flesh' is not just mutuality and communion on the physical, emotional and spiritual levels of being. The 'one-flesh' includes all this, of course, but it is more than the intimate personal communion that creates and sustains the dyad. The Greatest Song clearly illustrates that the reality of the 'one-flesh' implies also a kind of 'spiritual presence within physical absence' that only makes sense if the dyad is understood as also involving an ecstatic-union that goes way beyond mere copulation. But an ecstatic-union just doesn't make much sense apart from sex either. The root meaning of 'ecstasy' is to be beside-oneself; so if one is not even with the self, how can one be in union with another separate, isolated, and autonomous self? An ecstatic-union-in-love thus seems to be an impossible paradox; one that can only be spoken of by poets, for its essence is a passionate, self-giving and romantic love that is far too extreme and irrational.

     In SS 8:6 the power of love is compared to the elemental force of fire: "Its flashes are flashes of fire; a flame divine." Now this mysterious verse (often very poorly translated) suggests that the love relationship between Man and Woman in its created fullness and goodness "reflects a divine reality (a flame of Yahweh), and hence one learns both that human love is a participation in divine love, and that divine love can be described and understood in the passionate songs of the Canticle" (Mur'83/p.99). The love poems of the Song of Songs, as well as "the insight of the prophets, suggests that the sexual relationship of human beings somehow reflects a divine reality. The love that they share is a participation in something divine ... " (57). This too must be an important and necessary ingredient in the full reality of the one-flesh.

     Beauty, passion, romance, yearning and satisfaction, pain and pleasure, loneliness and intimacy; all these unmeasurable realities (and more) fall under the shadow of love, and give weight to the concept of 'one-flesh'. Our Lord and Teacher is not here pointing us toward unattainable ideals; as to something which we should strive after, but can never realize. Rather, he is pointing us towards concrete human experiences. His emphatic repetition of 'one-flesh' only underlines the importance and necessity of realizing this extreme and unreasonable love within our own lives. Although he was an unmarried bachelor, Jesus was not shy to practice the ways of extreme love. It was the Way that led him to the Cross, because his beloved was not a lady, but all humankind.

     Now a sexual love-relationship is largely a private affair between two people; but a spiritual love-relationship is a public affair that can be cosmic in scope, meaning, and influence. Through Love & Spirlt Jesus has conquered Time & Death; and so has become 'one-body' with all those who believe on his name. 'One-flesh' does indeed refer to sexual love; but it also points to the underlying spiritual reality that makes us fully human, and binds us all together as Children of our common Heavenly Father. It is the divine-human experience of love in all its glory and mystery, its joy and agony, its beauty and terror, that makes us one-flesh, and gives meaning to all human relationships, and significance to life as a whole.

12. The Heart of the Matter

  True love, and true communio, between any two or two hundred individuals cannot be gained by emphasizing things like mature monogamy, responsible (ie. fruitful) marriage, self-sacrifice for the greater good (eg. the family unit), Church and civil law, social-cultural customs and pressures to conform (or else!), etc etc. This is because love, intimacy and communio do not depend upon any of these things; for all of these are mostly just psycho-social support mechanisms that enter the picture well after the fact. Indeed, modern marriage seems to be merely a public recognition of an already existing communio between these two people.

  In other words, it is a hope, a symbol, and a promise (ie. a sacrament) to continue that communion-in-love indefinitely. But this communion-in-love that is the essence of one-flesh can only exist (and survive) if there is a strong foundation of genuine intimacy on which to build a deeper and wider love. An intimacy that overcomes fear and anger, and false impressions and beliefs in order to reveal a new depth of personal-cosmic meaning, as well as a sense of true recognition and confirmation of one's existence:

"For the Human's basic Drive is Not that of Sexuality ...
But a Will to Meaning and Significance" (Riga 32).

  And this is precisely what being 'one-flesh' means! It does not mean 'procreative copulation', as the divorce context suggests to some of the commentators. Rather, the Hebrew view of man and woman as enspirited-flesh suggests that the union between male and female transcends all physical unions, all social customs, values, ideologies, and beliefs; and even all that we may suppose is divine and natural law.

  This cosmic context is supported by every word in Mk 10:6-9! Even the term translated as 'woman' is derived from the term for 'wife of man'. This means that in the most general and universal sense, even the word 'wife' in our wisdom-saying does not necessarily force us to fall back on the marriage/divorce-mode of interpreting these verses. The same cosmic context is why the Lord starts by emphasizing that all this was so 'from the beginning' (which he uses to introduce the two Genesis verses he quotes), and then after the paraphrase goes on at once to emphasize that 'for this reason they are no longer two but one-flesh'.

  The gender-union therefore cannot be merely physical or emotional or intellectual, or even all three of these together. True union requires the genuine intimacy of a spiritual communio that transcends marriage and monogamy and all things that can be spoken. It is God that joins together male and female, and so at the core of their union lies a divine mystery unseen and unheard. Both the divine and natural law demand nothing less than full contact of the whole person, union at all levels of human being: physical, emotional, psychic, and spiritual. Copulation and marriage are both symbols and vehicles of this fundamental oneness-in-love. Talk of divorce thus misses the point that Jesus is trying to make: do not let anyone or anything separate what God has joined together from the very beginning of creation![9]

  These selected verses, when set within the context of the Lord's life and teachings (rather than the 'legal' context), take on a whole new meaning. The words 'creation', 'God', 'joined together', 'from the beginning', and 'one-flesh' all lock together as a solid unit with love as the unspoken bond and resulting force. Certainly it is love that is the key to unlocking the meaning of these cryptic verses. It goes like this: God is spirit and love. Human beings are enspirited flesh. An 'I-Thou' union between male and female necessarily occurs on the physical, emotional and spiritual levels of being. And it is love that unites these levels within these individuals, and forms the lasting bridge-bond between them. It is through spirit and love that the two become one (ie. the dyad); and it is through spirit and love that both the natural and divine law are realized and made visible.

  In this wisdom-saying Jesus is pointing us directly at the importance, meaning and value of sexual love (eros) as the fundamental reality of human (social) nature, and the source of a good and blessed life. Now this sexual communion is not something to be renounced, as by divorce or making oneself a eunuch for the sake of the Kingdom. Jesus rarely commands anything after the manner of Moses; but here he is adamant that nothing must stand in the way of the divine-natural will that promotes contact between man and woman. This is because it is in the conjugal union that human being comes closest to resembling the divine union in all its diversity and complexity.

  In other words, the dyad is closer ts the divine triad (ie. the Trinity) than the monad (ie. the autonomous and independent individual). This is why 'The Song of Songs' had to be admitted into the canon; and this is why the Church is seen as the Spouse of Christ. This is also why the commentators prefer to follow Matthew into the strange mazes of divorce and celibacy. Better to do that than admit that this saying is somehow relevant to the current controversies about celibacy, marriage, the nature of the priesthood, the homosexual impulse, and so forth.

  Spirit and Love and Sex; this is the other (lesser) holy trinity that few Christians can bear to face. What is the essence of this forgotten trinity? What is the glue that holds the 'one-flesh' together? If the 'one-flesh' "symbolizes unity of life far more than it makes specific reference to sexual intercourse", then it is intimacy, mystery, and communio that actualizes and embodies this human-trinity in the authentic I-Thou relationship between a man and a woman (Collins, Priests & People, 307).

  Alas, it is interpersonal intimacy above all that is the most fragile thing; the one thing hardest to attain, and most easily lost or forgotten or misplaced. And it is the loss of this intimate communio that divides what God has joined, that hardens the heart, and thus violates the Lord's command! Ergo, whatever threatens intimacy (or even the possible intimacy between a man and a woman) is fundamentally evil. Let there be no doubt about this!

13. Pulling it All Together.

     While all the commentators and theologians are determined to restrict our saying to the matter of divorce, the Lord's wisdom is nevertheless much broader in scope and application. It includes marriage, divorce and monogamy, but the implications of the saying speak to all aspects of the complex relations between the genders. Thus Harrington takes the final 'man' in Matthew's gospel to be the husband; but if we take the final 'man' in Mark's version to be all humanity and any individual (regardless of gender), we get a whole new view of the meaning of this saying. If we take the 'one-flesh' image to represent the ideal of cooperative and harmonious union between the genders in all aspects of their social and private relations, then we can see that anything which obstructs positive relations between man and woman is inherently damaging to all of us (ie. society, humankind, nature, creation, God). Thus Origen's (alleged) extreme emasculation, though done out of piety, actually violates God's will. In the same way, a wife who grows bored with her husband and seeks her excitement elsewhere does pretty much the same thing as the over-passionate Origen.

     While it could be argued that this saying proves that marriage is a biological function (more or less), and that monogamy is the natural and divine law governing all gender-relations, it really ought not to be understood only in this way. For the plain fact is that marriage and monogamy are not 'absolute and eternal laws' as such, but rather, cultural institutions intended to reflect and encourage the ideal state of human (and human-divine) relations. But most human beings are far from being saints and angels; and so Moses provided regulations for divorce. Owing to the 'hardness of heart' (surely more than mere egocentricity) in so many people, the ideal must compromise with every-day human realities; a truth that was perfectly obvious to Matthew and the rabbinic tradition. Since we cannot 'fix' the gays, and since being 'fruitful and multiplying' is no longer appropriate in an over-populated world, new regulations are required to handle these hard facts in such a way as to deal with human nature as it really is, and yet to also affirm the essential necessity of Man & Woman being 'one-flesh' in an over-individualized culture that too much stresses privacy, personal freedom, and autonomy.

     According to St Paul, we ought to 'make the viewpoint of Christ our own' (1Cor 2:16). If we wish to do this fully, then we must take seriously the understanding of divorce found in Mk10/Mt19 which suggests that it is synonymous with adultery. Now 'adulterous' in the Greek means "clinging to one's life so as not to lose it, and that is the basic sin" (Keen 236). This selfish clinging is directly opposed to the divine and natural will; for God and Jesus want both men and women to cling to each other, and to resist the clinging to one's own life and personal concerns that stems from, and supports, the fundamental hardness of heart that destroys our humanity, defiles creation, and makes the heavenly reality of one-flesh all but impossible to manifest in our lives.

     In this context, it is apparent that the reality of one-flesh is the direct polar opposite of the reality of hardened hearts.[10] The one draws us together and raises us toward the divine, while the other splits the human race in twain, and consigns us all to a glorious freedom-in-hell. But one-flesh is not simply a static and dependable dimension of human reality restricted to the few happily-married couples who remain passionate and romantic with each other. Rather, one-flesh is a dynamic spiritual and personal reality that concerns everyone (in various ways and degrees, of course). It is a call and a promise to the unmarried. It is a hope and a goad to the unhappily married. It is an annoying shadow to those committed to celibacy. And it is a destructive force to those captured by illusions of 'mutual-love' (ie. same gender communio). Let there be no confusion about this: the Church wants nothing to do with the Truth that the Lord is here proposing!

End of Essay!

ENDNOTES:.

1. See Goulder for more information on the curious inter-relations between Matthew and Paul.

2. Harrington also treats our selected verses within the context of the surrounding pericope, which he entitles 'Marriage and Divorce, Celibacy, Children (19:1-15)'. "Matthew's quotation of Gen 2:24 includes the phrase 'and be joined to his wife', which strengthens the idea of indissolubility" (273). But since Mk also has the phrase, is Matthew quoting Gen or Mk? In v.6 the 'man' is once again "the husband, not some third party like a judge" (273). Of course, this interpretation is here justified since Matthew deliberately changes Mk in order to allow just this understanding to come forward.

3. "In Mahayana, dependent co-arising refers to the existence we in fact experience, apart from the reifying delusion of naive realism" (Keen 28).

4. "The way Jesus travels is not a roadmap leading from start to finish. Indeed, the beginning Mark describes is not Jesus' beginning, but that of the good news about Jesus (1:1) and the ending is hardly his ending (16:8), for the risen Jesus is reported still to be journeying back to Galilee. The present tense at 16:7, 'he is going before you' (proagei) emphasizes the process of going before on the way, as opposed to the resultant arrival." (Keen 24)

5. For example, Brueggermann observes that "Sexuality, sexual identity, and sexual function belong not to God's person but to God's will for creation" (33). He also notes that "God is, according to this bold affirmation, not mirrored as an individual but as a community" (34). Now this is a very important element; but instead of following up this insight, he goes on to discuss Christology!

6. Jesus' love for the book of Isaiah is proved by his words and actions. In the same way, the Lord's understanding of love (as presented in the Gospels) proves the truth and value of the 'Creation of Humankind' account. So certain groups of texts and sundry passages have a natural affinity and ought to be paired together as much as possible: Isaiah, J, Song of Songs. These texts, more than any others in the LXX, well reflect the mind and attitude of Christ on sexuality.

7. They could begin to break their mental chains by simply asking if fruitfulness and multiplication still has a supreme value in a world that is already grossly over-populated. God said 'fill the earth', and we have done that in spades. The next question is obvious: Now what, Lord?

8. The vital thematic links between the Lord's wisdom-saying, Genesis 2, and the Song of Songs seems obvious enough when we divorce the Saying from the Evangelists' divorce-controversy context; but since NT scholars seldom bother to do this (ie. they see the forest, but not the great tree at its center), these important biblical interconnections are overlooked, and thereby lost. But not entirely lost: in his 'Church Dogmatics', Karl Barth

"draws Gen 2 and the Song of Songs together in order to unravel how the Bible, in spite of the corruption of humanity at the Fall, maintains the pristine picture of covenant love and sexuality ... For Barth, the Song of Songs vividly portrays the persistence of the divine grace in spite of all sin and corruption ... But the Song of Songs, unlike Proverbs, is not a series of warnings on the dangers of sexuality and the need for chastity. It is instead a celebration of the joy and passion of love." (Gar 376)

9. Most of the books on Christian marriage have little or nothing to say about this divine-human intimacy at the heart of the male-female dynamic; just as Christian anthropology in general has little or nothing to say about 'the lighter side' of human nature (ie. comedy, humor, laughter, etc). There is, to say the least, a few gaps in the popular secondary literature. Many Christians, and most Christian writers, seem unable to grasp human nature in all its bothersome totality. Thus it is "a cliche today to say that the institution of marriage is hurting and that traditional Catholic sexual morality is suffering from a severe credibility gap. Confusion in these areas seems to be the order of the day" (Riga 9). 'Confusion' is putting it rather too mildly in our view; but the commentators seem not at all confused that our selected Saying is about divorce, marriage, monogamy, Moses, Torah, etc etc. Anything and everything is of interest to those who include these verses in their books, except the message that Jesus is trying to convey.

10. "... and since human sexual activity is an important human activity, it can have no human meaning or significance outside the context of love itself" (Riga 11). Rev Riga also points out that the "question of love is the whole question of the mystery of the human person, because it is the mystery of God himself" (17). Hence we are rightly told that 'God is love', and "because we are made in his image and likeness, love is our whole existence" (26).

WORKS CITED:.

Brueggerman, W. Genesis.  Interpretation series.  Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982.

Collins, R.F. Divorce in the New Testament.  Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1992

______.  "Bible on Sex". Priests & People.  Vol.7 #8 and 9.

Dubarle, A.M. Love and Fruitfulness in the Bible.

     Wisconsin: St Norbert Abby Press, 1968.

Fecher, V. Msgr. Man, Woman, & God.  New York: Alba House, 1993.

Fiorenza, E.S., Ed. Searching the Scriptures: A Feminist Commentary.

     New York: Crossroad, 1994.

Garrett, D.A. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes. Song of Songs.

     The New American Commentary, Vol.14.

     Nashville: Broadman Press, 1993.

Goulder, M.D. Midrash and Lection in Matthew.  London: SPCK, 1974.

Harrington, D.J. The Gospel of Matthew.  Sacra Pagina Vol.1.

     Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1991.

Hooker, M.D.  The Gospel According to St Mark.  Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1991.

Keck, L.E., et al, Eds. The New Interpreter's Bible: Volume VIII & I.

     Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994-5.

Keenan, J.P.  The Gospel of Mark: A Mahayana Reading.

     Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1995.

Kosnik, A., et.al.  Human Sexuality: New Directions in American Catholic Thought.

     New York: Paulist Press, 1977.

Kunkel, Fritz. Creation Continues:

     A Psychological Interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew.

     New York: Paulist Press, 1987.

Malina & Rohrbaugh. Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels.

     Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.

Mann, C.S.  Mark: A New Translation With Introduction and Commentary.

     New York: Doubleday, 1986.

Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to Matthew.  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992.

Murphy, R.E.  The Song of Songs: A Commentary on the Book of Canticles or the

    Song of Songs.  Ed.S.D.McBride. Hermeneia.  Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990.

______ .  Wisdom Literature & Psalms.  Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1983.

NGEI.  The New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament.  Ed. J.D.Douglas.

     Trans: Brown & Comfort.  Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1990.

Plaut, W.G.  The Torah: A Modern Commentary.

     New York: Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1981.

Sarna, N.M.  Genesis. The JPS Torah Commentary.  Philadelphia: JPS, 1989.

Stock, Augustine. The Method and Message of Mark.

     Delaware: Michael Glazier, 1989.

Trilling, Wolfgang. The Gospel According to St Matthew for Spiritual Reading.

     London: Sheed & Ward, 1969.

Riga, P.J.  Problems of Marriage and Sexuality Today.  New York: Exposition Press, 1973.

Wenham, G.T.  Genesis 1-15.  Word Biblical Commentary Vol.1.

     Waco: Word Books, 1987.

Westermann, Claus. Genesis 1-11 : A Commentary. Trans. J.J.Scullion.

     Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1984.