The Bible, Sex, And Ideological Fundamentalism
A DIALOGUE WITH JACQUES ELLUL
JACQUES ELLUL AND SEXUAL "ETHICS": A CRITIQUE
Rev. Dr. Thomas Hanks

Part 2:  
Proper Use of Scripture for Sexual Questions

Excursus 2  One Flesh
EXCURSUS: One Flesh.

Intrinsically related to several fundamental Biblical concerns in the sexual area (marriage, divorce,
prostitution, exclusivity, permanence etc) are the texts that speak of "one flesh." Although "flesh"
(Hebrew basar; Greek sarx) has received detailed attention in the standard theological word books,
anthropologies, Biblical theologies, etc., a thorough satisfactory treatment of the phrase "one flesh"
is still lacking and basic disagreement remains (Miletic, S.F. 1988). In part the disagreement stems
from the diversity of concepts evident in the Biblical texts themselves and the metaphorical character
of the language.

In Genesis 2:24 Von Rad thinks that "one flesh" refers to the flesh of the child that is the result of the
sexual union (1972:85). H. Gunkel understood the phrase to refer to the sexual act itself, but
Westermann (1976/84-82/86, I:233) rejects both interpretations and returns to Delitzsch's view that
love here creates "a spiritual unity, the most complete personal community." Obviously the
metaphorical language of Scripture here is suggestive rather than sharply definitive and points to
the complex, multifaceted unity-in-diversity of the new family (Prov. 31:10-31; Wenham 1987;71; Ellis
1974:204-205).

Jesus' use of Gen. 2:24 obviously goes beyond the intention of the original text in developing a basis
for protecting women from the social scourge of oppressive dismissal/divorce (Mark 10:1-12 and //s).
Feminist exegesis even finds a condemnation of patriarchy in Jesus' reference to male hardness of
heart and can translate the passage as showing how man and woman "enter into a common human
life and social relationship because they are created as equals" (Fiorenza 1985:143). Ched Myers
adds: "No one who has undergone the fire of `one flesh' torn apart (as I myself have) can dispute
the weight of Jesus' plea....In the suffering perhaps more than in the happiness a man and woman
may discover how deeply involved they are" (1988:266).

Concerning Paul's use in 1 Cor. 6:12-20 (which also goes far beyond the meaning of Gen. 2:24, but
in a way distinct from Jesus) Countryman writes: "Sex with a prostitute might seem to establish no
relationship at all beyond the brief one required for the satisfaction of desire. Paul, however, in a
daring interpretation of Gen. 2:24, claimed that every sexual act between a man and woman
established a union of flesh like that of marriage, though not, apparently indissoluble. In other words,
the prostitute and the man actually belong to each other for the duration of their sexual intercourse,
though not beyond." Paul insisted that the man who had intercourse with a prostitute was changed
by that act: "it was destructive to one's spirit, that is one's relationship to Christ and God"
(Countryman 1988:204).

Careful exegesis thus has made clear something of the richness and diversity of the Biblical teaching
in this area (Jesus and Paul might more accurately be described as giving relecturas--recreations of
the text in a different context and in the face of new questions--rather than scientific "interpretations"
of the meaning of the opaque language of Genesis 2:24). However, standard exegetical treatments
leave unanswered many modern questions: does a loving same-sex union constitute a "one flesh"
relationship? If Paul is correct in asserting that a fleeting relationship with a prostitute so qualifies,
how can we deny that a more profound unity develops in a same-sex relationship of many years?

If it is indeed "love, which binds all together in perfect unity" (Col. 3:14), should David's relationship
to Jonathan be considered a "one flesh" unity--since the love experienced was greater than that in
David's heterosexual, polygamous family ("8 becoming 1"? cf.2 Sam. 1:26)? Why do heterosexuals
have to prop up modern marriages by stealing Ruth's words expressing faithfulness in a same-sex
friendship (Ruth 1:16-17--the points about David and Ruth stand, even if no genital sex was
involved). Many may be scandalized by such suggestions. But millions of same-sex couples, their
friends and families are as confident of God's blessing on their union and love as Galileo was about
his discoveries in astronomy. Ideological fundamentalists may shout "lust, not love," but only
because they refuse to look through the telescope. Love, which can be felt and observed without
recourse to a telescope, is still the most powerful apologetic (John 13:34-35).
 
    Continue to
    next page
This website was reconstructed in June of 2007
Visits made to this web page since June 2007
"I have other sheep that are not of this
fold.  I must bring them in also."  
John 10:16
Counter

Writings

on this page...

Tom Hanks
on
Jacques Ellul &
Sexual "Ethics"

Other Sheep
Founder, 1992.

Other Sheep
Theologian and
Director of Mission
"I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold.  I must bring them also."  
John 10:16 NRSV
Other Sheep Websites